Alabesque
|
I don't understand...Why it's so frowned upon to like Cats. Is there any particular reason? I've asked people before but have never gotten a straight answer other than 'because it was so popular.'
If there's already been a board about this, I'm really sorry!
|
dolbinau
|
Some people don't like the music and/or the story (or lack thereof).
|
Belle
|
The Broadway community HATED Cats because it was a "british invasion", it was unlike anything that came before, and it was hugely successful despite not being intellectual. The Broadway production was deliberately made lighter and brighter, more family friendly than the original London production, and that sense of "dumbing down" can be seen as patronising.
The show has a much better reputation in London/British circles than in USA.
|
Alabesque
|
Okay, that makes a lot more sense. Thank you both so much!
|
Peritombry
|
I personally do not believe that it's "dumbing" anything down. There's a perfectly good message about acceptance and predudice. And there is a story, it's just that the story isn't all told through the songs themselves. If that makes sense. <.<
|
Luc
|
I personally believe there should be more plot to the show. It just gets boring to me, because it seems like the plot never moves on. That's just me, though.
|
Mungojerrie_rt
|
The show is more about the characters than the actual events.
It shows very well the differences between how someone advertises themselves, and how they are inside.
|
IndigoMedusa
|
| Quote: | | that sense of "dumbing down" can be seen as patronising. |
I don't think there was really much to "dumb down" in the first place...
|
Belle
|
| IndigoMedusa wrote: | | Quote: | | that sense of "dumbing down" can be seen as patronising. |
I don't think there was really much to "dumb down" in the first place... |
I researched Cats as part of my dissertation - the Broadway production was deliberately made lighter and fluffier than the London production. I think it was in one of the following two books:
Ganzl, K. (1995) Musicals, London, Carlton.
Richmond, K. (1995) The Musicals of Andrew Lloyd Webber, London, Virgin.
Sorry, can't remember which! But things like Macavity's rape of Demeter, Grizabella's near-death, Mungojerry and rumpelteaser being criminals, all made less obvious, lightly suggested. Also the Broadway costumes were more cartoon-cat like, bright colours, big eyes in the makeup designs, where the original London designs were more creature than kitty-cat.
But then - there's some people who just can't enjoy a performance where the main focus is on characterisation, not over-arching plot. It's too different, and some people just don't like it. And some of those decide that because they, personally, don't get it, the show must be dumb because obviously THEY'RE not dumb! It's the show at fault, not the viewer. And some people aren't open to enjoy something different to the norm.
And then, there's some people who see a really bad performance as their introduction to Cats, and don't want to see it again!
|
Vanessa20
|
OT: Just curious | Belle wrote: |
I researched Cats as part of my dissertation - the Broadway production was deliberately made lighter and fluffier than the London production. I think it was in one of the following two books:
Ganzl, K. (1995) Musicals, London, Carlton.
Richmond, K. (1995) The Musicals of Andrew Lloyd Webber, London, Virgin.
Sorry, can't remember which! But things like Macavity's rape of Demeter, Grizabella's near-death, Mungojerry and rumpelteaser being criminals, all made less obvious, lightly suggested. Also the Broadway costumes were more cartoon-cat like, bright colours, big eyes in the makeup designs, where the original London designs were more creature than kitty-cat. |
I've only seen "Cats" once onstage, though I like the film and the OBC recording, so I'm curious... is the film based more on the London production or the Broadway production? It was filmed in London, obviously, but is the staging "dumbed down" like the Broadway version or not? And what do you mean by "Grizabella's near-death?" I don't remember her nearly dying, unless you're referring to the Heavyside Layer being a metaphor for death (maybe that answers my question about which version the film reflects).
|
Mungojerrie_rt
|
Well, Grizabella collapses during Memory, and I get the impression that it is her pretty much giving up on life. It either takes Jemima's part to make her determined again, or in the original she sings the "burnt out ends of smokey days" part there, and makes herself get back up.
I have noticed that a lot of them seem to gloss over the fact that she was a whore, which is half of the reason that the tribe doesn't like her.
The film has wonderful performances, but it edited really badly so it loses a lot of what ties the whole show together.
|
Peritombry
|
*Agrees with Belle and Mungojerrie*
I think the film is based -mostly- on London but they used two Broadway names (Pouncival and Tumblebrutus instead of Carbuckety and Bill Bailey). The pairings were definately London based. >.<
The whole Demeter-Munkustrap thing irritates me. A lot of fans introduced by the film to the musical seem to assume that they're "together" in all productions. Actually in most productions it's Alonzo-Demeter instead. </rant>
|
Mungojerrie_rt
|
They used Pouncival and Tumblebrutus because those names are more common in other countries. Same with Plato. Admetus in the film seems to be covering for George and Victor.
There are really no set pairings in the show. Even in the one production the performance the pairings will change. In the film Alonzo makes his way between Cassandra, Jemima and Etcetera.
Take this picture from Berlin:
If you look at who the toms will come up to dance with, it goes:
Tumblebrutus-Rumpleteazer
Alonzo-Demeter
Tugger-Bombalurina
Mungojerrie-Cassandra
And you can't see the last queen, but the tom is either whoever is right behind Mungojerrie, or it is Coricopat.
You can be guarenteed that those parings chaged a few minutes later for the mating dance.
(Is it just me or is Munkustrap feeling up Jellylorum?)
Oh, and Belle, your site is awesome.
|
Alonza0
|
HAHA Munkus is feeling Jellylorum up! That's the funniest thing I've seen in a while!
But I'll add to the explanation. A lot of people who've never even seen Cats also don't like it because it's an Andrew Lloyd Webber. Many 'hard core' Broadway fans think that ALW is the death of the theatre industry, because, according to them, he made musicals more about selling seats than substance.
|
Peritombry
|
*never noticed Alonzo with Jemima or Etecetera* O.o
Maybe I should re-watch it a little more closely.
Jellylorum. XD Well originally they were meant to be about the same age. She's generally considered as older now (because of the film again?) but she was in her 30s. The role seems to have aged along with Susan Jane Tanner.
Selling seats is what keeps things open.  I listen to stuff I like whether it's "popular" or not. As far as I'm concerned people who don't listen to / read / watch things because they're "popular" and they don't want to follow a trend are -still- following a trend. Just a different one.
|
LaGataNegra
|
Well said, Peritombry and Alonza0!
If it's popular it must be terrible! Kinda like those folks who will only listen to garage bands, or artists on small, little known labels. As if their non-celebrity makes them higher quality.
I'm always amazed when I come on here! You guys know so much about the inner workings of this show. I've loved the show since I saw the tour back in 1987, but had no clue about the pairings and relationships until I watched the video. Y'all know who's with whom and why and how.
It's so cool!
|
Peritombry
|
| LaGataNegra wrote: | Well said, Peritombry and Alonza0!
If it's popular it must be terrible! Kinda like those folks who will only listen to garage bands, or artists on small, little known labels. As if their non-celebrity makes them higher quality.
I'm always amazed when I come on here! You guys know so much about the inner workings of this show. I've loved the show since I saw the tour back in 1987, but had no clue about the pairings and relationships until I watched the video. Y'all know who's with whom and why and how.
It's so cool! |
It takes a while to get used to it. I've been a fan for almost ten years and when you read as much as I have over ten years eventually stuff starts to sink in. 
|
Flitterbug
|
*has been a fan for eight years and still doesn't know much, trivia-wise*
I've got plenty of opinions and character knowledge, but I couldn't tell you a thing when it comes to actual solid fact.
|
Dramatical-Cat
|
| Peritombry wrote: | *never noticed Alonzo with Jemima or Etecetera* O.o
Maybe I should re-watch it a little more closely.
|
Just in case you want to see these 'pairings' - during the 'Song of the Jellicles', you can see Alonzo flirting with Jemi in the background by the trunk whilst everyone else comes on and says their lines - they look pretty close. He dances with Etcy during the Queens dance in the Jellicle Ball, but is with Cassandra for the Mating Dance and they are in a pretty twisted postition during Grizabella: The Glamour Cat.
A lot of people that I know have said that they don't like CATS either for it's terrible music (for example, my mother hates the musical part in the Jellicle Ball when the toms are dancing before Bomba knocks them all off) or due to the lack of plot. As said CATS is very much about characterisation - it is based on a bunch of poems, to be quite frank, and the poetry, in this case, has only one connection - that they're about cats. ALW did do well to come up with a plot for the show, even if it wasn't the greatest in the world.
Some people may look upon CATS as a 'silly' musical, and in turn they may be die-hard POTO fans. That being said, I'm not a big fan of POTO, and I never will be - it's all down to preference, so musical tastes are two-way streets. Each to their own - like Marmite, you either love it or hate it =D
|
