Cats is a musical by Andrew Lloyd Webber. The 1980 show is based on a collection of poetry by T.S. Eliot, a famous American poet. The collection, entitled “Old Possum’s Book of Practical Cats,” is (as) cat-astrophic (as the pun I just made). The book is packed with fourteen pointless poems about creatures that he calls “Jellicle Cats.” Jellicle Cats are not a real type of cat and, by the way that Eliot describes these felines, I am very glad they are not. The poems describe Jellicle cats in obnoxiously repetitive detail. A reader can experience the stories of “Mungojerrie and Rumpleteazer,” “Old Deuteronomy,” and “Gus: the Theatre Cat” (Gus is short for asparagus). Ugh.

So why is this nightmarish inspiration for Webber so pivotal? In every source that I have found, the writer of the musical is listed as not Webber, but Eliot who died ten years before Webber even started writing. Webber changed nothing from Eliot’s poems in the lyrics of Cats. His only lyrical addition was the song “Memory.” A recording done by Barbara Streisand of the song peaked at number 52 on the US Billboard Hot 100 Chart in 1981. However, Memory was heavily inspired by “Rhapsody on a Windy Night,” an separate poem written by Eliot. The adaptation was made by the music director Trevor Nunn and all Webber did was give the song his seal of approval. 

What did Webber do then? He wrote music to go with these lyrics. When I saw the show at the Boston Opera House a few weeks ago, I was struck by the music. The music is long, awful, and catchy in all the wrong ways. However, I somewhat enjoyed the swing of the jazz charts and electronic hokeyness of Webber’s beloved electric piano.

I asked a few professionals for their opinion on the music. All of the ones I asked have purposefully avoided seeing the show, but they did have an opinion on the music. The general consensus is that Webber’s music was written “for the people.” The music is diatonic and easy to listen to. So it turns out that I was duped; the music in Cats was designed for me to fall victim to it’s hypnotic repetition like a cat to a never-ending ball of yarn. However, is that truly a bad thing? Musical theatre is decisive for many people. Hit shows like Hamilton, Chicago, and A Chorus Line, have elements that everybody can enjoy. However, unless it’s a Broadway production, most people will actively avoid musical theatre. Speaking of things that people actively avoid...

In terms of the movie, in my opinion, it’s just another production of the musical. When Speilberg’s studio attempted the movie in the 90s, they planned to set the show in a post-WWII London train station. However, this theme and Cats historically don’t go together, and the movie was left unproduced. Now, with Universal at the helm, the movie came out bland, corporatized, and by no means good. The CGI is awful, and the cast just makes me question how far actors will go for money. No creative decisions went into the setting, cinematography, or character choice. The singing and dancing is not bad, but everything else is as expected: unexpected.

People don’t see Cats to hear the poems of T.S. Eliot. The music and lyrics exist as an excuse to put on the most over the top musical possible. The grotesque human felines, the uncomforting heaps of garbage that cover the stage, and the repetitive music and lyrics only contribute to the over-the-top feel of the show. Unknowingly, Webber spins the idea of a musical on its head. Cats is so successful because it is confusing. I left the theatre dazed, confused, and seeking answers. What I got was even more confusing. Cats is not meant to be answered; Cats just is. No matter how much research I do, I will never figure out what Macavity actually does that makes him bad, the significance of the setting, or why I enjoy the repetitive music and dancing. Cats is an amusement park in operation in the 21st-century. I’m hypnotized by the merry-go-rounds and the strange-looking carneys, but I’m also confused as to why it still exists.