Why Did 'Cats' Even Happen?

I have had zero desire to see Cats.

I have never wanted to see the stage play. I have no ambition to see the new feature film, though there are a couple of actors in there that I enjoy, such as Dame Judi Dench and Jennifer Hudson. I love the song "Memory;" it's one of those songs that if done right, will absolutely rip your heart out, and sometimes, you're just in the mood for songs like that.

However, the idea of Cats confuses me.

Hear me out. I realize that the play, and by extension the film, are both based on T.S. Eliot's Old Possum's Book Of Practical Cats, which is a collection of poetry. I know Eliot is one of the classic writers that every English major such as myself should read something of at one point or another in our careers. I know cats in general are sort of curious beasts and it's interesting to figure out why they do as they do.

But is there really enough there to warrant a full blown production?

The play itself reportedly lacks a traditional narrative structure, which is fine; I'm good with a conceptual, arty sort of work, though I do appreciate a more traditional form of storytelling. Eliot's poetry gives rise to many of the lyrics used in the play's songs. The play is apparently more conceptual than it is a traditional play or musical.

I just have never actually understood why a musical was necessary about a group of cats trying to figure out how to get to the Great Beyond. Don't get me wrong; I have great respect for the music of Andrew Lloyd Webber and think he's absolutely a musical legend. Whether it's "Memory," the theme from Phontom of the Opera, or "Don't Cry For Me Argentina" from Evita, Webber is capable of churning out hit after hit. His musicals are of such scale and grandeur that he's able to really appeal to almost any audience.

I just don't get why Cats would be remotely appealing. Even cat owners would probably have a hard time buying into what appears to be a really confusing mess of a film that does not really appear to have any plot or purpose in mind. I have no issue with anyone wanting to put cats in the spotlight - I loved the cat from The Secret Life Of Pets - but there are too many anthropomorphic issues with the characters themselves. Cats with human fingers and toes? CGI effects so jarring the visual effects people on the film were still working on things up until Dec. 22, 2019, when apparently the visual effects team involved in Cats will ensure a new version with more up to date CGI will be hitting theatres.

Also, if there were so many issues with the film, at least from a visual context, why did the studio behind #Cats still insist on releasing the movie on the same weekend as the new Star Wars movie The Rise Of Skywalker? According to CartoonBrew, Cats director Tom Hooper personally requested the extra time to work on the visual effects, with a new version of the film reportedly either being downloaded or forwarded via hard drive to theatres.

It seems incredibly shortsighted to me to still forge ahead with the release of a film when one of the most anticipated films of the year is set to bow and the film is not exactly at the level it should be in order to at least be somewhat competitive with Star Wars. Sure, Star Wars was probably set to win the weekend even if Cats had been 100 percent perfect, but by the same token, why would Hooper not double check that he was personally pleased with the outcome of the film before he sent it to theatres in the first place?

I do not hope for the failure of the movie. There's definitely room for all sorts of artistry in the cinematic landscape. I do, however, think the film should have definitely been better conceived and prepared.

Cats might have nine lives, but Cats itself might not.