Profile for MSmith2

Bravo Jemstar! I'm with you on both counts: the negative vitriol on this board that is hypocritically presented or defended as an "exchange of ideas"; and that Carrie, despite some things that don't really work so well, works rather well overall. I found it inventively staged, entertaining and moving both times I saw it as well. And it got standing ovations both times I attended it too.

Jansalrose: I don't recall saying that you think Carrie is great literature. That's not the phrase I used at all. And what makes you think my post was about you? It was about what I thought was a general treatment of the source material as soemthing more than it is. I've been pretty careful to couch my posts as my OPINIONS that one doesn't need to agree with, given that the dynamic of opionions being shared as absolute truth or fact is what drives me crazy, as I believe I've expressed here.

Did you say shrill???

All this writing about the material as though its a sacred text is hilarious. It's compelling source material, but it's a pulp novel that has problems of its own, not least of which are some stock characters, clunky dialogue and cumbersome narrative passages. The movie also has issues masked by two great perfs and DePalma's virtuoso direction (even his destruction on film isn't all it could/should be, by his own admission). Macbeth it ain't. Recognizing the limitations inherent in the materi

New: I'm cofident in my ability to survive it.

Namo: Too funny. But still, gleefully malicious posting and vindictive wishes against something, even something we don't love, feels mercilessly destructive and antithetical to the idea of loving the form of the theater, and certainly contrary to the spirit.

Fame... didn't you recently say: "You guys, COME ON! Why do these threads always have to turn so nasty? Don't we all love theater?"

Saying "HAHA that's what they get" or that they deserve to have a technical glitch when a major critic is in the house is one of the nastiest things I've seen on this thread with it's small but vocal group of gleefully nasty posters (including some who haven't even seen the show yet!). Based on the things I've been reading here, I'm not so sure that "we al

Forgive me. What I should have said was, built in or not, I was happy to see the that the offical announcement was made public today and that additional seats were put on public sale.

Built in or not, it's still good news.

I am thrilled to see that MCC has announced an extension for Carrie -- glad to know that more availability means more people will have the opportunity to see this fine - yes, fine! -- production and its inventive take on the material. And Marin and Molly Ranson's great performances. Especially Molly, who is stellar!!! Bravo!!

I did the survey too. It was not about fixing Carrie it was about what you thought about Carrie. Those are two very different things. Besides all the work on the show is clearly done if critics are coming now, which Riedel said yesterday.

What the show needs is for people who haven't seen it to stop saying what it needs. Go sit in a seat and experience the whole thing from start to finish live and in person and then hop on here and give an opinion informed by what you saw and felt for yourself.

I've seen Carrie twice now, both with and without the parent teacher conference scene, with and without the slap, and with and without Marin Mazzie. (I went precisely to see her understudy last night when I heard Mazzie was still

This thread is cracking me up: all this carrying on about how Carrie should be or that this production is embarrassing. It's clearly not embarrassing or even "wrong". It's just inspiring different reactions and opinions. The reaction it got when I saw it was not evidence that anyone needs to be embarrassed at all, but quite the opposite: the house -- on the whole -- responded favorably to the show.

There is no objective "right" way that this or anything "should" be done. I love the

I understand not caring for the lyrics (some are, admittedly, not great), but I don't really think the sentiment in the lyric of the "smiles" not being for Margaret lacks credibility. The Margaret of the new "Carrie" is clearly devout in the pleasure she derives from her religious faith and both she and Carrie are shown in this production to share those "smiles" with one another when Margaret is first shown in thrall to her faith when she is singing "Open Your Heart"and when she invites Carrie

I'm surpirsed by this assessment of her "power". In the movie she pretty much does the same thing:
lightbuld in locker room
ashtray in pricipal's office
Kid on the bike
she breaks a mirror in her bedroom
closes the windows
and hen destroys everyone at the prom
Here she does the lightbuld, knocks the kid off the skateboard, levitates the Jesus statue in the closet, moves three chairs, closes the windows. Then the prom. And sings about her developing power. It seems

I was there last night and for the talkback, too (which I thought was quite well attended, given the size of crowds at talkbacks in general, but that's another topic). I also was quite taken with the show and quite surprised by the early negative commmentary, which now seems to me a little ungenerous given that the show is slated for 4 weeks of previews, which clearly means they had every intention of using the time to work on the show (which is, of course, the point of previews). SPOILER: I w