BWW Carrie Preview- Page 4

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 1/19/12 at 12:53pm

But still, newintown...pimping out your boyfriend??

True, saying "I'm sorry" doesn't quite have the same razzle-dazzle but isn't it a slightly more direct way of getting things done?

[newintown]

Posted: 1/19/12 at 1:01pm

Well, she not asking him to pork Carrie, is she? (That semi-pun was not intended, by the way.)

I know that happens at a lot of proms, but still - I think Sue just wants him to give her a nice night.

One thing I remember about the novel is that Tommy begins to fall for Carrie that night, and the way King presents it, it seems as though Carrie is somehow making it happen with her mind. An interesting twist that wasn't explored in the film or musical.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 1/19/12 at 1:06pm

The thing that worries me about this is the fact that it's all very well they are trying to play it "straight" but there is an undeniable campy element that just comes with the material.

Well, DePalma pretty much created that effect (bolstered by Piper Laurie's performance as a Southern ethereal Angel of Death). His vision for Carrie and her mother were quite different than King's. The novel has a very different tone because it is presented using a variety of narrative sources.

To me, for the "Sue song" to make sense, it needs to occur immediately following Tommy inviting Carrie to the prom. She somewhat explains her motivation to Tommy during Do Me a Favor, but a follow-up exchange once Tommy reveals to Sue that Carrie accepted the invitation seems to be the most appropriate place to flesh out Sue's emotional journey. Act II needs to move swiftly as the audience is already anticipating the action and a "Sue song" in Act II completely stalls the momentum. There is just no logical place for it. A group number as students are heading out for prom night is the best reintroduction for Sue in Act II (as counterpoint and introducing her plan to surreptitiously spy on the proceedings) and the number itself could lead into the prom scene replacing the need for the sudden transition (and ultimately empty number) that was Wotta Night.

Just my 2 cents.

Oh, and I totally agree with newintown that Sue's motivation was atonement. She says as much to Tommy during Do Me a Favor and it was the reason for her falling out with Chris.

Updated On: 1/19/12 at 01:06 PM

[Owen22]

Posted: 1/19/12 at 4:22pm

I am a big Sue Snell fan, at least the Sue from King's book. The film and the musical (not to mention the subsequent TV movie) let the character down (yet I still sorta love Amy's Sue).

Sue doesn't ask Tommy to take Carrie to the prom solely out of a need for atonement. Sue sees the big picture, i.e. her life. She knows what she did to Carrie was wrong, but she also sees why she did it, why her role in the chain of high school Darwinism is something she might never escape. Her future will just be more of the same. She has to make a stand now or she never will.

The novel is much more political than any adaptation has allowed. Its essentially about the Power of women, yet only one song in the original show truly addressed this ("Do Me A Favor").

Like Sue, some of the novel's characters had much deeper, politically slanted inner-lives than have been depicted in adaptations. Billy isn't the stupid greaser Travolta made him (but, again, he was a charming Billy). Billy's reason for Carrie's hazing is out of extreme jealousy of the rich, popular kids at school and what "the prom" represents. He dates and sexes Chris for basically the same reason.

The musical's biggest mistake was in its development of Carrie's mother. It gave her the best songs. It attempted to make her three dimensional. Now, I truly advocate trying to develop every character fully, but if any character could have stayed two dimensional it was Margaret White. I never bought, paraphrasing Marin "that Margaret loves Carrie deeply". She's a religious zealot who abuses her daughter again and again and again and then kills her. Cause "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live". Fine, give her "loving" motivations, but develop the kids as well! Cause teenagers trying to navigate the caste system of high school is infinitely more interesting. As the novel's Older Sue says years after the event: "People forgot we were just kids. We were kids. We were kids trying to do our best."

Updated On: 1/19/12 at 04:22 PM

[newintown]

Posted: 1/19/12 at 4:32pm

Great points, Owen.

Personally, I think it would be more interesting if Margaret doesn't love Carrie, but resents and hates her as a visible manifestation of what she hates about herself and the carnal world.

But few actresses would want to play so unsentimental and unsympathetic a character.

People are terrified to admit that the myth that even the worst mother loves her children isn't true.

[bobbybaby85]

Posted: 1/19/12 at 4:48pm

Updated On: 2/20/18 at 04:48 PM

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/19/12 at 5:13pm

Loved the post, Owen22. Any chance you can take over directing (and guiding) this production through development?



I agree with what you said, about every aspect, particularly about the focusing of Sue's character vs. overdeveloping Margaret's character. And the political slants of all.

I think popular American culture has been obsessed with developing villains in our entertainment for more than a decade now. We automatically find them the most interesting and want to know more about them and what makes them tick ... to the expense of all the other characters, it seems. I've seen the villain raised to new glamorized heights. Nobody does anything out of hatred or spite anymore. They have to have a backstory of how they were abused as children themselves and we have to empathize with them and their reasons for deviant behavior. I'm all for character development, but when this morbid curiosity takes center stage and eclipses the momentum of the main story, it's way too much. Yet I see it happen time and again.

"Wicked" is the ultimate example of the villain taking center stage and becoming the primary focus. Perhaps that's why it's so "popular."

I also agree with you that Margaret doesn't love Carrie. She believes she was punished for having sex with her husband, and Carrie is her cross to bear. She believes Carrie was born out of sin and must atone for it her whole life. Ultimately, she wants Carrie dead.

That's not a deep love for your child, by any stretch of the imagination. But Marin, playing the part, has to make it work inside her head. I don't doubt her internal motivations as an actress. But for anyone other than Margaret herself, who surely couldn't kill anyone intentionally (Thou Shalt Not Kill), I can't see it as a "deep love" of any kind.

[somethingwicked]

Posted: 1/19/12 at 5:43pm

best12bars, I think it's more complex than Margaret resenting Carrie because she was the product of sex with her husband, since the Catholic church supports sex solely as a catalos for reproduction. In the book, Margaret gets pregnant initially after she and Carrie's father have sex prior to their marriage. Because of her religious rigidity, she believes this cannot happen and throws herself down the stairs, which facilitates a miscarriage. That experience makes her believe sex is a sin itself, and Carrie is only conceived after her father drunkenly rapes Margaret. Years later, Margaret catches Carrie floating a bottle in the air when she's young and almost kills her then (thinking her a witch) before her husband ultimately intervenes, though he dies shortly thereafter.

To just say Margaret doesn't love Carrie is far too simple, but not because of some onus from society to delve the depth of villains- because Stephen King made it that way from the very beginning. To me, the key to the complex feelings she has for her lies in the fact that, when the rape that conceived her occurred, the book makes it a point to say Margaret simultaneously hated it and enjoyed it. In a way, she let herself indulge in manner that goes against the very core of her beliefs, and she feels Carrie is a punishment for that sin. Because she "slipped up" once and it resulted in Carrie, on some level, she feels allowing herself to purely love her daughter will result in similar "punishment" yet again. But, just like the rape itself, she still finds herself loving Carrie in spite of the awareness of sin, and that makes her rigid and abusive all the more. She's constantly fighting a battle of hatred, self-loathing, love, and awareness of evil, and I think you can argue that Margaret's attempts to control Carrie are some twisted maternal attempt to prevent her from the "punishment" that ultimately befell Margaret herself. That is where I think the most heightened drama of the story presents itself.

I disagree with Owen in saying the musical "made Margaret three dimensional." She always was, even from the very beginnings of the source material. It was only natural that the musical would want to make her an equally complex character in reflecting the way she'd been portrayed previously, and I think, in going back to the novel for a lot of it's inspiration, this incarnation of the show is taking a huge step in the right direction.

Updated On: 1/19/12 at 05:43 PM

[Owen22]

Posted: 1/19/12 at 6:10pm

Somethingwicked, interesting take on the source material, though I completely disagree with your findings. To me, King made Margaret merely crazy (though she was actually based on a real person he worked with) while providing complex reasons why she's insane. Complex does not automatically equal three dimensions, however, especially when its mostly all in the back story. Oddly, Piper Laurie did somehow find a way to make her compelling while still basically a plot device. But the musical's heavy handling of Margaret to the detriment of the rest of the characters was one of the many reasons the musical was a major fail. Oddly, though, Margaret is the reason the show has a legacy, precisely because she WAS the most developed character (besides Carrie) and had the best songs. Which Betty sang marvelously.

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 1/19/12 at 7:57pm

Didnt King himself say in an interivew years back that Margaret loved Carrie in the only wau she knew how, that it was her battle with her love for her daughter and her religion that made her so crazy?

I'm sure he did.

[Bettyboy72]

Posted: 1/19/12 at 9:23pm

Audiences want to understand Margaret, so she had to be developed. Mother/Daughter relationships are incredibly fascinating to people. More so than teen angst. Margaret does love Carrie but in a compulsive, controlling way. "When There's No One" illustrates the emotion so heartbreakingly. Carrie is all Margaret has so she has to hobble Carrie emotionally to keep her around-keep her near through fear rather than love.

Margaret does love Carrie or she would not have sunk her nails into her so deeply. But Margaret is also mentally ill and religiously preoccupied, most likely as a reaction to her own trauma or self hatred.

Margaret will always rise to the top of any incarnation of Carrie, because she is the most complex character. Carrie is totally sympathetic and Margaret straddles both worlds-we fear her and long to understand her motivations in a desire to sympathize.

Everyone has a mother and everyone has mother issues, so people will always be most interested in Margaret. Maternal archetypes always draw people in.

[somethingwicked]

Posted: 1/19/12 at 9:31pm

I agree, Bettyboy. If Margaret didn't love Carrie at all, why wouldn't she just kill her? Yes, the Bible says, "Thou shalt not kill," but it also condemns witchcraft, which is why (in the novel) Margaret attempts to kill Carrie when she's younger the first time she catches her levitating something. The only thing that stopped her then was her husband, so what would stop her from doing it once he was gone if all she felt was pure hatred?

Owen, I don't follow your logic. How can you simultaneously argue that King made Margaret "merely crazy" while still providing "complex reasons why she's crazy"? If she has complex reasons for being "crazy," she's not "merely" crazy. And I don't agree with your use of the term "crazy" anyway- she's mentally ill, not crazy.

I stand by my earlier points. And yes, songanddanceman, I too recall King saying something similar.

Updated On: 1/19/12 at 09:31 PM

[missthemountains]

Posted: 1/20/12 at 12:12am

Wow, all great points! Such an interesting thread.

I agree with all that's been said. There's been some great analysis between all incarnations of Carrie and how Sue and Margaret are portrayed. I had never really thought of Sue being characterized as someone who was only half-in her relationship with Tommy, but it does make sense. She is a hard character to portray in a lot of ways because she is so complex, but is always underdeveloped. I really hope that Sue's narrations are done justice in this version.

Moving onto Margaret- I believe (and always have believed) that at the end of the day, audience really should dislike Margaret more than they should feel sympathy for her. I always kind of thought "When There's No One", while a beautiful and haunting melody, almost was unfitting because Margaret's constant abuse (physically and mentally) towards Carrie, along with her fanaticism sets her up to be such a twisted person, and then at the last minute in Act II we're supposed to feel sympathy for her? Granted, we get some glances of what her life was like in "I Remember How Those Boys Could Dance" and through what she says, but just because someone has had terrible and scarring experiences, to me, does not justify the acts inflicted upon their children. But as Bettyboy said, audiences want more justification "the mom's just crazy" because of the fascination with mother-daughter relationships.

[binau]

Posted: 1/20/12 at 12:21am

Although I think that "When There's No One" should make audiences sympathetic, I don't think it is meant to justify her behaviour. Maybe just to make audiences further understand it. My reaction is more "Oh it's sad that it is how she feels and thinks about Carrie and their relationship, and it might explain some of her behaviour" rather than "Oh, she should have a pass".

Updated On: 1/20/12 at 12:21 AM

[bobbybaby85]

Posted: 1/20/12 at 12:42am

Boy/Girl Sings "Carrie" Updated On: 2/27/18 at 12:42 AM

[Owen22]

Posted: 1/20/12 at 9:45am

Again, I'm fine with them developing Margaret's character. I just don't find her as compelling as the teens, who, as teens, are at the mercy of and navigating their way through the last bastion of forced anthropological study: high school. That is where the motor of the story is, not the White home. And again, the musical is completely off balance because of that, I believe, wrong-headed approach.

I might be a little bit still touchy on the subject as I remember my initial reaction to the press information on the original show. It went something like. "Carrie is blah blah blah. Carrie is blah blah blah. But [most importantly] Carrie is a [something] love story between a mother and a daughter."

And I thought immediately: "No its not."

Updated On: 1/20/12 at 09:45 AM

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/20/12 at 10:36am

^ I completely agree.

[somethingwicked]

Posted: 1/22/12 at 11:23pm

I wanted to mention that, for those who have been listening to the bootleg of the reading in 2009 expecting to be familiar with how the score will sound now, you may want to prepare yourselves for an entirely new experience. Stephen Oremus was the musical director for that reading, but he's no longer attached because of scheduling conflicts, so AnnMarie Milazzo and Mary-Mitchell Campbell have come up with something that's very different. Take "In," for example, the opening number. Those of you who attended the "preview" presentation heard it, but it now has an incredibly dark and ominous sound that's quite far away from the pop-oriented edge it had under Oremus's hand.

What Milazzo and Campbell have been able to achieve is very, very unique and interesting on a stylistic level. It makes a few of the numbers sound much richer and more complex than the lyrics would necessarily present them to be.

Updated On: 1/22/12 at 11:23 PM

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 1/23/12 at 6:54am

Carrie had its sitzprobe last night featuring orchestrations by Doug Besterman

[somethingwicked]

Posted: 1/23/12 at 12:13pm

Besterman is the Orchestrater, songanddanceman, but Milazzo is the Vocal Designer and Campbell is the Musical Director. I can only speak to their work because the readings and presentation I've seen have only featured Campbell on the piano.

I'm excited to hear Besterman's orchestrations as well.

[newintown]

Posted: 1/23/12 at 12:29pm

Considering the size of the Lortel, the "orchestrations" will have to be rather small, won't they?

[JimCo]

Posted: 1/23/12 at 12:39pm

I saw the original, and I really can't believe that they are reviving it.
It was horrifying. I am very glad that I saw it, and I will never the Richard Eder review in the Times in speaking of the choreography:
" Debbie Allen should waste no time in returning to her television career!" I love Debbie Allen, but that has always stuck with me. Yes, Betty Buckley was amazing, but the plastic tarp with the pig blood on it was too much. OY!!!!!!!!!!

[bobbybaby85]

Posted: 1/23/12 at 1:16pm

Updated On: 2/20/18 at 01:16 PM

[ljay889]

Posted: 1/23/12 at 1:26pm

SW, Do you know what the size of the 'orchestra' will be?

[somethingwicked]

Posted: 1/23/12 at 1:40pm

bobbybaby85, some it may very well sound the same, but most if it doesn't.

ljay, I've just been told it'll be a "small band." They used the term "chamber piece" repeatedly at the preview presentation.