CARRIE Reading?- Page 12

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 12/1/09 at 12:29pm

Certainly I think the original 1988 production had an eye on capturing the new MTV audience -- and I think that is at least a partial explanation for the mostly sung, overtly sexual (leather in the burger palace!) Eurotrash music video style of the Terry Hands/Debbie Allen production.

That may very well be the (rightful) target audience for CARRIE. That would today also be the target audience for RENT and SPRING AWAKENING. Compared to these shows CARRIE's depiction of teen angst seems to me awfully lame and the dated pop songs with their trite lyrics incredibly 'uncool' and out of touch.

I'm not saying CARRIE should sound like those shows, but the new material and their new concept of Sue as a narrator gives the show more than ever a rather precious feel - that makes the entire production feel like a musical for Theatreworks USA or for middle school kids.

The show believe it or not sounds less sophisticated now than it did in 1988!

I don't have a problem with the songs for the teens being fun, but there still needs to be a sophistication and a cohesion in their content. It's called writing for your audience.

As it is right now - as it was in 1988 - Carrie is two shows trapped in identity crisis and the problem still lies in the musical treatment of the teen material.





Updated On: 12/1/09 at 12:29 PM

[Dantes]

Posted: 12/1/09 at 12:34pm

I cant agree at all that the show sounds less sophisticated now at all, i think it plays far more grown up.

I think shows like Spring Awakening are dealing first and formost with teen angst though, wghere as i think Carrie is more about Carrie herself, the rest of the kids are kinda a backdrop to her troubles.

And dont tell me you never wore leather to a burger bar hahaha

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 12/1/09 at 12:42pm

If that is the case, CARRIE needs to spend a lot more time dealing on CARRIE as a character and a lot less time on the teen angst of its ensemble.

And yes, of course I wore leather to the burger joint but I was an odd teen and it was San Francisco...

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 12/1/09 at 12:49pm

I'd love to get a PM as well

I'm not saying CARRIE should sound like those shows, but the new material and their new concept of Sue as a narrator gives the show more than ever a rather precious feel - that makes the entire production feel like a musical for Theatreworks USA or for middle school kids.

The show believe it or not sounds less sophisticated now than it did in 1988

If this is true, I can't see the show succeeding commercially or artistically, it won't close on opening night, but it'll be yet another fiasco.

[myshikobit]

Posted: 12/1/09 at 2:32pm

Well....

First off, MB, thank you for concuring with me :) Stuff like this makes my day.

I'm still VERY scared as to where this show is going! I don't know if the drivel will go away in time or if it will be vanquished. I'm just saying, if I were a producer, I would NOT invest until I had sizable control over the direction. I'm freaking terrified that this will become another Legally Blonde. And Dantes' attitude towards it scares me. I can't flat out object because I see where you're coming from, but... ugh. I'd rather this be nine people's favorite thing. I don't want this to sell out. I'd rather it do lackluster financially and be a success d'estime, a la Sondheim, then see it.... Young Frankenstien/ Legally Blonde-ified.

I need to hear more on what happened. Please talk to me about this. On my knees. I'm desperate here.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 12/1/09 at 2:32pm

Just to clarify what I meant by stating the show sounds less sophisticated now than it did in 1988:

The writers began working on a musical of CARRIE in 1983, the era of FAME and FOOTLOOSE. At the time, the pop aspects of the score felt contemporary.

By 1988 there seems to have been a push (probably in the wake of PHANTOM and LES MIZ) for CARRIE to be almost completely sung through. The problem was that they simply cut the dialogue and didn't replace any of it with sung passages explaining plot - so the story in 1988 was completely lost - however, it did mask the basic fact that in 1983 (and again now) the writers are approaching this in the style of a book musical that feels like ti was written in about 1965. And now, of course, the music is so dated, they have created a framing device to actually place the show in 1984.

I think a composing team a little more rooted in the music of today would probably succeed in better musicalizing the teen sections of the score.

As I've said before, I don't believe the writing team is going for satire or camp - I don't think they have the skill for it. I think they are writing more of what they know how to write - is just out of touch with current music and the development of teen themes in musical theatre.

[jonsanders101]

Posted: 12/1/09 at 2:50pm

I'd absolutely adore a PM if someone would be kind enough.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 12/1/09 at 3:00pm

Kids -- there is nothing to PM. I'm sure at some point a recording of the workshop will start floating around but as of right now its not out there.

[THDavis]

Posted: 12/1/09 at 3:07pm

I think putting it out there is sort of our way of praying to the sweet Gods.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 12/1/09 at 3:15pm

I have a feeling the PM thing is nothing more than a cruel joke.

I'm freaking terrified that this will become another Legally Blonde.

Ok, I think you need to calm down a little bit. Now matter how much we hem and haw and wish and hope, it will be whatever the creators want it to be. That said, I really don't see any evidence that it specifically resembles Legally Blonde in any way, no matter how much you want to obsess on that point. I think there are enough of us that would like this to succeed to send enough positive vibes out there, but even amongst the show's fans, there will be disagreements regarding how it should be changed. AND THAT IS OK. Personally, I love the melodies of In, Dream On, Don't Waste the Moon and Heaven and I'm sad to see some of it cut. But if it's cut, it's cut and I'm hoping the new material will be even better. But for God's sake, I'm not going to panic or be scared and anxious about what happens to the show (which could very well be nothing from here on out). And I've been an obsessed fan WAY longer than you. Have fun with the discussion and speculation, but you might want to ease up on your fear that others may show a little enthusiasm for a view that is different than yours. If their opinion proves to be a majority, then perhaps it is the best direction for the show, rather than the one direction you think it should take.

There were LOADS of people who HATED the light touch given to the adaptation of Wicked, but looking back, it was the right decision.

I don't want this to sell out. I'd rather it do lackluster financially and be a success d'estime, a la Sondheim...

Not every flop will be a Follies. Very few, in fact, are noted as artistically or critically successful. And there have been some really great financial hits in the last century as well.

ETA: Pointless to state the obvious.

Updated On: 12/1/09 at 03:15 PM

[TheatreFan4]

Posted: 12/1/09 at 3:23pm

THANK YOU, MB!

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 12/1/09 at 3:37pm

Matt, if you like those songs from the original and feel they were the appropriate way to musicalize CARRIE, you will probably greatly enjoy the changes and the new material (which musically does resembles LEGALLY BLONDE, so I think thats probably where that observation started).

I think the 'lighter touch' works for WICKED because the creative team was united in their vision for the material. They knew what kind of musical they wanted to create, what they wanted the experience to be for the audience, and who the show was going to be marketed to.

At the end of the day, the over-riding issue is that the creative team of CARRIE apparently still doesn't know what or who they are trying to appeal this musical to.

If they want it to be lighter, and appeal to teens and their families - than they need to cut the scene in the shower in which Carrie has tampons thrown at her, probably need to cut way back on the religious undertones, because a lot of Christian tourists from the midwest would be offended by it, and probably need to not have CARRIE kill everyone by fire and electrocution.

If they want to write something that appeals to college students and kids in their 20s than they need to make the material for the kids feel timely, make the music feel contemporary, need to up the scare factor and make this entire enterprise feel cool and slick.

If they are going for a sophisticated audience that patronizes Sondheim and Tony Kushner, they need to cut the teenie bopper numbers and write an adult, lyric and witty musical in line with the original subject matter.

If they want to write a parody - something campy like XANADU, then they need to get a smart director, a good dramaturg and be willing to let their serious numbers like "Eve was Weak" enter 'no wire hangar' territory.

Instead, the creative team is trying something in between. It won't work. It hasn't worked. It never will work. Not as a musical.

What I keep coming back to is the film. In the communtary on the dvd, the director/producers pride themselves on creating a film that was spooky and real but that became terrifying in a violent twist in the final 30 minutes.

That formula is great in film. Its great in a medium where special effects can completely change the experience of an audience in a split second.

Musicals don't operate in that way. They require a skill in story telling and style that takes the audience on a very carefully planned journey (see my note above about WICKED).

Sondheim was astute in his explanation of SWEENEY TODD (again yes, I'm bringing it up). He describes how important it was from the very instant that the audience heard the very first chord of music that they understand that this was to be a scary, frightening experience.

It wouldn't have worked for SWEENEY to have opened with happy sunny London with everyone bright and doing numbers from OLIVER until suddenly throats start getting slashed in the end of the first act. Audiences never would have bought it.

Nor will they buy a production of CARRIE in which the opening number now sounds like the beginning of HAIRSPRAY.

Matt, I agree there isn't really anything to worry about, because I doubt sincerely that this will ever come back to Broadway. It makes absolutely no sense right now from a financial model and I would be floored if the producers were able to sell this to a team of investors in its current vision.







Updated On: 12/1/09 at 03:37 PM

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 12/1/09 at 4:14pm

To be fair, I really was only talking about the melodies of those songs. In the case of Sweeney Todd, if you remove the lyrics from By the Sea, it does not sound like something you would expect to hear in such a gruesome story, but when completed, it makes sense. I do think the songs I mentioned had some terrible lyrics that required more sophistication (as well as some of the arrangements and orchestrations) to make them work in the overall framework of the show, but even in the darkest musicals, the creators have had the sense to provide some brevity to give the audience a chance to relax for a few minutes before charging ahead with the tension that is to come. The tension is usually amplified by the contrast of such moments.

I also think that in terms of the ensemble, it's important not to mature the teens to the point that the audience forgets how young these characters really are, which is why nearly all of them behave with no sense of real consequence. For example, Don't Waste the Moon is a really catchy and fun melody, but the song stopped the show dead in its tracks and really told us nothing other than teenagers are horny and Chris is a tease. Had the number been cut from the first act and replaced Wotta Night with new lyrics, we would have gotten much more contrast to the destruction scene by identifying a more youthful and giddy introduction to the prom, reminding us that these are kids celebrating the biggest night of their teen lives. Wotta Night was just too intense in its melody, rhythm and orchestrations for us to really get a sense of the wonder and enchantment of prom night and it's dark undertones only highlighted what we already knew would happen.

Sondheim was astute in his explanation of SWEENEY TODD (again yes, I'm bringing it up). He describes how important it was from the very instant that the audience heard the very first chord of music that they understand that this was to be a scary, frightening experience.

I agree that Carrie should open the same way, perhaps in a prologue. But when the opening scene of the story involves high school girls playing Volleyball in gym class, I'm not convinced the dark and scary angle is the way to go. Sweeney Todd was inherently scary because there was nothing normal about the story or its characters. Carrie is scary because the entire world around Carrie is what we would consider normal.

Carrie could be Legally Blonde if the lesbian law student climbed the clock tower and started gunning down the students on campus. But in my opinion, if you ignore the perspective that the students were not only important to the story, but that they are portrayed in a stereotypically normal fashion, then you lose a huge driving aspect of the plot that makes the story compelling.

Updated On: 12/1/09 at 04:14 PM

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 12/1/09 at 4:58pm

Well, Matt, that is where script and story telling devices come into play.

Right now, CARRIE actually opens with shots of all the teens waking up in different houses singing IN (please tell me how this could possibly be staged as anything other than camp) and then moves to the volley ball game.

However, - the only reason there is a volleyball game is because there is one in the movie and the creative team is extremely reliant on that film script for this project.

The book doesn't begin with a volleyball game. It begins with a bunch of unnerving point of view reports about an 'unexplained' incident in Maine. Carrie's powers, her background, her mother and the mystery surrounding her story are the entry into the story.They are explained before the scene in the showers. Before we see any of the other kids.

For the record, the movie script was also supposed to begin this way and was only changed when the special effects budget was cut.

That in itself is a clue to me that beginning this musical with an immediate (and trite) emphasis on the teens and peer pressure is not necessarily the best way to open a musical version of the story.

And I still think the point isn't for us to empathize with the kids because they have pimples and split ends. We should be happy to see them burn in hell. That's the whole macabre fun of the story. Its the whole fantasy played out thing we all secretly thought of during our high school days that gives CARRIE its wit and punch.




Updated On: 12/1/09 at 04:58 PM

[Dantes]

Posted: 12/1/09 at 5:14pm

Grrr the end of the day AGAIN which everyone seems to be missing is the novel was turned in to a TEEN THRILLER. The people who watched Carrie when it came out would have been teens and early 20s, the show is going to attract a similar audience.

However at the same time Carrie the musical is a strange beast, it plays as 2 shows in 1 as the movie did (not a problem if it all sounds like its from the same show, which now i feel it does). However this show is going to appeal to a wider range of people than most shows do as it covers a few age ranges in both subject matter and material.

Carrie rings true to her original tag line, There has never been a musical like her, shes not a straight out teen show but shes also not or should ever be a sondhiemese musical.

People on here now are already writing this off without actually hearing it which is just odd. At the end of the day myself and MB have different opinions, the people who were there seemed to agree with me that its moving in the right direction, one other person who has heard the music agrees with MB, it comes down to personal opinion.

Im not saying Carrie should be a Legally Blonde show, it should not at all, this is a dark story around some frightning events, but at the same time its also laced with light and comedy moments as it should be.

From the reading what they have now is 80 percent of the dark and story driven feel of the movie and book and around 20 percent lighter moments which break up the tension scenes between Carrie and her Mum.

The darker side of carrie is evident in ACT 1
The shower scene
Principal office
Carrie the song
Open Your Heart
Eve Was Weak
Eviening Prayers
Teacher parent moment
Apologies
the invatation
Invited
I remember how those boys could dance

Act 1 Lighter Moments
In (and still about teen anst so not fluffy)
The World According to Chris
Unsuspecting Hearts
Do me a Favour (though this is not camp)

ACT 2 Darker Moments
Why Not Me
Carrie Reprise
The girls and Sue
When theres no one
Carrie reprise
Finale

Lighter moments
A Night We'll Never Forget
You Shine (a love duet which works very well)
The Prom

The show is very balanced and plays both sides very well. The other thing as well is that the teen side has an 80s feel to it musically and in stlye, instead of saying it sounds dated could it not be that its written that way because the show takes place in 1984???

The only reason the Legally Blonde thing has come up is because at the begining of the act 2 opener one of the girls says Oh My God before singing about Tommy taking Carrie to the prom.

I like LB is fun and silly but i don't think at all that anything in Carrie sounds like its come from LB or taking the show down that route. The music for the teens when doing teen things like buying prom dresses is fun and 80s.....its set in the 80s.

The rest of the show is a very powerful dark musical which has now nailed it, the book scenes have strengthened those scenes by a mile as well as adding a punch to the softer moments.

Carrie the musical is not designed to scare people, horror on stage does not scare, not of this kind. The writers will never have thought they were setting out to scare audiences thats absurd. What they wanted to do was create a drama, a powerful mother daughter show which runs along side a teen show, this new version does just that.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 12/1/09 at 5:30pm

However, - the only reason there is a volleyball game is because there is one in the movie and the creative team is extremely reliant on that film script for this project.

Good point. I like the idea of a prologue that provides some of the back story in the opening of the novel, but I still believe there needs to be the undercurrent of the everyday teen life that is required to move the narrative along. I think I may pull out the novel again tonight because I remember some things Sue said that to me, really rooted out the true horror of the tale. The fact that they were kids and acted like kids, just like everywhere else in the country, but paid the ultimate price for their behavior. And given the events of Columbine, it only makes the story more poignant and somewhat prophetic. I'm not suggesting using the Columbine angle, but it will be in the back of people's minds, regardless.

People on here now are already writing this off without actually hearing it which is just odd.

No, that's pretty much the norm on the main board.

[Dantes]

Posted: 12/1/09 at 5:32pm

Sue actually says something similar in the new musical about them been just kids, its a nice moment

[Auggie27]

Posted: 12/1/09 at 5:52pm

I've just read this thread, and as someone who saw the original three times in previews, I find the changes fascinating. They certainly seem on track. The key is the lyrics. Even the blander songs in the original might've worked in context with sharper -- let's just say it: better -- words to sing. The banalities just rang out and sounded amateurish. I agree with the "I'm Not Alone" commentary, because truly the inane words did it in.

But providing a narrator allows some critical information to be provided, even if via the oldest and baldest conceit. Why not? The novel worked because it's POV shifted, allowing King to come at his tale from multiple perspectives and time zones. That's not possible in a musical, but we need a way in, we need access. I'd accept the narrator cliche just to have the story told with more texture and telling detail.

I've often wondered if about one possible solution might marry the two 'halves' of this tale -- to put at least one musical motif in the show that is sung by both Carrie/Margaret and some other characters. Some binding melodic line, part of a song, or full verse that unites the disparate components. On that point, does Carrie get a verse of "In?" There's a start. It grounds her at least partially in the world of the others. (Maybe that's answered above.)

If Carrie sang some portion of the teen world music to her mother, she'd be 'bringing it in the house,' and we might feel the worlds clash in real time, musically as the characters clash.

Just a thought. I have waited for a revival, and this thread s certainly a thrilling appetite whetting preview.

[Dantes]

Posted: 12/1/09 at 5:59pm

Thats not a bad idea having the 2 worlds joined by 1 melody at some point.

Carrie does appaear in one of the teen songs (A Night We'll Never Forget) which is a good mix up

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 12/1/09 at 6:02pm

I've often wondered if about one possible solution might marry the two 'halves' of this tale -- to put at least one musical motif in the show that is sung by both Carrie/Margaret and some other characters.

Actually, there was one instance of this in the original score, but it was fleeting and not so astutely used. The Evening Prayers melody is later sung by the entire ensemble as the school's Alma Mater when Carrie is crowned Prom Queen.

Updated On: 12/1/09 at 06:02 PM

[Auggie27]

Posted: 12/1/09 at 6:05pm

I'm thinking that "In" -- counterpoint lyrics for Carrie -- might be so obvious; why did they ignore the chance? I've had other bizarre ideas -- a dark reprise of "unsuspecting hearts" with Margaret's perverse take replacing the gym teacher. Maybe I'm pushing it.)

The Mandlebaum criticism remains the most telling, so all efforts to make the show feel seamless would be structurally useful.

There's no way to fully excise the camp, but it could be weighted better if Margaret is played and especially costumed (and wigged) more like an American styled Fundamentalist. I have relatives not terribly far from Maragret's narrow mindset, and they dress conservatively but not like agoraphobic witches. She would make de-feminized dresses for herself, but not outre stuff. Buckley's look -- fascinating, an iconic image of the original -- was strange, and then of course, she appeared in a nightgown or slip that didn't match the black fitted riding togs (sorry, that's what she looked like -- Sally Cato in MAME!) If she dressed more like a character in a William Inge play -- plain, unadorned, even pastel -- the camp wouldn't be heightened to silly proportions.

The show needs to be very carefully designed. I'd opt for minimalism that still suggested reality. The heavy stylization -- supposedly a bold stroke -- kept the story and characters from the audience. Costumes simply cannot go near the level of stylization -- even as in WEDDING SINGER or BIRDIE. Real clothes would make a persuasive case for the American texture of the material. Clothes, not cotumes.

Updated On: 12/1/09 at 06:05 PM

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 12/1/09 at 6:12pm

I really like your idea of using In for Carrie, especially when she tells her mother Tommy asked her to the prom. Using a darker arrangement, it could make interesting counterpoint to the feud that ensues when ultimately, Carrie uses her mother's own melody against Margaret to finish out the scene, holding the power over her mother for the first time. I always felt that musically, the final scene to the first act was quite brilliant in how they traded off the melody and counter-melody.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 12/1/09 at 6:17pm

I agree, Mr Matt. "I Remember How Those Boys..." was a stunner. It perfectly served the moment in the story and the structure of the musical, and was intricate counterpoint, brilliantly performed. Just thinking once again of the stuff that worked makes you ache to see the whole damn thing inch closer.

[Pgenre]

Posted: 12/1/09 at 6:19pm

All I am going to say right this moment is that MB and Dantes are superstars and this MAY end up being one of the best, if not the very best, threads BWW has ever seen. Keep it up fellas!

And let's talk about the prologue/epilogue of "Our Father" at some point... I'm not sure if it works as well as it should, but again, the first and last scenes depend so much on the visuals that I feel it could either come off as a chilling, surrealistic limbo or a newsreport/powerpoint presentation gone bad (in more ways than one!)... and also I'd like to hear thoughts about the introduction of Margaret singing with the radio chorus as opposed to being introduced in a solo. I think it is detrimental, though linking Margaret with the real world, or at least the real world as portrayed on a Christian radio station, from the get-go is a good idea and having her then emerge in solo voice may be the gentlest way to present her. Although, it seems as though Margaret sings in the first "Our Father", albeit from off-stage, which I think is an absolutely brilliant move. How about have the song slowly build by having Sue sing first, solo, then the voices of the survivors join in as they congregate on stage, and then by the big swell in the music have the voices of all those who perished join in from off-stage. I say Carrie and Margaret should not be noticeable at this point in the choral structure, but maybe Carrie alone (offstage) could sing "Amen" at the end of it as her prom picture comes onscreen/on-stage. I think at the end in the reprise of "Our Father" Sue could begin it and then we could hear the voice of Carrie and/or Margaret sing from off-stage while the powerpoint/newscast plays the prom powerpoint. At the very end of the song after a pause Carrie alone could sing "Amen." THEN a lightning flash and blackout. I think it could work. Either way, I'm just thinking out loud...

P

[jonsanders101]

Posted: 12/1/09 at 6:50pm

I think we are all polarizing the faults with Carrie way way too much. I know its much easier to do, but to suggest all the fault lie with one thing, or rather, that all will be well with the show by removing one thing is not right at all.

You really have to think of the nature of the creative process. It wasn't "Carrie a brilliant story" then Allen and Hands came and ruined it. No. It was a generalised pitch, with generalised ideas.

They wanted Carrie, but they wanted it musical. They sacrificed a lot to make it fit into this mould, instead of making a new one.

They wanted MTV, so they gave way for 80s rock-sounding and room for choreography.

They wanted a British-American partnership, so they did.

They wanted a stark, symbollic representation of the show - over exaggerated was infact their idea.

All of these attributes flow into each other, bear this in mind: not one critic actually agreed on what they hated. Many did hate it, many were similar. Some though chris stole the show. Some thought she was ridiculous. Some loved the dancing. Some hated it. Some could see talent from Hateley shining through. Some couldn't.

It was a mixed bag.

In general, there is merit to each of the songs. I can see what they were getting at. I would leave none, however, untouched. Even I remember needs tweaking. Some parts of it just don't gel. Very little build up I feel.

I don't think eliminating campness is the key here. Cutting it down massively, and coming at it from a different approach would be better. Think of it this way, how easy using selective instruments and tweaking the vocals could you make something from Grease sound sinister? I say, make some songs camp and preppy, then give them sinister, desperate undertones. In this way, it satirizes itself, showing how dark a highschool can be. much more effective than purposefully dark songs, which we get from Mother anyway.

I think I'm right. :)