CARRIE Reading?- Page 14

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 12/3/09 at 3:29pm

Since I think everything has been said about the merits of the new music, So now -- the script!

I would also like to play devil's advocate and also say that while the the script and dialogue is a huge improvement in terms clarifying plots and characters, I think they can relax now and trim some of it.

The musical as presented during the workshop had as much dialogue in it as the film did - and even added a few new scenes. All that in addition to a full musical score. Its too long.

I think they can trim some of it - especially in ACT 2 (the scene between the Gym Teacher and Carrie at the prom from the screenplay worked well on film - I think it slows up the momentum here).

I also think the new song "You Shine" for Billy and Sue in ACT 2, while nice, is too long and probably not even necessary. By that point in the story, our attention should rightly be more focused on the character and journey of the title character.

[Pgenre]

Posted: 12/3/09 at 3:47pm

MB and Dantes, I am still waiting, PATIENTLY, to hear your replies to my post that seems to have gotten lost in the double-posts a page back. Here it is again:

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
Updated On: 12/3/09 at 03:47 PM

[Revolutionary]

Posted: 12/3/09 at 3:59pm

quick question for anyone who went to the reading: matt doyle was tommy, right? and who were the roles played by john arthur greene and ben eakeley?

[romgitsean]

Posted: 12/3/09 at 4:48pm

I like your idea about 'Our Father', Pgenre. Similar to that of what I did in my non-musical version, actually...

What we did, was the narrator read the poem "Jesus Watches from the Wall" and in between, Sue, Desjardin (yes, we did use the name Desjardin, not the retarded "Ms. Gardner", which should go...), BIlly, Morton, Margaret, Tommy and Chris all recited lines from the play in between. It was very spooky. And then the curtain opened to Carrie, standing still, with the red light, covered in blood. It was done very tastefully...

But then again...dunno if that could work in a musical. :P

[Holbee]

Posted: 12/3/09 at 5:18pm

From what I've been reading there are many, many problems with this revisal. For one thing, using the screenwriter of the DePalma film yet again as the book writer. A fresh take, perhaps by one of our better playwrights, or a known theatre book writer would infuse the new life in the show I'm guessing the producers are trying for. Perhaps they are contractually obligated to use the original book writer? Again, as much as I enjoyed some of this show, it never really worked and there seems to be no reason to revive it (except hubris?) if you're just going to make the same mistakes. Setting the show in 1984? Why? Because the writers are not up to writing or re-writing songs in the language of today's teenagers? Again, what is the point? People here (and elsewhere) argue "tone" was the problem the first go around? Wrong. It was bad lyrics. Bad book writing. A director who was clearly out of his mind. Don't let history reshape this show into something it never was. It was an "interesting" show, a show with SOME "wonderful numbers" but a failure none-the-less. I don't think the musical "Carrie" we know, the Carrie of Mandelbaum's book, will ever be produced again. Just reading the revised song stack and scene descriptions of the reading assured me of that. Perhaps if they started over, a new writing team, writers up to the operatic yet real-world needs of a musical version of Stephen King's classic. Cause the biggest problem of the original, among many problems, was that you never believed it. And for a story about the supernatural, you need to make the extraordinary, the magical, real. And that means you have to ground it in real, believable people. If you can do that, most of your work is done.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 12/3/09 at 8:03pm

Holbee --

I'm in large agreement with what you write. I think a different more experienced team of musical theatre writers would probably be able to come up with a much more original and exciting musical based on this property. A flat out opera of CARRIE, in that world of odd and bizarre subjects for musicalization, would probably fair a lot better than any commercial attempt at a Broadway musical adaptation...

The script for this revisal goes back to its workshop origins and appears to be set in a much more 'realistic' world, but as I mentioned earlier - everything now is so conventional, it feels like a script written in the mid-1960s. I think (aside from the music) feeling dated - this is pretty flat story telling. If they want to use that script from the movie as their basis, they need to be able to open it up theatrically, so its not so pedestrian...

PGenre - to answer your earlier question - I don't much like the idea of opening and closing the show with the "Our Father" hymn for two reasons. First of all, I think its precious and sentimental.

As I keep stating (and people keep arguing with me on) I think making CARRIE some kind of sympathetic allegory is going to backfire especially if they keep using so much of the screenplay as the basis for the script. People remember that ending of the movie with Carrie's hand coming up through the dirt and Amy Irving screaming uncontrollably (and yet, people keep saying this isn't a thriller or a horror story).

Secondly, the religious aspect of Margaret White is such a strong component of what we are asked to accept as zealous, alienating, and frightening about her character, I think its a mistake to have any of the ensemble included in it.

Which is why I also don't like the grand 'choral' entrance of voices on the radio before "Open Your Heart."

To be fair, I can't tell in that instance, however, if that is meant to be choral voices or if for the reading they filled in with something that would be pre-recorded on the radio.

Perhaps the authors have something really sardonic in mind for the opening and closing usage of "Our Father" but I doubt they are that witty and clever.

I think that song worked better as a simple solo in the 1984 workshop as sung by just CARRIE.



Updated On: 12/3/09 at 08:03 PM

[Jemstar86]

Posted: 12/3/09 at 8:11pm

Holbee - I have to say I think you are wrong. However that is the great thing about the arts, everyone takes something different away from it and sees it differently. That being said, here's my take on the whole thing. One of my biggest fears for this reading was that the creators would update the show to today. CARRIE is a dated piece of material that really could not be done today. For example - back in the 80s people were a lot more isolated than we are now ... today if a girl got a bucket of blood dumped on her it'd be twittered about in a second and when she started freaking out, all the kids would be on their phones calling their parents to come get them. Do see what I'm saying? It really wouldn't work now. As for the lyrics being awful etc ... well, that's really just a matter of opinion. I for one think they were really great. Sure there was room for improvement on the score in 1988 ... but as someone once told me, you never finish your work, you just abandon it. I think any writer anywhere can go back to something they have written and fix something. But I honestly think that the lyrics and the score as a whole for the 1988 production were right on. It excites me to hear the new material they have come up with. I would say that the book was good too ... but Terry Hands cut it all so I don't really know. Tho the workshop script is really very good. There also seems to be this feeling of making the high school and mother/daughter portions of the show mesh more. I think that is exactly wrong. The fact that the high school material is so up-beat at times shows the world that Carrie is longing to belong to. She IS walking in two different worlds. Her home life, which is a terrible mess, and the life she so badly wants to join in on, but cant. I think it's important to show the stark contrast to give Carrie something to long for. I also find it quite unnerving to have a seemingly uptempo happy number being sung with cruel and nasty lyrics ... which sort of puts a mirror up to society. A lot of times parents will look at their kids and think "well, they are just on the right track .... surrounded by friends, popular, happy ..." But if they were really to listen they'd hear some very upsetting things coming out of the mouths of their children. So, to me, thats why the high school stuff really seems to work. And lastly, if the show had no dancing in it, it would be pretty horrible .... i mean, what on earth would they be doing at the prom?! I for one thought Debbie Allen did a marvelous job on In, Do Me A Favor, and Watta Night. Maybe overly choreographed .... but perhaps if there had been a set and costumes to reign her in a bit, everything would've worked out a bit differently.

PS - I sure do wish that a copy o the reading would leak somewhere ... Id love to hear it.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 12/3/09 at 8:18pm

I agree that CARRIE should probably be kept as a period piece (although I would still believe in a small town in Maine, the kids might not be twittering at the prom), but I do believe its currently set in 1984 (as opposed to say 1974 as it was originally) because that is the era the writing team feels comfortable with musically -- I think the early 1980s is about the worst era you could set CARRIE in if you want it to be taken seriously. The propensity for the production becoming one big joke about 80s clothes and big hair would be a huge distraction from the story at hand.
Updated On: 12/3/09 at 08:18 PM

[Dantes]

Posted: 12/3/09 at 8:38pm

Holbee- I think you are wrong and ive heard the new version.

The book is far stronger this time so im glad that he came back again to do the book. The book for stratford and Broadway was a problem but in 83/84 the book was far more fleshed out, as the show went on more and more of the scenes were dropped and simply became musical cue lines. The book has drive now, its opened the story book up and does what it needs to do. Im not exactly sure how you and MB see Carrie as been, its a simple drama with some supernatural aspects, it does its job fine.

Setting in 84 has nothing to do with "they can't write songs for today etc". The story of Carrie itslef even from the novel and movie feels like a period piece (see what i did there haha). I would find it harder to believe that a person like Margret would exist as much now, same with somem of the kids. The writers probably also watched the dreadful made for TV movie of Carrie which set it in today's time and realised that all sense of nostalga for the piece was lost, it felt like all the other teen films. Whilst Carrie is sinister there was always something very quaint about it, very 70s/80s and i think they are smart for keeping it around that era.

If you also bring a whole new Carrie back to Broadway, all new songs etc it would p**s off so many people, the reading got a lot of publicity because it is Carrie the Musical from 88, just a revised sharper version. Carrie was never going to be high art, or not should it be, the book wasn't and the movie wasn't, its supposed to be a roller coaster ride, a mix of fun and tension which the musical provides (even with the 88 ones many of the critics had to say that it was never dull)

MB
"As I keep stating (and people keep arguing with me on) I think making CARRIE some kind of sympathetic allegory is going to backfire. People remember that ending of the movie with Carrie's hand coming up through the dirt and Amy Irving screaming uncontrollably (and yet, people keep saying this isn't a thriller or a horror story). "

You have already mentioned the fact that we should not just be looking at the film but at the novel also, the hand coming up from the grave is not in the novel. Also just because it had a JUMP moment in does not make it a horror. I watched Melrose Place the other night and a guy jumped out from behind a door and grabbed a girl, i s**t myself but it does not make Melrose Palace a horror. Just because something has a jump moment in it does not mean its a horror, thats exactly what i said before when i said about people jumping to label things Horros because they have momnents in.

Pgenre
I really like the idea of the radio broadcast of Open Your Heart (its something i thought worked so well in the 84 workshop)

I like the fact than when we are introduced to M we see an almost soft side of her, a miiddle aged woman listening to the gospel radio etc, her daighter coming to join her singing to it, i think it makes Eve Was Weak and her terrifying transformation on that song all the more shocking.
The one point i will agree with MB on is that i don't think we should see the choir or the preacher, it should be sung off stage or pre recorded and effected to make it sound like its coming through the radio (of course then she should change the channel and listen to a bit of Madonna but thats a whole other show lol)

Book ending the show i think is a good idea in theory but they need to get it straight. If Sue is telling the story of Carrie then how did she know what happened during the scenes at Carrie's house etc, or is Sue just telling the parts of the story she knows?

I like the ending actually, i don't think its over sentimental at all, i mean jesus over 170 kids just died, lets not ignore that fact shall we if we are banging on about mnaking Carrie more real. I also love the fact her picture is shown at the end with her in her dress (i think it should be a pic taken as shes on stage just before the blood falls) the idea that the picture represnts the one and only moment in her life that she felt accepted is brilliant because we all know what happened next.

I will say however if they want to use a prayer then pick a better one, one more creepy as it kills the moment as it is right now.

[BwayTday]

Posted: 12/3/09 at 8:45pm

I think the ending with the pictures is absolutely chilling. Just my two cents.

[Jemstar86]

Posted: 12/3/09 at 9:07pm

MB, I can see how it would be easy to say that the creators of this show are using the mid-80s as the time period because it is the time they are most comfortable with. Maybe they are, I don't know them personally. But I do know a bit about their other works and I can assure you that they have done a wide variety of things spanning from the 1970s-2009. You'd be surprised how many film scores Michael Gore has been behind. Anyway, as was also said before, changing the show too much would be a problem. People know this Carrie (well, some people do ... enough people do) and to set the show in the 70s would completely change the show. The 80s were typically a more materialistic time and that creates a more viscous world for the kids to run thru. I don't think that we would have to worry too much about the show becoming "a show about the 80s." There's a way to do a comedic send-up of the 1980s and there's a way to do a show set in the 1980s. That'd be like saying a serious show set in any other time period wouldn't work because it might become about the costumes or hair. I dont think we have too much to worry about here. ... That said, I look forward to the prom number and the dresses.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 12/3/09 at 9:14pm

Jemstar, I think the point is that kids are just vicious. By your explanation, their behavior can somehow be justified because of the time period they are living in. That shouldn't be the case at all.

Also - please as a general note - people need to stop saying that changes shouldn't be made because they are going to alienate the cult audience of the 1988 Broadway flop.

That combined group of people would sell out maybe 5 performances in a Broadway house. 95 percent of the people coming to a commercial Broadway revival of this would not be familiar with the music or the concept of the original Broadway production.


Updated On: 12/3/09 at 09:14 PM

[Dantes]

Posted: 12/3/09 at 9:19pm

Its not about the behaviour been ustified by the time period its about the fact that Carrie as a piece and the kids feel like their actions etc come from the 80s

Hell if it was today Chris would just buy a gun a shoot Carrie lol

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 12/3/09 at 9:22pm

But they don't come from the 80s Dantes, they come from the 70s. Thats when the story was created.

1970s small town Maine has a very specific feel to it in my head. And its not 1980s mid-America. Updated On: 12/3/09 at 09:22 PM

[Dantes]

Posted: 12/3/09 at 9:25pm

yes and i think the 70s and 80s were pretty camp when it ca,e to teenage life and how its depicted, its a perfect match for Carrie

[Disneyland Magic Man]

Posted: 12/3/09 at 9:56pm

They need to replace the reprise of Carrie at the end of the show with either that amazing monologue from the film or another song. Possibly all or part of Once I Loved A Boy. Or something new, but similar to that. Something showing Margaret's absolute obsession with her own personal sins and demons and her disdain towards Carrie for being a constant reminder of those sins. A pretty ballad about how much she loves Carrie doesn't work. Margaret loves Jesus. When it comes down to it, that love for Jesus becomes stronger than any love she ever had for Carrie. Thus the need to kill Carrie for her Lord.

[defyingravity11]

Posted: 12/3/09 at 10:08pm

^ I think the reprise works because of her love for Carrie. She kills her daughter because she loves her and cannot stand to see the devil possess her.

[Pgenre]

Posted: 12/3/09 at 11:42pm

I agree, I want the monologue from the movie for my own selfish reasons. It's exquisite. I love it, and Cohen wrote it so why the f not? I think it should come before a new song instead of "Carrie (Reprise)" or in between the monologue and that. I love that monologue though...

P

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 12/3/09 at 11:46pm

Well he pulled it pretty much verbatim from the book and DePalma didn't want to film it (he thought it would slow down the action).

I think if it was included people would make a similar complaint as they did that Andrew Lloyd Webber should have found a way to give Norma a new aria to musicalize her final moments of madness in SUNSET BOULEVARD.

But the monologue would work for me. But I wouldn't include it AND another song. Just die already.

[Pgenre]

Posted: 12/3/09 at 11:50pm

I should've killed myself when he put it in me. After the first time, before we were married, Ralph promised never again. He promised, and I believed him. But sin never dies. Sin never dies. At first, it was all right. We lived sinlessly. We slept in the same bed, but we never did it. And then, that night, I saw him looking down at me that way. We got down on our knees to pray for strength. I smelled the whiskey on his breath. Then he took me. He took me, with the stink of filthy roadhouse whiskey on his breath, and I liked it. I liked it! With all that dirty touching of his hands all over me. I should've given you to God when you were born, but I was weak and backsliding, and now the devil has come home. We'll pray.

[Dantes]

Posted: 12/4/09 at 1:52pm

Im still waiting for Cujo the musical lol

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 12/4/09 at 2:06pm

Yes, but Cujo isn't a horror story either. Its about a misunderstood dog. I think a good ending for a musical of Cujo would be to have a photograph of a loving tableaux with Cujo and his owners reunited...happy.

:)

[Disneyland Magic Man]

Posted: 12/4/09 at 3:35pm

And they'll sing:

Cujo, always remember that we love you
Our love is so deep
Oh Cujo, smile at the angels up above you
And sleep baby, sleep...

*Inspirational musical interlude*

[Dantes]

Posted: 12/4/09 at 4:55pm

hahahahahahahahahaha Cujo is totally a horror story, the film has dee wallace in lol

[Pgenre]

Posted: 12/4/09 at 5:25pm

I love CUJO and Dee Wallace (did you see her in the HALLOWEEN remake as Taylor Scout-Compton's mother?! Talk about a grisly scene!). King has said that CUJO is his least favorite of all of his novels because he does not remember writing a word of it. He was deep into his drug/alcohol addiction at the time and many now see the work as a (authorially revealed subconsciously) metaphor for cocaine addiciton. Interesting, no?

Anyway, I think SALEM'S LOT would be the best King book to musicalize if we want to play that game. THE SHINING and MISERY (I have heard a workshop of a musical version that was done once, not sure what the deal is with that) also have lots of exciting possibilities.

P