CARRIE Reading? — Page 16

I'm sure there's some miscommunication about the whole producer thing. There was SO much hype around the reading, I find it hard to believe that all the producers got cold feet. But with all these shows in question, right now is NOT the best time to open a show that is on the edge of flopping. However, if a musical about a woman with serious mental problems (Next to Normal. And before you correct me on saying "SHE JUST HAS BIPOLAR GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT!!!11111!!!!1, it is actually stated in the play she has other disorders as well), then why not a girl with mental *powers*?

It's a weird concept, but I think it could work, I really do. But as I said previously, I do almost agree with MB that they should fire the book writer, and get in an all-new creative team. Almost like how there are two different versions of "The Wild Party", type of thing. I dunno. Just a thought.

It would seem as if the problem financially wouldn't lie in the material as much as it would lie in the sense that no producer is really willing to give their money out unless they REALLY have faith in a project.

And the Destruction can be done SO much more tastefully. The Destruction I had was KICKASS. And the blood washed out of the dress VERY easily. We had fire projections and screaming and all the voices ("They're all gonna laugh at you!", "Plug it up, plug it up!", "I'm sorry...Cassie...") were looping.

I really almost believe her powers should be dancers. I really do. It would be so much more eerie if these figures dressed in black, maybe faces painted black, lifted up all the chairs and things instead. Then again, that could be played off as VERY cheesy and I don't know how well it'd work on Broadway, but I could see that working on Off-Broadway and *maybe* Encores. However, as I was saying with that idea, if these dancers--call them "The Powers", sang Carrie's lines in "The Destruction", that'd be so much more eerie. Or maybe even to follow the book better-spoke her thoughts during the scenes. That'd be great. Just a thought. I know it seems a little weird, and could only work theortically, but don't bash me and call me an idiot.

The project has potental, but whoever said the idea "is" or "isn't" as weird now is wrong, unfortunately. People are still going to be like, "What? A musical of Carrie? How absurd!" Because, honestly, that's what I thought too.

But, I admire Carrie the Musical for what it really accomplished and what most flops in general have accomplished: TAKING RISKS. That's why I love flops so much; because most of the time they were near-perfect shows about issues audiences don't want to see right in front of them. Why? It's disturbing and un-nerving. We have this image that Broadway is this fairyland where kids and adults can hold hands and sing; and while yes, theatre is a sense of entertainment, it is also used as a way to, on a large scale, critque social issues and bring out new perspectives, because since it's right in front of us, it feels so raw. Everyone get what I'm saying?

---

*bump*

I just keep thinking that a whole new team, preferably a brilliant one, would be the only thing to make Carrie work as a musical. There are endless complications, but mostly balancing the serious tone with the comic satire (Not to mention teenagers! They just gotta dance!) is tricky stuff for anyone, much less Cohen, Pitchford, and Gore.

I want a concert version of the 88 production so bad! Betty should narrate!

---

Excuse me?

"Pretentious" is a show featuring Meat Loaf songs, 3D visuals, parkour, gymnastics, dancers, bikers, and "the most incredible flying ever seen by a troupe of Russian wizards." If this is the best the West End has to offer, I'd love to know what they consider "pretentious."

---

I love how people always say, "it should just be turned over to an Off Broadway or Encores production". As if those esteemed venues of theatre had lower or different standards. It either works as a piece of theatre or it doesn't.

This reading was paid for and driven by a certain contingent of Producers. After a couple of weeks of thought and probing of their artistic and investor connections, they deemed a revival of the piece impossible for them. For whatever reasons. Maybe/ hopefully someone new will step up to the plate.

Off Broadway is still commercial.

The creative team has already been approached by Encores, Mufti, BCEFA, etc., about doing a concert of CARRIE and they have turned down all offers.

I wonder if Ken Mandelbaum was invited to the workshop? It would be positively riveting to hear his thoughts on CARRIE 2.0 and whether he thinks the changes work or not or any suggestions he would make about how to improve the new version of the show.

I miss his column SO freaking much.

Come out, come out, wherever you are!

P

I can see why Pitchford and Cohen would've declined it from Encores or those other industries. They probably didn't want to beat a dead horse, and they probably felt like they weren't "honoring" them by asking to showcase the original version. They probably felt like they weren't being sincere. Before you attack me, think about the idea.

The reason I suggested Encores! over Off-Broadway is for the reason that if you premiere it Off-Broadway or at Encores! and the audience really likes it, then you move it to Broadway, without having the expense with just moving it to Broadway right away from the get-go and losing money like they did the first time. It's almost like a really expensive try-out. Because, the Encores! and Off-Broadway audiences can be sometimes more forgiving than the New York audiences, but equally as harsh. If the material is liked by people at Encores! or Off-Broadway, it is a generally good sign people on Broadway will like it.

I know that I'll be attacked for saying this by SOMEONE, so let me just apologize before I am. It's just my opinion on the matter, because I have reason to think Encores! and Broadway audiences pretty much work in tandem (i.e, Finian's Rainbow going on Broadway from Encores, Chicago going to Broadway after Encores, etc...)

A multimedia presentation would actually be perfect. I can see where the pretentious aspect would come in: but I think definitley more of an interaction would be brilliant. There are so many little things in the book that have such great images (when at the prom, Desjardin approaches Carrie, and before they even exchange words, they both hear the echoes of "plug it up!") and I think it would be more effective for the characters singing their classic lines repeated during "The Destruction". Just my opinion.

But I would agree with a new bookwriter. Or a new collaborator at least. I always thought the book was truely week (that was the last on the list after costumes, set and heinous cheorography).

We really should sit on the topic at this point. A revival is probably farther away then we think, because audiences don't have the money right now to spend on Carrie. It is really hard to market. So we might have to really sit on this for a while. I think of this project as a plane suffering from a delay. It will happen, and it will seem forever to get there (it already HAS), but given time, we'll be up in the air in no time.

---

My god, this thread needs to die.

As someone's who spoken to Dean Pitchford directly about the rights to the show, the reason they've not allowed anyone to do it in the past is partly because what played on Broadway in 1988 wasn't a representation of the musical they were trying to write. Terry Hands and Debbie Allen shaped a lot of what ended up being written and even locked the writers out of the creative process at one point. I think I even read somewhere that Terry Hands convinced the team that the story was about the women of the piece and the men's characters should show little development or characterization... They were only there as a means to get what the women needed in the story. Like pawns... That's a way to shape a Broadway musical alright...

Anyway, Dean told me himself that they wouldn't let anyone do the show because "their" show didn't exist. Unless the three of them sat down and fixed it and wrote "their" show, there was no show to license to anyone. Big or small. He also had said that due to personal schedules that there never had been a time where all three of them were available and willing to do this. Well, I guess that changed this year.

There was some article in one of the major papers, or something, before the show opened that talked about how Pitchford was always apprehensive to write the show. When you write songs for a film you get paid for the song whether they use it or not. You're contracted. When you write a Broadway show you're at the mercy of producers, directors, choreographers, and even co-creative partners deciding how the show will be shaped. Many songs can get scraped along the way. And if the show's not successful, you don't make much money off of any of them.

They've obviously have taken the biggest step which is writing a show THEY want to write. Whether it's Carrie 2.0 or even 3.0 or 4.0, I feel like we'll get SOMETHING now. More than just this reading. There are too many people out there who will fund something. Whether it's a regional premiere. A concert. An album. SOMETHING is going to happen.

Cool stuff.
More people talking about the Carrie reading.

---

I met Dean Pitchford in 2004 when i was in the cast of the UKs Footloose (hes a nice man) and asked him about Carrie. He did say somnething similar to me that the Carrie that went on was not their version of Carrie. What made me laugh is he called Do Me A Favour (the Broadway Version) a neon nightmare (that made me giggle).

Oh and ignore Phyllis Rogers Stone, hes only happy when the thread is full of bitching and mud slinging.

---

Updated On: 12/9/09 at 07:31 PM

God i have loads of Carrie stories from the original lol

Lets hear some more questions, then after that we will break for luch and then we will go and find a producer to put Carrie back on Broadway and give it the shot it deserves, break for drinks then get started on the Via Galactica revival lol

---