CARRIE Reading?- Page 4

[THDavis]

Posted: 11/22/09 at 1:30pm

Gee, this got pretty off topic. First off, I'm eighteen years old and I'll help explain some of this demographic to people who suggest the whole "pride of ignorance" thing. I'll first say that it does age anyone who suggests this is targeted only at my generation because there really isn't any reason that our generation and your generation share the same pop culture. It's not called "pride of ignorance", it's called time. It moves on, things move out.

On another note, I recall having a pretty prominent Stephen King unit in our literature classes in a small town suburb of Minneapolis. We went as far as to even watch the entirety of Misery in class. It shouldn't surprise you that people know who Stephen King is. If I've ever mentioned Carrie the Musical to friend (theatre or non-theatre), they've all responded with "Wait, Stephen King's Carrie?". We're not dumb, we know who Stephen King is, what Carrie is and what it is about.

And I'm not going to lie, I understand from a business standpoint you have to think about it but I'm tired about everyone having to make shows family friendly. I think taking kids under 10 to theatre is a waste of money anyways and it can prove to be distracting to the rest of the audience when they get restless. Just like I think people shouldn't be allowed into the theatre after the first 20 minutes of the show until intermission. People would come see this show. Some would because they're familiar with the original flop, some people would come simply to see the destruction. I can't say it will be a Wicked or Jersey Boys musicals, but I have a feeling it'd have a pretty good run.

[amoni2]

Posted: 11/22/09 at 1:38pm

"You think Carrie is mainstream media?"

Wow, with that deep reasoning I bet you're looking forward to "The Real Housewives Of Atlanta, the Musical". I hear NeNe's 11 O'Clock number "Shut Up Bitch Or I'll Cut You" touches the soul.

King's book has never been out of print in 35 years. The movie is always on TV, a simple search shows it's on Encore HD this week alone. It was on heavy rotation on UniversalHD and HDNet last month at Halloween. There was a TV remake in 2004 also played all over TV this past October. Do the youngin's today have TV? They have never come across it in their twenty five years on network TV, local, basic or pay cable? The VHS, DVD and Blu-Ray is in every video store in the country. You mean people under twenty five who grew up watching "Grease" over and over were never curious what other movies Travolta made? Believe me "Carrie" is hardly a lost forgotten movie. Don't ask me, ask King or Piper Laurie, Amy Irving, Nancy Allen, P.J. Soles or William Katt. I know, because I'e met them all within the last five years and we talked about the wide range of fans "Carrie" has.

[Pgenre]

Posted: 11/22/09 at 2:00pm

Piper Laurie has commented many times in the past about the fact that she sort of finds horror films distasteful and uninteresting, yet almost everyone who asks her for an autograph nowadays knows her from CARRIE, TWIN PEAKS or Argento's TRAUMA and is not even aware of her non-horror work in many classic films of the 40s and 50s.

I will say that horror is probably the only genre in entertainment where young people consistently seek out classics like CARRIE, HALLOWEEN, etc. as opposed to the remake or New Release horror. I remember as a tween renting the entire horror/thriller/scifi section of the video store over the course of a summer and watching them all with a friend, though I'm probably the exception more than the rule. Either way, CARRIE, like SCARFACE, TAXI DRIVER and RAGING BULL, is one of those late 70s/early 80s masterpieces that my generation looks on as the height of cool and bad*ss.

Love it or hate it, we're the Tarantino generation and in many cases, to speak literally and figuratively, we know the punchline but not the joke.

P

[binau]

Posted: 11/22/09 at 3:38pm

It might be an American thing, but I'm 18 in Australia and I can absolutely guarantee that in my age bracket and below 'Carrie' IS almost unheard of and is not as popular as you guys think it is. It probably is to do with region though...since Stephen King is some kind of 'staple' of American horror movies I guess.

[BobbyBubby]

Posted: 11/22/09 at 3:45pm

Despite the fact that they're the loudest audience members, under-18's don't keep shows open. Most go on discounted tickets and are not the core demographic for the majority of Broadway shows.

[Jane2]

Posted: 11/22/09 at 3:45pm

I wouldn't go so far as to say that the younger generation isn't aware of Carrie. I'm aware of and have seen such classics as Casablanca, From Here to Eternity, To Kill a Mockingbird, etc. You get my drift.

I think all generations are aware of classic art that came way before them.

[THDavis]

Posted: 11/22/09 at 3:56pm

BobbyBubby, I'm glad you say that. That's true, we don't keep the shows open. So why is it such a big deal that my demographic knows about Carrie? My statement was just to say that we know about Carrie and Stephen King, it's quite uncommon for an American teenager to not be familiar with them. But as you said, I'm not in the demographic that keeps shows open. Meaning it doesn't even really matter if we're familiar with it or not.

[MusicSnob1]

Posted: 11/22/09 at 4:50pm

CARRIE is now a piece of "classic art" *and* it's "mainstream" ?!?!? Oy. Who comes up with this stuff.

[Jane2]

Posted: 11/22/09 at 4:58pm

^ You sound like you're trying to be insulting. Charming. Sorry you don't realize that Carrie is classic.

[MusicSnob1]

Posted: 11/22/09 at 5:02pm

No, I'm genuinely shocked. And I'm not in the younger demographic - I remember CARRIE well. Both as a novel and movie.

[Pgenre]

Posted: 11/22/09 at 5:07pm

CARRIE was the first novel published by the most bestselling author in the history of literary publishing, and an American one to boot. That alone, even if it never was made into a movie or musical or tv movie or film sequel or musical revival, would solidify its legacy.

As always, MusicSnob lives up to his moniker.

P

[Jane2]

Posted: 11/22/09 at 5:07pm

Then, don't be shocked. Classics don't have to be Greco-Roman in origin.

[MusicSnob1]

Posted: 11/22/09 at 5:10pm

P, you sure about that?

I'm a huge King fan. And I like "Carrie" as a novel. But I never thought it was considered a classic.

Perhaps I'm naive. Who knows. Always appreciate the helpful clarification, P. Nice to know there's a snarky comment right around the corner. An eye for an eye....

[jonsanders101]

Posted: 11/22/09 at 5:14pm

You don't know HOW excited I am that all of this has come around again, though naturally I'm devastated at the same time because I wanted to direct it :)

I wholly believe Carrie can become a successful, brillianty heart-wrenching musical unlike anything else seen to be quite honest.

I fell in love with the story and films a few years ago because it plays so brilliantly with cruelty - characters are positioned to be the most finitely cruel to Carrie without taking it to an unbelievable edge. Watching her Mother deny her any love during her most vulnerable womanly time made me cry buckets. It strikes a powerful emotional chord if done correctly.

It is this that needs to be played on. These delicate emotional chords need to be plucked. Noted THIS IS NOT EASY. It is so much easy either to satirize the story or else push it beyond believability. Who's to say these emotional pangs cannot be accessed by music? I don't think "Eve was weak" was 100% perfect but damn it came pretty close, and not much else would be needed to get it there.

Carrie was ill-fated from the start. Slightly hypocritical, being an English guy myself, but handing it to the RSC was probably not an inspired choice. I think, in fairness, nowadays you'd have better look if they would turn to a British directer as we've had much more exposure to these matters than in 1980s; sticking with an american-at-heart director is always going to be best because

...this production should be reproached as a RETALIATION of American values, and a complete BITE BACK to most campy musicals. The destruction of a high school prom is highly symbolic. It is a mixture of everything Carrie aspires to, everything that oppresses her, and how many other lost young children. Its what Grease, Fame, WSS don't show you.

With new technology, they could have real real fun with the destruction. Actually make something terrifying and jawdropping.

Another gripe: Carrie as a character was poorly written. They'd softened her edges to make her more presentable to a broadway audience...if they were going to do that, why not skip the period scene and have done with it? No. She cannot be the simple figure innocence, fancying a boy, like a Disney princess. There needs to be evidence of psychological damage. We need to feel sorry for her in spite of all her social short comings. This is another challenge. The beauty of books and films allow us to see "inside their head". On Broadway they have to be more insistent on their emotions enough to sing about them. A five minute solo of overwrought babble was not how to combat this.

I'm not surprised they've kept In. The kids should be presented as being under this immense pressure. I actually rather liked the opening scene and painful dance routine of the original. It summed it up well

"I go crazy, and nobody cares what it does to me..."

I think it will appeal to a new generation of audience. Look at how popular Wicked is, it will usher in the fans of a Tim Burton audience - an emotionally versatility is much more popular than what I dub as "classic" broadway.

I believe this, more than anything, was what killed off Carrie the first time round. The creative team had an idea, a good one, but new it was risque material. Their plan to make it applicable to paying audiences was to force it into the mold of other musical successes, instead of respecting the essentials of Carrie. What they got was a mismatch of ill-fitting Broadway-sounding stuff with a load of unfulfilled plot. Stick to the plot, stick to the characters and the musical will take care of itself.

[Jane2]

Posted: 11/22/09 at 5:18pm

Music snob-I consider it a classic in that it represents the finest in its genre. One definition of the word classic is just that. However, I don't consider it to be mainstream. That film, like its genre, is esoteric.

[BobbyBubby]

Posted: 11/22/09 at 5:26pm

That book is genius. I don't care that it didn't win a Pulitzer or wasn't on Oprah's book club. It's a classic and a fascinating observation of human behavior. In fact, I think it should be required reading for High School kids. While it is fantasy, its depiction of the pecking order in schools in spot on.

[husk_charmer]

Posted: 11/22/09 at 5:39pm

^ If I do end up teaching high school English (which is my choice, but doing my alternative certification, and the fact that there isn't as much demand for English teachers, it's unlikely), it WILL be a book we study in class.

[BobbyBubby]

Posted: 11/22/09 at 5:41pm

Good luck at getting that past a school board!

[THDavis]

Posted: 11/22/09 at 6:43pm

It's actually more common now. I went to a rather conservative school and our school board acknowledged Stephen King as an important influence in modern American literature. We read stories, learned about him, and as I stated, watched Misery in it's entirety (no skipping over the gruesome sledgehammer scene).

[Pgenre]

Posted: 11/22/09 at 6:53pm

Did you READ the novel MISERY, TH, or only watch the movie?

In the book Annie cuts off his foot with an ax, among many other MUCH more gruesome acts (lawnmower anyone?) not in Goldman's screenplay for the film. It's a great film, but the novel is one of King's best and if any deserve a more faithful film adaptation it would be that, particularly all the Misery Chastain period-specific stuff that isn't in the film.

There, I used "period-specific" so we are still on track discussing CARRIE,

P

[THDavis]

Posted: 11/22/09 at 7:15pm

No, we didn't read the book. We only watched the movie. I only meant to reference that school boards won't always shoot down the idea of studying Stephen King

[andsym9001]

Posted: 11/22/09 at 8:38pm

I myself have never been to a reading before. I have a few questions.
How can i get tickets.
It is just a very basic version/ beginnings of the show so there is not much to it except the actors themselves?(Not asking in a bad way just wondering)
Thanks

[romgitsean]

Posted: 11/22/09 at 9:29pm

I second that notion. I didn't know it was open to the public.

I bet it was hard to get a camera in there, eh?

I'm VERY disappointed to here about the Heaven Octect cut. I remember when I first heard about it, God, I *hope* they keep that in. Because it's great. If anything, they should've cut the Unsuspecting Hearts (Reprise). Also, I'm Not Alone has been covered GREAT by other artists (Natalie Weiss, anyone?) and is an awesome number. Why would they cut that?

The ending seems better...but the lightening bolt won't make it. I like Sue narrating. Very close to the book.

This new version sounds great. I wonder what the new songs were/are. And having In being a group number is hardly an original idea--Stagedoor was (I believe) the first to make it an ensemble number. In is great though. I almost wish that In was re-cut so that it would take place in school (the first two verses) and then it would transform into the gym class.

I had NO idea the reading was open to the public. How much were tickets?

As someone who has directed Carrie on stage (don't get your knickers in a knot--it was a private camp production I did with teens. And it was a non-musical. It was great, though) I've always known the material was workable.

The only thing I fear for them is opening it straight to Broadway. They should either open it Off-Broadway or do it as a part of Encores! and build to Broadway. It will flop again if it goes to Broadway.

LONG LIVE CARRIE! <3

[AEA AGMA SM]

Posted: 11/22/09 at 10:13pm

Tickets were not available to the public. Part of the staged reading guidelines under Equity stipulate that it is open to industry members and invited audience only. Tickets are not allowed to be sold.

And yes, andsym, readings are very bare bones. Actors in chairs and at music stands holding scripts. No scenery, no props, no costumes, no choreography, as set down in the staged reading guidelines.

[husk_charmer]

Posted: 11/22/09 at 11:45pm

BobbyBubby-
Actually, we read things that were VASTLY worse in High School than Carrie. In fact, I'm 99% sure that it was on the list of books we could do for Summer Reading. Honestly, the hardest part of Carrie (at least for most males) is that first 20 pages, and it's no more controversial than Lois Lowry's The Giver.