Carrie Sept 20th?- Page 3

[JohnPopa]

Posted: 9/10/08 at 11:23am

The biggest conceptual problem with CARRIE was the insistence in making Carrie White the star -- she says way too much and her self-titled song is comically sophomoric. Regardless, she doesn't need a hammy 'I Want' song, the show should be built far more around the other characters, with Carrie more someone talked ABOUT, rather than someone at center stage.

That and most of the material is complete garbage is also a big problem

As the movie does so beautifully, the story needs a sense of impending doom -- especially as Carrie gets more and more happy, we should realize the looming tragedy inherent in that. The movie prom is always surreal and unsettling as we know something bad is happening.

[James885]

Posted: 9/10/08 at 11:31am

Another thing they need to do when/if it's revived is to make sure that Carrie's powers are firmly established by the end of Act 1. A major problem with the show was that if you hadn't seen the movie or read the book, you would've been clueless as to what was going on. Up until the end act 1, the only evidence of Carrie's powers was a light exploding. When the act 1 finale arrives and Carrie's hands are suddenly in flames those who weren't familiar with the story were lost.

There's a scene in the book and I think it's in the movie as well, where right after Carrie has her period, the gym teacher takes her to the principal's office. While attempting to get the story of what happened out of her, the principal repeatedly gets Carrie's name wrong. Finally after the 3rd or 4th time, Carrie has an outburst and some of the items in the office clatter to the floor. I'd like to see that scene in put in the show, as well another scene or song where Carrie discovers the extent of her powers.

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 9/10/08 at 11:33am

John Popa nailed it. Carrie is a character who wants to disappear, not get carried away on a white horse by a knight and all that crap they put in the musical.

[evadiva]

Posted: 9/10/08 at 12:23pm

Celia and Carolee

Omg divarobbie YEEEEESSSSSS!!!!!!!!!

[husk_charmer]

Posted: 9/10/08 at 12:33pm

As much as I love Carolee, I think her machine-gun vibrato wouldn't fit the score at all.

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 9/10/08 at 12:51pm

Again BorstalBoy proves he knows little about the topic he is commenting on

Carrie always wanted to meet a boy and live happily ever after, Stephen King himself said that the whole point of carrie was that it was about a girl who just wanted to belong and have what other teenagers had

Its a Cinderella story

I also heavily disagree with the person who says the most of the material is garbage, some of the songs (Mainly the songs between Carrie and her mum) convey more power and passion than most shows do.

From the terrifying but brilliantly written Eve Was Waek, to the beautiful and Haunting I Remember How Those Boys Could Dance, the score is full of Gems.

The younger songs performed the ensemble are the problem, Out For Blood, Dream On and Wotta Night need to be dropped.In was fine but could do with an update if it was done again, as with Dont Waste The Moon.Sues 2nd act song also needs to go (even though it was already changed twice)

The book needed to go back to the very in depth workshop book and the 1986 re write book which showed scenes in a library with Carrie figuring out she had telekinesis and great scenes in the classroom and principles office (where carrie made the desk move).

Carrie was not the disaster that the critics made out (i watched it as a kid in the UK and loved it and so it seemed did the rest of the audience)

It just needs a bloody good spit and polish

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 9/10/08 at 12:59pm

Jesus songanddanceman, calm down. It's just a thoroughly mediocre flop musical no one likes and no one would put their money behind.

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 9/10/08 at 1:07pm

I dont care if its revived again or not

I just hate when people state an opinion about things they know nothing about

And i would also say you are way of the mark with the "no one likes" comment

If that was true people would stop talking about it

And also just because YOU don't like it, it does not mean that no one else likes it.

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 9/10/08 at 1:09pm

Once again: Calm it down, sweets.

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 9/10/08 at 1:10pm

Im calm love, im sat here drinking my Vodka, im practically sedated

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 9/10/08 at 1:23pm

Bully for you!

Now....I think we can all agree that the best songs in the piece are the mother-daughter duets. In my opinion, they work largely because they sound like the lyrics come from the characters rather than a writer trying to sound like a teenager. But my question is: Would these songs work without the considerable oomph brought to them by that force of nature Betty Buckley? Her steely delivery is incomparable, unlike anything else. Who could top her?

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 9/10/08 at 1:56pm

Now thats a good question

And i think you do need a powerhouse to do them songs, when Cook did it here in the UK she sang it much more operatic and they felt flat, Linzi performance went through the roof when Betty joined the cast.

However the workshop cast was also pretty good with a strong female lead playing Margaret, so i think other women could pull of the role too.I dont think they will top Betty though

Alice Ripley would be good i think

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 9/10/08 at 2:59pm

It's just a thoroughly mediocre flop musical no one likes and no one would put their money behind.

Producers put their money behind worse shows. MUCH worse.

I'm not sold on Alice Ripley. Emily Skinner on the other hand...

JohnPopa - I firmly believe Carrie absolutely must remain the center of the story. She always has been. I understand what you're saying about shifting the narrative, but I think it would be far too difficult in the crucial mother/daughter scenes and would split the focus too much. Carrie has become an iconic figure in American literature. The "I Want" song is crucial in setting up her motives for using her newfound skills, attending the prom, and the final destruction/death. Without it, we're basically left with a weird girl on a killing spree, which might be exciting/terrifying to watch, but ultimately unfulfilling and a total disservice to the source material. I do think it would be an interesting conceptual study for a play, however. Perhaps the events as seen through the eyes of Sue. But it would not be "Carrie".

But then, I'm even more passionate about the novel as it has been my favorite since...well...long before the musical was conceptualized.

[JohnPopa]

Posted: 9/10/08 at 6:12pm

But how much time does the book and movie spend inside Carrie's head? To me, that's where the musical fell off -- sure, Carrie has those universal, Cinderella-esque fantasies but is it really about her getting them or her having them HAPPEN to her? Carrie is not the engine of her success, the other characters shove her into that limelight/fairy tale, for a mixed bag of motivations but THOSE motivations are as much the story of Carrie as Carrie herself. And I think for the purposes of a musical, what people think and feel about Carrie is more dramatic than what she thinks. No one in that story really knows or understands what she thinks -- that's a big part of the story. Let THEM decide what Carrie wants/needs, making her inability to handle it all the more tragic. She's still the center/core of the story but without being the lead character in terms of stage time.

At least that's the Carrie I want to see and I'm a pretty big fan of the book/movie too :)
Updated On: 9/10/08 at 06:12 PM

[philly03]

Posted: 9/10/08 at 6:26pm

"It's just a thoroughly mediocre flop musical no one likes and no one would put their money behind. "

I actually agree with Borstalboy. There's about what 5-7 good songs, none that I would go totally out and about for, but I think any producer would JUMP at a chance to revive Carrie. For the most part, it'd PROBABLY bring in big profits, just because everyone would be so curious/to see it. So again, like I said, does not matter what they put on the stage because so many people will be entertained by the status of the flop, they could probably even use bad reviews to their advantage for all I know,..I mean how many people on this board do you think would actually not go to see a revival of it?

[tourboi]

Posted: 9/10/08 at 7:43pm

songanddance, Trevor Nunn never had anything to do with the RSC Carrie. It was Terry Hands, who was looking to Carrie for a "big commercial musical hit" to equal Nunn's success at the RSC (in the form of Les Mis).

[tourboi]

Posted: 9/10/08 at 7:52pm

"It's just a thoroughly mediocre flop musical no one likes and no one would put their money behind. "

Really? No one likes it? Hmm. I like it (a lot, actually). And many here (and elsewhere) have said the same....

I'd put money behind a revival, given the show's cult status being as strong as it is.

[philly03]

Posted: 9/10/08 at 7:57pm

"Really? No one likes it? Hmm. I like it (a lot, actually). And many here (and elsewhere) have said the same....

I'd put money behind a revival, given the show's cult status being as strong as it is."

As I said, I'd put my money into a revival of this too. But again, it's not an issue if the material is good (which most is not), the cult fans (& many others) would see it to see what it's all about.

[JohnPopa]

Posted: 9/10/08 at 8:06pm

I think people are overestimating the morbid fascination with this show. Sure, theater people go on about it but most people outside the loop don't even know there was a musical version of 'Carrie,' don't think it would be a particularly good idea for a musical and probably don't think it would be fun to drop a full-priced theater ticket price to see a show known only for being a really big mess.

'Come See That Debacle You Missed The First Time' probably isn't the most effective marketing strategy for a show.

[philly03]

Posted: 9/10/08 at 8:13pm

You'd be suprised about weird/bizarre marketing. And according to people on this board, Carrie (novel + film) is HUGE deal to normal people. Personally, I seem to find more people know what 'It' is other than Carrie (but Carrie is better!).

Regardless, Carrie has a memorable story, but it is a LITTLE awkward I would think for a musical (I believe there was a play a few years back that was small-scaled but moderately successful?). It would still draw Stephen King's fans (generally), as I see that he has only got more famous than 20 years ago.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 9/10/08 at 8:23pm

Ask the average person on the street what they think of the idea of a musical based on the Stephen King book CARRIE and most will laugh in your face. So, anybody who thinks that producers would "jump" to put 20 million dollars into a revival of CARRIE because its a musical with a 'cult following' is totally delusional! The entire cult audience for CARRIE would fill a Broadway theatre for about 8 performances, which is what really makes it only ideal for some type of concert staging.

And don't point to examples like XANADU which spun of a marketing campaign highlighting that it was based on a terrible film. XANADU, fun as it is, has yet to return a penny of its initial investment and will likely close by years end at a complete financial loss.

The subject of CARRIE actually came up in conversation with a producer friend of mine recently and she said she was actually fairly certain the original rights to musicalize CARRIE had since reverted back to Stephen King. Perhaps thats one reason why there hasn't been an actors fund performance.

If thats true, of course, this leaves open the opportunity for some other crazy (genius) composing team to have their crack at the material...




Updated On: 9/10/08 at 08:23 PM

[FlyingMonkey1223]

Posted: 9/10/08 at 10:12pm

Stephen King does not own the rights to "Carrie: The Musical." He owns certain character rights, but the music and choreography of the show are owned by seperate people. You'd be suprised how many people would go see it if they revived it. Michael Bennett...you are obviously not very well schooled on the general public and what they are interested in seeing. I think Carrie: The Musical would work for todays generation far better then it ever could in the 70s and 80s. Adults, and teens alike would go see it.
Updated On: 9/10/08 at 10:12 PM

[tourboi]

Posted: 9/10/08 at 10:25pm

Like I said, I'd invest in it if I could. And I'd produce it, if the rights were made available to me commercially.

And while I'd certainly target the "cult" following, I'd be doing it because I do believe that with some work, the show can be great.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 9/10/08 at 10:33pm

Monkey --

Thats not exactly true. It would depend on the terms of the original contract. I'm not saying Stephen King owns the rights to the music and lyrics, but he does control the base property. If the original terms to produce a musical based on one of his novels has expired, he could certainly prevent it from being produced again if he wished.

A similar issue came up with the recent new musical of GONE WITH THE WIND. Though Harold Rome first musicalized the work in the 70s, the option to produce the actual material reverted back to the Margaret Mitchell estate long ago, which is what opened the door for the new musical version of WIND that recently flopped in the West End.

And I see absolutely no evidence to support that the 'general public" is interested in seeing CARRIE. How do you know adults and teens alike would go see a show that received horrible reviews and ran for five performances 20 years ago?

CARRIE is not some forgotten masterpiece. Its not THE GOLDEN APPLE. It remains a show that has about 4 great songs in it and a alot of unspeakably horrible material surrounding it. Even a great director isn't going to be able to hide that. And no mainstream audience is going to pay 125 dollars for a piece of garbage long enough to keep a 20 million dollar musical afloat long enough to recoup. I don't care what its based on.


Updated On: 9/10/08 at 10:33 PM

[FlyingMonkey1223]

Posted: 9/10/08 at 10:56pm

Broadway is very different then it was 20 years ago. CARRIE would have never closed so soon if it had opened anytime in the last few years. The fact is, CARRIE was a hit financially. The show WAS making money, but because of the bad reviews the foreign financial backers of the show pulled out and closed the show quickly because they didn't want to be embarassed for banking a "bad" show. Many shows on Broadway have found followings. I figure if a show about drug addicts, AIDS and homosexuals can hit it big anything can if it targets the right generation and audience. When "WICKED" opened the reviews were not flattering. Nor were reviews flattering for "Beauty and the Beast" yet it still found itself an audience.

Stephen King only own character rights to Carrie. He has granted permission in the past for groups to do their own musical version of Carrie with their own original songs, but he does not own the rights to any of the songs that were in the original Stafford/Broadway production or the original choreography rights, as he has mentioned before in past interviews.

As for paying lots of money for a "piece of garbage"...just about every Broadway show has premium seating prices, and everytime I've seen a show they are usually full..and I've seen some real stinkers so people are willing to pay to see shows that they might not even like.
Updated On: 9/10/08 at 10:56 PM