She's Back! CARRIE - First preview !!! - Page 10

[best12bars]

Posted: 2/1/12 at 2:58pm

I love that Piper Laurie (in her interview here on BWW) said when she first got the script she thought it was a comedy or a parody.

That says a lot about her approach to the role and her thinking. DePalma questioned her during production, and she had to adjust and rethink her approach as they filmed. But to me, this says so much about her brilliance. DePalma went for the horror and seriousness of Margaret White while Piper Laurie was thinking "this has to be funny."

So you get that wonderful performance that mixes both the horror and humor of Margaret White.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 2/1/12 at 3:07pm

Well one brilliant choice Piper Laurie makes is her absolute exultation in her religion. Take the scene where she calls on Sue's mother with the religious pamphlets; she's filled with a kind of zealous warmth until she realizes that Mrs. Snell isn't interested and is trying to get rid of her. Mrs. White's personality turns on a time and you see how mentally unbalanced she is.

And of course the brilliant final scene in which she stabs Carrie with a huge smile on her face because she is filled with such 'religious exhilaration' -- terrifying.

Marin's Mrs. White is just a grump. Again, for my money she's played in this revival just way too seriously. They try to humanize her to a degree that just isn't fun or interesting.

[doodlenyc]

Posted: 2/1/12 at 3:08pm

"Ah pray that you fahnd Jezzush!

[missthemountains]

Posted: 2/1/12 at 3:17pm

Wow, what a thread.

I have to say, a lot of what's been said here has that the revival has been called "safe" in comparison to the original. I would agree that this version is certainly a lot more toned down than the original by the looks of it, but I think that the original and this version play to two different audiences. The original's stakes were high because it was playing in a big Broadway theatre and wanted to try to be this weird "musical for an MTV generation" concept piece, while at the time, the '76 film was still very relevant and fresh in the audiences' minds and the book certainly reflects that. This version has a totally different agenda - it wants to make Carrie an actual conventional musical for a modern audience, which is where I think people are harboring a lot of amnesty and disdain.

This Carrie wants to be good, and it wants to speak to a different generation and become successful. I'll admit it, it won't be the same if this piece ever gets big (i.e, transfers to Broadway or another bigger Off-Broadway house, or becomes licensable) because then it won't be the flop that we know in love anymore - it'll become a success, which some people on here seem to be very against the very idea of. But why should Carrie stay a cult-classic underground 80's musical meant only for flop-lovers and theatre fanatics? I think that it's both a good and bad thing that this Carrie is playing to a new audience. True, it's not the Carrie we knew and love: it's modern, it's smaller, it's whatever you want to call it, but I admire this revival a lot because of its differences, and while not all of you have to agree with me, I think more should see this revival from that viewpoint.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 2/1/12 at 3:18pm

And yes, sadly the cut Margaret's line about Carrie's "dirty pillows" - can't risk the audience laughing at that one.

[best12bars]

Posted: 2/1/12 at 3:19pm

That's a shame, MB. Marin is certainly capable of approaching the role any number of ways.

Is it in the writing of Margaret in this adaptation, or do you think it's more a directing/acting choice?

[best12bars]

Posted: 2/1/12 at 3:22pm

"This Carrie wants to be good, and it wants to speak to a different generation and become successful."

Yes, but taking yourself too seriously doesn't make you "good," "better," or "successful."

[Idiot]

Posted: 2/1/12 at 3:22pm

No dirty pillows? I see a missed merch opportunity....

[best12bars]

Posted: 2/1/12 at 3:25pm

That "dirty pillows" line is from the original novel, too. That "laugh" has always been risked ... I guess until now. And that's not Marin's fault that it was taken out.

Updated On: 2/1/12 at 03:25 PM

[newintown]

Posted: 2/1/12 at 3:25pm

"Yes, but taking yourself too seriously doesn't make you "good," "better," or "successful.""

Bravo. "Play to a different generation," my foot. That's such a tired old card to play. Quality knows no generation.

[Idiot]

Posted: 2/1/12 at 3:26pm

"Quality knows no generation."

Bingo.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 2/1/12 at 3:32pm

I think most of the people who are die hard fans of the original would likely post that they would like nothing more to see this become a hit. I don't really see anyone fetishizing the 1988 production and condemning this production for making different choices or for trying to make the story telling in this incarnation more coherent.

But, in my opinion, the search as you say for 'conventionality' is robbing the piece of the very thing that makes it intriguing to begin with.

As as been discussed, nobody reads the book CARRIE because they want a realistic story about the hardships of the teen years; nobody watches the film because they want to see ultra realistic depiction of high school and bullying.

CARRIE has endured as a book and as a film because it takes the horrors of high school and sensationalizes them in a really juicy, gory, deliciously over the top allegory of revenge.

Sure we're supposed to feel sorry for Carrie, but we are also supposed to gasp in shock at her home life, be unnerved by her 'special powers' and cheer with satisfaction at her deathly payback to all those assholes who made her life hell.

Those are the elements that have made this a classic. These wonderfully wicked elements are what keeps this from being just another Judy Blue book. Trying to make it conventional for a mass audience is going to backfire because you can't do that without robbing the property of its entire appeal.





Updated On: 2/1/12 at 03:32 PM

[best12bars]

Posted: 2/1/12 at 3:41pm

I think the writers and perhaps the director are to blame for going this intentional direction, especially after watching that BWW interview with them from yesterday.

They talk very passionately about how relevant and contemporary the issues of bullying and religious zealots are today, but they've decided to approach those "very serious" themes ... very seriously.

The wonderful thing about Margaret is that some of those humorous moments MB pointed out from the film actually serve to make this "crazy woman" a little more accessible to the audience. We can laugh, even nervously, at her. Or at least laugh her off. It's the same thing with the other students. They should all have their funny moments, too. I love the scene with Nancy Allen and John Travolta in the car, where they go from flirty to smacking the hell out of each other and back again. Not taking someone like Margaret White or Chris or Billy seriously is one of the true horrors of bullies and religions zealots.

So, by making (especially) Margaret White more "serious" in a straightforward approach to the character, they've actually defanged her.

Updated On: 2/1/12 at 03:41 PM

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 2/1/12 at 3:46pm

And to answer your earlier question best12 regarding Mazzie's performance; I think its directorial. I've certainly seen Marin be very funny on stage; as an actress I think she can do anything and is capable of doing something way more interesting than the one note characterization they've currently settled on.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 2/1/12 at 3:52pm

"This Carrie wants to be good..."

Maybe she's not so different, Carrie and we.

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 2/1/12 at 4:17pm

I'm sympathetic to Stafford Arima and his desire to make this revival a more emotional experience...not to mention a more competent one! However, every piece of media released by MCC (and every report from last night) confirms everything that worried me about this production.

We're living through this terribly unfortunate fad of "gritty reboots" in movies and "edgy re-toolings" on TV. Everything has to be "real" and "accessible" and "relatable" at the expense of flavor or uniqueness. I am sick of the humorlessness and ordinariness of nearly everything that's being cranked out.

Basically, pop culture is terrified of genre right now. But, of course, genre is what separates Carrie from an After School Special. A good adaptation of Stephen King's novel should respect the horror conventions that he used to surprise, move, and tickle his readers. If you're not going to use horror conventions to create your emotional experience, then don't do Carrie.

Of course, the original production failed on many levels to translate King to the stage. Still, its supreme weirdness has made it the object of cult obsession that it still is. It had buckets of personality and creepiness even if it didn't have buckets of blood. A Carrie that can't run on its own weirdness needs to at least honor what made the original work.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 2/1/12 at 4:26pm

And to that end, if this were the production that had opened on Broadway in 1988 the show would have probably run a few weeks, closed, and be completely forgotten today.

[best12bars]

Posted: 2/1/12 at 4:27pm

Taking the humor out of Margaret White doesn't make her more "real." Not remotely. Actually, it make her less believable as a person. She's "flat" and two-dimensional. She's only "one thing," which is like old TV Western villains used to be in their black hats.

You've seen the clips of religious zealots on the news and on YouTube. Remember the Heaven's Gate crazy man, responsible for the mass suicide in Rancho Santa Fe, CA?

He talks like a children's TV show host. It's almost laughable. He's cheerful, accessible, and bright and sunny.

He's also deadly. And he's real.

Updated On: 2/1/12 at 04:27 PM

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 2/1/12 at 4:30pm

Great points, both of you.

[binau]

Posted: 2/1/12 at 4:55pm

There are still 33 previews to go. More than enough time to get a bucket of blood and make Margaret uncomfortably funny...I think the long preview period suggests they knew they going to be making changes.

Updated On: 2/1/12 at 04:55 PM

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 2/1/12 at 5:02pm

^But is it enough time to put back "I'm Not Alone?"

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 2/1/12 at 5:05pm

Yes, yes - all this -goes without saying - is in response to what was seen last night. Anything can happen over previews. We'll see what happens.

[binau]

Posted: 2/1/12 at 5:08pm

https://www.broadwayworld.com/videoplay.php?colid=336754

I didn't notice they had interviews etc.. now.

(nvm I think it might have been mentioned earlier though).


Btw, they keep talking about how contemporary the themes are today with bullying etc

Because it is discussed a lot recently, do they address gay bullying at all e.g. through the ensemble/in "In"?

Updated On: 2/1/12 at 05:08 PM

[a-mad]

Posted: 2/1/12 at 5:21pm

"^But is it enough time to put back "I'm Not Alone?" "

Amen! I can't get this song out of my head. Of all the songs that got cut, this one hurts the most.

Oh, and if they add it, can Molly sing it like this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uedIMUuosnw

Love it...

[blaxx]

Posted: 2/1/12 at 5:27pm

If she sings it like Natalie Weiss, I'd pour the bucket of blood over her head myself!