She's Back! CARRIE - First preview !!! - Page 18

[Owen22]

Posted: 2/4/12 at 9:32am

Does Margaret still put Carrie in the prayer closet in this incarnation?

I think "steamroller" actually is a good term for the Margaret from King's novel. She is a big woman. Hefty. Wagnerian almost. That's why I loved the original casting of Barbara Cook so much. She is a force of nature wielding her power over Carrie as much as Carrie's force of nature is wielded over the prom (and in King's novel the entire town).

I love me some Patricia Clarkson, but her performance in the TV movie was as much a fail as everything else about it.

Updated On: 2/4/12 at 09:32 AM

[best12bars]

Posted: 2/4/12 at 9:46am

I watched a bit of the remake. The girl who played Carrie looked good, but Patricia Clarkson was so miscast (and pretty bad, actually), I had to turn it off. I lasted about 15 minutes before I stopped. I love Clarkson as an actress, but that really was a fail.

I do remember that Margaret was a "big lady" in the book, and I remember thinking Cook was good casting from a physical perspective (at the time).

Piper Laurie really set the bar, though. Sissy Spacek, too. Actually the whole movie cast, who were all virtually unknown with the exception of Laurie, who came out of retirement to play the part. It's a testament to how memorable they all were that so many of them went on to become stars.

Updated On: 2/4/12 at 09:46 AM

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 2/4/12 at 11:30am

The look of Cook was great in the original 88 show but she was awful in the show. Clarkson was OK in the remake, lots more human....and considering that King himself said he liked her version of Margaret that should tell people what King had in mind for the role.

Nobody is going to beat Piper Laurie from the film, but her terrifying Margaret is not the one that is the right one, none of them are, it’s how different versions and different people interpret the material. That’s why some fans of the book complained at the casting of Sissy in the film (she does not fit the mold of the Carrie in the book), or Betty in the show, or Angela in the TV movie and now Marin in the new show.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 2/4/12 at 11:39am

Stephen King like a lot of writers isn't necessarily the greatest judge of the theatrical versions of his material. Suffice to say that Clarkson is almost nothing like the character of Margaret in the novel, so I'm not sure that his praising her performance indicates much in terms of how he envisioned the part originally.

[best12bars]

Posted: 2/4/12 at 11:40am

I really don't mind different interpretations or looks for these characters (or any characters, for that matter). I'm not a purist.

It just has to work. And when it doesn't, I go back to reference other interpretations that did.

EDIT: I think King was very likely "talking it up" as part of publicity for the show. When have you heard any author come out saying some interpretation of their work sucked, right before it opened? (Years later, that's a different story, but during the junkets and advance interviews? All the press? Never! It's all positive and encouraging. That's show business, and it's part of the game.)

Updated On: 2/4/12 at 11:40 AM

[RSrichie]

Posted: 2/4/12 at 11:55am

Looking for the 1st preview audio (or any other) Will buy or trade (tons to trade) Thanks seeing it the final weekend. Can't wait!

[best12bars]

Posted: 2/4/12 at 12:04pm

Dude, seriously. Don't ask for illegal stuff on a public message board.

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 2/4/12 at 12:08pm

I seem to remember during the release of DREAMCATCHER, King was praising it up as one of the best adaptations of his books. And who knows, maybe he still does think that career-ending fiasco is the penultimate, but the timing of the comment with its release was...interesting.

BTW, did you know the TV movie remake was supposed to be the pilot for a series? Where I suppose Carrie would go from town to town, get picked on, and then kill everybody week after week...? Even TV folks got the drift that it was a dumb idea but still released the TVM to get a few extra bucks. Oy, the pain! Clarkson recovered but poor Angela Bettis!

[best12bars]

Posted: 2/4/12 at 12:10pm

A weekly series?!

LOL

That's as bad as "Titanic: The Series."

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 2/4/12 at 1:59pm

I don't think she was going from town to town killing people lol, but yes it was the pilot for a TV series hence the change of ending which left it wide open. I thank god it never happened.

I did not mind the TV adaptation, Angela was good as Carrie and the whole thing was fun (i was glad to see more of the novel in the TV adaptation) but it all seemed a bit pointless, the original can’t be beat, why bother? Much like The Shinning TV Movie (though that was fun as well)

A friend of mine just got back from seeing Carrie last night and posted on Facebook to me after i asked what he thought.

'It's a beautiful haunting production. Very smart. Love the songs and arrangements. Fab design concept. Pitchford took notes a few seats down. Mazzie got sustained applause as did many numbers. It's really close.'

[bobbybaby85]

Posted: 2/4/12 at 2:53pm

The Carrie series was in fact going to end on the note that each town Sue and Carrie ended up at, things went sour and Carrie snapped killing everyone and having to flee on the run again.

There used to be a 3 episode synopsis online. The third episode had them checking into a motel somewhere and meeting a washed up film maker (to be played by Brian DePalma) and a retired novelist (to be played by King himself). Both of them would be killed at the end of the episode. I know this sounds completely rediculous, but I swear to you this is what was planned.

So for King to say it was the best adaptation, of course he did. He had stake in the series that was supposed to follow. And I believe the series went around offices for a couple years after the remake before officially becoming a never-gonna-happen.

King has also gone on record saying he liked the original Broadway production.

King's a smart man. He's a world-wide best-seller whose film adaptations bring even more money in. He's one of the wealthiest novelists alive. I'm sure his attitude concerning any remakes of his material is either they'll be better than the original adaptation or they won't and the original will still exist for people to enjoy. Most, if not all, of his work is still in print and if his real preference is none of the adaptations, people can still go read the book. And they do, Carrie is still sold and bought everywhere.

King had to okay musicalization of Carrie in the 80s. Those rights were given sometime around 84 when the first workshops were done. I have no doubt that enough time has gone by that King had to okay this revival. Because a licensing company never received the show and King's percentage of the overall piece was ever decided, I'm sure they needed his blessing.

I'm interested to see if King shows up opening night and see what he thinks this time around.

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 2/4/12 at 3:06pm

King actually said only a few years back he did not think the TV version of Carrie was as good as he was hoping, he also slammed The Shining, did not like Thinner and had problems with a few others. He tends to be quite vocal on what he likes and what he does not. And here is a crazy concept, what if he says he likes and does not like......that he likes and does not like?

[Idiot]

Posted: 2/4/12 at 3:06pm

THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION, probably my favorite story of his, could make a breathtaking musical.

[bobbybaby85]

Posted: 2/4/12 at 3:27pm

Honestly, a lot of King's work would make interesting musicals. Because they are so rich with real human characters in fantastic situations, many of them would just require the right team working on them. The Shinning could be thrilling, The Stand could go the route of American Idiot but actually work, Creepshow if expanded could be fun, and Misery could the chilling as well. I think the piece begging mostly for musicalization is It... Pennywise might as well be singing already in the film adaptation.

People throw around that Carrie shouldn't have been musicalized... Well, if you told me you were writing a musical about a group of poor 20 somethings complaining about paying their rent for two hours and singing pop music, I probably would have rolled my eyes and said "good luck with that one". Also, if you told me you were going to interview a bunch of dancers about their lives and then have them stand onstage and talk about it to the audience, I would have done the same thing.

"Bad ideas" for musicals have turned into some rather successful musicals.

And to say that the music in Carrie is bad, yes it is your prerogative to say that, will always be refuted by the many musical theater fans (and professionals) who continue to discover otherwise. There's a reason this thing is being revived... The authors STILL get a couple calls a month from both amateur and professional level theaters wanting to stage the show. Places like Encores wouldn't have tried to do the show if the music was "bad". Producers wouldn't be calling to revive the show in NY over the years if the music was "bad". You can say that you think the music is bad, fine, but to say it in such a definite and absolute way is ludicrous.

Updated On: 2/4/12 at 03:27 PM

[Owen22]

Posted: 2/4/12 at 4:18pm

I think we all (or most of us) acknowledge some of the music is quite extraordinary. And you are right, that's one of the main reasons this show has lived on. But there are numbers that the consensus (and I believe rightly so) find abhorrently bad, bordering on amateurish, especially coming from Oscar winning song writers.

[bobbybaby85]

Posted: 2/4/12 at 4:29pm

^ Some numbers is different than goldenboy's statements the show doesn't have any good music. And he's not the only one who's made comments like that. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, that's what's so wonderful about life, but a comment like that seems to stem from a deeply routed belief that a Carrie musical wouldn't work regardless of who wrote it. If you aren't going to like it no matter how it's done, why not come out and say that? Saying "I will never enjoy a musical version of Carrie. I saw the show and still think this" is very different than saying "I saw the show. It's a musical about a period. The music is bad... etc, etc..."

It's like how people love to hate on Wicked. While I agree... it's not Sondheim, but whatever weaknesses that some may have with the way the show is written one has to realize that they ultimately set out to write a big blockbuster musical... and they succeeded. I wish people who complained about how "bad" that show is could admit the strengths that the show does have. People don't realize that there really "is" an art form in writing a show that will consistently appeal to the tourists and run for years. This formula is MASTERED by the Wicked team. Honestly, a well-written dark musical based on the novel would probably have lasted a year or two at that. And while I'm sure that would appease many of us here on these boards, Stephen Schwartz wanted to write something successful. He did. Updated On: 2/4/12 at 04:29 PM

[darquegk]

Posted: 2/4/12 at 5:55pm

Everyone always says there should be a "Shawshank" musical... I'm way more convinced that a "Green Mile" musical would be a better pick, but that's just me.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 2/4/12 at 6:06pm

I really am more and more convinced that while some of the material for the mother and daughter is truly gorgeous it may very well be slightly misconceived for a musical of CARRIE. I mean you could write the most gorgeous aria imaginable for a musical version of FRIDAY THE 13th, but it wouldn't necessarily be an asset to telling the story.

[Idiot]

Posted: 2/4/12 at 6:12pm

Y'know where I've landed on this idea, Michael Bennett? You never know until you try. And I'm thrilled when people try. Nothing gets me into the theatre faster than when people take a risk.

I mean, try to explain THE GOAT or WHO IS SYLVIA to someone. They won't understand what was accomplished there until they see it. It seriously doesn't sound like it can work.

Now, when a show really takes no risks and STILL fails, that pisses me off beyond words.

Updated On: 2/4/12 at 06:12 PM

[bobbybaby85]

Posted: 2/4/12 at 6:23pm

^ That's so true. It remains to be seen if Carrie's going to work as a musical. But from people who saw it on Broadway and people who've "discovered" the show over the last 24 years... a lot of them not only find the Margaret/Carrie music gorgeous, but it also touched them on a deeper level. Isn't that what a good musical does? A lot of people have said that it's that material that makes a Carrie musical work.

A beautiful aria in a Friday the 13th musical may be completely out of place, but it doesn't make the song any less beautiful.

It'll be interesting to hear what exactly they've done to the Margaret/Carrie material for the revival. People have said that it shows how week it actually is. It's interesting to mention that all songwriters can copyright (and for the most part, all that they actually are responsible for) is the melody line and the lyrics. You can't even copyright chords. Some of the most famous songs ever written were arranged by someone else. Saying that the way the songs are presented in this version shows their weakness, to me, speaks that you didn't like the arrangements, but you cannot blame the authors for that.

If you didn't know Rodgers and Hart wrote Blue Moon only being exposed to the 50s pop rendition from the film version of Grease, it'd be easy to say it was a rather generic run-of-the-mill pop song. If your only exposure to Losing My Mind was Liza Minnelli's, one might think it was one of the less exciting pop songs of the 80s. On one of the videos of it on YouTube, an ignorant (in the sense he doesn't know it's a famous musical theatre piece) comment compares the lyrics to that of a 4th grader's vocabulary. It's the same melody, same lyrics as the original. Stephen Sondheim is still credited as writing it. Presentation is quite important. Some of the best songs ever written can be ruined by bad arrangements and/or bad performances.

Updated On: 2/4/12 at 06:23 PM

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 2/4/12 at 6:26pm

Oh I'm not dismissing trying, or even the work that has been done on this particular production. I do think you can theoretically make a compelling musical of 'anything.' As others have pointed out - some of the most exciting musicals have come from material that initially seems questionable for musicalizing.

I think part of what the creative team is slightly up against is that they (from the very beginning) have tried to re-think part (but not all) of this horror story as a more realistic, compassionate story.

As such, I think that is actually where some of the problems with the material lie. I think the first person who really wrote and articulated about CARRIE with any real depth was Ken Mandelbaum, who seemed to really be arguing that the strength of CARRIE was the mother and daughter material and that the problem was the rest of the material that didn't go with it.

I just wonder if anyone on the creative team ever stopped to contemplate that a lot of the material for the teens - borderline camp that is - is actually a lot closer to the tone of the film that this musical is based on (and I do want to narrow the focus to the film, because this musical really is based on the screenplay for the DePalma movie which Lawrence Cohen also wrote, not the book) and the feeling that this show is actually 'two' different musicals in a lot of ways stems because they chose to treat the Margaret-Carrie scenes musically in a way that is out of character with the tone of the source material.

[Idiot]

Posted: 2/4/12 at 6:32pm

MB, I don't remember if I read this or if the creators told me this, but the musical was conceived under the idea that the story is actually 'operatic'. That explains half of the choices -- but I think you've accurately explained the problem with other half.

Updated On: 2/4/12 at 06:32 PM

[bobbybaby85]

Posted: 2/4/12 at 6:43pm

Michael Gore and Lawrence Cohen got the idea for writing the show while attending a performance of the opera Lulu together. They thought the similarities were striking and that the story of Carrie was very much operatic in nature while being modern at the same time.

It could be there, at the projects genesis, that the problem lies. The story may be operatic, but it being contemporary (even more so in the new production) doesn't lend itself to opera.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 2/4/12 at 6:45pm

That's where tone and structure are so important. Truth be told there are plenty of shows that have contrasting writing styles within them - SWEENEY TODD being a great example. That's a score that has musical styles all over the place, but it still feels cohesive, and I have to tell you one reason I think it all works because SWEENEY really in its own musical-theatre-operatic way pays homage to traditional horror film structure. There is a lot of humour in SWEENEY - a lot of it over the top and campy - and none of that takes away from the tragedy of the story - in fact it inhances it! SWEENEY is more like CARRIE the movie than CARRIE the musical is!

But Sondheim and Hal Prince understood good story telling - and especially good theatrical horror story telling in a way I don't think anyone involved with CARRIE on stage really does.

[Idiot]

Posted: 2/4/12 at 6:55pm

I think you're exactly right MB.

If this team took your FRIDAY THE 13th challenge, it'd be a sorrowful show about homesick teenagers, with a torch number sung by Mrs. Vorhees at the end about 'LOSING MY HEAD'.