She's Back! CARRIE - First preview !!! — Page 23
Posted: 2/6/12 at 6:00pm
CARRIE TV Commercial
Tony Kushner: You can sing it at my funeral.
Posted: 2/6/12 at 8:32pm
Posted: 2/6/12 at 8:36pm
Then you dont need blood.
Posted: 2/6/12 at 9:32pm
Also I thought the commercial was bad, it makes no sense it makes me even more confused about why Carrie is a musical. I'll remain optimistic for the new version, but it is kind of a ridiculous property to musicalize.
Updated On: 2/6/12 at 09:32 PM
Posted: 2/6/12 at 9:38pm
Then heaven help us, then. Thank you, Jane, for elucidating this.
I think the creaive staff needs to work on the girls' reactions to Carrie's dress. It's not clear when they start oohing and aahing over it, if it's genuine admiration or a put-on to toy yet further with Carrie.
The latter would make more sense in this context, but the staging seems to indicate the former. And If they are just putting her on, they should have some sort of private grimaces among themselves to indicate that. But if they actually admire it, as seems to be the case, then why wouldn't they themselves have chosen a traditional prom dress instead of the monstrosities they're wearing?
And then there's Sue's blue dress, much spoken of, but never seen. I wonder.... traditional or Halloween style? Too bad we'll never know. (Just like we'll never know about Sally's green dress in Follies) It's left unworn.... what a waste of money! And why couldn't she go with another guy to the prom, so that she could attend the proper way? Would her parents let her give up this iconic moment in one's lifetime?
So much makes so little sense in Carrie.
Posted: 2/6/12 at 9:45pm
And why would Sue wear her prom dress to a prom she is not 'attending'?
Posted: 2/6/12 at 9:55pm
Posted: 2/6/12 at 10:05pm
Exactly. First, she should have abandoned her idiotic scheme and have gone with her boyfriend in the first place. But if she insisted on carrying it out, then she should have gone to it with another guy. Her boyfriend did with another girl, didn't he?
Posted: 2/6/12 at 10:18pm
She asked Tommy to take Carrie, it's not like he ran off with someone else. Maybe she did not want to be at the prom without him.
Carrie has many plot holes (book,movies and musical) this is not one of them.
Posted: 2/6/12 at 10:21pm
I do think a lot of that new stuff for the two of them is superfluous. Nobody is going to come out of Carrie caring deeply about Sue and Tommy and if they do it's probably at the expense of the main characters.
One thing this production totally glosses over which I'm surprised at given how much they've built up his role, is Tommy's death-- in the book and film he is actually knocked out by one of the buckets used to rig the blood. In this production I'm not even sure what happens to him- it's kind of a staging mess.
Posted: 2/6/12 at 11:34pm
Updated On: 2/6/12 at 11:34 PM
Posted: 2/7/12 at 6:15am
EDIT; Another major change is that in the book, she destroys the entire town, not just the high school. They couldn't afford to do that in the film, so they just had her burn down the school, flip Chris and Billy's car, and go home.
If the musical is being "symbolic" in its approach to her destruction, why not go back to her burning down the whole town? They're not lighting any matches here anyway, so what difference does it make? You might as well say that's what she does.
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
Updated On: 2/7/12 at 06:15 AM
Posted: 2/7/12 at 8:10am
It's pretty obvious that Sue and Tommy talk about the prom a lot to establish what they are giving up to help her (the Prom with the one you love is a big deal to kids). On top of that Tommy acts out their version of the prom so they have their little moment. Sue is not going to go to Prom because how is Carrie going to feel if Sue is looking over and keeping an eye on them all the time. And she would simply rather not go with anyone other that Tommy.
As for the way Tommy dies, i agree his death should be seen, it's important to see that since in reality Tommy did nothing wrong. The 88 production did not show him die either (just Billy and Chris).
Posted: 2/7/12 at 8:14am
Christy Altomare deserves a special mention...I was so very impressed by this young, pretty actress and think she is the perfect Sue. Molly Ranson totally deserves all the praise she's been getting but I'm surprised almost no one has talked about the nice job Christy does. Who is your all-time favorite Sue? Amy Irving was great but I think Christy could be better--she looks younger and can sing!
Also, I was wondering if people could give an example of a new lyric that they really liked or didn't like. I was disappointed that they dropped the lyric from "In" where the boys sing, "...I hope that no one thinks that I'm-- gay!"
But I think my favorite new lyric was at the prom in the reprise of Unsuspecting Hearts when Carrie sings to Miss Gardner, "Well, I guess I'm not the only one who ever felt this way/Now, I'm thinking suddenly/You got through it, why not me?"
Please share your thoughts....
Posted: 2/7/12 at 8:17am
They set the story's major event into motion by deciding to invite Carrie to the prom. We need to know enough about their personal motivations in doing that, absolutely, but not more. There's no payoff to it, so why waste the time?
EDIT: When I hear things like "Why does Carrie go from not knowing what a period is to putting on all this makeup and fixing her hair?" I see there are areas in need of development far more important than a secondary love story like Tommy and Sue.
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
Updated On: 2/7/12 at 08:17 AM
Posted: 2/7/12 at 9:09am
Sue is arguably the biggest role in the revised version and I think Christy Altomare does a nice job, though I think the character is less interesting without some of the ambiguity I mention above.
Posted: 2/7/12 at 9:17am
Not only that, but teenagers don't always know or understand why they do what they do, good or bad.
Sue's impulse is to do this. She may not be able to voice exactly why. I find that realistic and refreshing for a high school senior.
Just like all the girls who shouted "plug it up!" and threw tampons at Carrie. They didn't all know exactly why they did it. It was a terrible thing to do, and they were bullies, and in this story, they pay for it with their lives.
But we don't need to "dig deep" on stage to understand why.
I'll give the classic answer to all of the above, good and bad: "Because they felt like it."
EDIT: And I will even add that this is the very reason ("because they felt like it") that Stephen King hurls back at us saying it can ultimately create monsters.
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
Updated On: 2/7/12 at 09:17 AM
Posted: 2/7/12 at 9:31am
I can't help comparing the show to the film, and Amy Irving had a streak of malevolence in her pretty face and also in her performance. I thought she was completely right for the part, while Christy could easily be replaced, I thought.
Posted: 2/7/12 at 9:37am
To me without that line, you don't quite a) get why Margaret reacts the way she does to the news of Carrie's period and b) get what a lunatic she really is.
Posted: 2/7/12 at 10:04am
Posted: 2/7/12 at 10:19am
Posted: 2/7/12 at 10:41am
MB makes a good point here, as he always does.
Fact is, due to their assorted idiocies, I found myself more intrigued, bemused, and amused by the teens than by Carrie and her deranged mother.
Posted: 2/7/12 at 10:42am
When she stabs Carrie, she chose to think of this as the most wonderful gift she could ever give her daughter.
When Carrie is killing Margaret, she also chose to think of it as terrific. She was enjoying it, because now she would be with God. She was going to her Heavenly Father, and Carrie was giving her that as well. So each time she's impaled and feels pain, it's the most wonderful feeling she could imagine.
blocked: logan2, Diamonds3, Hamilton22
Updated On: 2/7/12 at 10:42 AM
Posted: 2/7/12 at 10:54am
BroadwayWorld TV