She's Back! CARRIE - First preview !!! — Page 25

The senior "kids" in the movie were all 22-26 years old in real life.

Betty Buckley pointed out that she was also 26 years old when she played Miss Collins, the same age as a few of her "students." She said she had a real "attitude" back then, and she seemed to gravitate easily toward "authority figure" characters. So she seems a little older than she was, while some her same age seem a bit younger. It's all about the illusion anyway.

She also mentioned that she dubbed the voice of the little boy on the bike who taunts Carrie on her way home. He was played by DePalma's real-life nephew.

---

Judy
Kuhn!

---

why wouldnt they start furiosly texting when Carrie began the destruction? It would've been on youtube! There'd be no need to interrogate Sue!

We can assume that at the very least Carrie can jam a cell signal. But I see no reason why several of them can't pull their phones out to discover they don't work.

I'm still disappointed that Carrie doesn't destroy the whole town the way she does in the book. The thing about "Carrie" is that it's a horror story. And Carrie becomes a monster on a rampage. It's bad enough that they barely show the high school rampage in the stage show. They cut right to the aftermath, and while that may be effective, they cut the "monster." And Carrie IS a monster. At least she becomes one. She's not a telekinetic victim, even if we understand her motives and how she was driven to destruction.

She's a monster. It's a horror story about her becoming a monster.

I wouldn't want to rob the audience of that critical aspect, even as they cheer her on or root for her or understand why she does what she does. It should give them all pause that she takes it that far. It also gives them a greater opportunity to examine how they feel about her actions.

In the movie, it was for budgetary purposes that they couldn't have her destroy the whole town. In a musical that is depicting it so abstractly, why not "go for it" in the narrative? Why is she still just destroying the high school? She shouldn't be selective or merciful toward anyone at that point.

EDIT: That's another missing element here (and in the movie) ... in the book, Carrie doesn't just kill the people who teased her and laughed at her. She kills everybody in the town. Strangers. People she's never met. She shows no mercy.

The only one in the town--not just the high school--who survives, is Sue.

---

Updated On: 2/8/12 at 01:21 PM

Besty, as much as Carrie fits the literal description of the word "monster", I see her as a victim who, after being tormented and bullied to her last nerve, finally explodes and gets her revenge. The fact that she destroys the whole town says to me just how heinous the town (as represented by the high schoolers) was, and how Carrie reached her boiling point.

Rather than see her as a monster, I cheered her in getting revenge. Something we all have wished to get at one time or other in our lives, I think.

---

I think you are actually both right. In the book Carrie really does become a monster during the destruction. She destroys the people and the town with the same glee the girls had in throwing tampons at her. King is definitely trying to make a statement in that.

When she returns home, there is a sort of return to the victim we've experienced throughout the story. Carrie as a character of course dies and in the book brings the whole pitiful world down around with her in flames as she herself extinguishes.

I think we are supposed to in turns be frustrated, sympathetic, horrified, exhilarated, scared and saddened by the character. That's what makes CARRIE as a girl and a story so utterly compelling.

I definitely think her character and the story are written for us to cheer her on ... but we also have to realize we're cheering a "mass-murderer." Someone who kills for "justified" revenge but also randomly kills people she's never come in contact with in her life.

I understand all the reasons why she does it, but to remove these impulse killings that have no direct bearing on her circumstances cheats the audience of an added element for them to consider while they root for her.

(I still think Stephen King's main point in this book is that WE'RE the "monster" for having perpetuated a society that can produce a Carrie White-type victim/murderer.)

---

Updated On: 2/8/12 at 01:42 PM

Jane, "Carrie" of course is fiction. But it can be argued that their tormentors helped create the Columbine killers, who didn't even bother to shoot most the people who bullied them. By the time they drew their guns they were, indeed, monsters.

^ That's my point exactly.

For a creative team that seems enthusiastically dedicated to bringing this story into a parallel with today's headlines, that's a critical aspect that they're all but sweeping under the carpet: Carrie's rampage.

It's like writing a piece about the Columbine disaster and then not ever showing the actual disaster. Everything leading up to it, and then you jump cut to after it happened.

I think there should be an "abstract" way to depict her full rampage with lighting, sound effects, perhaps having Carrie walk slowly out into the audience as we hear car breaks, thinks crashing, flipping over, people screaming. I get that it's not going to be literal, but it shouldn't be "hidden" or removed either.

---

owen and newintown,

Believing that what is seen in the media and in fiction causes people to repeat in real life is a topic of huge controversy which would probably be a long thread on this board.

---

The best part about "Carrie" is that everyone involved is both a victim and perpetrator. They are innocent and guilty.

Even the audience who cheers them on. The "innocent bystanders." (That's why I think having her come out into the audience during her rampage would be effective. She is destroying everybody, even the third-party observers of her story.)

And Carrie (herself) must have her moment on stage where she is a murderer. And killing her mother doesn't count, since in context it's self-defense. In fact, if this were her only visible "crime," she would be found innocent by a jury and released on those very grounds.

We need to see the "monster" that was created by "us" (society).

---

Updated On: 2/8/12 at 02:37 PM

So Sue narrates it? I think that's a huge cheat, as much as if Sue were to inform the audience that Carrie went home and killed her mother and then herself.

The end.

I'm glad it's "mentioned" but ...

Why are we hearing about a major climactic event of this story from a third-party character?

It's like watching a theatrical adaptation of "Titanic" and having some third-party character walk on stage and say, "And then the ship sank."

Oh, wait ...

---

It's the ancient "Greek chorus" approach, where major events happen off-stage.

Blah.

---

The most interesting part of the interrogation in the book is in the sequences in which Sue talks about the psychic connection she and Carrie share during the destruction and at the time of Carrie's death.

It's compelling and moving and if they want to have that silly narrative device, they should pull that material into some monologue for Sue because her explanation of the psychic-emotional connection with Carrie in those last minutes it is really the only reason the interrogation sequence even exists in the novel.