She's Back! CARRIE - First preview !!! - Page 30

[best12bars]

Posted: 2/12/12 at 6:43am

Mazzie is capable of playing this part as theatrically layered and grandly horrific as she wants to ... she just doesn't want to.

Arima is capable of steering her in that direction and helping her come up with ways to make the role of Margaret surprising, unsettling, deliciously unstable, curiously pathetic, and downright frightening. He just doesn't want to.

The writers are capable of adding back in the unintentional (for the character) Stephen King humor with lines like "dirty pillows" and "pimples are just God's way of chastising you," and making Margaret turn on a dime (ala Annie Wilkes in "Misery") between quaint and humble "God-fearing" Christian, and monstrous, furious, matriarchal controller and abuser ... they just don't want to.

At some point, I hope they look at what they want ... as opposed to what their audiences want ... and they stop trying to force these "interesting" but unsuccessful theories, merely to appease their own egos. Julie Taymor tried to do that, too. She had to be "creatively right" even when it wasn't working for everyone else.

When you start thinking of your own vision before the good of the show, there's a problem.

Unless, of course, you're merely creating "art" for yourself. But then don't be surprised or upset when people aren't happy with it or offer harsh criticisms or just don't show up at all.

EDIT: By the way, I think Ripley and some of these other suggestions are way too "hard" and "obvious" for Margaret. The beauty of Piper Laurie was her soft, lovely, matronly sweetness ... which she could betray at the drop of a hat. Ripley could do the "strong" part of Margaret, but she's as soft as a bed of nails.

Updated On: 2/12/12 at 06:43 AM

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 2/12/12 at 7:59am

It's funny isn't it, this must be the only show in history where a director has tried to flesh out a character and make her more 3 dimensional and some people are screaming for her to back to a 1 dimensional caricature who spouts passages from the bible and slaps her daughter around lol

[best12bars]

Posted: 2/12/12 at 8:20am

Fleshing her out? What, exactly, is 3-dementional about playing Margaret one way? (Dour.)

Maybe we just want to see her be more like the complex (three-dementional) character Stephen King created, not some new "realistic" creation that belies the story.

Updated On: 2/12/12 at 08:20 AM

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 2/12/12 at 8:47am

When people are talking about what they want to see from her the word that keeps coming up is 'crazy', people are talking about her delivering Eve Was Weak bigger etc. To me (personally) that does not make the part 3 dimensional, it just makes her bigger and louder. I think as much as we all loved Betty in the 88 role for example (and she was a powerhouse) but the critics were right when they said she had no part to play. I know i'm in the minority (on here) but i like the change they have made to her by having her insanity combined with a real humanity, i find her more believable and representing the religious nuts that exist today.

Do i think the crazy side of her, the all fearing god side that takes over could be bigger? yes, but i would not want to loose the other side of her now. I think the fact she shows Carrie love at times, functions on a day to day basis makes her transition to terrifying in moments like Boys Could Dance etc all the more disturbing.

As i said though that's just my opinion, everyone is entitled to there's, that's what has made this debate thread about Carrie all the more fascinating.

[best12bars]

Posted: 2/12/12 at 9:00am

I actually don't think there's anything wrong with Marin's delivery of "Eve Was Weak," and making it "bigger" isn't the right approach at all (although I haven't seen the staging, it's a powerful vocal performance). I don't think she can make it bigger without popping a vocal cord. What sounds so wrong to me is everything leading up to it.

In other words, if you start at "Z" and end at "Z," there's no surprise, no change, no growth or arc during the scene. Nothing to stun, because you've "blown your wad" as soon as the lights go up at the beginning of the (short) scene.

The difference should be the START of that scene, not the end of it. Margaret should start out very pleasant and sweet, yet reserved in that "quaint Christian zealot" way. She should be accessible and quirky, even slightly humorous. You can draw an audience in that way, and we should see the awkwardness and feel an underlying tension. But on the surface, everything is relatively pleasant. We should be allowed those moments of anticipating the "bomb going off." When Carrie tells her about the blood, she should switch over instantly, just as if a light switch went off in her mind. That's how quickly Margaret can change. The stage lighting and the music and definitely the pacing of the scene and transition can all help Marin do this, too.

She should go from A to Z in a split second, and it should be a stunner. It would reveal how unstable and unhinged she is.

You can't begin at "Z" and hope to go further (to where? ... "Z-plus?"). That's a two-dimensional portrayal. It's just one level ... "stern and unforgiving." And ultimately, it's boring.

The set-up to Margaret's mental illness is what is lacking, not the drama. But without the setup, you lose any payoff.

EDIT: Alfred Hitchc0ck used to talk about this ... If you have two people in a scene talking and a bomb goes off, you have a shock in the audience. It's an instant "wow" and then it's gone as quickly as it arrived. Now, if you show the same two people in the same scene talking ... and you show the audience the ticking bomb in advance, so they have time to anticipate it and imagine what's going to happen ... then you show it going off ... you have ten times the payoff.

That's what's missing here.

Updated On: 2/12/12 at 09:00 AM

[My Oh My]

Posted: 2/12/12 at 9:34am

I'm not going to say you're wrong even if I don't agree at all, but my question is how exactly is subduing a character's very outrageous and, yes, crazy disposition making the character more three dimensional? You're inherently moving away from what the character is for one that is supposed to evoke some sort of suggestive sympathy and understanding for her cause? WHAT?

I believe Betty's Margaret White was crazy, yes, but not bouncing off the walls crazy. She was appropriately unhinged and she did it with grace. Those piercing notes were just a small part of her powerhouse performance. Her flawless delivery of the dialogue alone, sounding completely harmless one second and like a raving Westboro Church nutcase the next was absolutely stunning.

Margaret White's journey in the musical has always been the strongest element to me, and I was disappointed that most critics focused on her low-cut night gown in the second act. It seems most people focus on the "crazy" belty numbers. But amidst the terrible staging, weird costumes, and tacky mirrored balls and lasers was a little second act number Mrs. White sings in which she is made more flesh and blood and sympathetic as a mother than doing away with her character for something that reportedly pales in comparison.

Who knows, considering the fact I tend to agree with all of a smattering of peeps on any given discussion site, maybe I'll like Mazzie's Mrs. White. But for now, I only speak out against this EXTREMELY irritating trend of taking the few precious things that worked VERY well in a musical and fixing them where no fixing is needed.

I don't want to see someone channeling Buckley on stage. I just want to see Mrs. White. Not some sanitized version of her that is supposedly deeper due to how much she mirrors all of us. Anyone who believes someone of that belief system and methods of undoing a wrong involving their own child mirrors them is gullible at best.

Oh, yeah, and that second act number is called "When There's No One." It actually made me shed a tear for the crazy broad not because I could relate to anything she feels but because the pain over what she is about to do not only makes her human, it highlights just how far gone she is, and that's sad.

Not every crazy human being needs to be relatable to be human. The fact she is a nut and can still feel the angst typical of a mother for her child makes her scary. It also makes her interesting and complex.

[Jane2]

Posted: 2/12/12 at 9:48am

To state this simply, I don't see anything positive about taking one of the most successful (in literature and film) horror stories and changing it in a very crucial manner so as to diminish both the meaning and effects of the story, thus ending up with a pretty bland product.

For me, they have "Whitewashed " Carrie. Pun intended.

[Idiot]

Posted: 2/12/12 at 3:31pm

Right on, Jane2.

Margaret White requires about the same amount of character development as Mdme. Thenardier. Otherwise, you're taking a story about an abused telekinetic girl and her revenge on the world and turning it into a story about a mother and daughter. Until now, that has not been what this story is fundamentally about at all.

So the creators want to reinterpret the work. Okay, they certainly can since they have the author's permission. They're making the CARRIE that they want to see -- not the one that most fans of the story want to see. I maintain that their reason for this is to turn the show into 'serious, important' theatre.

It's just not. It wants to be wickedly scary and fun theatre. Carrie's telekinesis is not an inconvenience to the plot as it is being treated here.

[once a month]

Posted: 2/12/12 at 7:58pm

Read the book when it came out and found it very disturbing. The movie was fun at the time, although I felt just terrible about Betty Buckley getting cut in half.

Saw the musical today, and I had a good time. I liked the characterizations of each cast member and enjoyed the music a hell of a lot more than the recent Bonnie and Clyde. I was routing for these people, and I was not disappointed. Sure there are better musicals, and there certainly many cheerier musicals, but I thought this was a great Sunday afternoon.

[[e-mail]]

Posted: 2/12/12 at 8:32pm

Yes, there is a new ending! I saw CARRIE's matinee today after seeing the show last week. It was fun to see some small changes and lines that were cut.

(SPOILER!) Before the musical ended with the kids coming on stage after Carrie dies and singing "Once You See" as the big finale. Now, the kids sing the song off stage and its just Sue and Carrie on stage. Also, they got rid of the big huge photo of Carrie which was the final image we saw last week. Now there's no photo and the show ends with Carrie dying in Sue's arms.

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 2/12/12 at 8:39pm

Thought the photo kind of worked, unlike the entire (hilarious) song. Taking the ensemble off of the stage is a good move, at least. What were they doing in Margaret's living room?

[Owen22]

Posted: 2/13/12 at 3:31am

Saw the show this afternoon. As for detected changes, I had heard that the entire cast came on at the end to reprise a song. That does not happen now. That was really all I noticed.

The creators got a lot of things right in this new version. The number one improvement was how they fleshed out the four main teen characters, especially Tommy and Sue. Though not always 100% believable, they have at least deepened the original portraits by giving the kids some subtle quirks, ideas and wants. I'm not sure why so many people are hating on "The World According to Chris" (besides the sad fact it replaces "Don't Waste the Moon"). It sets up the character nicely. Still a little too shallow, I'd like a little more depth to understand why she is like she is, but maybe she's just Chris. King or the screenplay didn't deal with her below the surface much either. But its a solid improvement on the original musical Chris. I'll take it. I wish the actress was better, she somewhat reduces Chris to Hollywood-rom-com-high-school-popular-bitch-cartoon, (cause she's somewhat written thus) but a better actress could have found some subtext. I'm not too fond of Altomare's Sue Snell performance either, as a LOT is there in the writing for a good actress to pull from. At best she's just too earnest, and at worst, she's sorta mechanical and obvious. (I've also never bought the Chris-and-Sue-are-best-friends conceit of the original musical, though it does help with exposition) Billy, like Chris, is written pretty non-dimensionally, but he's Prince Hal compared to what they wrote for Gene Anthony Ray. Here he is, at the very least, vivid. King gave him some class consciousness/jealousy which spikes his interest in joining Chris in revenge, but that was even abandoned for the film. Making him a skater punk in this modern retelling was pretty genius. The actor, even though he looks like he's 32, creates the most realistic high school kid on the stage. A very good performance. I'm not sure how talented an actor Derek Klena is (yet) but everything he did as Tommy was completely truthful.

I have to say I don't understand why everyone is complaining about the "no blood". They've set up the pail in shadow as the climax of a very good new song "A Night We'll Never Forget". When the shadow bucket is tipped, not only is Carrie doused in an extreme red light, the projections and sound design present us with waves of blood flooding the rear of the stage (reminding me of another King trope, the blood-filled elevator in "The Shining") and then microscopic hemoglobin stillness. It did the job for me. Completely. Also, the projections and sound during the destruction are terrific as well. After pinning the students to the wall, Carrie slowly walks out, the doors slam, and the place is blown to pieces. Very, very effective.

Sorta loved the southern Miss Gardner. Carmen Cusak nailed her. Didn't much like Mr. Stephens.

I would say this show is 60% there. I'm just not sure they can fix the other 40%, especially, in my opinion, there is a casting hole at the center of the play.

I do not like Molly Ranson. I'm actually astounded by the people on these boards who go on and on about her. And its not the writing. Its partially direction, but talent-wise I think she is as limited as the girls playing Sue and Chris (okay, she's a little better). Technically she indicates everything, not just her next line, but her next emotion. But the worst is that there is nothing identifying in her portrayal of Carrie White. She is merely a shy girl coming out of her shell. There is nothing of the Other that made Sissy Spacek (and to lesser extents Angela Bettis and Linzi Hateley) so distinct. In her way she is as "modern" as the other girls, nothing to really indicate she was raised in a repressive home. She actually seems fairly well adjusted, I would not at all be surprised if this Carrie secretly stashed Jonas Brothers fanzines under her (non-dirty) pillows. Ranson is good enough that she doesn't ruin the show, but she kept me from caring much about the character. And I'm really easy, I'm already WITH Carrie before the curtain rises. I wanted to cry for her at her humiliation but I didn't even come close.

There are other things that I didn't care for. Sue's narration is totally unnecessary. It seems she's being questioned by the police, but the scenes in the novel that most of the dialogue is taken concerns Sue actually being investigated by a government inquest as America tries to deal with a seemingly true supernatural happening. That was interesting. But its not the musical and nothing she says advances anything in the show. Also, her final scene with Carrie does not have the effect I'm guessing the creators wanted. THAT is the time to go back to the novel and examine Carrie's death scene in the parking lot with Sue as witness.

Enough has been said about Marin's portrayal of Margaret White. It just doesn't work. Did the creators actually think about what it must take, the amount of crazy a mother would have to have, whether she's doing it for God or to save her daughter, to actually plunge an eight inch butcher knife into her daughter's back??? Because of this, the portrayal almost verges on insulting at the end. Marin does what she can, and sings beautifully, but everything else is all wrong.

Hated Sue's new song "Once You See", but the rest of the new songs aren't bad. I miss the joy of "Don't Waste the Moon" and the poignancy of "I'm Not Alone" but most of their replacements are fine. I'm still surprised they didn't change the opening bars of the title tune that are lifted exactly from the song "Call Me". Maybe they figure that song is so old now that no one will remember it. The music is still better than the lyrics as Gore was always more talented than Pitchford. But its still a fairly strong score, and the new orchestrations do their best to give the songs more of a modern sound. I could do without the Stephen Hoggett-lite choreography though.

But, hey. They fixed my biggest gripe about the original musical. My interest has always been what's happening with the inner and outer lives of the high school kids in "Carrie". And they got that almost right. So congratulations on that!

Oh, and finally, I really miss Margaret's "Pimples are the lord's way of chastising you." They even lead up to it with the pie and Carrie complaining about getting zits. And then a generic line I can't even remember. That was sad.








Updated On: 2/13/12 at 03:31 AM

[best12bars]

Posted: 2/13/12 at 6:41am

Thanks for sharing your detailed opinion, Owen22. I enjoyed reading that!

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 2/13/12 at 8:58am

Thanks for the great review Owen

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 2/13/12 at 1:17pm

If Ripley still had the pipes to tear through this role it would have been magical.

Honestly, I thought the role should have gone to Emily Skinner.

[sit&dither]

Posted: 2/13/12 at 3:36pm

"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."

Delurking for a minute just to add my support for Besty's directorial idea. I wholeheartedly agree that the destruction's scope needs to be exapanded in some way, and I believe an exit through house center, in the midst of the "innocent" audience, would more readily establish Carrie as a "monster."

My only hesitation about this exit stems from the lack of blood, a production choice which has already been rehashed enough. (And personally, I'm not overly invested either way in the outcome of the blood vs. light debate.) But in building off the current staging with Besty's idea, I suppose one could keep a red spot from back of house trained on Carrie throughout her exit. However, I fear that this image as she creeps by you would not be nearly menacing enough to instill the level of fear and dread the moment requires. Much more exhilerating would be the instinctual withdrawl from her as she passes for fear of her blood dripping on you than from a reticence to be briefly bathed in her red light. Thoughts?

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 2/13/12 at 4:45pm

Betty Buckley weighs in on the new production. She is very gracious, and praises the new found clarity of the book/score but wishes (like many of us) it were a little more 'dangerous'


CARRIE goes from "R" rated to "PG-13" Updated On: 2/13/12 at 04:45 PM

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 2/13/12 at 5:12pm

Buckley is right on the money. So glad to hear her constructive criticism. Hopefully it will help to legitimize the nearly universal issues that audiences have with the production.

[best12bars]

Posted: 2/13/12 at 7:08pm

sit&dither---thanks very much for "de-lurking" to support the idea! I appreciate it.

And after reading your additional thoughts, and Owen22's thoughts, and Betty Buckley's thoughts, I'm starting to realize that the real issue is the lack of "danger" as Buckley says. The lack of putting the audience ill at ease, making them not sure what's coming next --- even in a story that they know.

I confess I've been "hearing" some of the recent production without seeing it, and right away ... I mean right away with Sue's testimony, I could see (or rather hear) the problem.

In trying to go for the "truth" of any situation they seem to be playing the truthful emotions at full-throttle, but also the "expected," "logical" and "obvious" emotions. I heard it in Sue, Carrie, Margaret ... if someone was supposed to be angry, they were REALLY angry. If someone was supposed to be upset, they were REALLY upset, if someone was supposed to be scared, they were REALLY scared.

So "more" of any expected emotion isn't the answer. It's not even truth. It's overplaying a truth about the characters. That's not going to work. It's the unexpected that will put people on edge, draw them in, make them uncomfortable, and keep them guessing.

With Sue, right at the beginning, she is hugely upset, overwrought, tearful, quivery, etc., because everybody died and the town burned down. This rang so false with me. Sue would be all of those things if she missed her bus, couldn't find her cat, and had a bad day at school. But when you see all of your friends die and the town burn down, I don't think your emotions would be expected or obvious. Sue should be emotionally numb, spent, and disconnected from the events. She should be hazy, confused, slow to respond, and when she does respond, she should sound like a zombie---someone who just had their heart and soul ripped out. Not someone wearing all the obvious and expected emotions on her sleeve.

There's no tension in those first moments ... and while I haven't "heard" the whole thing yet (so maybe they do have some "unexpected" acting moments later on), the Eve Was Weak scene is played the same way.

Carrie is "obviously" upset when she comes home from school. Margaret is "obviously" angry when her daughter tells her what happened. They seem to be working incredibly hard at making MORE of these same emotions. They're never going to trip an audience up that way. Bigger isn't better.

How about Carrie coming through the door quietly, but as if nothing bad happened today? Not until she starts to tell her mother, then she breaks down. It should be a horribly disturbing moment to watch her cave in as she relays the news. Margaret's first reaction to Carrie's answer should be to shut down completely emotionally. I would let Carrie squirm on the stage in silence (other than her whimpering) while we wait for her mother to say something. Anything. Make the audience squirm right along with Carrie. Instead they launch Margaret WAY too quickly into the Eve Was Week song, as if they were racing to the finish line to add adrenaline. MORE emotion, MORE tempo, MORE louder singing, MORE furrowed brows, more, more more.

Hitting the audience over the head with something they're already expecting isn't ever going to make the material "dangerous," as Betty Buckley says she wants. Danger lies in the unknown and unexpected actions and reactions that arrive right when you aren't expecting them.

Updated On: 2/13/12 at 07:08 PM

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 2/13/12 at 7:51pm

I am all for more danger in the show, as long as the real aspect and the bullying aspect is kept, however Betty thinking anything in the 88 production was ‘dangerous’ is hilarious. Between the 2 versions of the musical I think it’s safe to say that the 88 production came off as the lighter campier show, it completely missed the mark of the story, nobody had a character (book, who needs a book?) and the tone was so laughably misguided it made Peter Allen playing a mobster look like a credible idea.

To just throw in my two cents to the suggestions made, as much as I love Besty (and I do) I think it’s a bad idea having Carrie walk through the audience at the end. Unless she is going to burn the audience alive all you really have is a girl walking through the audience with some fancy lighting, I think it cheapens the whole thing and would make it feel like a British panto (she’s behind you). Plus you are breaking the audience/play barrier which I personally thinks rarely works, especially with a piece like Carrie, it won’t add anything, it will just have audiences member going ‘oh look, she walked past my seat’

As for Sue’s emotions at the top of the show in the police station, we have no idea when Sue is been interviewed, it’s clearly not the same night as they are referring to the date in past tense, so no I don’t think she would almost be like a zombie etc, I’m going to guess she has had time to process the best she can what has happened. For me what does not work are the 2 voices playing the cops, they sound fake, stagey, they should really change that. I thought the moment the music crept in to the opening scene with Sue was very effective and rather chilling.

To me to make the show more dangerous it IS simply about upping the emotional pay off and fall out of the characters, Margaret needs to be able to switch in an instant from the mother who lives her by the bible, to the mother who would take a life for the bible, I think at times in the show this works great already (Just before I Remember for example) but I do agree that other places they could do with letting Marin run wild with the role, though I still and always will insist that they keep the other side to her, no matter what anyone says I do believe that she loves Carrie, no matter how ashamed she is of the birth.
Chris needs to be played with more venom, not campy venom but a real sense of cruelty, the young girl playing her at the moment seem to want to camp it up, she really should not.
However the danger in the show, the ‘what is she gonna do next’ moments should be between Carrie and her Mother, as I say some work but others could do with a lift.

I have to say I’m glad the kids are not on stage during the finale now though I’m happy the song is as I really like what it is saying. Im sad they took the big photo of Carrie out.

Many bloggers online who are reviewing the show in previews are praising the show, so I guess it really is dividing people. I still think the many of the obsessive fans of the 80s show (I’m one but I have always hoped for many changes) are far too close to it.

Some have suggested that the only way it can work is to be scary, fun and less serious......i do not agree for a single second, 1988 should tell us that is not the case at all. Carrie is a drama/thriller, the book is not campy or scary, the film is not scary and to be fair is not funny, it’s unintentional humour. That’s why I don’t think the musical should be those things.

I find it very interesting that for so many years everyone has said the only way the musical could work is if they made it serious, grounded it in reality and refocused it, many said the only way the teenage stuff could work is if it was more Spring Awakening, more up to date, and the only way the story could play is if they added back in pivotal moments and fleshed out the 1 note characters that existed in the original (they had no characters and the book was a series of song cues. The hard working team seem to have listened and done all of this yet a few people now want to steer it a little back to what it used to be. I guess it goes to show that no version of Carrie the Musical is ever going to please everyone. I find it interesting that in a thread this big (yay to us) only a few of us are the ones posting.

Just my thoughts, please don’t crucify me lol

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 2/13/12 at 7:56pm

I've been listening to somebody's iPhone recording of the soundtrack of Scorsese's "Hugo." From what I can hear I wish the 3D had been better.

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 2/13/12 at 8:02pm

Namo i hope that is not aimed at me as i have done more than just hear the show now. Also im out there very soon to see the show.

[best12bars]

Posted: 2/13/12 at 8:05pm

Well, if I'd said, after listening to a recording, I wish Carrie were wearing a blue dress, Namo's snark would make sense.

[missthemountains]

Posted: 2/13/12 at 9:49pm

A lot of what's been said here is accurate re: Margaret and Carrie. However, I do agree with an extent to what Marin is saying - Margaret shouldn't be this creepy woman in a black cloak lurking around, especially since this production is modern. I think the fact that Margaret isn't dressed in the traditional black cloak and getup is better for a modern adaptation, because to have her dress how she did in the 70's or 80's would be unrealistic. She also says she wants Margaret to be "multi-dimensional". And while I agree that Margaret should be a multi-dimensional character, that doesn't mean that she can't still be crazy. She just needs more of a purpose to be crazy, which I can sort of understand. But having Margaret not be over-the-top and crazy just defeats the point entirely. What makes those scenes exhilarating and what makes us more interested in them vs. the scenes with the teens is because the stakes are so high. Margaret here doesn't have enough stakes. If, as this new interpretation states, Margaret truly loves her daughter and her religious fanaticism is her way of "protecting Carrie", why would she kill her? It just doesn't make sense. There's no reason. The only way it makes sense for Margaret to kill her is if she's crazy and views her daughter as the embodiment of sin. In the book (and '76 version) Margaret states that Carrie was a result of marital rape and that Margaret always knew about Carrie's power and wanted to kill her when she "had the chance". Now THAT my friends, raises the god damn stakes, and those are the stakes (and intentions) Stephen King had when writing Margaret, so why should they change? Don't fix what ain't broken!

Bottom line, although I like the new look, that doesn't mean the character should have to change too. And I think Stafford is forgetting that.

Updated On: 2/13/12 at 09:49 PM

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 2/13/12 at 10:06pm

Missthemountains – I think regarding her killing Carrie that is exactly the point she is making in this new production and to a lesser extent the old production. Margaret is so fearful of Carrie becoming a woman that when it happens (her period) she sees it as the beginning of the end(Eve Was Weak), she calms down and thinks she has got through to Carrie and reassures her that it’s her and Carrie, that’s all each other needs (Evening Prayers). However when Carrie accepts the prom invitation she realises in her own twisted way that she is heading down the wrong path, she is going to a place that Margaret sees as a dangerous thing (because she went there herself) and with her powers coming to fruition she can only see that as one thing.....the devil is inside her (I Remember...). When Carrie is getting ready to leave for the prom and Carrie defies her she knows it’s too late for her, the devil has inhabited her body and she is heading for damnation (Don’t Go). Its BECAUSE she loves her daughter that she decides to make the ultimate sacrifice which is kill her to save her soul, she even sings how much she will miss her (When There’s No One) but because Margaret is so overtaken by the Gods word and the holy book she really does believe that what she is doing is 100 percent right, she has done right by God and by Carrie herself.

Many have argued that she does not love Carrie and I find that absurd, to do what she does shows she loves her, yes it’s hard for us to understand because none of us are that insanely taken over by religion, but she does love her, she sings that Carrie is her pride and shame, that’s what makes her so dangerous. It’s too easy and too much of a cop out to play her on one note as a mad woman who kills her daughter, the truth is God comes first in her life, her child second, but she does love them both, however God comes first.