She's Back! CARRIE - First preview !!! — Page 35

I just want to point out that this thread is already longer than the novel.

For the same matter, can anyone tell me if the freakin' bucket of blood is in already or am I going to have to go to the theater myself and throw it on the director's head?

Thank you.

---

Good lord man, are you just wanting to pick a fight?

I said that the show you see on the stage or screen does not CHANGE no matter what format you see it in. I said the only thing that is different is the atmosphere is taken away from being in the live theatre, the show itself is still the same show however.

And i did not ignore anything, my point was, is and always will be that the show itself is not a different show if you watch it in the theatre or DVD, you can still see the flaws in script, problems in music, staging etc. Of course going to the theatre is better because of soaking up the atmosphere of live theatre. Sorry that i said you had probably watched the DVD, you watched it live, thats great.

And if you think i was condescending then fine. I refuse to engage in any kind of dialogue with you anymore because you clearly want to pick a fight.

Moving on.

---

Updated On: 2/19/12 at 04:59 PM

Someone should just dramatize this thread. Odds are it'll be better than any incarnation of the Carrie musical.

---

Dramatize? It's already dramatized.

Musicalized. Oh dear, what a musical that would be. XD

---

Updated On: 2/19/12 at 05:30 PM

Of course not, i never said that. I said the show you are watching does not change if you watch it on DVD or in the theatre. In other words the sets, lights, costumes, music, book etc are the same thing. Watching on Bootleg or even official released DVDs of the shows are not even close to the experience of live theatre, hence why I'm flying out to see the show (specifically flying out for the show for 2 days only as that's all the time i have off from my own show).

All i was saying when i mentioned i had seen a DVD of this new Carrie was that i had seen the production and was posting my thoughts on what i had seen on that DVD. When i watch the show in the theatre i will enjoy the experience 100 times more, but it will still be the same show.

Nothing comes close to live theatre, it's what i live and breath (its my passion and my job) but im not going to pretend i have not seen DVDs of shows bootlegs or otherwise, im sure most of us on here have, but i also go the theatre about 10 times a month, nothing can beat that.

My point about the original Carrie DVD from 88 is that many many many people have seen Carrie the Musical through that DVD and formed opinions on the show, all i was saying is why would it be different to form on opinion on this version of the show through a DVD?

And thanks Scarywarhol for saying i had made some interesting points, i know im very opinionated when im passionate but i honestly find debating with good people like yourself and Besty etc fantastic.

---

Oh god Owen never have i wanted to scream at someone in all my life. I am not talking about 'feeling' a show etc, im talking about as a physical production that the show DOES NOT CHANGE, A red light does not become blue, an actor does not become a different person, a song does not change altogether in transition from stage to screen. It's that simple, as i keep saying. What part of that are you not understanding?

And could it be, could it possibly be that MY OPINION is that Don't Waste The Moon/World According to Chris impacts the show negatively and YOUR OPINION is that it does not. It's a bloody opinion Owen. And you seem determined to keep having a go at me because I DO NOT SHARE YOUR OPINION. Sorry, but i stick to what i think. And as for your stupid ramblings about me having to lie about watching a DVD copy to back up my opinion (by the way i have said that she needs to be bigger and more OTT just that i like the human side of her as well......god forgive me) then check your PMs because i'm getting (as im sure others are bored if this now.

---

Updated On: 2/19/12 at 08:08 PM

lol Blaxx, i needed the laugh, thank you

---

EatTheBrownie (awesome screen name by the way) it's an interesting point you bring up. I wonder what the writers of the show want Carrie to be? It would be great if one of them could direct their version of Carrie, we could see what their intentions for the piece are. For me i would have liked to have seen a bit more with the powers (though they do pretty much the same as the movie did) and for Stafford to let Mazzie run a little more wild with her.I still think Arima has done a good job with the show but it does play it safe a little, i agree. Hopefully when the rights come out we will see what other people can do with the show as well.

---

Either you're obtuse or I have failed to get my point across that its not your differing opinions I feel the need to argue, its the obsequious way you try to defend your opinions. But if it makes you feel better to believe that, rock on boyfriend.

And yes, the actual physical production CHANGES from live to tape because we perceive the show differently.

I saw the show tonight. I absolutely loved it! Most of the cast was outstanding, especially Molly Ranson. Anne Tolpegin was on for Margaret White. I was not impressed. I have not seen Marin Mazzie in the role, so I can not make a comparison. Derek Klena as Tommy Ross was bad. His voice was not up to par with the rest of the cast, and his acting choices were mediocre at best. I didn't mind Jeanna De Waal as Chris. I actually liked "The World According to Chris." She played Chris as a mean girl. I could be wrong, but I thought I read somewhere on these boards that she played the charater as an emo girl. Carmen Cusack was divine as someone mentioned on this board. I also liked the destruction and thought it worked well. I do not think the blood spill was necessary. The use of the projection and red lights was really great. It was creative. Stafford Arima did an outstanding job with this show, and I hope to see it succeed. I just like to point out that I did not see any videos or hear any of the songs from the original 1988 production and I have not read the book. I did see the movie. On a side note, can anyone confirm if the girl in the Carrie ads is Molly Ranson? It does not look like her. If so, can someone post a link confirming this?

They also chose Terry Hands and Debbie Allen. And altered their script and score based on that vision.

Writers have been choosing bad collaborators since the birth of the American musical. I think now even more than ever with the Encore's "Merrily" we can see this. Hal Prince had no idea how to handle the work. His "fix" for the show was putting everyone in shirts/sweatshirts listing their relationship to the main character... Having them still look 19 reguardless of the 20 year age span they age in the show.. James Lapine, a director and book writer himself, saw the show differently than the authors and suggested extensive rewrites. The weakness of this recent production, again helmed by him, proves that maybe his "take" on the work has done more to hurt it than help it. The fact that many agree that the Donmar production, using much of the original work and only adding few revised things but "presenting" the material in a much more realistic approach than Prince ever wanted to (with slightly older actors), is the most successful presentation of the work says something. Maybe "Merrily" on paper wasn't as broken as the ill-directed Broadway production made it out to be. Maybe Stephen Sondheim and George Furth should have trusted initial instincts instead of allowing themselves to be influneced by a greedy director who not only wanted to interpret the material his own way, but also change the story he was telling. Honestly, the revision of "Merrily" would probably work better if Lapine had just written a completely new book himself. But back to "Carrie".

"Merrily" and "Carrie" are a lot alike though. They both were huge bombs that brought embarrassment and disappointment to the people who wrote them. Both shows had very redeeming qualities (and I can hear the snide comments on me saying that, but truly bad shows don't live on. I'm sorry. You will NEVER see people get into a heated discussion about the great things "Bring Back Birdie" had going for it.) Sondheim almost stopped writing for the theater after "Merrily". The rights to "Carrie" were never released. Dean Pitchford didn't even mention it in his Broadway bio for "Footloose"... I think it even stated that "Footloose" was his Broadway debut. Both shows had directors who influenced the writing in order to fit their "concept" for the show... Sondheim's score and Furth's book have NEVER resembled the "let's-put-on-a-show" mentality that Prince thought they were creating. The book and score in all drafts were much more deep and complex than that notion could ever achieve. But arbitrary things like plot and character development went out the window as tshirts repleaced the costumes A read of the workshop script to "Carrie" paints a grounded and straightforward musical based on the King novel. One that is actually pretty close (in framework) to what is playing now. But Terry Hands wanted to do some stylistic Greek tragedy about the power of women. The RSC also wanted another Les Mis... So the authors begrudgingly cut book scenes to make the show almost sung through and reworked their piece to fit Hands' concept.

So to say that them choosing Stafford makes this production "their vision" is rediculous. It's clear by his constant words in the press about how he doesnt want people coming in to see a "horror" musical and how they dont want to focus on the supernatural that it's Stafford's vision. In the 2009 reading, Margaret was very much a monster. None of her dialogue was softened to "humanize" her. That's the result of Arima. Carrie's powers are shown much more often and bigger in that rewrite. Carrie levitates her bed at one point. They don't shy away from talking about killing the pig in that version... and the finale is much grander and theatrical than what is playing right now. Who knows if they're happy with how it's turning out. God knows they weren't in 1988. Like I've said before though, I think their rewrite is almost perfect. Honestly, the things to fix it lie somewhere on the cutting room floor. Which could also be said about "Merrily".

Either I see things too simplistically or everyone has lost sight of what should have been an effort to keep everything that worked in and everything that sucked out for the revival.

Not saying the revival is bad because I've yet to see it. I'm only pointing out what I feel is best for the show and it just makes sense to take that approach. I know some say the original was so flawed, a total rewrite was in order. No, I think a total redesign was in order. For one, the story has an intimate feel to it no matter how it's presented. There is no sense in making it abstract since there's nothing meaningful enough that abstract could enhance or enlighten an audience to. By its very nature, the story isn't an epic and it sounds they went the right direction with that in this revival. That would fix a large portion of what was wrong with the original.

The original took itself way too seriously and that inspired laughter and mockery. A story like Carrie doesn't lend itself to such a "let's get serious and talk love, being strong and how much that hurts, and crooning about trusting the way you feel and how that's the only thing that's real" treatment. And just because some of us find that deliciously awful doesn't mean it should be reinstated, either.

But something as nuanced and vital as character that has garnered nothing but positive response and acclaim over so many years in the face of such a laughing stock of a production should have been left alone and not toyed with. Based on what I've read, it sounds as if Mrs. White has had her character sucked right out of her and she is now an overly subdued figure that blends into the background. I hope that isn't so, but if it is, then it sounds like a mistake.

Right off the bat, the perception that Betty played her off the wall "crazy" that it warranted a rethink is flawed, because she did not play her that way. At least not in a Glenn Close Norma Desmond crazy sort of way (I loved her looney Norma, btw). Margaret should be an imposing and dangerous figure on one end and a gentle, comforting symbol of peace and love on the other. It's a personality of extremes.

---