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

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 2/19/12 at 3:30pm

Owen i honestly don't care what you think, most people on here know me, know i have been on here for years, im opinionated but that's the point of been on here. If me saying i dont lie means to you i lie then maybe you need to take a look at your suspicious mind.

And im glad you got to watch the show in theatre, as did i in Startford Upon Avon (though i was only 10). However people don't have an odd opinion of the show because they saw it on DVD rather than live, it does not change the show no matter what format you watch it in. It takes away that atmosphere that lends to watching a show live, but in Carrie's case that's probably a good thing since especially on Broadway the reactions were so over the top you could walk out of that show thinking the audience were in love with it.

Anyway, moving on, i hold no hard feelings towards you, im sure you are lovely and i have lot's of respect for you for also being very opinionated.

[blaxx]

Posted: 2/19/12 at 4:10pm

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.

[Owen22]

Posted: 2/19/12 at 4:17pm

Okay, see, that's what I mean by disingenuous. You basically call me a hypocrite (which is fine, I basically called you a liar) saying I based my opinions on a DVD too as opposed to seeing the show live. When I tell you that's not true, you tangle and refold your argument and basically ignore the fact your original assessment was incorrect and then just go on from there saying that seeing a show on a fuzzy You Tube screen can give one the same feel as being in a theatre viewing said show. Really? You've been going to the theatre since you were at least ten and you are sticking with that? And though its condescendingly nice of you to "have lot's of respect for [me] for also being very opinionated." my semi-contempt for you has nothing to do with you being opinionated or having different opinions than I.







Updated On: 2/19/12 at 04:17 PM

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 2/19/12 at 4:59pm

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

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 2/19/12 at 5:03pm

oh and Blaxx, i think you better get your bucket of blood at the ready.

[Kad]

Posted: 2/19/12 at 5:05pm

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

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 2/19/12 at 5:07pm

haha You are probably right.

[My Oh My]

Posted: 2/19/12 at 5:30pm

Dramatize? It's already dramatized.

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

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

[Scarywarhol]

Posted: 2/19/12 at 5:47pm

songanddanceman, you have made some interesting points in this thread, but you cannot seriously believe that watching somebody's bootleg is basically equivalent to seeing the show.

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 2/19/12 at 5:56pm

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.

[Owen22]

Posted: 2/19/12 at 7:57pm

We hear what you keep saying, Song, again and again. So again, I will tell you you're wrong. You do not get a full sense of a show from a video. You cannot completely feel if a show works outside of that room. I watch those very good videos of "Sunday in the Park" and especially "Into the Woods", and they never mirror that palpable feeling of how those shows worked in the theatre. Part of it is where the camera is pointed, how its edited to give us someone else's point of view (in the theatre lighting sometimes is our editor, you don't always get that on tape). Things I thought were heartstoppingly good onstage have a lesser effect to me on television, changing the rhythm of an entire act. As I said earlier, a theatre piece breathes. And if you thought Chris's number negatively impacted the show, then that completely refutes your thesis. In the theatre that song is a RELIEF from the scene and songs in the White bungalow. And that is how THAT number breathes in the THEATRE. Obviously not on the DVD. That is, if you indeed saw this DVD; a part of me still believes you SO needed to squash all this Margaret-really-loves-Carrie bashing this thread was confronting you with, leaving you desperate to somehow ground your argument. And the only way to do so was to say you had actually seen this particular version.





Updated On: 2/19/12 at 07:57 PM

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 2/19/12 at 8:08pm

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

[blaxx]

Posted: 2/19/12 at 8:12pm

It's a bloody opinion

Yes, but, can you put it in a bucket? It's all about the bucket.

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 2/19/12 at 8:16pm

lol Blaxx, i needed the laugh, thank you

[EatTheBrownie]

Posted: 2/19/12 at 8:36pm

Let's just all hope Stafford never touches another horror musical the length of his career. I can only imagine how he'd "humanize" Sweeney Todd to a point where any reference to eating people was either cut or rushed over in hopes the audience could catch it and sneak in a laugh. Im sure his handling of blood would be no less embarrassing than John Doyle's.

Imagine Stafford's "vision" for other could be horror musicals. A "Exorcist" where Reagan merely has a bad flu instead of being possessed by a demon... Demons aren't "human", flus are. And masturbating with a crucifix might get a laugh... gonna have to cut that one. Or how about a "Psycho" where Mrs. Bates never passed away. The idea of a boy cross dressing is just too much, it's not "human" enough. We have to have the mother present and she has to endearingly love him... while looking like a Mormon sister-wife. And the shower is done with lights!

Or best of all, I'd love to see him tackle Child's Play. Chuckie isn't a doll though. Hes just the red-haired kid next door... The entire piece could be grounded in the fact that most Americans hate "gingers" because they supposedly don't have souls. (Well, at least that's what Eric Cartmen would have the world believe). He thought "Carrie" was the ultimate bullying musical... Well, he hasnt met Chuckie yet!

It's a shame the authors have worked so hard only to have Stafford not understand the show. Honestly, most of the changes to the script/score are inspired by the authors' original intentions. That's clear if you read the original workshop script. I honestly think any moments in the writing that dont work in this revised version only don't because theyve been wrongly steered by this inept director. Terry Hands convinced them to cut most of their book and de-characterize everyone but the principal women as part of his "Greek tragedy"... Gore, Pitchford, and Cohen just need to sit down and put on paper the story THEY have been trying to tell since 1984. Then let a director deal the frozen work. Their constant involvement of outside collaborators keep preventing them from moving a musical that "almost"works (and this revival is pretty damn close) into a wonderfully crafted musical version of Carrie.

-back to lurking in the shadows-

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 2/19/12 at 8:42pm

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.

[My Oh My]

Posted: 2/19/12 at 10:55pm

Song, I see what you mean. I've been told to hush after voicing an opinion based on a video and I always wonder what is so hard to understand about someone making a limited observation based on the limited experience of watching something on video...something meant to be taken-in live.

I am very careful about what I say based on videos though, because it's very easy to reach conclusions in your head that color the limited conclusions you end up posting publicly. Then you see the show live, and you're glad you never posted what was in your head because it's so wrong, haha. Does that make sense?

But, yeah, there are nuances in live theatre that are so vital to the overall experience, a video will never double for a complete experience.

But that's sort of a given and the few times I have voiced opinions based on videos, I automatically know better than to claim mine is the final word but I also always make the mistake of assuming people know I'm making an educated guess based on my many experiences at the theatre and that guess is as limited in perspective as watching a performance on video could be.

And blah, blah, blah, blah, blah and all dat jazzzzzzzzzzzzz.

[Owen22]

Posted: 2/19/12 at 11:05pm

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.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 2/19/12 at 11:24pm

"Oh god Owen never have i wanted to scream at someone in all my life."

Hello? What the hell am I, chopped liver? I screw and screw and screw with you and this is the thanks I get?

[Love4Theatre]

Posted: 2/20/12 at 12:26am

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?

[Idiot]

Posted: 2/20/12 at 2:26am

S&DMan2: I wonder what the writers of the show want Carrie to be?

I think you're pretty much seeing it with this production. Remember -- they chose Stafford because they liked his pitch.

[EatTheBrownie]

Posted: 2/20/12 at 3:33am

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".

[binau]

Posted: 2/20/12 at 4:15am

Doesn't "When There's No One" strongly suggest that the writers suggest there is SOMETHING there in terms of Margaret truly loving Carrie etc..?

Stafford might have taken this and exaggerated it to a not so successful effect. But I don't know if the blame can be solely put on him.

Updated On: 2/20/12 at 04:15 AM

[My Oh My]

Posted: 2/20/12 at 6:17am

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.

[songanddanceman2]

Posted: 2/20/12 at 6:37am

My Oh My
'I know some say the original was so flawed, a total rewrite was in order. No, I think a total redesign was in order

I think you are right that are redesign was needed but it also needed rewrite. Much of the book had gone by the time it opened on Broadway and what little few lines of book were there made no sense. Simple stuff like they never mentioned once that Carrie had the ability of the telekinesis. In Do Me a Favor how did Chris know that Carrie was going to prom? etc etc

The book in the workshop from 84 worked and is very similar to what's on stage at the moment.

'The original took itself way too seriously and that inspired laughter and mockery.'

Yes people did laugh and mock because it took itself so seriously, but that was because the production itself was so camp. Pink and Red body stockings, topless boys smearing their bodies with blood, cardboard cut out cars......yet at the same time they were screaming to be taken serious.

'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.

That's exactly what it needs, yes it should still be able to loosen up but Carrie is essentially a story about a girl abused at home and at school. The humor should come when we see her use her powers etc because it's so absurd. Both the book and the movie told a serious story but had moments that made you giggle a little, but you never laughed at Carrie because you felt for her. Sure this production could do with loosing up at times, but this version of Carrie is much closer to the story of Carrie than the 88 version.

'Based on what I've read, it sounds as if Mrs. White has had her character sucked right out of her'

It's not sucked out of her, Stafford has refocused her to give her more humanity. Something i think is a good thing, however the problem is that he has tamed the beast so to speak. If you are going to humanize her you need to have the complete opposite side so extreme that the transitions between the 2 become terrifying. At the moment Mazzie is playing her with great passion and some genuine moments of terror, but she needs to be able to let loose.
Also remember on Broadway Margaret had no character. She got angry a lot and Betty did a thrilling performance, but all the role had been cut out and reduced to a few songs.

'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.'

100 percent agree

Namo - When our war with each other ending and we started having secret rendezvous via PM im afraid i can no longer see you as an enemy, Madonna and I love you greatly....deal with it!!

Idiot - You are probably right, i think from listening to their recent interviews this is what they had in mind for Carrie all along, plus it's very similar to the original workshop from the early 80s that they were heavily involved it. I think in the 80s when they did the show they were naive in the way of theatre and allowed their score/book to be tampered with greatly.

Updated On: 2/20/12 at 06:37 AM