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

Random question. Why has the gym teacher's name changed so much? It went from Miss Desjardin to Miss Collins to Miss Gardner. Any reason?

My guess - and it's only a guess - is that Desjardin might have seemed too confusing a name, at least when you're hearing it (in the movie and show) as opposed to reading it (in the book). I don't know if "Collins" has any significance, but "desjardin" means "the gardens" so that's probably how it evolved to Miss Gardner.

According to Twitter, Marin is out today.

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.

---

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

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

---

haha You are probably right.

---

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.

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

It's a bloody opinion

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

---

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-

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.

---

"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?

---