She's Back! CARRIE - First preview !!! — Page 36

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.

---

A great article here from The Stage in the UK, he stops short of reviewing it but comes pretty close
http://blogs.thestage.co.uk/shenton/2012/02/plenty-of-roads-to-try/

---

They dropped the parent conference scene? what a stupid decision, i loved that scene.

---

I'm curious, Miss. During the destruction, which I thought was mostly terrific, does the director now delineate what happens to Miss Gardner, Tommy, Chris and Billy? When I saw it a week ago, all my attention was on Carrie and the backs of students she was pinning against the walls. For the life of me, I don't know what happened to the four people I mentioned. I think for pathos sake, we'd like to see Tommy's death. Miss Desjardin does not die in the novel, but Miss Collins does in the film, I'd like to see what happens to Ms. Gardner. And we'd all love to see Chris and Tommy get their just deserts. But when I saw it Arima didn't isolate these moments (and if he did, it wasn't done well enough for me to notice). It was a nagging oversight to what I thought was a surprisingly well-done scene.

Yesterday I took my much younger brother to see CARRIE. Colin is only 17 and he liked all the scenes with the teenagers. My brother was not familiar with either the book or the movie and had no idea what was gonna happen in Act II. At the intermission Colin said, "When you said the mother was religious, I didn't know you meant this religious!"

My brother said he found the story very easy to follow and really liked CARRIE's music especially the opening number "In." I wasn't sure what show to take Colin to and ended up being very glad I chose CARRIE. My brother said he liked CARRIE as much as SPIDERMAN, the show we saw last year.

As for me, CARRIE is one of my personal favorite musicals and I was thrilled to see this excellent production for a third time...and it even worked fine with Marin Mazzie out.

I liked the part when Chris and Sue remember a childhood taunt:
Carrie/
ugly, short, and hairy/
and her friends-- they're imaginary

I like the new lyrics for the title song especially when Carrie sings, "If I am changing, will I still be Carrie?" Also, in the title song I find it interesting that the original lyric of "When did everybody decide I'm the one who's the flop?" has been changed to "Every day they mock me and push me around 'til I drop"

And I loved how the musical shows Sue becoming more and more guilty. During "The World According to Chris" Sue sings "Tommy you don't understand/
what was just a joke got out of hand" and then Tommy sings "...You can tell me to keep my mouth shut/
But/
If you want to know what I'd advise/
Apologize!"

Can anyone help me with the Sue and Tommy lyrics to this song? I'd appreciate it!

I found it touching the way Sue wants to help Carrie...in "Do Me a Favor" Sue sings, "one small act of kindness might change Carrie's life for good."

Nice lyrics! And none of these lines were in the original. Does anyone else have any lyrics that they really liked?

Isn't Roberto at Glee now? I know him more for his comic book work primarily with Marvel(and of course he helped revise the libretto for It's a Bird, It's a Plane, a while back as well as turned down the offer to do much with Spiderman Turn off the Dark)

I'm looking forward to his interpretation of "Carrie: Turn Off the Blood."

---

Also - what happened in the Parent-teacher conference? How did it work?

Margaret goes to the school and meets with Miss Gardner and the male teacher. They discuss the "incident" and the other children at the school. Margaret gives them a pamphlet about the evils of children.

It was played totally straight in this production, but still came across as funny.

This thread is cracking me up: all this carrying on about how Carrie should be or that this production is embarrassing. It's clearly not embarrassing or even "wrong". It's just inspiring different reactions and opinions. The reaction it got when I saw it was not evidence that anyone needs to be embarrassed at all, but quite the opposite: the house -- on the whole -- responded favorably to the show.

There is no objective "right" way that this or anything "should" be done. I love the debate on opinions, but it seems like several posts are taking an authoritive position on what something "should" be and they have an air of trying to kill the show.

I hear what some people have said about wanting Margaret to be more dangerous or scary. I get it. Totally. But I don't agree that it needs to be the case. For me and the people I saw it with, she really does track. Her scariness that leads to her final act is there in her lines and song lyrics and it's pretty clear that she twists her religious views into some weird perspective and it's also clear that she is abusive of Carrie in that context - and that seems enough here the way its presented. I would welcome seeing a scarier Margaret in another production (I've seen BB on You Tube and she is as chilling as people say), but for this production with its sustained tone and, yes, vision, I bought it completely and found Margaret's arc totally and tonally satisfying, and Marin Mazzie's performance totally convincing, as it seems others have also and probably will continue to do so. Her Margaret may not be a gorgon but she is not a nice mother. She is clearly abusive. For me, it worked and worked beautifully.

I even get the desire to want to see the blood on some level, but am totally perplexed by the reluctance of those unwilling to go with what is clearly a choice. So much carping here about how they couldn't figure out how to do the blood drop or couldn't afford is totally off base. There have been some articles in which the director said he alwasy wanted to convey this without any liquid blood. People here have said he makes no bold directorial choices while writing quite a lot about this incredibly BOLD DIRECTORIAL CHOICE! You might not like it, but given the chatter the choice seems to be the definition of a bold one! What would really be gained by literalizing this moment other than having a mess of blood on stage? Her entrance after the prom is now so much more poignant than I can imagine it being if we saw her get doused with liquid. There were some gasps in the house at this moment when she comes home. I don't see how that would be possible if we saw a bucket of blood drop (which probably would have resulted in laughs anyway).

But what cracks me up most in this thread are the intense and harsh criticisms from people who admit to not having seen the show yet! And the thrilling irony of those who call the composer and lyricist untalented after lamenting the loss of or confessing to love a song that's been cut! Glorious fun!

I have wanted to see Carrie on stage for years and I applaud the audacity it took to do it after all this time. I also applaud what they have done and are doing with it. I found it to be a thoroughly rewarding time in the theater from start to finish.

There is no objective "right" way that this or anything "should" be done.

Say that in a Follies thread! I triple-dog dare you!!

---

By the way, has Marin been out for three performances straight? I saw her understudy Sunday and a friend of mine saw her understudy today, was she out Monday as well? Wonder why this is - is Marin sick, or are they changing the character?