@webuster I agree, to me, the best way to remember a bad show, which Carrie wasn't really THAT bad, is to look upon it with just a hint of fondness, and not to kick a dead horse. They were being very cruel and snarky.
OK. About the "snarkiness." Let us not re-write history, here. CARRIE is considered the ultimate Broadway flop. The one that all Broadway flops are compared to. There's even a book called "Not Since Carrie" chronicling legendary Broadway flops and it's bookended with a prologue describing the first Broadway preview of CARRIE and an epilogue discussing the history of it coming to the stage. According to all other interviews, Sally is correct about audience responses. Audiences loved it, but not because it was "good." Because it was truly like nothing they had ever seen before, for better or worse. She says they laughed at it, then stood up at the end and the reviews were legendarily awful. That tracks with just about everyone who worked on it. Her comments aren't "snarky" because she's relating what actually happened. This was probably a really awful experience for her and many others and the only way to get past that is time and to look back and laugh. Charlotte D'Amboise describes CARRIE with non-flattering terms, too. Past interviews with Lilias White and Barbara Cook have had them say scathing things about it. Only Betty Buckley really has positive things to say and it's not even about production, but rather about her experience with Linzi Hateley. There is some strong material in the show, for sure, but it was bogged down by a ludicrous concept and baffling designs and staging. The Act 2 opener "Out For Blood" has been described by those who saw it as a real-life "Springtime For Hitler." As an actor, Sally Ann Triplett and her cast of young, hungry actors had to constantly swallow their pride and carry out these ludicrous visions for months of rehearsals, Stratford performances and Broadway previews/performances probably knowing it didn't work and not allowed to say anything. They had to go out every night in costumes that made them feel ridiculous, knowing that they were about to be laughed at. Night after night, that does something to you. She's not talking about this show "from on high," she's talking about an awful show that she had to live through and you didn't.
All true, but contrary to popular belief, the show didn’t close because it bombing, it closed because one of their shady German backers pulled out his investment, which was most of the show’s starting capital. They sadly couldn’t keep going without any money in the bank.
@@giovannirastrelli9821 I'm assuming you're referring to the Stars in the House Carrie reunion? That was a fascinating watch for sure, but there was some re-writing of history there as well. Buckley and the writers talked about the show being sold out, which is a half-truth. They had 16 previews and 5 official performances. The first preview was sold out as were the final three shows. The first preview was sold out because the buzz was strong that Carrie was going to be a flop for the ages and the NYC Theatre crowd wanted to be the first to see it. Plus, there was some talk that the show may not even open. So if you WERE trying to see it, you wanted to have one of the earliest performances in case it didn't make it to opening night. Then there was the wildly divisive audience reactions. Then the awful reviews. They claimed that it was really just the Times that didn't like it. A simple RUclips search will show you all the TV reviews which trashed it as well. Only Clive Barnes gave it a favorable review. Everything else was scathing. The German investor story is a little iffy. The money they refer to being withdrawn couldn't have been their starting capital, because that money was already spent on production, advertising, rental fees, equipments etc. If the money was anything, it was most likely an expansion capital, which is the safety cushion for the first few weeks of performances to make up the difference when they weren't reaching operating costs. Many shows have this built in the budget. But an investor wouldn't pull out of a show if the advance ticket sales were incredible, which is the writers and Buckley claimed was the case in the reunion. The RSC, which produced Carrie, also produced Les Mis. Les Mis also got legendarily awful reviews in London. But their ticket sales were insane so they didn't close it and it became the phenomenon it is. IF a German investor pulled out, it wasn't JUST because of reviews or 'cause they "were shady." Most likely ticket sales were dire, too, and the writing was on the wall. Also, if they were sold out for weeks, it wouldn't matter that the expansion capital was withdrawn ''cause they wouldn't have needed it. But IF that investor actually pulled out AND ticket sales were terrible, then it would make sense to close the show. And the truth is there WERE no sales. Not until they announced they were closing, that is. Then there was a mad scramble from NYC Theatre folks to see the last 4 remaining performances of a legendary production. Which resulted in the final shows being sold out. But it did bomb.
@Baking It on Broadway! It’s actually something I read from various sources here and there, but you do make some good points. Although the 80s were the height of shady European financing in the film industry, so it was easy for me to believe same thing could go on with a Broadway show. However, you’re right, it must’ve been a nightmare for the poor cast to go on every night knowing they’re making complete asses out of themselves (at least the ensemble members), powerless to make any revisions, and knowing they will be the ones receiving most of the mocking and bashing from the audience and critics.
Ok, I've listened to it so many times now that i Enjoy her voice, i Forgive her snarkiness, .....lol ... hearing her make fun of White Star accidentally caused me to become bananas in-love with the song "Heaven" I love Sandi Toksvig, too - i love hearing about Barbara Cook from her!
Pretty sure Sandi Toksvig got Barbara Cook's quote wrong (which was much more clever). I think Cook actually said "Doing this show on Broadway would be like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic."
I'm merely guessing that the reason why her memories aren't that positive about this show, is because her role was underdeveloped compared to the two leading ladies. The stuff the kids were doing was just confusing and out of style. When I heard "Do me a favor" for the first time, I thought it was a good ensemble-song that really told an exciting part of the story, evolving arounds all the supporting characters. But when I saw the costumes and how it was choreographed and staged, I was shocked!
It kinda sucks that she doesn't have anything good to say about it. All the other cast members agree that it needed work but they do acknowledge that there were some great material in that show. She just made it seem like everything was rubbish. Kind of a shame.
Listen. We all know what the problem with the obc of Carrie is. It’s the director. He didn’t get it. The show isn’t bad but when the captain of the ship doesn’t know what to do the ship sinks.
"The Shakespeare-loving Stratfordites found it all very distasteful." Total garbage! I saw a Stratford perforrmance and the audience response was very enthusiastic.
@@giovannirastrelli9821 -- i heard the negative reactions came from American audiences on Broadway-- and i believe they were PLEASED with the leads and the cast, but were booing from the downer-ending, the anti-climax to the climax
JS24HB, I know, and what’s weird is I read the script they used for the Stratford run, and it actually featured a more coherent ending that wasn’t as abrupt. It was actually similar to the revival’s ending, except Sue sings an upteenth reprise of “Carrie,” since “Once You See” didn’t exist yet. It was still a better choice than what they went with. No clue whether it was Terry Hands or Debbie Allen (she interfered with the director throughout the rehearsals and even turned some of the cast members against him) who decided to amputate it or what their reasoning behind it was.
JS24HB Thank you, I tend to obsess over things. :) From what I understand, the main criticism for the show stemmed from overly artsy and abstract staging and choreography and a badly edited book. Many people who saw it noted that unless you read the novel or saw the movie you had no clue what was going on. They should’ve spend more time working on the script instead of just cutting chunks they felt didn’t work, which is what they did between the Stratford and Broadway production, as well as simplify the choreography and tweak the set into something less abstract.
![Finale - Carrie [Reprise 2] - and Curtain Calls (Stratford Production)](/img/1.gif)
@webuster I agree, to me, the best way to remember a bad show, which Carrie wasn't really THAT bad, is to look upon it with just a hint of fondness, and not to kick a dead horse. They were being very cruel and snarky.
I find it interesting that she remembers that much of 'White star' when she says how rubbish it is.
Thank you for posting this, it was very interesting to listen to!
...is nobody going to talk about how he called sue snell amy irving? (the actress who played sue in the 1976 film)
yes!!!
i know she was a little snarky but i really liked the bit where she sang white star...
OK. About the "snarkiness." Let us not re-write history, here. CARRIE is considered the ultimate Broadway flop. The one that all Broadway flops are compared to. There's even a book called "Not Since Carrie" chronicling legendary Broadway flops and it's bookended with a prologue describing the first Broadway preview of CARRIE and an epilogue discussing the history of it coming to the stage. According to all other interviews, Sally is correct about audience responses. Audiences loved it, but not because it was "good." Because it was truly like nothing they had ever seen before, for better or worse. She says they laughed at it, then stood up at the end and the reviews were legendarily awful. That tracks with just about everyone who worked on it. Her comments aren't "snarky" because she's relating what actually happened. This was probably a really awful experience for her and many others and the only way to get past that is time and to look back and laugh. Charlotte D'Amboise describes CARRIE with non-flattering terms, too. Past interviews with Lilias White and Barbara Cook have had them say scathing things about it. Only Betty Buckley really has positive things to say and it's not even about production, but rather about her experience with Linzi Hateley. There is some strong material in the show, for sure, but it was bogged down by a ludicrous concept and baffling designs and staging. The Act 2 opener "Out For Blood" has been described by those who saw it as a real-life "Springtime For Hitler." As an actor, Sally Ann Triplett and her cast of young, hungry actors had to constantly swallow their pride and carry out these ludicrous visions for months of rehearsals, Stratford performances and Broadway previews/performances probably knowing it didn't work and not allowed to say anything. They had to go out every night in costumes that made them feel ridiculous, knowing that they were about to be laughed at. Night after night, that does something to you. She's not talking about this show "from on high," she's talking about an awful show that she had to live through and you didn't.
All true, but contrary to popular belief, the show didn’t close because it bombing, it closed because one of their shady German backers pulled out his investment, which was most of the show’s starting capital. They sadly couldn’t keep going without any money in the bank.
@@giovannirastrelli9821 I'm assuming you're referring to the Stars in the House Carrie reunion? That was a fascinating watch for sure, but there was some re-writing of history there as well. Buckley and the writers talked about the show being sold out, which is a half-truth. They had 16 previews and 5 official performances. The first preview was sold out as were the final three shows. The first preview was sold out because the buzz was strong that Carrie was going to be a flop for the ages and the NYC Theatre crowd wanted to be the first to see it. Plus, there was some talk that the show may not even open. So if you WERE trying to see it, you wanted to have one of the earliest performances in case it didn't make it to opening night. Then there was the wildly divisive audience reactions. Then the awful reviews. They claimed that it was really just the Times that didn't like it. A simple RUclips search will show you all the TV reviews which trashed it as well. Only Clive Barnes gave it a favorable review. Everything else was scathing. The German investor story is a little iffy. The money they refer to being withdrawn couldn't have been their starting capital, because that money was already spent on production, advertising, rental fees, equipments etc. If the money was anything, it was most likely an expansion capital, which is the safety cushion for the first few weeks of performances to make up the difference when they weren't reaching operating costs. Many shows have this built in the budget. But an investor wouldn't pull out of a show if the advance ticket sales were incredible, which is the writers and Buckley claimed was the case in the reunion. The RSC, which produced Carrie, also produced Les Mis. Les Mis also got legendarily awful reviews in London. But their ticket sales were insane so they didn't close it and it became the phenomenon it is. IF a German investor pulled out, it wasn't JUST because of reviews or 'cause they "were shady." Most likely ticket sales were dire, too, and the writing was on the wall. Also, if they were sold out for weeks, it wouldn't matter that the expansion capital was withdrawn ''cause they wouldn't have needed it. But IF that investor actually pulled out AND ticket sales were terrible, then it would make sense to close the show. And the truth is there WERE no sales. Not until they announced they were closing, that is. Then there was a mad scramble from NYC Theatre folks to see the last 4 remaining performances of a legendary production. Which resulted in the final shows being sold out. But it did bomb.
@Baking It on Broadway! It’s actually something I read from various sources here and there, but you do make some good points. Although the 80s were the height of shady European financing in the film industry, so it was easy for me to believe same thing could go on with a Broadway show. However, you’re right, it must’ve been a nightmare for the poor cast to go on every night knowing they’re making complete asses out of themselves (at least the ensemble members), powerless to make any revisions, and knowing they will be the ones receiving most of the mocking and bashing from the audience and critics.
Ok, I've listened to it so many times now that i Enjoy her voice, i Forgive her snarkiness, .....lol
... hearing her make fun of White Star accidentally caused me to become bananas in-love with the song "Heaven"
I love Sandi Toksvig, too - i love hearing about Barbara Cook from her!
Pretty sure Sandi Toksvig got Barbara Cook's quote wrong (which was much more clever). I think Cook actually said "Doing this show on Broadway would be like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic."
I'm merely guessing that the reason why her memories aren't that positive about this show, is because her role was underdeveloped compared to the two leading ladies. The stuff the kids were doing was just confusing and out of style. When I heard "Do me a favor" for the first time, I thought it was a good ensemble-song that really told an exciting part of the story, evolving arounds all the supporting characters. But when I saw the costumes and how it was choreographed and staged, I was shocked!
It kinda sucks that she doesn't have anything good to say about it. All the other cast members agree that it needed work but they do acknowledge that there were some great material in that show. She just made it seem like everything was rubbish. Kind of a shame.
Listen. We all know what the problem with the obc of Carrie is. It’s the director. He didn’t get it. The show isn’t bad but when the captain of the ship doesn’t know what to do the ship sinks.
Love how she sings all the wrong lyrics for It Hurts to be Strong...
"The Shakespeare-loving Stratfordites found it all very distasteful." Total garbage! I saw a Stratford perforrmance and the audience response was very enthusiastic.
ViscountVile Yeah, from what I’ve researched, most of the negative audience reaction stories are pure fiction.
@@giovannirastrelli9821 -- i heard the negative reactions came from American audiences on Broadway-- and i believe they were PLEASED with the leads and the cast, but were booing from the downer-ending, the anti-climax to the climax
JS24HB, I know, and what’s weird is I read the script they used for the Stratford run, and it actually featured a more coherent ending that wasn’t as abrupt. It was actually similar to the revival’s ending, except Sue sings an upteenth reprise of “Carrie,” since “Once You See” didn’t exist yet. It was still a better choice than what they went with. No clue whether it was Terry Hands or Debbie Allen (she interfered with the director throughout the rehearsals and even turned some of the cast members against him) who decided to amputate it or what their reasoning behind it was.
@@giovannirastrelli9821 -- i *LOVE* your INFO!! 💕
JS24HB Thank you, I tend to obsess over things. :) From what I understand, the main criticism for the show stemmed from overly artsy and abstract staging and choreography and a badly edited book. Many people who saw it noted that unless you read the novel or saw the movie you had no clue what was going on. They should’ve spend more time working on the script instead of just cutting chunks they felt didn’t work, which is what they did between the Stratford and Broadway production, as well as simplify the choreography and tweak the set into something less abstract.
horrible how contemptuous they both are.