Carrie is topped by the mother for the first half of the film, beaten down, dominated. The mother won’t even let her get a word in edgewise. After Carrie has reached her zenith of power [at the school dance], she comes home and she wants to turn back into the child, wants to go back to, ‘Mother, I will pray.’ Of course the mother lets her. But then the mother tries to kill her and the powers protect Carrie. So you have this phenomenal arc of the bottom becoming the top, wanting to be the bottom again — but it’s too late.”
— Out filmmaker Kimberly Peirce explaining the queer appeal of her upcoming adaptation of Stephen King’s Carrie (out October 18) to Out magazine
I’m sorry, but this is bullsh**.
The story of Carrie isn’t about “tops and bottoms”. It’s about ABUSE. It’s about bullying.
Making a stupid comparison with sexual roles trivializes the subject matter.
And if this is truly how the director of the remake sees the film, then this remake is doomed from the get-go.
Besides, talking about tops and bottoms and equating it with psychological abuse and bullying is incredibly stupid and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of sexual dynamics.
Why re-make a classic? The original performances of Sissy Spacek and Piper Laurie can never be topped.
@MikeE: I agree with you 100%. The comparison is a far stretch and misses the point completely.
Mr. E. Jones
But if they don’t re-make classics like Carrie, how will be able to listen to pretentious directors spout absurd explanations to make their shitty remake seem more important than it really is?
Charlie in Charge
If we are using the original intent of the words as dominant and submissive sure but the Queer angle implies inserter / insertee, which… no.
@jckfmsincty: have absolutely NO issue with a remake.
The opera sells season tickets, and every few years, the same operas tend to come back. People still buy the tickets, and still take immense pleasure in hearing/seeing new productions, with different actors/singers, different directors, and often times, different interpretations of the basic material.
The same with theatre companies.
If theatre and opera acted the way you suggest cinema should, then we’d never see a Shakespeare play again. We’d never hear a Puccini opera ever again.
What’s wrong with a different take on an old subject? Lord knows that the first Carrie film didn’t get everything perfectly right, so why not have another go at it and enjoy it as a new vision of the same material?
if you don’t want to see the new one, then by all means, skip it. Stay home and watch the De Palma version. It wills till be there even if they remake the film. Nothing will change in it. You will still be free to feel that it is a superior telling of the story, if you so wish.
Much in the same way that I hate the Franco Zeffirelli version of Puccini’s opera “Turandot”. Or a recent European production that re-imagined the citizens of Beijing as “Borg” from Star Trek… but there will be new versions, with different visions. Some I will like, some I won’t.
Why not look at cinema – a very similar art form to opera in the final analysis – in the same manner?
(which doesn’t change my opinion that this director is full of shi* on the matter of “top/bottom”)
@MikeE: Because, Mike, live theater is exactly that. Live, transient, changing. You can go to a show one night, go the next day and see a completely differs production.
But movies, unless they are edited, remain the same. Nothing changes.
Look at that ridiculous remake, shot by shot, reaction by reaction, of “Psycho” a couple of years ago. There was absolutely no reason for it. And unless the director has a unique vision there’s no reason to remake a movie.
Unless Amy Irving appears in the shower scene leading the chant “PLUG IT UP”, I have no interest in seeing this film.
@Palmer Scott: pointing out one bad example (Psycho) doesn’t make your point.
nothing stops the simple fact that sometimes remakes can be as enjoyable as, if not more so than, the original. and sometimes a remake can be better than the original.
Case in point: “The Thing”. The John Carpenter film is far truer to the novella than the “original” film. It’s also just a damned better film.
So why bother with all this hate and anger over a remake? Jeeze, just don’t watch it if you’re not interested. I’m curious to see how this director takes it. I will more than likely enjoy it. I even suspect it will hew closer to the novel than De Palma’s version.
I will NOT support this ripoff of a true great! Sissy Spacek IS Carrie. This is just Hit-Girl with major PMS issues!
I just can’t imagine watching a remake of Carrie without remembering Sissy and Piper every scene. Anymore than I’d want to watch “Streetcar Named Desire” with anybody but the original film cast. A film which, interestingly enough IF Marlon Brando had won Best Actor, would have walked away that year with Best Actor, Best Actress, Best Supporting Actor and Best Supporting Actress.
i dont know/understand lesbian sex dynamics, but as a gay male, being on the bottom isn’t equated with being beaten down and dominated. Heck Im probably the one biting and grabbing harder during the act.
i have a feeling we’re all gonna laugh at this.
Why are people who get paid so much money so stupid?
while I grew up watching the original…..which was great- saw it when it first came out…..I was in HS at the time, his one looks more violent ie: affects..IF I dont see it in the theatre, I will buy te blu-ray …I hear it follows the BOOK more-so then the original
book shmook! who cares? (wait lemme rephrase that)…book worms are beat’n their meats without any spermicidal jams and jellies wait’n to see it come to life like it was meant to be…OK FIIINE!
but just cuz you add MORE BLOOD and BLOW UP things on a BIGGER budget…does not mean it’s better! (that’s just yer opinion)
just like mine 🙂 http://getoffmydress.blogspot.com/2013/09/this-is-what-i-do.html
Comments are closed.