Stephen
King’s first novel “Carrie” is regarded as one of the most iconic works of
horror fiction. It centers on an unpopular school girl named Carrie White, who
goes through traumatic experiences, being bullied by her classmates and abused
by her highly religious mother, Margaret. One of the girls, Sue Snell, decides
to apologize for what she did by having her date, Bobby Ross, take Carrie to
the prom. During this time, Carrie starts to learn more about her new found
telekinesis abilities, seeing if she can control it better. The book not only
stands as an iconic work of horror, but also brought a strong outlook at social
commentary and bullying. There are kids that were and still are bullied at
school to this day, which has led to them most likely committing suicide or
homicidal acts. “Carrie” is a prime example of how words and actions can be
taken too far. Since its release, many adaptations of such have been made,
including a Broadway musical. The two most notable adaptations of the story are
the 1976 Brian De Palma film, and the recent 2013 Kimberly Pierce remake.
The De Palma film has been regarded as a masterpiece of horror, while the remake has been panned by viewers for being unnecessary and unwanted…but is it, really? I mean, as someone who read the book, I’ve seen the film in a very respectful light, and maybe even better than what some people may give credit for. So I've decided to give you an in-depth analysis comparing the two films. If you’re familiar with Doug Walker’s segment of “Old vs. New” as the Nostalgia Critic, then you should know how things will be done here. So, in celebration of the original film’s 40th anniversary, welcome to my Old vs New of “Carrie.” Or as I like to call it, “A Tale of Two Carries.”
The De Palma film has been regarded as a masterpiece of horror, while the remake has been panned by viewers for being unnecessary and unwanted…but is it, really? I mean, as someone who read the book, I’ve seen the film in a very respectful light, and maybe even better than what some people may give credit for. So I've decided to give you an in-depth analysis comparing the two films. If you’re familiar with Doug Walker’s segment of “Old vs. New” as the Nostalgia Critic, then you should know how things will be done here. So, in celebration of the original film’s 40th anniversary, welcome to my Old vs New of “Carrie.” Or as I like to call it, “A Tale of Two Carries.”
To
start things off, let’s take a look at the different actresses playing the main
character, Carrie White.
AAs we know, Carrie White is a
shy timid girl, who all she wants is to be
accepted and treated as a normal girl. However, because she's dealing with such horrible people and lacks social contact, it makes it difficult for her. In the De Palma film, Carrie
was played by Sissy Spacek, who pulls off the tormented outcast role very well, begging for help and forgiveness without all the violence brought upon her to do so.
It's also important to note that Spacek's performance was nominated for the Best Actress Oscar, so that tells you right off the bat that she set the bar high. In the
Pierce film, Carrie's played by Chloe Grace Moretz, who's had experience with films about bullied outcasts, as seen in the 2010 remake, “Let Me In.” She delivers the right tone that's needed for the role, constantly feeling like she's in the wrong place wherever she goes, even at home. Much of the
criticism with Moretz was that she looked too pretty to play Carrie, and that realistically, wouldn't be much of an outcast. While
technically speaking, she is prettier than Spacek was back then, it didn't seem to bother me that much. In this day and age, you can still be bullied no matter
how you look, something the remake may have been aiming for with its
casting of Moretz. Despite this, I find myself leaning towards Spacek's portrayal of the character, which has a better vision of uncertainty
to herself, and that aura of just wanting to disappear and never be found. Moretz
has that too, but there were a couple moments where you can tell she looked a little too comfortable with
her surroundings. As much of a good job Moretz does, Spacek's Carrie was a bit
stronger, or in this case, weaker.
De Palma: 1
Pierce: 0
The
next big aspect we have to look at in this mother-daughter relationship, is the
mother. Let’s take a look:
Here we come to Margaret
White, the psychotic religious mother that torments Carrie, as much as the
bullies at school. In the De Palma film, she was played by Piper Laurie, who
performs it as a church preacher at the podium, begging for the lord to show
forgiveness for those who act human. The Pierce version is played by Julianne
Moore, who makes the character seem more sadist, constantly punishing herself at almost any given moment, even if it's just simple small talk with a
neighbor or customer. Both characters do give off a chilling and fearful vibe
to them, but Moore's performance feels superior. No matter what, she always has
that same expression on her face throughout the whole movie, as if showing
emotion is considered a sin. Her interactions with people other than her daughter, are not only unsettling, but from a psychological point of view is downright mortifying. I mean, take for example the scene where she talks with Cynthia Preston who plays Sue Snell's mom. This woman constantly hurts herself to the point of drawing blood, in front of somebody no less, mumbling biblical stuff under her breath, and she hardly even blinks. That's pretty fucked up. With Laurie's scenes with the neighbors, you could buy that this woman would still get along decently with society, and while she does have her intimidating moments, at times she gets a little too hammy. Let's compare their death scenes: When Moore dies, she treats the scene naturally. Brutal and not overstaying its welcome. When Laurie dies, she acts like she's having an orgasm with every stab into her…I did not mean for that to sound sexual. Overall, as memorable as Piper Laurie's Margaret is, Julianne Moore gave the more disturbing performance. So point goes to her.
De Palma: 1
Pierce: 1
With
every leading character or two, there's always a supporting cast to back them up. So
which one had the stronger cast of characters? Let’s find out:
First up, we have Ms.
Desjardin, the P.E. teacher who punishes her class for the shower incident at
the beginning of the story. The Pierce version does have a compelling
performance given by Judy Greer, who really gets the viewer on her
supportive side, especially when it comes to defending one of her students from
a group of bullies. For some reason, the De Palma film had the character's name
changed to Ms. Collins, played by Betty Buckley, who's just as supportive as
Greer is, but the name change seems a bit off. With Buckley, she does help give
Carrie confidence, but she's still a teacher first and a friend second. Greer
is the opposite, which is made more obvious when she actually tries to reason with Carrie in the prom scene, resulting in her being spared in the massacre.
It's a bit of a coin toss, as I feel that both are very strong and respectable in their own right. Then there's Sue Snell, the girl
who wants to make amends with Carrie, and Tommy Ross, her boyfriend who ends
up taking Carrie to prom. The Pierce version of these characters, played by
Gabrielle Wilde and Ansel Elgort, are fleshed out better, as we have more
scenes with them together, and see how they both feel about the idea of Tommy
taking Carrie to prom, before deciding to completely go with it. Amy Irving and William Katt are good, but it didn't feel
like we got to know them that well, aside from exposition. Now it rolls down to
the villains, Chris Hargensen and Billy Nolan. In the De Palma film, Billy was
played by John Travolta, in one of his first feature films. As he's introduced,
it tells us that he's a blue collar rebellious guy, drinking a beer while driving and talking trash to his girlfriend. Alex Russel in the Pierce version, while fine with what he's given, wasn't
particularly memorable. He plays it off like the generic bad boy you see in
most horror movies today. I feel like he wasn't really trying that much to make the character stand out, where as Travolta in all his..."Travoltiveness," does leave an impression on you, good or bad. Now it's all down to Chris Hargensen, the main cause
of all of Carrie's troubles. The De Palma film had Nancy Allen and the Pierce
version had Portia Doubleday, who are both despicable in their performances.
Allen is a complete bitch, especially when she tells Carrie to “eat shit,”
right to her face in the beginning, but Doubleday is much worse. Not only does she give other
people shit for not thinking her way, mouthing off to her teacher, believing she's in the right, but she goes as far as to exploit her spoiled rich brat attitude by bringing the situation up with Daddy, confronting the principal, and posting the video of Carrie having her period on YouTube for everybody to
see. For Doubleday's performance as Chris alone, the Pierce version has the
superior cast.
De Palma: 1
Pierce: 2
Now
when talking about “Carrie,” the first thing that comes to people’s minds is
the “Night of the Black Prom.” So which movie brought this to life the strongest?
Both films really handle
the Black Prom with such excellence, but as you can tell, are done with totally
different styles. With the De Palma version, the look of it has foggy but dreamlike atmosphere to it. Everything seems to
be going right, and the moment Carrie's announced queen, most of the sound is
silent, and all you hear is the iconic Pino Dinaggio score that slowly building
up, getting faster with each passing second. In the Pierce version, the scene
is shot like any other typical scene, with the music by Marco Beltrami building it up, but with the audio from the cast being kept in. The turning point of
the entire scene is of course Carrie getting pig blood dumped over her, and she
lets out her inner rage against everybody. The way the De Palma version
presents itself, is it has Carrie constantly hearing the words her mother said,
“They're all going to laugh at you,” overlapping the waves of laughter from
everybody at the prom. During this, Carrie's face is struck with fear, pain, and anger all at once, showing that she's finally snapped. In the Pierce version however, Carrie’s
humiliated further, as the very video of her that Chris took is projected. So not
only is she humiliated with pig blood over her, but an embarrassing video of
her freaking out in the shower is shown for everybody to see, letting the
shame go even further than you’d expect. With how these scenes are done, it's brought back between Spacek and Moretz as Carrie, when they finally let their demons
loose. Spacek, during the killings, kept that iconic blank haunting stare
throughout the whole scene, only looking at the next object she tends to possess.
Moretz, does the killings more with her hands in motion to control them, making her attack a bit more theatrical for others to witness. So where De Palma gave
us a memorable moment in horror history, Pierce shows us a moment of "I'll show you fuckers whose boss." They both are handled very well, especially with how most of the
killings are executed (puns), but the De Palma version wins it, mostly
for the stronger build up, and creating one of the most haunting scenes in film history.
De Palma: 2
Pierce: 2
Now it comes down to the
major factor of it all, the story. Which film handled the story of a bullied
girl with telekinetic powers the strongest, and how well does it stay true to
its source material? Let’s find out:
Let’s analyze the De
Palma film first. That version starts out with a game of volleyball, which
shows us a bit about the kind of people that Carrie is classmates with, and how
timid Carrie herself is with others. With the Pierce version, we actually get a scene of
Margret giving birth to her child, which sets the tone for HER character, and
THEN we go into the volleyball scene. When the scene with the principal
happens, Carrie in the De Palma film showed a bit of her powers when the
principle kept calling her “Cassie” instead of “Carrie.” In the Pierce version,
her powers in the principal’s office occurred when she was against her mother
picking her up, adding some depth to the kind of relationship the two have, and just how afraid Carrie is of her mother. The biggest difference
with these films is that De Palma focused more on the horror aspect, whereas
Pierce focused on the social commentary side. While both aspects are represented in
each film, you have to look at what King's original intentions were with the
story, which is about a bullied girl who gets back at the culprits with
telekinesis. The De Palma version had the bullies mess with Carrie once,
before the prom scene, and that was the shower incident. The Pierce version,
however, has her not only humiliated during the shower scene, but it has Chris
record a video and upload it to YouTube, two boys outside the principal’s
office make blowjob gestures, and the words “Carrie White eats shit” are
written on the hallway lockers for her to see, adding more to the blow, as opposed to the De Palma
version where it's written in the gym where she COULDN'T see it. The way Carrie kills Chris and Billy after the prom in the Pierce
version has a much more satisfying end to it. Unlike the De Palma film, where
Carrie just flips over the car they're driving and it explodes, she stops the
car and hurls it into a gas station, leaving them both with a huge concussion
and glass sticking out of their faces, before disconnecting a telephone wire to
set the leaking gas on fire, causing it blows up. In my regard, that is a much
more satisfying death to watch. Of course, there's how these two endings differ. The De Palma version ends with Carrie and Margaret dead, and Sue having a nightmare of Carrie's corpse grabbing at her, as she puts flowers on her burial. However, the Pierce version gives a little bit more detail, as Sue arrives at Carrie's to explain the situation, and Carrie tells her
that Sue's pregnant with a girl, before sending her out of the house as it collapses. Immediately after, Sue is in a court case to explain what happened,
so it's likely that the book's original ending may have happened in this movie. In the ending of the book,
because of the events at the school and within town, the whole country is now
aware of the possibilities of telekinesis, resulting in schools to forbid
bullying at the point of being concentration camps. While it doesn’t exactly show that, it does
hint it closer than the De Palma version.
So in conclusion, despite
the grand nature that the De Palma film has, I feel like the Pierce version is the
better film. It sticks closer to the book's themes on social
commentary, without the horror aspect overshadowing it too much. Besides, while there are some people who believe it's not as bad as it was when they were young, bullying in our society has actually gotten worse, especially with the advantages we have when it comes to communication. It's important for the story of "Carrie" to be re-told time and time again. Sure, De Palma may have
delivered a horror classic, and will be remembered as such, but Pierce had a better understanding of the themes that King had set out for.
De Palma: 2
Pierce: 3
So,
that’s my analysis on the two “Carrie” films. I hope you enjoyed it and got a
good insight on what I’ve talked about. If not, then sorry to have disappointed
you. And with that, I’ll see you guys next time.
