Connect with us

Editorials

The Three Faces of ‘Carrie’s’ True Villain, Margaret White

Published

on

In 1974 Stephen King published not only his first novel, but a story that would weave its way into the tapestry of the horror landscape for all time. There is something that continues to resonate about “Carrie”– the tale of an outsider teenage girl being bullied and exacting revenge on her tormentors. We sympathize with the outcast, Carrie White, and yet we still recoil in horror as she lashes out at the prom attendees after her infamous crowning. Over the course of three film adaptations, the plot has remained more or less constant and unchanging, but one particular element of the story has seen surprisingly different iterations – Carrie’s mother.

Margaret White is one of the most memorable horror movie villains and she plays a vital role in the story of “Carrie.” Carrie’s world is shaped by Margaret’s influence, and it is Margaret to whom she must answer day in and day out. As humiliating as the insults from Chris Hargensen and the other girls are, as horrifying as the falling cascade of pig blood is on prom night, they are nothing compared to what Carrie has to come home and face every single day from her overbearing, religious zealot of a mother.

Margaret is a terrifying woman – harsh and unyielding. Fanatical at times, her faith is the force that drives her and motivates all of her actions. She is controlling and manipulative, ever desiring Carrie to remain close to god and out of the reach of the modern world. Throughout every iteration of this material, though those traits must remain a constant, Margaret is allowed a certain amount of flexibility, and seeing the way in which different filmmakers and actresses bring her to life is fascinating.


Piper Laurie

The role originated with an unforgettable performance from Piper Laurie in Brian De Palma’s 1976 adaptation. She is dominating physical presence – strong and formidable, with a powerful voice. Though she does have the occasional quiet moment at dinner, or singing softly as she sews, her mood can turn on a dime, and a pleasant interaction can quickly become an intimidating one, as Carrie (Sissy Spacek) is ever under her watchful eye.

Laurie’s performance in this film is transcendent, and her interactions with Carrie are profoundly tense. She is a powerful and aggressive character, driven by her belief system and inflexible to the world around her. When Margaret comes home to discover that Carrie had gotten her period, she immediately begins judging and chastising her, demanding that she beg forgiveness for her sins. Even as Carrie sobs and swears that she committed no sin, Margaret continues bellowing scripture and commanding Carrie to repeat the words. When Margaret feels that Carrie is not getting the point, she effortlessly drags her across the room and forces her into her prayer closet, all the while continuing to quote Bible verses as Carrie screams and begs to be let out.

This version of the character emphasizes Margaret’s control over Carrie’s life. Laurie (along with De Palma’s direction) gives Margaret a physical presence that is much larger and more imposing than the actress herself. Margaret towers over Carrie, both physically and emotionally, and her daughter understandably shrinks in her presence. Laurie plays Margaret as a woman not to be trifled with as she physically personifies the fire and brimstone that she preaches to Carrie on a daily basis.


Julianne Moore

In her 2013 adaptation, director Kimberly Peirce cast Julianne Moore in the role, and the result is a version of Margaret that is a bit softer and plays up the maternal angle of her character. In this film, we see Carrie’s birth, and Margaret’s desire to kill the baby since she believes her to be born of sin. But she can’t do it. Margaret’s love for her child overrides her religious instinct this one time, and she lets Carrie live. This moment is alluded to in De Palma’s film, but here, we actually see it happen, and it drives some of the interactions that we see between Mother and Daughter throughout the film.

Moore’s version of Margaret is still incredibly strict and unbending with her religion, but we do see a mother’s love come into play at times. Though she does see Carrie’s (Chloe Grace Moretz) desire to go to the prom as wicked, she also seems genuinely concerned about her daughter’s well-being. Her reaction after the incident in the locker room at the start of the film is fueled by equal parts religious rage at the thought that her daughter’s sins have brought about menstruation, and the protective instinct to keep Carrie safe from the cruelties of the outside world.

She periodically calls Carrie “little girl” and has moments of tenderness, despite her controlling nature. We see more of an actual relationship between these two characters than we do in De Palma’s film. As much as Margaret is driven by the judgment of her religious beliefs, she also has the drive of a mother seeking to protect her daughter. This change ultimately makes Margaret a bit less harsh and terrorizing, but the interactions between Margaret and her daughter are a little more complex. Though this wouldn’t necessarily categorize Margaret as a sympathetic character, we do see that her motivations are fueled, in small part, by her love for Carrie, as well as by her will and her focus on her faith.


Patricia Clarkson

In the 2002 television adaptation (written and produced by Bryan Fuller), Margaret is portrayed by Patricia Clarkson. This version is a bit of a midpoint between Laurie and Moore’s renditions of the character. Though she is still controlling and driven by her strict belief structure, this Margaret has a softness that comes through not as maternal, but more like a teacher to Carrie (played here by genre fave Angela Bettis). As always, Margaret will, of course, turn violent when pushed, but Clarkson seems to be taking the approach of “I’m doing this for your own good” as she rigidly guides Carrie through her faith. She is not nearly as harsh as Laurie is in her performance, but she is uncompromising, all the same. Her softness does not translate to love, as it does in Moore’s portrayal, but more like a distanced concern.

Throughout Carrie’s determination to try to be a part of the world outside her mother’s house, Margaret tries to plead with her and to make her understand the sins and dangers that she believes surround her. When Carrie begins making her prom arrangements, Margaret is resigned and saddened by her decision. She demands her daughter read specific bible verses about unclean and prideful women and when Carrie refuses, Margaret sadly says,

“You’ve gone so far astray, I fear for you.”

She cares about what she perceives to be Carrie’s spiritual well-being and tries to guide her in that regard, but even though her approach is not necessarily as forceful as Laurie’s, she is not guided by the sense of love that Moore’s Margaret exhibits.

When Carrie returns home after the prom, Margaret greets her with a softness, but a softness completely devoid of any warmth.

“I told you your sin would find you.” She says softly, as they kneel down to pray together before Margaret forces Carrie underwater in the bathtub.

And at the center of every great story is a great villain, and Margaret White has more staying power in this tale than perhaps anyone else. Even after Carrie vanquishes everyone at the dance and lays waste to the town (depending on what version you are watching), back at home, her ultimate adversary awaits her. Seeing how different performers can bring out different aspects of the character without changing what lies at her core is a fascinating examination of storytelling and just how we connect with characters in film. Making small changes to how Margaret is portrayed and bringing out different elements in her personality can alter how the story is told, without making any drastic changes to the heart of the story itself.

Editorials

‘Amityville Karen’ Is a Weak Update on ‘Serial Mom’ [Amityville IP]

Published

on

Amityville Karen horror

Twice a month Joe Lipsett will dissect a new Amityville Horror film to explore how the “franchise” has evolved in increasingly ludicrous directions. This is “The Amityville IP.”

A bizarre recurring issue with the Amityville “franchise” is that the films tend to be needlessly complicated. Back in the day, the first sequels moved away from the original film’s religious-themed haunted house storyline in favor of streamlined, easily digestible concepts such as “haunted lamp” or “haunted mirror.”

As the budgets plummeted and indie filmmakers capitalized on the brand’s notoriety, it seems the wrong lessons were learned. Runtimes have ballooned past the 90-minute mark and the narratives are often saggy and unfocused.

Both issues are clearly on display in Amityville Karen (2022), a film that starts off rough, but promising, and ends with a confused whimper.

The promise is embodied by the tinge of self-awareness in Julie Anne Prescott (The Amityville Harvest)’s screenplay, namely the nods to John Waters’ classic 1994 satire, Serial Mom. In that film, Beverly Sutphin (an iconic Kathleen Turner) is a bored, white suburban woman who punished individuals who didn’t adhere to her rigid definition of social norms. What is “Karen” but a contemporary equivalent?

In director/actor Shawn C. Phillips’ film, Karen (Lauren Francesca) is perpetually outraged. In her introductory scenes, she makes derogatory comments about immigrants, calls a female neighbor a whore, and nearly runs over a family blocking her driveway. She’s a broad, albeit familiar persona; in many ways, she’s less of a character than a caricature (the living embodiment of the name/meme).

These early scenes also establish a fairly straightforward plot. Karen is a code enforcement officer with plans to shut down a local winery she has deemed disgusting. They’re preparing for a big wine tasting event, which Karen plans to ruin, but when she steals a bottle of cursed Amityville wine, it activates her murderous rage and goes on a killing spree.

Simple enough, right?

Unfortunately, Amityville Karen spins out of control almost immediately. At nearly every opportunity, Prescott’s screenplay eschews narrative cohesion and simplicity in favour of overly complicated developments and extraneous characters.

Take, for example, the wine tasting event. The film spends an entire day at the winery: first during the day as a band plays, then at a beer tasting (???) that night. Neither of these events are the much touted wine-tasting, however; that is actually a private party happening later at server Troy (James Duval)’s house.

Weirdly though, following Troy’s death, the party’s location is inexplicably moved to Karen’s house for the climax of the film, but the whole event plays like an afterthought and features a litany of characters we have never met before.

This is a recurring issue throughout Amityville Karen, which frequently introduces random characters for a scene or two. Karen is typically absent from these scenes, which makes them feel superfluous and unimportant. When the actress is on screen, the film has an anchor and a narrative drive. The scenes without her, on the other hand, feel bloated and directionless (blame editor Will Collazo Jr., who allows these moments to play out interminably).

Compounding the issue is that the majority of the actors are non-professionals and these scenes play like poorly performed improv. The result is long, dull stretches that features bad actors talking over each other, repeating the same dialogue, and generally doing nothing to advance the narrative or develop the characters.

While Karen is one-note and histrionic throughout the film, at least there’s a game willingness to Francesca’s performance. It feels appropriately campy, though as the film progresses, it becomes less and less clear if Amityville Karen is actually in on the joke.

Like Amityville Cop before it, there are legit moments of self-awareness (the Serial Mom references), but it’s never certain how much of this is intentional. Take, for example, Karen’s glaringly obvious wig: it unconvincingly fails to conceal Francesca’s dark hair in the back, but is that on purpose or is it a technical error?

Ultimately there’s very little to recommend about Amityville Karen. Despite the game performance by its lead and the gentle homages to Serial Mom’s prank call and white shoes after Labor Day jokes, the never-ending improv scenes by non-professional actors, the bloated screenplay, and the jittery direction by Phillips doom the production.

Clocking in at an insufferable 100 minutes, Amityville Karen ranks among the worst of the “franchise,” coming in just above Phillips’ other entry, Amityville Hex.

Amityville Karen

The Amityville IP Awards go to…

  • Favorite Subplot: In the afternoon event, there’s a self-proclaimed “hot boy summer” band consisting of burly, bare-chested men who play instruments that don’t make sound (for real, there’s no audio of their music). There’s also a scheming manager who is skimming money off the top, but that’s not as funny.
  • Least Favorite Subplot: For reasons that don’t make any sense, the winery is also hosting a beer tasting which means there are multiple scenes of bartender Alex (Phillips) hoping to bring in women, mistakenly conflating a pint of beer with a “flight,” and goading never before seen characters to chug. One of them describes the beer as such: “It looks like a vampire menstruating in a cup” (it’s a gold-colored IPA for the record, so…no).
  • Amityville Connection: The rationale for Karen’s killing spree is attributed to Amityville wine, whose crop was planted on cursed land. This is explained by vino groupie Annie (Jennifer Nangle) to band groupie Bianca (Lilith Stabs). It’s a lot of nonsense, but it is kind of fun when Annie claims to “taste the damnation in every sip.”
  • Neverending Story: The film ends with an exhaustive FIVE MINUTE montage of Phillips’ friends posing as reporters in front of terrible green screen discussing the “killer Karen” story. My kingdom for Amityville’s regular reporter Peter Sommers (John R. Walker) to return!
  • Best Line 1: Winery owner Dallas (Derek K. Long), describing Karen: “She’s like a walking constipation with a hemorrhoid”
  • Best Line 2: Karen, when a half-naked, bleeding woman emerges from her closet: “Is this a dream? This dream is offensive! Stop being naked!”
  • Best Line 3: Troy, upset that Karen may cancel the wine tasting at his house: “I sanded that deck for days. You don’t just sand a deck for days and then let someone shit on it!”
  • Worst Death: Karen kills a Pool Boy (Dustin Clingan) after pushing his head under water for literally 1 second, then screeches “This is for putting leaves on my plants!”
  • Least Clear Death(s): The bodies of a phone salesman and a barista are seen in Karen’s closet and bathroom, though how she killed them are completely unclear
  • Best Death: Troy is stabbed in the back of the neck with a bottle opener, which Karen proceeds to crank
  • Wannabe Lynch: After drinking the wine, Karen is confronted in her home by Barnaby (Carl Solomon) who makes her sign a crude, hand drawn blood contract and informs her that her belly is “pregnant from the juices of his grapes.” Phillips films Barnaby like a cross between the unhoused man in Mulholland Drive and the Mystery Man in Lost Highway. It’s interesting, even if the character makes absolutely no sense.
  • Single Image Summary: At one point, a random man emerges from the shower in a towel and excitedly poops himself. This sequence perfectly encapsulates the experience of watching Amityville Karen.
  • Pray for Joe: Many of these folks will be back in Amityville Shark House and Amityville Webcam, so we’re not out of the woods yet…

Next time: let’s hope Christmas comes early with 2022’s Amityville Christmas Vacation. It was the winner of Fangoria’s Best Amityville award, after all!

Amityville Karen movie

Continue Reading