Editorials
The Three Faces of ‘Carrie’s’ True Villain, Margaret White
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
Before ‘The Blair Witch Project’, ‘Alien Autopsy’ Showed How Real Found Footage Could Feel
The line separating artist from con man is a lot thinner than you might initially believe. While I think we can all agree that lying for the sake of profit is actively malicious behavior, isn’t it also true that the faux documentary aspect of The Blair Witch Project is half the reason why that film became such a cultural phenomenon? After all, if there’s one thing filmmakers have in common with stage magicians, it’s that misleading and misdirecting audiences is simply part of the job.
That’s why I’ve developed a habit of mostly ignoring the moral quandaries behind many of film and television’s biggest “hoaxes” in favor of appreciating the narrative elements that drive productions like Mermaids: The Body Found and even Animal Planet’s highly underrated The Cannibal in the Jungle. However, if there’s a definitive case of a highly publicized broadcast fooling the world into taking it seriously, it has to be Fox’s infamous 1995 TV special Alien Autopsy: Fact or Fiction.
It’s been over three decades since that eerie footage first haunted television screens right at the peak of the ’90s ufology craze, and in that time, the video has taken on a life of its own. From countless parodies and references in everything from The X-Files to Tony Hawk’s Pro Skater (as well as John Dower’s recently released tell-all documentary The Alien Autopsy Scandal, which I’d highly recommend to genre fans everywhere), there’s no denying the legacy of the Alien Autopsy video. However, I rarely see the tape discussed as what it truly is: a highly convincing found footage film directed by a passionate stage magician and brought to life by masterful practical effects work.
That’s why I’d like to invite readers to join me on a deep dive into one of the most infamous broadcasts of all time in an attempt to reevaluate the footage as a fascinating narrative experience rather than a complete hoax.
The TV Special That Convinced Millions It Was Real
Ray Santilli next to Extraterrestrial replica in ‘The Alien Autopsy Scandal’
For starters, regardless of whether or not you believe that there was in fact an extraterrestrial crash in Roswell during the summer of 1947 and that some form of autopsy was performed on the victims, the producers behind the black & white recordings, Ray Santilli and Gary Shoefield, insist that their video was a “restoration.” Though I’d argue that the proper word is “remake”of genuine footage that was too damaged to air on television. That’s why the duo went on to recruit filmmaker and eccentric magician Spyros Melaris and sculptor/monster designer John Humphreys to bring their version of the autopsy to life and sell it to the highest bidder.
This is where the story of the Alien Autopsy as a narrative experience really begins. Melaris claims that his approach to the faux recording consisted of striving for extreme period accuracy in both shooting equipment and setting while also planting subtle details that would initially seem like mistakes but could later be revealed to actually fit the time period. That being said, the filmmaker was under the impression that the short would be released for free as a PR stunt, with the team later producing and selling an informative documentary chronicling exactly how the footage was faked and commenting on how easy it is to manipulate public perception with a good old-fashioned magic trick.
This obviously isn’t how things went down, and that’s likely the reason why Melaris has since distanced himself from everyone else involved with the project. Yet, no amount of behind-the-scenes drama can undermine the genuine effort that went into making the short as impressive as it is. From the sourcing of real animal organs from a local butcher to make the organic part of the creature more lifelike to the highly detailed sculpt that made use of a hollowed-out underlayer that could be filled with fake blood and assorted viscera, there’s a reason why so many Hollywood specialists are still impressed with the artistry on display here.
Of course, the believability is only half the story, as I think that the best part of the autopsy is how Melaris builds on the existing tension by obscuring certain details and often embracing the chaos of what a real examination of extraterrestrial life could feel like. The camera often goes out of focus at just the right time to make certain effects hit even harder, and we can only speculate as to what the hazmat-suited doctors are gesticulating about during the operation. There’s a real air of mystery to the whole thing that almost makes it feel like a cosmically terrifying, cursed film containing forbidden knowledge that civilians were never meant to see.
So when Fox’s Fact or Fiction brings in the specialists to comment on the film and its otherworldly subject, it’s no surprise that we end up with one of the most memorable mockumentaries of all time – albeit one where the participants are unaware that the footage they’re commenting on is basically a large-scale practical joke. A joke that the network was obviously in on, as many participants claim that the TV special cut out significant portions where guests point out that they believe the footage to be an elaborate hoax.
The Lasting Impact of the Hoax Turned Cultural Event
Regardless, I remember going to bed terrified after watching reruns of the special and thinking about the respected pathologist who claimed that the body was almost certainly inhuman, with even effects maestro Stan Winston commenting on how difficult it would be to recreate some of these visuals through practical puppetry. That’s not even mentioning Jonathan Frakes’ dramatic hyping up of the disturbing imagery as if he was talking about the tape from The Ring, with his spooky demeanor here likely being responsible for his later role as the host of Beyond Belief: Fact or Fiction a few years later.
Personally, I’d argue that the Alien Autopsy phenomenon had just as much of an impact on me as a horror fan as The Blair Witch Project, a film that was almost certainly influenced by the success of this immensely popular hoax (to the point where they even produced their own TV special commenting on Heather’s found footage). Even if Fox didn’t intend to produce a narrative feature about the aftermath of the Roswell crash, the end product still holds up remarkably well as a highly entertaining mockumentary exploring the idea that we may not be alone in the universe.
While neither Santilli nor the rest of the production team has ever commented on this, I also think it’s very likely that the idea of a faux Alien Autopsy could have been influenced by Dean Alioto’s The McPherson Tape/UFO Abduction. I’ve already written about how this granddaddy of found footage was co-opted by rogue ufologists who began selling bootlegs of the tape at conventions as if it were real evidence of a close encounter, so it’s not that much of a stretch to imagine that Santilli and company could have heard about this phenomenon and been inspired to come up with their own highly profitable hoax.
At the end of the day, it’s unlikely that the Alien Autopsy film is recreating any real footage from Roswell, but I can still appreciate the short and the accompanying television event as a standalone horror story that still influences the way we see found footage to this very day.
After all, the possibility that something could be real is often much scarier than finding out for sure – and that’s why I think Alien Autopsy: Fact or Fiction is still worth revisiting three decades down the line.
You must be logged in to post a comment.