[unclear: tat] better way to recover from [unclear: mid-xam] results than by going to a good [unclear: ?] Next Wednesday, July 11, at 2 pm, [unclear: udents] Association is screening Brian [unclear: ma's] Carrie. It's great.

[unclear: sically], it's a horror film - and one of [unclear: ry] scariest I've ever seen. It's also, [unclear: er], a very effective human drama an [unclear: t] slapstick comedy, and a sly parody whole horror genre. That it can [unclear: com-ll] of these things without [unclear: compromi-ny] of them is an indication of the [unclear: g-bility] of its director, and part of the [unclear: t] for is incredible richness. What [unclear: al-kes] it fascinating and compelling [unclear: vie-s] the audacious style (perfectly [unclear: exe-)] that DePalma uses to communicate [unclear: m's] audacious conception.

[unclear: e] story is about Carrie White, a [unclear: pain-shy] and gawky adolescent ugly [unclear: duck-] At school, she is an outsider - [unclear: down-en] and mocked. At home, she has to [unclear: nd] with her mother - a sexually [unclear: frus-] religious fanatic. Then she discovers he has a psychic power: telekinesis, [unclear: ility] to move objects by mental [unclear: ef-] When she gets upset, doors slam and shatter. Unfortunate, then, that [unclear: so] her merciless fellow students should [unclear: o] humiliate her with a bizarre practi[unclear: ke] - drenching her with pig's blood at [unclear: nior] Prom.

[unclear: s] a good strong plot, but the novel on it's based, though highly readable, is likely to be included in any of this [unclear: au-us] establishment's literature courses. [unclear: s] in many films (and novels too) it's [unclear: much] the story we admire, as the [unclear: t] is told. And Carrie is told [unclear: brilliant-]

[unclear: e] majority of critics, though, didn't

the Critics Said

[unclear: an] DePalma escalates a piece of H[unclear: itch-an] trickery into a rampaging [unclear: horror-dy]. Sissy Spacek gives a fine [unclear: perfor-e] that is almost lost in the camp [unclear: ema-] of old movie lore, sexual chic and [unclear: sty-iggery]-pokery.' (Sight and Sound)

[unclear: leading] his audience on with the [unclear: gus-icism] of a shampoo commercial [unclear: be-acking] them in the pants with the knife-wielding hysterics of the crudest Hammer horror.....' (Richard Combs, Monthly Film Bulletin)

'... an air of studied triviality.........(and) an absurd lyricism.....But DePalma doesn't invest his fancy footwork with enough to make it an adequate substitute for more commonplace techniques.....' (Janet Maslin, Newsweek)

And even most of the positive reviews were careful to qualify their praise:

'The main flaw in Carrie is Depalma's exaggeration of details and situations to make a point and sway the viewer's sympathies. But with its excellent acting and tight script, Carrie is a well-crafted film that is less slick, more satisfying, and more frightening because of its subtle psychological build-up than other recent films of this type......" (Suzanne Bowers, Film Information)

'Carrie is pure, and simply, a screamer of a horror movie......(it) really delivers its punch, and does so with style, wit and feeling rather than by slamming us in the guts with the mechanical shock effects of a disaster film or an Exorcist or Marathon Man. DePalma reminds us that movie terror doesn't have to be cruel, but can be exhilarating......' (Frank Rich, New York Post)

'Carrie is by no means just another variation on The Exorcist. What separates them is the difference between artistry and craftsmanship. Director Brian DePalma has so transcended his easily exploitable material as to transform it into a poignant yet increasingly terrifying evocation of the tension between adolescent sexuality and religious obsession. Like the classic Hammer gothic horror films, he counterpoints supernatural forces as external symbols of sexual repression, but his concerns go further. By utilizing the device which distinguished the fantasy films of Val Lewton - that of concentrating on characterization and an accelerating narrative - he underscores the shock effects with sympathy and irony, thereby intensifying their impact....' (Steve Swires, Films in Review)

'....director Brian DePalma and cameraman Mario Tosi manage to weave around this fly-blown theme a gauzy, dazzling web of technique, a spectacular cocoon for a black black fairy tale, which shamelessly calls attention to the showy brilliance of its own effects. Carrie is almost a demonstration of telekinesis at work.......

DePalma wants you to notice his parallels and repititions, his show-off angles and trickey crane shots, the whole Look-ma-I'm-A-Director bit. It links him with the Welles of Lady from Shanghai, and other brilliant pot-boilers, rather than the mature Hitchcock with whom he was compared after his earlier film, Obsession. Carrie is a magnificent piece of hokum for those who like bravura, baroque film-making...........' (Alan Brien, The Sunday Times (London)

Maybe Carrie is 'a magnificent piece of hokum'. But you only have to look at most critics' lists of the 'Ten Best Films of All Time' to see that the very same description could be applied to most of them too. And some critical juries at least have recognised it as something more than just a 'brilliant pot-boiler.' It won 1st prize at the Avoriaz Fantastic Festival, for instance. Films illustrated's annual poll of critics named it the 3rd-best film of 1976/77, right behind Three Women and Annie Hall.

But there is still something not quite 'respectable about Carrie, because it is a horror film and because public audiences, on the whole, love it. Brian DePalma isn't quite 'respectable in some ways either. He's on the record as saying: 'The Kennedy assassination is the most entertaining thing I ever saw. It riveted me, held me emotionally and I watched the television set for days and days. That is entertainment on a scale that no director could ever come up with.'

He started out in underground, experimental film-making, before his move to Hollywood to make Sisters (which I've unfortunately never seen), then Phantom of the Paradise, Obssession, Carrie and molt recently The Fury. Of these last four, only Carrie is not flawed; in all the others, he doesn't maintain a tight enough control over his techniques, and each fails to fit together into a satisfying unit. Says DePalma: 'I see a film as a great, complicated mathematical problem.' You could say that in Carrie he did his sums right; in all the others he added slightly wrong

Sex, Death, and Loud Music

DePalma makes a point of saying that before he tackles serious content in his movies, he wants to master the form (a scheme many local film-makers would do well to emulate). In Carrie, the form is perfect. But all his films are worth watching, even, though they're not consistently successful, for a whole variety of reasons. The way he uses music, for example to complement and emphasize the rhythm of movement both within a single shot and in sequences of shots. His clever use of Hitchcockian motifs, and the elaboration of his own. The irony he weaves into his narratives, and the amazing (but, I would stress, always functional) stunts he pulls with his cameras. And the interesting subtext in his films of themes of punishment, sexual guilt, and 'Oedipal' parent-child conflict. If you've already seen Carrie once, I'd recommend that you go again - it really rewards repeated viewings.

One list word, about the acting. Here is an excellent example of ensemble playing. Most memorable of all, though, is Sissy Spacek in the title role, giving what's probably the best performance by an actress I've ever seen. In many ways, it is this strong central performance that holds the film together.

So, once more, go to see Carrie because in my opinion, it's one of the best films I've ever encountered, and without doubt the most enjoyable. If for no other reason, go to see John Travolta (a bit part in his first feature) get the comeuppance he so richly deserves.

Paul Hagan.