Che in Evita- Page 2

[wonderwaiter]

Posted: 9/30/13 at 1:17am

From Evita: The Legend of Eva Peron published in 1979 by Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice:

"Although there is no evidence whatsoever that Ernesto 'Che' Guevara ever met Eva Peron or became personally involved with her, our character Che is based upon this legendary revolutionary."

"Che in Evita is at times a narrator, at times a critic, at times simply a device that enables us to place Eva in a situation where she is confronted with lucid personal criticism. His comments throughout reflect what Che Guevara might have said had he been a first-hand witness to many of the episodes of the work, but the fact that he is based on Guevara in this way is not as important as the fact that our Che represents a conventional radical opposition to Peronism."


Evita: The Legend of Eva Peron, 1919-1952

Updated On: 9/30/13 at 01:17 AM

[TomSloan]

Posted: 9/30/13 at 9:53pm

The following quote is from "Oh, What a Circus", the autobiography of Tim Rice where he discusses the writing of EVITA:

“Apart from the device of using fellow Argentine Che Guevara as a narrator, there is nothing in the text of Evita does that not stand up to historical scrutiny, and although I am well aware that Guevara never met Eva, it is more than likely that his subsequent career was at least influenced by his early life, and distaste for, the Peron regime.”

But then again, what would Tim Rice know about the original intent of the authors?

Updated On: 9/30/13 at 09:53 PM

[Theater'sBestFriend]

Posted: 10/1/13 at 12:16am

Exactly. "Based on" does not mean "is" or "represents." Evita Peron the character is not "based on" Evita Peron; she represents Evita Peron the historical figure. Che the character does not represent Che Guevara the historical figure; he is an everyman observer of historical events, by turns more or less critical. He might be "based on" the iconic leftist revolutionary, but can be interpreted more as him by one director (and without accusation of historical anachronism) and less by him as another.

"Oh What a Circus: The Autobiography of Tim Rice," which you quote, was published in 1998 -- after the Hal Prince interpretation of the show to which it refers, but before the Broadway revival in which Che the character was not interpreted to represent Che Guevara the person. Subsequently, Andrew Lloyd Weber and Tim Rice have endorsed and permitted all these interpretations, haven't they? But as you said, what do they know about the authors' intent? Updated On: 10/1/13 at 12:16 AM

[Theater'sBestFriend]

Posted: 10/1/13 at 1:15am

Here's a list someone put together of 10 fictional characters "based on" real people by the authors. They don't represent the real people.

Hal Prince's choice to represent the character Che ("based on" Che Guevara) as though he actually represents Che Guevara was a specific directing choice, appropriate to the era of the production. By contrast, the character Evita Peron always represents Evita Peron.

Fictional characters based on real people

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Posted: 10/1/13 at 2:06am

Fine, Theater'sBestFriend, you're right. Tim Rice's Che, as conceived on the album, isn't Che Guevara, he simply is a "representative" of someone who:
Aged from 17-24 through the Peron regime
Was a research chemist
Developed an insecticide
Whipped up his hate in some tottering state after the fact

Seriously, listen to the goddamn concept album. Good news for Argentine flies, indeed...

[wonderwaiter]

Posted: 10/1/13 at 2:13am

Except that your exact words were,

"The character written by Tim Rice was supposed to be a working class Everyman, one of the descamisados (shirtless workers) who formed the political base of Peronism.

The interpretation of Che as Che Guevara was a very specific directing choice of Hal Prince."

It was not. The interpretation of Che as Che Guevara was a very specific writing choice by Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice when they were constructing the show. It was inherent in the text of the original concept album and it was published in more than one source attributed directly to the authors themselves. You're trying to backtrack to save face by citing a list "someone" put together in an attempt to parse words when you were simply wrong.

[Theater'sBestFriend]

Posted: 10/1/13 at 7:45am

Che Guevara was indeed associated with the working class. Peronism was indeed a mobilization of the working class descamisados. The Perons did indeed rouse them in directions contrary to leftist Latin politics. There is no contradiction whatsoever. But I guess you must be right, and when Rice and Lloyd Weber let him be directed otherwise, they screwed up. I'll let them know. Thanks for setting them straight.

Updated On: 10/1/13 at 07:45 AM

[TomSloan]

Posted: 10/1/13 at 7:47am

Dear Theater'sBestFriend,

You need to brush up on your dramaturgy. The book "Oh, What A Circus" was from 1998. The quote I used was Tim Rice explaining his process in 1974-75 of writing Evita, at least one year before the concept album came out and three years before Prince's London production, and four years before Lupone and Broadway. From the beginning, Webber and Rice intended Che to be Guevara. Rice was interested in Guevara before EVITA. During the SUPERTSAR days he referenced Che as a role model for Jesus.


The name Che would be similar to the English name "Guy", and the authors were aware of that as well. Guevara would be their "everyman". The film was the first major production to lose the Guevara aspect and play him as everyman. Webber and Rice supported that interpretation, but that does not mean that was their original intent, which Hal Prince followed, not created. Authors allow their work to be reinterpreted all the time, finding new twists and meanings in the work. Just look at James Lapine, who authored the book to "Into The Woods" and directed two very different interpretations for Broadway.

As someone who bought the LP in 1976, Che was Guevara. That is how the album was marketed at the time - well before Hal Prince and David Essex.

Updated On: 10/1/13 at 07:47 AM

[Theater'sBestFriend]

Posted: 10/1/13 at 7:53am

I guess you're right too and that when Lloyd Weber and Rice let him be directed differently they need to brush up on their dramaturgy as well. Glad at least you understand it, though.

Or are you now going to say they weren't involved in the London and New York revivals, like some high school production?


Updated On: 10/1/13 at 07:53 AM

[TomSloan]

Posted: 10/1/13 at 10:31am

Theater'sBestFriend, you keep digging yourself deeper and deeper. The authors must allow any changes made to their work when it is done on a major scale. Yes, they were involved with the original production, the film and the revival. They obviously had no problem with Che being interpreted as Everyman instead of the specific Guevara. But none of that changes the fact that the character was originally conceived and intended to be Guevara. What they allow today does not change what they did in 1976. Dig a little deeper into the history of the show and all the historical writings clearly state they originally intend for Che to be Guevara, long before Hal Prince, David Essex and Mandy Patankin. I never said Webber and Rice were wrong, or that I knew more about EVITA than they did. I have used Tim Rice's own words to explain that the original conception was Guevara, but that they are open to other interpretations. Other interpretations are what make revivals exciting and new. Yes, Che was originally intended BY THE AUTHORS to be Guevara. Yes, Webber and Rice allow the recent revival and tour to be DIRECTED as the common Everyman. The director's intentions and the writer's intentions are not always the same, but if the authors allow it, the director gets to do it his way. After Tom O'Horgan, Webber was never going to let a director make changes in his original concepts without his approval. Hal Prince did not make Che be Guevara, Tim Rice did.





Updated On: 10/1/13 at 10:31 AM

[g.d.e.l.g.i.]

Posted: 10/1/13 at 11:00am

After Tom O"Horgan, Webber was never going to let a director make changes in his original concepts without his approval.

Which is a damn shame, because if he'd either licensed JCS to Hal Prince or convinced Stigwood to wait for Frank Corsaro to recover in time to work with Grover Dale on the show, it might have been a whole different story.

[WOSQ]

Posted: 10/1/13 at 4:06pm

Going way back to "Leading Actor in a Musical", Jim Dale was not a done deal. In fact he wasn't even the favorite, and there was genuine and pleasant surprise when his name was read out instead of favorite Mickey Rooney's who was a big star in a big hit called Sugar Babies.