EVITA Reviews- Page 9

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 4/6/12 at 2:05pm

Sorry then - I wasn't clear - the original question was has anyone been catapulted to the type of stardom Streisand, LuPone, Channing etc had in a revival (not a new musical).

And I think the answer is essentially no - with the possible exception of Chenoweth and McDonald, who are perhaps well known now to most US audiences from their TV work more than their Broaday appearances

I still maintain you'd have to go back to the 60s or 70s to find a name who was known nationwide exclusively for being a BROADWAY star. I don't think the average American knows who Sutton Foster, Donna Murphy, etc. are.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 4/6/12 at 2:06pm

They will once Suttons groundbreaking new ABC Family show premiers.

[best12bars]

Posted: 4/6/12 at 2:19pm

I guess my definition of a Broadway star is someone who became established there and can headline a show and sell it out, based on their marquee name.

I don't think you have to go to Dubuque or Billings to stop a stranger on the street and ask them if they've heard of Sutton Foster or Norbert Leo Butz. They can't name many of the movie stars or TV stars out there now (neither can I when it comes to TV).

It's a different world now with fragmented audiences. No "three major networks" and no variety shows.

Still, a "Broadway star" for me is someone who became established in theatre and can sell out a show with name recognition.

EDIT: If you're talking about a "household name," those are very rare now in any medium. There are TV stars who aren't household names, because only a small percentage of the viewing audience ever watches their shows. And you have people like Jean Dujardin winning a leading Oscar when most people still probably don't know who he is.

Updated On: 4/6/12 at 02:19 PM

[Rainbowhigh23]

Posted: 4/6/12 at 2:58pm

The NY1 review was incredibly positive.
NY1 Review of Evita

[Auggie27]

Posted: 4/6/12 at 3:19pm

Deja vu all over again. I saw the first preview of EVITA (9/10/79 I believe), remember the dishing at Ted Hooks (those little lampshades with names on 'em) afterwards, and then saw the show again in December. On both occasions, the star performance, as has been noted by Lupone, was Patinkin's. The reception afforded Lupone both times was lukewarm; respectable as befits the role but devoid of standees and whistles. In January of 1980 I saw Terri Klausner at a Saturday matinee, and was more excited; Among other virtues, her take managed to make the front half of act one work in ways that defeated Lupone. She looked better in that hideous "Buenos Aires" dress and wig, and found some sexual heat that was not in Lupone's work, no matter what Brantely opines. (The most bizarre element in his review, the "white hot" and "sexy" references. Whatever the original EVITA was, it was about as sexy as, well, a lecture on fascism. Watching Lupone and Gunton in bed wasn't up there with someone screaming "Stella")

What's forgotten about then vs. now: in our youth many of us were devotees of the double white album, and the rock-pop sound of the original orchestrations (not just "Ladies Got Potential," but that song is a reminder of where Lloyd Webber was in his composing trajectory at that point). Julie Covington had made an extraordinary impression, and her young pop sound was thrilling and, not to sound like Randy Jackson, not "so Broadway." So when we arrived on September 10th and heard the Lupone vocals, we felt as some did about the Mazzie takeover in NEXT TO NORMAL, that a pop-belt sound, still fairly unique in the musical theater in 79, had been replaced by a legit Broadway actor's, and in our youth, thought the show had sold out in some ways by employing this serious musical theater actress. Remember, post JESUS pre-CATS, Lloyd Webber was the bad boy of musicals, not someone to mock because his nagging melodies were impossible to remove from your eardrums. So many of us felt that Hal Prince had taken a hip show (on disc), a successor of JESUS CHRIST SUPERSTAR, and over-Broadway-ized it (more Randy Jackson). It wasn't "cool" anymore, and we dished its formal, too traditional feel, despite the staging.

I ended up touting Klausner's Eva to many that first year because she sounded more like my beloved Covington. As is widely known, documented with painstaking honesty in Lupone's memoirs, Patti had a helluva time negotiating the score from day one, and resorted to her head voice to protect it. That belt you hear on the recording, on the Tonys, wasn't employed 6 times a week, certainly not in the opening months. She was still learning how to find her way with the music, and as she freely admits, didn't locate a comfort zone until she performed it in Australia. She famously states that one blown note early on could damage her voice for a week (I paraphrase, but read the book; it's there.)

So it's quite interesting to read the current role occupant's singing compared unfavorably to the legendary Lupone vocals. Lupone stayed with the show 18 months, and won the Tony (barely, as many voters were in the Sandy Duncan camp for her winning PETER PAN). But at the time, Mandy Patinkin was the performance event, the show was dissed by most press.

I will now inflame many, but I have grown to see the show as seriously flawed in ways I never could in my youth. What's always been the challenge, in casting, staging: whom do we root for in EVITA? With Mandy and now Ricky, we have the most appealing person on stage, the one the audiences likes the most, deride and denigrate a heroine for 2 hours. Not a single kind thing does he say about this woman. Che's POV is the audience access, and he is introduced as the absolutely reliable narrator, a casual acquaintance for the night on hand to show us a good time. It's as if in CABARET we are told by the MC that Sally Bowles up there singing is really a non-talent whore, unworthy of our time. (Maybe a stretch, but my POV issue is relevant.) With Patinkin, the sheer power of the performance only made his rage at this woman more thrilling, his words more damning. Che was downstage center most of the evening as tableau vivants behind him played out the tale he was so appalled to relate. At the end of act one, he's dragged off by thugs. To the audience, our "star" (in terms of our connection) was in trouble. We liked this guy, he's smart, he's got the goods on this egomaniac, and her husband's henchmen took him away. It's simply the way the show plays. Then we get to act two and are shoehorned into an emotion-tinged arc built on a dying young woman. By the end, what are left to feel, to think? How, exactly, has this entertainment ... entertained? Esoteric discussions raised by Prince and others about the use of media in politics and other sidebar issues miss the bigger point: what do we root for? Who wins? Who loses? The material tries to have it both ways, to get us to side with Che and Eva, and for two hours enjoy a debate we really don't want to have in that theater seat. A young man castigates a woman's rise, she gets cancer and dies. The casting, starting with Mandy, stacks the deck. It's a great score, a fascinating "concept," but a bizarre piece of musical theater for a commercial audiences. These reviews reminded of how confusing EVITA really is.

It will be most intriguing to watch this production's box office, and to find out if the brand and Martin's name being attached suffice. This is the first EVITA with top-billed stars, at least in the US. The show itself used to be the star, or at least the event, the reason to go. A year from now, we will have more to talk about.

Updated On: 4/6/12 at 03:19 PM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 4/6/12 at 3:33pm

Fascinating, Auggie. I remember those little lampshades at Ted Hooks and I had similar heated conversations there and at Charlie's and Barrymore's.

But I was not a devotee of the Julie Covington concept album, nor was I anything but a lukewarm fan of "Bad Boy" Lloyd Webber.

I had seen LuPone in the Acting Company's Edward II (playing a boy) and in their Time of Your Life (playing a vulnerable prostitute), but I had no sense of her as a star from those. I was much more taken by Mary Lou Rosato and Mary Joan Negro.

So when I sat down with my father in the front row of the mezzanine to see Evita, I was not predisposed to adore Patti or to be protective of Lloyd Webber's "art."

But what I saw astonished me: the staging, Mandy's performance, and Patti's. I knew almost from her first notes that hers was an outsize talent that I hadn't recognized before. By the end of my show, I felt the way I had felt when seeing Stritch in Company, the ladies of Follies and Angela in Gypsy: that this was a star performance on the magnitude of a Merman.

Updated On: 4/6/12 at 03:33 PM

[PitPro2004]

Posted: 4/6/12 at 8:31pm

Wow. That's a helluva post Auggie...and a great one!

[hermajesty]

Posted: 4/6/12 at 9:00pm

My goodness PJ, you like something?...i.e. Stritch? Well, have a look at this.

http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/end_of_elaine_clout_JwkDptVNhiU6CxP7TciJ7L?utm_medium=SFnewyorkpost&utm_content=Page+Six&utm_source=SFnewyorkpost
or if the link doesn't work here it is...

Producers of “End of the Rainbow” instituted a strict rule to ban well-wishers from heading backstage after the show’s Broadway premiere at the Belasco Theatre on Monday, so the cast could promptly get to a black-tie after-party at the Plaza. But showbiz veteran Elaine Stritch, 87, is not one to be stopped. Formidable actress and singer Stritch burst through a barricade to give star Tracie Bennett — who plays Judy Garland in the play about her final days — some precious opening-night advice. “I need you to know how wonderful you are, but listen to me, and listen carefully: I don’t do matinees,” Stritch was overheard telling her. “Your producers will kill me . . . but you should not be doing eight shows a week!” Despite the sterling advice, a production rep told us the drama by British playwright Peter Quilter will go on as planned. He said, “Tracie will continue performing eight shows each week. She did more than 300 performances in the UK and never missed a single [one].”

Updated On: 4/6/12 at 09:00 PM

[rosscoe(au)]

Posted: 4/6/12 at 9:43pm

Auggie and Pal Joey, those two posts are the single reason why I love this site.

I know I say it all the time, I wish this was the Hal Prince production!

[bjh2114]

Posted: 4/7/12 at 12:05am

Fun fact. Didhelikeit.com changed the NYTIMES review from "on the fence" to "thumbs down".

[jayinchelsea]

Posted: 4/7/12 at 12:15am

Great post, Auggie, and although I have never been a fan of the show, now I'm thinking of seeing it.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 4/7/12 at 12:18am

Just saw it tonight and have to say, Brantley's review was totally beside the point. Elena Roger is giving a wonderful performance and the staging (well, the choreography) is beautiful.

If there had never been a Hal Prince production--and never been a Patti LuPone performance of the role--this production and Elena Roger would be getting raves.

Her "Final Broadcast" was extraordinary, totally and completely extraordinary.

Michael Cerveris and Max Von Essen are wonderful too. Ricky is not great--he was done a terrible disservice by Michael Grandage, who seems not have helped Ricky one bit. But the roar of ovation Ricky gets at the end is as large and loud as any curtain call I have ever heard.

All in all, it was a pretty terrific evening in the theater.



Oh, and take another snifter of gin
and go back to sleep, Juggles.
Nobody was talking to you.

[CurtainPullDowner]

Posted: 4/7/12 at 12:37am

"YOU MUST LOVE CHE"
"And does he deliver! Despite being vocally underpowered at times, Martin is a supernova of charisma in the key part of Che. "

If he can melt a Sister of the Isle like Vincentelli, he must be doing something right.

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 4/7/12 at 1:34am

I LOVES MY CHE shirtless and wrapped in a towel....

[somethingwicked]

Posted: 4/7/12 at 2:08am

I find it rather staggering that some people on this board took issue with Elena Roger's voice and then subsequently praised her alternate. Christina DeCicco is a lovely girl, but her vocal stylings are downright disastrous, and the whole role just feels entirely out of her league. She looks and acts like she should be playing The Mistress, not Eva Peron. I know they had a hell of a hard time casting the alternate position, but there's no doubt in my mind they could have done significantly better, particularly considering some of the established names I've heard were willing to be considered.

In "Buenos Aires," DeCicco's high notes were completely (and lightly) mixed in pure head voice the entire number. At the end, she attempted to belt the final note, but she ended up just screaming and going terribly, noticeably flat. Her "A New Argentina" was much more impressive, but "Rainbow High" was shrill and practically unlistenable. She's very, very lucky she's only playing the role two times a week, because she's pushing so hard so often that she'd be completely unable to speak (let alone sing) if she ever had to do it more frequently. As far as her acting goes, she really disappears on stage. You can imagine how problematic that is, given the vibrancy the piece and the role necessitates.

While Roger may not have the penetrable (though never the less highly effective) vocal technique of some of her predecessors, her presence is so ferocious and captivating that you're constantly mesmerized by her, much like the real life Eva. Watching someone as ill-equipped DeCicco, I was reminded just how much genuine "star quality" is really required to make the show soar. Love her or hate her, Roger has it, and this production sinks like a lead balloon without her.

Updated On: 4/7/12 at 02:08 AM

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 4/7/12 at 2:21am

^ WORD. Based on what I have 'heard', Decicco's vocals are nowhere near as strong as Elena's.

Updated On: 4/7/12 at 02:21 AM

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 4/7/12 at 2:27am

I 'heard' Decicco's performance as well. UNACCEPTABLE!

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 4/7/12 at 2:39am

Carlos- When you saw the show you saw Elena correct? What did you think of her performance?

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 4/7/12 at 2:43am

I did see it with Elena and to be honest with you she didn't "WOW" me like I thought (or hoped) she would. Though I have to say she dances beautifully and her BUENOS AIRES was fierce. With that said, I am willing to give her a second chance and I'm going to be seeing it again. I do however think that vocally she is leaps and bounds better than Decicco.

I am a HUGE...and I mean H-U-G-E Ricky Martin fan and even he left a lot to be desired...I hope he has improved when I go back.


Updated On: 4/7/12 at 02:43 AM

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 4/7/12 at 2:52am

I will be seeing the show this and I will definitely be buying my tickets for a performance when Elena is on. I am a HUGE fan of hers, and I LOVE Evita, so I am really looking forward to seeing it.

[The Scorpion]

Posted: 4/7/12 at 8:44am

Watching someone as ill-equipped DeCicco, I was reminded just how much genuine "star quality" is really required to make the show soar. Love her or hate her, Roger has it, and this production sinks like a lead balloon without her.

I think there's something in this. The one time I watched the production in London without Elena, it seemed rather dull and boring, livened up only by Philip Quast.

This is the first EVITA with top-billed stars, at least in the US. The show itself used to be the star, or at least the event, the reason to go. A year from now, we will have more to talk about.

In a way, the way the billing works this time round is reminiscent of the original London production; Paige was a complete unknown (though she had experience) and was took second billing after David Essex, who was a big heartthrob star back in the day (not quite the mega-appeal of Ricky Martin, but the same sort of sexy star appeal in a smaller, national context) and who was marketed heavily as the face of the production before the reviews came in and Paige was praised.

As for Evita catapulting people to stardom, it definitely did so for LuPone and Paige, but I would argue that, in London at least (but perhaps not Broadway -- either way, it's too early to say), it did so with Roger. She returned to London for 3 shows very soon after and ended up getting an Olivier. Her star profile in Argentina, on the other hand, went through the roof and went beyond the confines of the theatre world.

And Auggie27, I am so jealous that you got to see the first American preview of Evita. How thrilling.

[Gypsy9]

Posted: 4/7/12 at 9:06am

I don't think the NYDaily News review was posted. The critic gave a very positive review, with rave notices for Ricky Martin. I can't provide a link, but you can Google it. For the poster keeping score, add this review to your list. Rarely have I seen such a disparity of critical opinions. I see EVITA in two weeks and am looking forward to it.

[My Oh My]

Posted: 4/7/12 at 9:06am

Anyone else noticing how the reviews are divided (both amateur and pro)?

No. Not being Captain Obvious here. They are divided.

Not between LuPone and Roger, original and new, or even sympathetic and fiery portrayals.

It's the pro-theatrical contingent vs. the anti-theatrical advocates. The quality and effectiveness of this production is being based on how theatrical it is.

Those who get theatrical conventions and theatre art aren't so worried about the high notes as they are about the manner in which the loss of the original's theatricality affects the show's core message, appeal, and merit as a piece of musical theatre. Those who don't get it or simply can't care less think this production is pretty nifty because it looks gorgeous, sounds tangoey, has an AUTHENTIC Argentine playing Eva, and is new.

To each his own but the theatrically minded will know what I'm referring to when I say, of all the reviews, Brantley's is the one I really felt.

But that's not why I am choosing to skip this one. As a lover of musicals and their music, I can't support the ever-diminishing musical aspect of the art form I love. That being Broadway, what a shame.

What a live musical performance used to sound like:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTnacz7xRt4

Updated On: 4/7/12 at 09:06 AM

[WiCkEDrOcKS]

Posted: 4/7/12 at 12:28pm

I was fortunate enough to see the show last night on a whim (thanks to SNAFU for the last minute offer!)

And I have to say, I REALLY enjoyed it. I liked it better than FOLLIES, GODSPELL, and JESUS CHRIST SUPERSTAR, to be honest. It's a really strong production of a good, but not great musical. Ricky Martin's acting is at the same level of any given high school performer, and he looks even worse when pitted next to the always brilliant Michael Cerveris (can this man ever do any wrong...?). The ensemble is very good and the orchestra sounds wonderful. Best of all is the absolutely breathtaking set.

Elena Roger gives an incredibly strange performance here. Her first act is very weak vocally but the second act is stronger (probably because the first act requires a hell of a lot more belting). She's clearly not a great singer by any stretch of the imagination. Her acting and dancing, however, are sharp and precise. By the end of the first act, I was not impressed but by time she took her final bow, she had somehow sort of won me over in a bizarre way. Honestly, I don't understand a lot of the negative reviews. I enjoyed myself and the audience really seemed to as well. (Most of whom talked throughout and were very poorly behaved, mind you.)

[PalJoey]

Posted: 4/7/12 at 12:59pm

I was there last night too, Wicked. Was I exaggerating about the ovation for Ricky at the end?