Evita - Page 5

[My Oh My]

Posted: 3/15/12 at 7:33am

Holdyourbatboy, just out of curiosity, what is exciting and entertaining theatre to you? You said the production and performances failed to move you but that the style and 'pop' feel was enough to sustain your interest.

To each his own, but speaking for myself, great theatre is moving. And not just on a superficial level. That's exactly the problem I have with Phantom nowadays in that I don't feel crap for the characters. Although I will say I've always loved Prince's staging and Maria's designs but there comes a time when the lack of emotional connection to the story becomes annoying enough you no longer enjoy it. Maybe that's similar to how you felt with Evita?

Just watched that curtain call video posted here and what immediately stood out to me was the orchestra's reedy sound...a red flag to me that usually means they've substantially reduced it and rearranged everything to cover that up. I'm not infallible and have been wrong once before--I was certain I was hearing some tinny, hollow sounding mess when I first heard an audio of the A Chorus Line Broadway revival out-of-town try out in San Francisco. One of the things I love about the show is its blaring brass and recoiled at what I heard.

Never in my life has an audio of anything of any quality been so wrong and to this day I wonder what made it sound so awful. When you have an ear for music like I do, even the crappiest sound quality can't hide a great orchestra and its distinctive nuances that signal it is, indeed, real and alive.

I was relieved, to say the least. As, not only is A Chorus Line one of my favorite musicals, music is a huge part of what makes live theatre so exciting and unique to me. I don't know how most audiences can sit there and not care what's producing the single most important aspect of an art form they claim to love.

I can only hope my ears are wrong for Evita, too. Because it's also one of my favorite musicals and I won't go if the usual "let's chuck half the orchestra and re-orchestrate to hide that so we can boost profits" ends up being the case.

Updated On: 3/15/12 at 07:33 AM

[Auggie27]

Posted: 3/15/12 at 10:11am

To get back to an earlier discussion: I must wholeheartedly agree with MichaelBennett about the film's lip-synching being a sum negative. The performances feel almost entirely set in the recording studio and you can even see Jonathan Pryce handcuffed by the pre-set line readings. Madonna fares the worse, because she's not a natural (or to be fairer, experienced) actor; she generally works best on film when she's allowed a degree of sponteneity, even improv. In EVITA her performance is vocally predetermined, and you catch her indicating at key moments to suggest the life underneath the songs. The one exception is "You Must Love Me," curiously the only song written just for her. In its performance I see what might've been. She's never dreadful, but she's seldom (except that song) thrilling. It's too bad, because the film is stunning visually, just about perfect in terms of capturing the era and the dramatic event in each scene.

It's relevant because to a certain extent even the stage show suffers from this problem of pre-determined performance. Of course every song is open to fresh interpretation eight times of week. But in a sung-through show that's so often presentational -- only a handful of sequences are traditional "scenes," even by operatic terms -- EVITA can feel like a staged music video. I thought that in 1979, and wonder if that's an issue in this new, more realistic take on the material. The lack of immediacy is built-into the structure of the show, as it depends so heavily on Che's shorthanded narration to inform us, to establish the show's point of view, and to underscore the dramatic point of any moment. The two bedroom scenes -- "Dice are Rolling" and the one in act two -- are rare moments of character interaction, with a chance for people to simply look in one another's eyes and relate. Parker tried to make "Buenos Aires" less presentational by placing Madonna's dance sequences only in clubs or dance halls -- to provide a reality check, to make us feel that the young Eva came alive in the BA nightlife. But on stage, it's all to the audience, almost all handed-down impressions. I was comparing Eva's arrival in B.A. with the mother-daughter scenes in LIGHT IN THE PIAZZA. Yes, apples and oranges, I know that. But the sense of discovery in PIAZZA as the two women have their breath taken away by the glory of Italy, is what's so missing in EVITA on stage. It's this woman telling us, not ever really experiencing much it in front of our eyes. It seems like a small thing, but it's another way the show -- as theatrically sharp and exciting as it is -- can hold its audience at arms length.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 3/15/12 at 10:22am

The Hal Prince production embraced the vignette nature of the material and I think made the show ultimately more satisfying because of it. Though more realistic, Parker was able to bridge vignette and story on film with the inclusion of a lot of montage work - visually bridging the time line.

Grandage is also attempting something more linear and literal, but the problem with that for the stage is that as a narrative the show has a huge amount of holes in it. To me the approach only highlighted the flaws with the material - I've never noticed, for example, how little time on stage Eva actually has in Act 1 before now.

Its probably worth noting that there are no bedroom scenes in this production. There is some sensuality in the dance ("I'd be Surprisingly Good for You" has a lot more heat here than it did in Hal Prince's staging) but over-all, Eva's bedside behavior is played way down this time.



Updated On: 3/15/12 at 10:22 AM

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/15/12 at 11:03am

I saw a national tour of Evita early on with Florence Lacy as Eva. A few years later, I was in a production of Evita with Marin Mazzie as the lead.

My opinion is that the show largely succeeds because it's an incredible "star vehicle." But honestly, aside from the killer role and (potential) tour de force performance from its star, there's not a whole lot else outstanding about it. The music is beautiful and compelling, yes. The lyrics are biting and thought-provoking, but they are also cold and academic. The whole thing feels like a history lesson as told in an op-ed section of a newspaper.

It's an "interesting read," but I was never emotionally swept away by this musical. Not when I saw it or when I was in it, despite witnessing two incredibly good performances from leading ladies.

Basically, if you don't have a "wow" performance from Eva, you don't have much of a show. And with a polarizing Eva in this production, you're bound to find as many opinions about whether the show itself is any good.

[Owen22]

Posted: 3/15/12 at 11:18am

The problem with Evita not being completely compelling is that it's not really a musical. Its a pageant. There are a few scenes with people talking in a room, but mostly its a grand cavalcade of Eva Peron's greatest hits. Now, what is compelling is the music and, if played by the right actress, Evita herself. The movie was no different, which was another reason that Madonna was more than halfway okay in the role. Still, Evita was a major force in my young life, I loved Roger in the London version and have paid my 137 bucks (dear god) to see it at the Marquis. Now, without the Brechtian Prince touches which, though distancing, were amazingly theatrical, the show is even less formidable, But again, still, the music is great...

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 3/15/12 at 11:24am

I really do believe that the show more than anything requires a visionary director over a visionary performance. As others have pointed out, the original production of EVITA may have made LuPone a star but it was never a star vehicle after her and was a hit around the world with a huge array of different women (ranging from spectacular to near awful) playing the role. I have to attribute the show's initial huge global success thus on the Prince staging and the audience intrigue over the subject matter rather than the performances of the woman in the title role.

I think WICKED would be the closest example to a similar situation today. It may have helped solidify the star status of its two original stars, but the show is a hit every where it goes, even with some hit or miss performances in the leading roles.

[Owen22]

Posted: 3/15/12 at 11:39am

well, Michael, I would have to disagree as Wicked is BARELY directed, its power is in its writing, creating, using typical musical comedy tropes, two complex women set against a plot mixture of girl power and fighting fascism. There are parts of Wicked that drive me nuts (shoe-horning Wizard of Oz references in the second act to the detriment of character) but with Wicked, its the story (told with, as opposed to against, the music) that makes Wicked a completely different animal then Evita.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 3/15/12 at 12:09pm

I would agree that WICKED is more story driven and that is probably what drives the success of the production more than anything; though I have to disagree about the direction. For what it is: a popular mainstream musical for midwestern tastes, Joe Mantello gave the production exactly what its target audience wants.

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/15/12 at 1:07pm

MB, there's no way that anyone other than the original show's leads (Wicked and Evita respectively) were going to become household names or stars as a result of their performances in those shows. They didn't have the media machine behind them. There were no press junkets, cast recordings, newspaper and magazine articles about them, etc. The marketing campaigns don't push or even discuss the replacements, once a show becomes a hit, unless they're already well known.

Even if there have been plenty of Evas, Elphabas, and Glindas who have given "stellar" performances. I'll bet most people could tell you who they saw play those parts on Broadway. Even if they were the 4th replacement, etc., (unless of course they sucked).

I guess I wasn't clear by saying a "star vehicle" role. I didn't mean that it guaranteed anybody who played the role would become a star or household name. There's no such thing for any role or show.

Only that it's a major showcase for whoever plays the part.

Updated On: 3/15/12 at 01:07 PM

[TheBatBoy]

Posted: 3/15/12 at 1:13pm

You've peaked my interest when you said Marin Mazzie was in the starring role as Evita. While several years ago she probably looked the part, she doesn't strike me as someone who could actually sing the part. She's a talented singer for sure, but I don't picture her voice in that role. How was she?

[Patti LuPone FANatic]

Posted: 3/15/12 at 1:32pm

So, how did it go for the 2nd preview? Anyone? from Roman in Austin, Texas

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/15/12 at 1:40pm

TheBatBoy---this was many years ago when Marin had much more of a mix. She still didn't belt the highest notes full on, but it was really hard to tell the difference. Her voice was amazing and clear as a bell with no discernible break, and she sang the hell out of the role. She was in her mid-20s at the time and a little bit young for it, but other then that, she blew us all away.

As part of the ensemble, I had various solo lines here and there, and I got to sing "Good Night and Thank You" with Marin as one of her "lovers."



She went back to NY after our summer season and right into her first Broadway show (Big River, replacing Patti Cohenour). She came to do Evita having just finished the La Jolla production of Merrily We Roll Along. So our "Evita" was in between Merrily and Big River.

[jacobsnchz14]

Posted: 3/15/12 at 2:10pm

Is "You Must Love Me" in this production as it was in London? Just wondering because PlaybillVault.com hasn't posted any Inside The Playbill photos yet.

[Patti LuPone FANatic]

Posted: 3/15/12 at 2:12pm

Yes Jacob, "You Must Love Me" is included in this production. I didn't look at the songlist during the 1st preview, so I was surprised when it came on. Elena's voice was right for that particular song. from RC in Austin, Texas

[StageManager2]

Posted: 3/15/12 at 5:15pm

"She was in her mid-20s at the time and a little bit young for it"

A little young? Eva is in her twenties for much of the show. She died only 2 months after her 33rd birthday, and the part in her thirties is toward the end from "Waltz for Eva and Che" on.

[RippedMan]

Posted: 3/15/12 at 5:36pm

Is this a hot ticket right now? Or would it be easy to get a rush ticket?

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 3/15/12 at 6:18pm

It's MUY, MUY CALIENTE!

[bundy5000]

Posted: 3/15/12 at 6:20pm

Any merchandise available?

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/15/12 at 6:23pm

Right, SM2, because everyone in their mid-20s looks, performs, and behaves with exactly the same maturity level as everyone else.

EDIT: I will also add that even though I wouldn't rule out a 25-year-old actress playing Eva, you'd be VERY hard pressed to find one who could wrap her head around that role. I'm not talking about singing it, I'm talking about acting it. Most don't have the maturity, experience, and (acting) range that it takes.

And there's a massive difference between 22 and 30. You're still not much more than a college kid at 22, mostly without any life experiences to call your own, including living on your own. By 30, you're an entirely different person. Even the difference between 25 and 29 is huge.

Again ... I'm not talking about anything physically, I'm talking about what it takes emotionally as an actor. A lot goes on during that time.

Updated On: 3/15/12 at 06:23 PM

[Wilmingtom]

Posted: 3/15/12 at 6:31pm

I'm confused by the idea of any of them using a Spanish accent. Obviously, were it realistic, they'd be speaking Spanish but because it's being done for an English speaking audience, they're doing it in English. It's a device. When they do the Spanish language version of Oklahoma! do you think they speak in Spanish with American accents?

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/15/12 at 6:35pm

I don't think Roger has much of a choice. Her own accent is very thick, and I don't think she can lose it or even tone it down much.

[StageManager2]

Posted: 3/15/12 at 6:51pm

besty, Eva ages from 15-26 in the first act; in the second act she's 27 at the inauguration, 28 during her Rainbow Tour, and the same age when she starts her foundation. A lot of the big events happen when she's in her twenties (or younger), so I don't see the problem with a twentysomething playing the role.

[Patti LuPone FANatic]

Posted: 3/15/12 at 8:54pm

It's mostly t- shirts. No progamme is available at this point. (I was surprised about that.) from RC in Austin, Texas

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/15/12 at 9:25pm

SM2---I still don't think you're grasping what it takes to play a role like this well.

I also don't think Eva Duarte was remotely a typical 20-something by anybody's standards.

And most "Broadway teens," particularly late-teens, are played by actors in their mid-to-late-20s. Most roles written for characters in their mid-20s are played by actors going all the way up to 40.

(or 70 if you're Barbra Streisand)

Elena Roger is 37. Patti LuPone and Elaine Paige were both 30. And there's a big difference in maturity and both professional and life experience between 25 and 30 (as I mentioned before).

Yes, there are exceptions to every rule, but you would be hard pressed to find a 25-year-old who could fully grasp the acting challenges and full scope of the role of Eva Peron.

Updated On: 3/15/12 at 09:25 PM

[kyl3fong2]

Posted: 3/15/12 at 11:50pm

@RippedMan: Tonight's performance was sold out. Got there at 7:45AM this morning to get tickets and by around 8:20AM there was a huge line already. So yes, I would say this is a hot sell right now.



Anyways I saw the show tonight and I absolutely LOVED it. I wasn't entirely sold on Elena Roger but by Act II I warmed up to her a bit. Ricky Martin was one of the highlights for me. I was really surprised how good he was in his role. Also the actress playing the Mistress had FLAWLESS vocals and she nailed "Another Suitcase in Another Hall".

You can count me as one of the people who enjoyed the show. ALW was also in the audience tonight.