Evita movie question

[EponineThenardier]

Posted: 3/21/05 at 10:36pm

Why did they have Madonna sing "Another Suitcase in Another Hall"? When it's supposed to be Peron's mistress who sings it? Granted it is the best song in the entire show, but still...

[BJC899]

Posted: 3/21/05 at 10:39pm

I have no idea but i have a comment about that song...

I just saw Evita over the weekend at a high school. The show was absolutely amazing, but the girl who sang Another Suitcase in Another Hall practically got a standing ovation. She was better then the woman on the OBC...

haha OT i know...

[MissMonika]

Posted: 3/21/05 at 10:39pm

hmm....actually, that's a good question. sorry, i dunno the answer, though.

[ElTico68]

Posted: 3/22/05 at 12:29am

Don't know why... and I didn't like it one bit. It lost it's meaning...

[Racetrack]

Posted: 3/22/05 at 12:40am

I love that song too and upon watching the movie again I asked myself that question. I think just because they cut out the entire part of the mistress and they had to stick the song in somewhere so why not give it to Eva? I think I would have liked it better with the mistress singing it since it's a fairly small part anyway, but that's just me.

Posted: 3/22/05 at 12:44am

I always thought that in that show, it was sort of random that the gal came in for about a minute, sang the song and left.
I suppose if the movie was cast with an unknown (as Eva) and the mistress was a "celebrity" that cameo and her performing that song would have worked. Sort of like the latest ANNIE movie... The song "N.Y.C." is sort of a throwaway, but having Andrea McArdle do it worked.

[TBone]

Posted: 3/22/05 at 12:47am

When Felicia Finley played Eva, she sang it - just like in the movie. I have to say that I agree with DT, and don't mind the change. Of course this means that BOTH Eva and Peron's Mistress sang it in the show, which actually kinda worked for me.

[HeyMrMusic]

Posted: 3/22/05 at 2:43am

Yeah, they changed it for the movie because they didn't want a random girl to have a showstopping number and then never appear again. They thought it would confuse the audience and I guess they thought it was just plain random. They wanted to center the movie on Eva herself, so to steal the spotlight away for five minutes could have been disastrous and very distracting. I for one thought the change was good for the movie. I don't mind the way it's done on the stage, though.

~Steven

Posted: 3/22/05 at 2:59am

i thought having both of them sing a bit of the song was good in the movie. set them up as similar but Eva was just better at playing the game...

[Marquise]

Posted: 3/22/05 at 3:53am

the song was given to madonna because being the diva that she is she wasn't going to allow another character to sing a show stopping song like that and take away the spotlight so the producers cleverly justified the change by stating they decided to give the song to "eva" to illustrate the disappointment in her relationship with magaldi once she arrives to buenos aires and she realizes she's pushed aside for his wife.

the song works well enough within that context but I believe the change was done more for madonna's sake than for anything having to do with the storyline.
Updated On: 3/22/05 at 03:53 AM

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 3/22/05 at 8:18am

Marquise--that is such a BS answer. Parker needed to find a way to have a smoother transition out of Buenos Aires--to get her away from Magaldi. Plus, the duality of her and the mistress made for a poignant juxtaposition as Mistress stated.

Madonna isn't the diva you paint her to be.

[Marquise]

Posted: 3/22/05 at 8:37am

I thought the way they got her away from Magaldi in the original libretto was just fine. What was wrong with using that scenario for the film?

[CurtainUp2]

Posted: 3/22/05 at 9:10am

Whatever the reason, it worked. IMO Madonna's rendition of the song was heartfelt and poignant.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 3/22/05 at 12:31pm

To fully understand why they changed "Another Suitcase in Another Hall" for the film, you have to understand the political inspiration behind the writing of the musical.

In 1976, the thing that initially drew Tim Rice and Andrew Lloyd Webber to the idea of musicalizing the life of Eva Peron, was that just as they felt the life of Jesus Christ mirrored the frenzied celebrity of the modern day rock star, they felt that the story of the Perons and particularly their totalitarian politics seemed to echo the desperate socio-econimic climate of the current United Kingdom.

Their initial take on the character of Eva Peron was relatively ruthless. If you listen to the original concept album, Eva is brittle and unrelentlingly harsh. When the show was staged for the first time by Hal Prince in 1978, the concept of the character remained ruthless and unforgiving.

But by the time the show opened in New York, Webber, Prince and Rice had begun to rethink the character of Eva Peron. Perhaps their years with the character gave them a different perspective, or perhaps the tide of british politics that initially drew them to the project had changed, but Eva was much more sympathetic when the show opened on Broadway.

When Alan Parker took over the film, he took an almost "pro" Evita stance (almost a 180 from the place the writers started from). His take on the role is completely empathetic, and while it can be argued that two songs were added for Madonna because of her celebrity, I personally think Parker requested the addition of "You Must Love Me" and the reassignment of "Another Suitcase" to deliberately give Eva two sympathetic, vulnerable moments which she really doesn't get in the play.

When the next major revival happens, without Prince's staging, it will be interesting to see how the team approaches the Evita character. It wouldn't surprise me if some of the structural changes from the film were incorporated. Perhaps it will depend on the politics of the day.



Updated On: 3/22/05 at 12:31 PM

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 3/23/05 at 1:23am

Michael Bennett's explanation is completely true -- I tracked the making of the movie through the mid-1990s (even before Madonna was cast). Madonna did not request to make "Another Suitcase" her song; the change was already made in the screenplay by the time she signed on to play the role.

Sorry Marquise, Madonna really isn't the diva people paint her to be -- Alan Parker continues to remark how easy Madonna was to work with. She also agred to take a hefty paycut (she was paid $1 million for EVITA, a fraction of the $7 million she can command) because she wanted to play the role. She also took a whole lot of slack from some Argentine groups who didn't want her to play Eva Peron.

[phantom_tenor]

Posted: 3/23/05 at 3:58am

this is irrelevant, but i believe ALW complained once in an interveiw that Evita would have been far better musically if they had gotten someone who could have sung the music in the original keys.
Fancy having to have Don't Cry For Me Argentina transposed, when the song only requires an octave range, all in middle voice.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 3/23/05 at 8:04am

Everytime a star does a role on Broadway--their songs are transposed for them if need be. It's not that scandalous at all. It's not always an indication of talent.

[Elphaba]

Posted: 3/23/05 at 9:07am

um probably because Madonna wanted to sing it.....something tells me she got whatever she wanted......

[HeyMrMusic]

Posted: 3/23/05 at 12:16pm

Believe me when I say I love original keys (I have perfect pitch, so it sometimes irritates me when songs are performed in other keys), but I don't object to transposing at all. I even give in to it sometimes when I want to perform a beautiful song that was originally meant to be sung by a tenor or even a girl. Transposing keys does not indicate talent. Sometimes changing the key of a song changes the entire spirit of the song or its essential nature just by that small change, but I don't think Evita was really affected by that. Not saying Madonna was the best singer for the job, but I don't think the key changes hurt.

~Steven

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 3/23/05 at 12:26pm

I don't think changing the keys for a film hurts either.

Film is a different medium, and it wouldn't have worked to have had all the musical numbers belted the way they are in the theatre, once you actually had characters in real, intimate locations as opposed to a set on the stage of a thousand seat theatre.

If anything, I think the flaw with EVITA as a movie,is that because it is all sung, and the music was prerecorded, you begin to feel an odd disconnect after a while as you watch the film.

Updated On: 3/23/05 at 12:26 PM

[HeyMrMusic]

Posted: 3/23/05 at 1:13pm

Yes, I agree. I thought the sound mixing was terrible. It looked like a two-and-a-half-hour long music video as a result. I'm a fan of the concept of the sung-through musical, I'd like to see it done well on the screen, but this one seemed fake or something. I don't know, something like that.

~Steven

[Gothampc]

Posted: 3/23/05 at 1:14pm

I remember when Evita was being discussed as a movie. Many people were saying it would go to Barbra Streisand. The joke at that time was Streisand would sing every song in the show, including the song sung by the mistress. Back then, it was a joke. (I personally like the song better when the mistress sings it because she is the reference point that shows how far Eva climbed. I've always thought it would be interesting to have the mistress show up as a type or shadow toward the end when Eva is dying).

In a recent interview, Patti LuPone comments on how hard Evita is to sing. She makes a disparaging remark against ALW for writing the high belt notes (He supports you, for he loves you, etc), so it's hard to tell whether it was hard to sing or she was just fanning her hatred of him.

Updated On: 3/23/05 at 01:14 PM

[HeyMrMusic]

Posted: 3/23/05 at 1:17pm

Haha, probably both.

~Steven

[ChristineDaae]

Posted: 3/23/05 at 1:21pm

I always thought Evita sang that song??

[Gothampc]

Posted: 3/23/05 at 1:24pm

No ChristianDaae, in the original "Another Suitcase" is sung by the mistress that Eva kicks out.