Evita — Page 11

It's funny, because the reactions I'm reading on this thread are EXACTLY the reactions I thought would happen if the show transferred to Broadway, which it has done now. Back when it was playing in London, based on the comments I was reading from American posters on theatre boards, I noticed the following:

- It tended to be people from the US rather than the UK who had a problem with Elena's accent. No-one I knew who was not American found her unintelligible. I later saw her in Piaf and Passion and understood her just fine. Whether this is because US audiences are less 'exposed' to other accents in the world, I have no idea, but there might be something in that (given how virtually everything is remade for American audiences, especially in the cinema).

- Incessant comparisons with LuPone coming from the American audience, but for some reason the Paige followers from Britain didn't have a problem. LuPone and her interpretation seems to be sacrosanct for American audiences in a way that Paige's turn in the role isn't for us in Britain. I wonder if that's because we knew Evita starting from Julie Covington, whereas Americans weren't really familiar with the concept album. It might have something to do with Paige endorsing Elena Roger and the production and saying that she loved it... I'm pretty certain pigs will fly before LuPone attends this revival, though it'd be really, REALLY interesting if she does, not least because of her post-Sunset anti-ALW stance.

It seems none of this has changed in the intervening 6 years. I'm guessing that perhaps the theatre nuts of the US see 'Evita' as a 'diva' role with a harsh, aggressive Eva as played by LuPone. Paige was nowhere near as aggressive as LuPone (Hal made her far more bitchy for US audiences, as there was greater risk of the charge of 'OMG you're glorifying fascism' coming from the US critics than from London's, with the added risk that the Jewish community wouldn't respond well to a show about a dictator who allegedly helped to harbour the Nazis), and that may be why Roger's performance was much better received by audiences in London. She's the polar opposite of LuPone in that she's chosen to play her sympathetically, and it's an interpretation that, though at odds with the sometimes scathing lyrics, is probably more in tune with how Eva is viewed and depicted in today's Argentina (I really can't see how LuPone's Evita would fit the current Argentine view of Eva from what I perceived when I was living in Buenos Aires, even by those who didn't like Evita). Also Paige and Roger were/are both good dancers; there was a lot less dancing when LuPone did the role and the show was frozen. Whatever Elena lacks in vocal power, she more than compensates for with her dancing.

I thought Elena Roger was electric every time I saw her at the Adelphi in London. I can't wait to see her at the Marquis next month. And I personally loved the revival, and I'm a Hal Prince fanboy. There were things I thought weren't as good as in Hal's production (particularly the staging of Dangerous Jade), but there were also things that I thought were better (Buenos Aires in the revival is amazing IMHO).

Re the sets, I find it odd people are complaining about them not changing much, considering the original was a black box production with no real sense of locale either. If anything, the revival gives a much more obvious impression as to where you are during a particular scene.

Incidentally, for anyone who thought we were badly cheated in London by only getting a highlights recording, there's a Facebook page to register support for a complete recording of the Broadway production. Supposedly the powers-that-be are listening, so might be worth joining. Search for 'Evita Broadway Cast Recording' or something like that on Facebook.

Updated On: 4/2/12 at 08:12 AM

"I'm pretty certain pigs will fly before LuPone attends this revival, though it'd be really, REALLY interesting if she does, not least because of her post-Sunset anti-ALW stance."

Patti is friendly with Elena and they have conversed. Patti will be at the opening with Mandy. For all the chastising you have done about US audiences and their assumptions, you sure made plenty yourself, including some about Patti.

Why can't people accept that we have plenty to dislike about this revival without making it about Elena's accent or the sanctity of Patti LuPone. Most of us haven't been talking about that.

---

I know I'll likely get blasted with "but it's a MUSICAL" or "this is about the the singing" comments, but I think it's worth mentioning that, at least to me, this is the best acted EVITA I've ever seen. Patti/Mandy's Evita WAS powerful, but largely because of the shock value of Patti's pipes and precision of the production at large.

This is a terrifically acted show. (Yes, Ricky is Ricky.)
I was particularly struck by the chemistry between Eva and Peron. Elena and Cerveris are a believable pair, and their sexuality, emotional life, communication with glances, etc. all register as authentic. (And yes, I could see the from the back of the orchestra...they're playing it broad enough.)

Their first meeting isn't an overplayed farce, but a moment of natural attraction that read as something real. When Peron steps aside to let Eva take the balcony for "Don't Cry for Me Argentina" he looks genuinely proud, not cartoonishly calculating (as in some prodctions I've seen). And the tenderness Peron shows her during "You Must Love Me" was a genuinely touching moment in a show that is rarely soft and sweet at all.

I loved that about this production. If you look at the black and white pictures of the real Juan and Eva, or have ever seen a doc about the pair, it's obvious that--despite some of the horrible things they did to their opponents in Argentina--they genuinely cared for one another, and he was proud of her.

Props to both Elena and Michael for making that happen in a show with very little to work with in that regard. Double props to Cerveris, who takes a woefully underwritten, generally forgettable (who talks about Bob Gunton, really?) role and turning it into a dynamic, multifaceted character. He takes a part that is about 80% pantomime and turns it into a substantial part that bolsters his Evita's effect. (And, for the "but it's a musical!" commentors, he and Von Essen have the best voices onstage.)

And Elena may not sound like Patti, but she's acting the Hell out of Eva. She SOUNDS like Eva. If you listen to the recordings of the real Eva addressing the masses outside this Casa Rosata there's no denying the uncanny resemblence. I prefer her take on Eva to the standard bitchy-belty Evitas available for your viewing pleasure at every community theater across the country.

---

And in this interview, Elena says she met Patti at at party and that Patti was "lovely."
Elena Roger on Returning to Evita, Working with Ricky Martin and Meeting the Other Evas

---

"Why can't people accept that we have plenty to dislike about this revival without making it about Elena's accent or the sanctity of Patti LuPone. Most of us haven't been talking about that."

Yes, it's primarily been the people who have enjoyed the production introducing and especially harping on the comparison, as if they haven't read the myriad other criticisms in this thread that have nothing to do with Patti LuPone. I don't understand how anyone who's actually read this thread could come away thinking that this production's detractors have made it about that at all. It's a very Fox News approach.

"If we keep on saying taxes have gone up under President Obama, it will eventually be a given, despite every single verifiable fact pointing to the contrary."

"If we keep saying the people who don't like this revival of EVITA don't like it because it's not the original production, eventually it will seem true."

It's kind of astonishing.

In fact, I'm not sure that I've seen *anyone* -- in this thread or elsewhere -- make that comparison their primary complaint. Where did this idea originate?

---

there is a sort of LuPone worship on Broadway that doesn't have an equivalent with Paige in London

That's because Elaine Paige is not Patti LuPone.

---

Mysterious, it's sad but true most people have complained that she is not a belter, or saying how a belter should be playing Evita, or how her accent is too thick, or things to that effect. By the way on another hand i have listened to the lupone recording of don't cry for me argentina hundreds of times, she has never acted it as perfectly as Elena does.

Updated On: 4/2/12 at 05:06 PM

"Mysterious, it's sad but true most people have complained that she is not a belter, or saying how a belter should be playing Evita, or how her accent is too thick, or things to that effect."

Well, hey, that's cool, but who was talking about that?

I'm talking about these supposedly rampant comparisons to LuPone and how this production is no good because Roger isn't LuPone and the judgments made on that bias, with no further supporting opinions. Read this thread, and you'll see that a very, very small -- practically insignificant -- fraction of real criticism has even mentioned this.

---

I saw DeCicco, and while she sang the score as written (what was changed for Roger, anyway?) she did not belt. Between Martin's weak acting and no powerhouse vocals from the protagonist, there was a huge dramatic void at the production's center, which could not be filled by Michael Cerveris, no matter how good he is. I left wondering about the piece's viability *without* a belter in the role of Eva. Perhaps a more naturalistic interpretation would work if you had an exceptionally strong and present Che. But with tension lacking in the two most important roles, it was really hard to figure out where the trouble lay.

---

Updated On: 4/2/12 at 06:04 PM

Roger sings the score as written. Belting really doesn't have anything to do with the way a score is written. It's a method of voice production, not an aspect of music theory.

Also, I don't think you can say that Julie Covington--the first person to sing the score--"belted the whole thing." I would say Covington and Roger have a similar approach to the score in that respect (though their voices are, of course, very different).

I always thought that comparisons between Covington, Paige and Roger were more natural than comparisons between any of those women and LuPone. I always thought of it as a London/West End sensibility, but I thought the latter three had a more "pop" like sound than the full-bodied belt LuPone had. Admittedly I find it very difficult to get through the Concept album and both London cast albums because of tempo issues, but that's what I've observed listening to those four women.

---

I found LuPone to be incredibly nuanced. (Though that's certainly not always the case in her various performances of "Don't Cry for Me" over the years.)

Perhaps "as written" was not the correct phrase... "as intended?" Admittedly, I'm not all that familiar with the concept album, but Julie Covington does belt the "he supports you..." phrase, although not as pleasantly as I think LuPone does. Eva should have a big voice and have, as someone else just said, lots of power. There are many sections of the score that I don't care if they are belted (basically all of the second half of the second act), but if Eva's voice doesn't fill the theatre with a powerful sound, something is lost. So much of the show rests on Eva being a larger-than-life image that her singing must be big in order to be effective.