#76
Posted: 3/13/12 at 6:19pm
While Evita the movie was really only a moderate commercial success, a LOT, if not most, of my non theatre friends associate it with Madonna--so as others said, I think the Petti connection is much more with certain Broadway people, not the general population (by any means--Patti who?)
Castle, thanks for your reply. I actually agree with you, although I think I do like the movie more than you overall, I do think Parker had a hard time choosing between how to present it. I guess I just saw your comment about it being an abortion as too harsh--to me that means an utter disaster. Stone would have been a worse choice I suspect (though maybe he'd surprise me)--as would the rumours back in the day of Ken Russell (although it probably would have been entertaining to watch).
I do find the concept album to be probably the most exciting of the recordings overall (RippedMan I believe it was just recently remastered so you can easily buy it
), but a lot of it wouldn;'t work IMHO on stage. The Lady Has Potential (even with the insecticide stuff removed as it was for the film) would be I suspect a very hard song to make work on stage.
That said, I think Kay's orchestrations work better in a theatrical context (and Larry Fuller used many of his added rhythms to do some great choreography which often doesn';t get the credit it should). The concept album is much more like Jesus Christ Superstar, which I still think has never fully successfully worked on stage--Prince was smart to insist on the changes he did before he would direct it.
I don't mean to discredit the London cast at all, I think they're all fine performers--and I think it's a bit unfair that many people sorta forget even that Evita was a success in London with that cast first--just for some reason I find the recording itself lacks energy and is disappointing. Maybe it was recorded too early? Speaking of, did Prince and crew make any significant changes between London and the LA/NYC production? I guess I always think of the major changes made to Sunset Blvd between London and LA, buit I suppose it wasn't really the same situation.
Castle, thanks for your reply. I actually agree with you, although I think I do like the movie more than you overall, I do think Parker had a hard time choosing between how to present it. I guess I just saw your comment about it being an abortion as too harsh--to me that means an utter disaster. Stone would have been a worse choice I suspect (though maybe he'd surprise me)--as would the rumours back in the day of Ken Russell (although it probably would have been entertaining to watch).
I do find the concept album to be probably the most exciting of the recordings overall (RippedMan I believe it was just recently remastered so you can easily buy it
That said, I think Kay's orchestrations work better in a theatrical context (and Larry Fuller used many of his added rhythms to do some great choreography which often doesn';t get the credit it should). The concept album is much more like Jesus Christ Superstar, which I still think has never fully successfully worked on stage--Prince was smart to insist on the changes he did before he would direct it.
I don't mean to discredit the London cast at all, I think they're all fine performers--and I think it's a bit unfair that many people sorta forget even that Evita was a success in London with that cast first--just for some reason I find the recording itself lacks energy and is disappointing. Maybe it was recorded too early? Speaking of, did Prince and crew make any significant changes between London and the LA/NYC production? I guess I always think of the major changes made to Sunset Blvd between London and LA, buit I suppose it wasn't really the same situation.