Evita — Page 5

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.

---

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.

---

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.

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.

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?

---

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.

---

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

---

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

Any merchandise available?

---

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?

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.

---

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