Posted: 7/18/15 at 11:00am
I'm sure many caught it, so I was wondering what those who did see it thought of the show? How was Elena Roger? - was she really as bad as people say? Did it recoup on tour?
If anyone saw the London incarnation of the show, was there a specific difference between her portrayal/the show then in 2006, and the 2012 Broadway version?
Posted: 7/18/15 at 11:04am
I saw the Broadway revival twice. Many did not like Elena Roger but I am in the group that thought she was an absolutely perfect Evita. I enjoyed her very much.
Posted: 7/18/15 at 11:05am
I thought Roger was remarkable. I only saw it on Broadway, and besides her the production was a disappointing mess.
Posted: 7/18/15 at 11:06am
Although I should mention that Michael Cerveris was excellent and I expected him to win the Tony.
Posted: 7/18/15 at 11:07am
"I thought Roger was remarkable. I only saw it on Broadway, and besides her the production was a disappointing mess."
What didn't you like about it?
Posted: 7/18/15 at 11:10am
It had none of the bite, wit, or thrill of Hal Prince's original staging. And Ricky Martin was truly horrendous. I was embarrassed for him. The design of the production was pretty though.
Posted: 7/18/15 at 11:10am
I saw the first preview of the Evita revival in 2012. Ricky Martin was o.k., Michael Ceveris was amazing and Max Von Essen (as Magaldi) was incredible. The ensemble was fantastic! However, the weak link seemed to be Elena Roger. Many who saw her were disappointed that her voice was not stronger. This is not to say that I was expecting a reincarnation of Patti LuPone or Elaine Paige. Elena was a good dancer, I'll give her that. But her voice was lacking in many places.
Posted: 7/18/15 at 11:15am
Broadway surely didn't accept Roger. Her vocals were absolutely dreadful. She sounded like a strangled cat. The sick part is that we have TWO cast recordings with her shrill and disappointing vocals. The critics and the Tonys were also not impressed. She might have worked in London but Broadway wanted a belter.
She did have a nice stage presence and good dancing skills but it wasn't enough for Broadway.
Updated On: 7/18/15 at 11:15 AM
Posted: 7/18/15 at 11:19am
Unfortunately, I think people WERE expecting a reincarnation of LuPone, whether conscious of that or not. Only LuPone can do LuPone. Roger was completely fresh. Her voice is very different, unique, and in my opinion, thrilling. She acted the hell out of the role. Her Eva was extremely calculated, controlled, and chilling. I couldn't take my eyes off her. Sometimes she would just stand there and with one look I could see the snake working inside. She could also be very vulnerable and delicate. She wasn't just a conniving monster. I really loved her performance.
Posted: 7/18/15 at 11:33am
Well I loved her.
But for me personally, the most thrilling thing about it was that they (I'm pretty sure) used the orchestrations from the film so performed live, it just sounded so good it actually made me cry.
Posted: 7/18/15 at 11:39am
I saw the revival in 2012. I thought Elena Roger was a great actress in the role. Her voice though was a little tough to hear in the high notes. Overall I did enjoy the production. Roger was very highly praised in London and I think she just didn't meet expectations when she got to Broadway.
Posted: 7/18/15 at 11:44am
Elena Roger is an amazing actress (her performance in Piaf is simply sublime and her Fosca is the only one who doesn't make you want to watch Donna instead), but her vocals were too weak for Evita, in both productions. Still, she had brilliant moments and her performance as the sick and dying Eva was really superb.
Updated On: 7/18/15 at 11:44 AM
Posted: 7/18/15 at 11:47am
I was so looking forward to seeing her Piaf or Fosca come to New York but after the way she was received here I knew the chances of seeing her on the New York stage again were slim. 
Posted: 7/18/15 at 12:06pm
The 2012 was one of the most anticipted productions of that season for me. Having said that, I was thoroughly let down by the whole thing. I found Roger, whom I was very excited to see, to be quite shrill and lost. I was sitting in mid orchestra, and remember feeling as if she was being swallowed up by the cavernous theatre. She simply did not have the voice, or the presence to nail the role. No, I was not expecting LuPone. And Ricky was terrible in a foul production.
Posted: 7/18/15 at 12:14pm
Posted: 7/18/15 at 12:54pm
I still shake my head at that Tony performance. That woman had to stand there like a statue and give Ricky Martin the entire spotlight. You felt bad for her. While I didn't really like Elena in the role, she turned out a better performance than Ricky (who I love but just wasn't right for Che).
I think what really comes down to it is, Evita is a tough role and Elena (I thought) acted it beautifully, her voice just wasn't up to par with New York's anticipation. I don't think People were expecting Patti Lupone, but they were expecting someone with ferocious vocal quality to make them feel what they once did when they played their Evita cast recording for the first time.
Elena just wasn't that person.
The set was gorgeous though.
Posted: 7/18/15 at 1:28pm
I will add a few things,,,,,why was she the only one on stage who was shorter than 6 feet tall? Was it cast so that she would stand out? If so- it worked in reverse....she had little stage presence in the role and it was impossible to believe that millions of people would adore her. She had no fire and brimstone. Ricky was laughable in the role. It was like watching the Mickey Mouse Club. I really do not think he understood the role or his intentions. The direction was so wrong and the show did not have one brilliant moment where the original had many. They took ideas from the movie that did not work and Rainbow High was a low point- I mean we had to watch her dress herself with buttons?????? Boring! The revival sucked. I don't think NY will ever see her again.
Posted: 7/18/15 at 2:17pm
I thought the show as a whole lacked energy and certainly didn't think Elena Roger had the voice for the role at all
Posted: 7/18/15 at 3:05pm
Elena Roger's vocals were horrendous. Hearing that score (one of the only ALW scores I enjoy) screamed at me for nearly three hours was dreadful.
The phrase "she acted the hell out of the role" is code for "she can't sing." I would have much preferred an actress like, say, Mandy Gonzalez, who could have acted AND sung the role well.
Posted: 7/18/15 at 4:12pm
I thought Elena Roger was excellent. Her vocals, for the most part, didn't bother me. I also thought Michael Cerveris and Max von Essen (both as Magaldi and as Che) were great. The weakest part of the production for me was Ricky Martin.
Posted: 7/18/15 at 4:15pm
The orchestrations were great. I wish we got a recording of Caroline Bowman and Josh Young on the national tour. Acting doesn't always translate on a cast recording!
Posted: 7/18/15 at 4:30pm
I only saw the London production, I wasn't wowed by Elena but she was fine. I thought she was much better in Passion to be honest.
The production I thought was a huge let down. a static set,although beautiful, didn't aid the story. Much of the direction and staging was lazy/dull and some of the acting/direction was hammy (including the usually great Philip quast). I did like Matt Rawle as Che however
Posted: 7/18/15 at 4:34pm
Oof. I HATED her in Passion. The only thing I liked about that production was Scarlett Strallen.
I also thought she was dreadful as Eva. Her acting was really nothing extraordinary as people seem to say it was. Ultimately, she danced the part well and that was about it. Her understudies/alternates were far superior.
Posted: 7/18/15 at 4:37pm
I waited and saw the show when I knew Jessica Lea Patty was going to be on as Eva and she was amazing!
Posted: 7/18/15 at 6:13pm
I saw her alternate, Christina DeCicco, in the role, and i thought she was wonderful. Ricky Martin was, as everyone keeps repeating, very underwhelming as Che. I loved this production's staging and design for its willingness to part from the cartoonish Hal Prince staging that has been reproduced for decades. This was the first production of Evita I have seen in which it seemed that someone actually realized that the show is set in Argentina. The orchestrations sounded more Latin and the physical production looked more authentic, allowing the audience to get swept up into the world. The only moment I found weaker in this production was "The Art of the Possible," and I wondered if "The Lady's Got Potential" would be a better fit.
I remember there was some controversy among people who did not like that Che in this production was an "everyman" rather than Che Guevara. While there are many clues in the text that indicate that the character is Guevara, I didn't think the show lost anything by abandoning that concept.
