Evita set question...

[PositivelyEmerald]

Posted: 8/26/12 at 1:09am

I found this picture of the London set....I may be crazy, but the buildings behind the Casa Rosada weren't in the Broadway production were they? Were any other aspects of the set changed?

Updated On: 8/26/12 at 01:09 AM

[My Oh My]

Posted: 8/26/12 at 1:14am

I've been asking myself this question since I first saw a picture of that set: why do I find it so incredibly unexciting if it's not necessarily ugly or badly designed?

The answer I've come up with since is it isn't theatrical, it's plain, it's boring.

Updated On: 8/26/12 at 01:14 AM

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 8/26/12 at 1:21am

So pretty.

[shrekster224]

Posted: 8/26/12 at 1:30am

Yes, the buildings are in the background on Broadway.

[AGermano]

Posted: 8/26/12 at 2:02am

I personally think this is one of the most beautiful designs
I've ever seen, especially when it comes alive with lights and action during the performance.

And yes, the buildings in the background are there on Broadway but they are actual 3-dimensional structures, whereas the ones in this picture look like flats.
The ones on Broadway are also angled differently making them WAY less apparent, from where I was sitting at least. (B 2 in the Orchestra.)

[Wildcard]

Posted: 8/26/12 at 2:16am

A set design doesn't have to be conceptual to be considered theatrical. It should help tell the story. I think the Evita set design is beautiful even though the musical which it is part of is in itself conceptual.

[PositivelyEmerald]

Posted: 8/26/12 at 2:30am

I really do agree. It was simply magnificent. I ooed and ahhed many times during the show. Especially at the beginning of Buenos Aires.

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 8/26/12 at 2:36am

Thanks for posting the picture by the way! It is now serving as my desktop background

[My Oh My]

Posted: 8/26/12 at 2:48am

I still think it's terribly bland. Like looking inside a museum but without the art.

[PositivelyEmerald]

Posted: 8/26/12 at 2:52am

I found a bunch from one of the London cast members public photobucket from what looks like the rehearsal in London.



Updated On: 8/26/12 at 02:52 AM

[PositivelyEmerald]

Posted: 8/26/12 at 2:54am

The Adelphi is so tiny. I couldn't believe it when I saw Love Never Dies there. Updated On: 8/26/12 at 02:54 AM

[ClapYo'Hands]

Posted: 8/26/12 at 5:20am

"The Adelphi is so tiny. I couldn't believe it when I saw Love Never Dies there."

I wouldn't call it tiny, but it is certainly ugly as hell.

[The Scorpion]

Posted: 8/26/12 at 5:33am

I've been asking myself this question since I first saw a picture of that set: why do I find it so incredibly unexciting if it's not necessarily ugly or badly designed?

The answer I've come up with since is it isn't theatrical, it's plain, it's boring.

I couldn't disagree more with this. Have you seen the show live? The set is absolutely beautiful, especially when the windows are lit from the inside. Absolutely gorgeous. And very reminiscent to me of Buenos Aires.

The buildings in the background were in London and are still on Broadway; they were/are 3D in both productions.

I could be wrong but just from sitting in both theatres, it felt like the Adelphi had a deeper stage and that the back of the set was further away from the audience than it is at the Marquis.

Anyone know why the lighting designer changed in the transfer? Lack of availability, perhaps?

Updated On: 8/26/12 at 05:33 AM

[artscallion]

Posted: 8/26/12 at 8:51am

This is the broadway set after curtain call. It's not the clearest, but you can see the buildings in the background.

[My Oh My]

Posted: 8/26/12 at 9:11am

Scorpion, of course it's pretty. Who said anything about it being ugly or not appealing to the eye?

It doesn't do anything for me. Because it's pretty or not has nothing to do with that. The original Les Mis set is the darn ugliest thing in the world: I love it, and for completely different reasons.

The Evita set also alludes to, like Brantley stated in his review, something pious and comes off too refined in a story that is gritty. I just find it hard to believe one is bombarded with what looks like the inside of a museum or church for the duration of the show.

[johnmichael]

Posted: 8/26/12 at 2:23pm

think you're being pretty hard on it myself....

brantleys snide comment alludes to the fact that the level of the evita set's architectural sophistication is inappropriate for a musical. i entirely disagree. at any time, and frankly now, even more so in the current economic climate, i think its thrilling to see a design of such scale and ambition on broadway....

[ClapYo'Hands]

Posted: 8/26/12 at 3:12pm

The thing is, the set is realistic. How can it be accused of not being genuine when it looks like the area it is supposed to be representing?

[ChiChi]

Posted: 8/26/12 at 3:30pm

It's such a refreshing departure from the original, which worked in its simplistic form, but to see something a little more elaborate is really cool.

[The Scorpion]

Posted: 8/26/12 at 3:57pm

Scorpion, of course it's pretty. Who said anything about it being ugly or not appealing to the eye?

It doesn't do anything for me. Because it's pretty or not has nothing to do with that. The original Les Mis set is the darn ugliest thing in the world: I love it, and for completely different reasons.

The Evita set also alludes to, like Brantley stated in his review, something pious and comes off too refined in a story that is gritty. I just find it hard to believe one is bombarded with what looks like the inside of a museum or church for the duration of the show.

Well, you claimed the set was not theatrical; that's mainly what I was disagreeing with. The moment when the back wall of the tango venue in Junín flies up to reveal the faded grandeur of Buenos Aires' streets with the whole company dancing as if their lives depended on it and Elena Roger suddenly lit up from the inside to become a fierce dynamo is, for me, an extremely theatrical moment that I will never forget.

I suppose I can see the reasoning behind some of the audience complaints that the set doesn't change much in Act 2, although I think that has been addressed for Broadway with the restaged 'Rainbow Tour' number, the added projections and the new use of the window shutters to show whether the scene is set inside or outside. None of those were in London.

I guess I like it as well because it evokes very fond memories of Buenos Aires.

It's such a refreshing departure from the original, which worked in its simplistic form, but to see something a little more elaborate is really cool.

I agree; I think going naturalistic was the best thing to do for this revival given the black-box bareness of the original. It also is completely in-keeping with Grandage's vision which puts emphasis on the locality of the piece's setting.





Updated On: 8/26/12 at 03:57 PM

[everythingtaboo]

Posted: 8/26/12 at 4:16pm

I think the set seems smaller at the Marquis because the stage floor seems much lower compared to at the Adelphi. Strange, considering how tiny Elena is.

Also, for those that have seen both. *Spoilerish* For the top of the show in London, I seem to recall everything before Buenos Aires happening in front of that first downstage scene, and we never saw the glimpse of upstage that we do on Broadway. We also never saw that movie screen. To me that made the reveal of the main set in London so much more effective. Does it have to do with the possibly shallower Marquis?

[ChiChi]

Posted: 8/26/12 at 4:18pm

I would love an answer to that question too.

[My Oh My]

Posted: 8/26/12 at 5:07pm

I don't like the concept too much. It's similar to an earlier concept used by a regional theatre (name escapes me) that received a bad review for looking too refined, palace-like, upper-class and not representing the poor sector of society that Eva's heart belonged to. Also they seem to go overboard with the lighting in the revival, making it frame Eva and showcases her much like a saint or martyr being lit from behind in a hazy, surreal glow. That's fine occasionally but it seems like they're really heavily pushing the Eva as saint impression.

I know I tend to come off pissed, but this doesn't keep me up at night. The designs and even the concept aren't horrendous. They don't work for me based on what I know and have seen. Not saying it shouldn't work for everyone else.

On the set being static, some of the best sets are static, and I've never understood the constant need for set changes by some audiences. Only strengthens my theory that the majority of theatre-goers don't really pay attention and rely on mostly simplistic visual cues and the steady flow of visual stimuli to get through a story on stage.

[THEATRE FAN]

Posted: 8/26/12 at 5:22pm

The cut out heads of Eva and Peron on the poor excuse for a show curtain are the most amateurish thing I have ever seen on a Broadway set design

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 8/26/12 at 5:25pm

^ I have to agree. They're just floating against a blue curtain. It looks awkward.

[THEATRE FAN]

Posted: 8/26/12 at 5:26pm

i can't believe Grandage would ever allow it - horrible.
anyone know what the show curtain was in london?