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
