Madonna in "Evita"- Page 2

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 2/4/05 at 3:31am

I'm in the loved her and the film camp. For me, this film started the new wave of movie musicals. Moulin Rouge deservedly got the credit as it did so well financially and critically--and during awards season.

I think POTO is the first dud in this new era of movie musicals, but it's not a complete disaster. Hopefully every musical that gets put on the screen will do better.

Posted: 2/4/05 at 7:07am

I thought she looked stunning, so all that film stock isn't completely wasted - it makes a great fashion lay-out, as long as you don't try to suffer through listening to it.

[redhotinnyc2]

Posted: 2/4/05 at 8:44am

Sucked

[joeyjoe]

Posted: 2/4/05 at 9:22am

i enjoyed it...

[redhotinnyc2]

Posted: 2/4/05 at 9:29am

She cannot act, she can barely sing and all the keys were changed for her because she doesn't have the top notes - that movie just wasn't worth the price of admission.

[perfusion]

Posted: 2/4/05 at 9:31am

I really loved this underrated movie & Madge's underated performance.She so deserved that Golden Globe.


I've enjoyed many of her movies.

I just think she needs to choose her roles more carefully.

Loved Desparetly Seeking Susan

Who's That Girl (I'm know I'm the only one)

A League of There Own

Evita (of course)

The Next Best Thing ( liked it).that's all I can think of right know.

She's not the greatest actress in the world ...she's not the worst either.

[CurtainUp2]

Posted: 2/4/05 at 11:04am

I think Evita is the perfect example of how a Broadway musical can and should be adapted for the big screen. They're two completely different mediums, and thus both should be approached differently. Alan Parker understood this. The movie version of Evita is breathtakingly cinematic. What you see up there on the screen could not possibly have been achieved on a stage. While the POTO movie is a more literal translation of the Broadway show, and it fails miserably. ALW may like the movie version of POTO better. But that's because he's such an egomaniac. The Evita movie veered too far from his original concept. It no longer had his "stamp" on it. And as for Madonna vs. Patti Lupone... I'm sorry, but Madonna was born to play the role in the movie… just as Patti was born to play it on stage. I would never have wanted to see Madonna do it on stage, and I would never have wanted to see Patti in a movie version. First of all she was too damn old for the part by the time the movie got made. And who in the hell would want to see Patti Lupone in close-ups on a 20-foot high screen? (Egads!!!) And as for Madonna's singing, I thought it was perfect, again for the movie. All of the movie vocals were less theatrical and more conversational. This was intentional. And again, it had more do with Parker's concept of how the movie should work, than with Madonna's range as a singer. But even if all the keys were changed to suit her range and voice, so what? It wouldn't be the first time that material was tailored to better suit a performer's vocal style. She was perfection in the role! And the movie is a brilliant cinematic interpretation of the Broadway musical!

Updated On: 2/4/05 at 11:04 AM

[Sant]

Posted: 2/4/05 at 11:23am

Madonna is no Patti LuPone? No, she (Madonna) actually can pronounce words clearly when she sings! But she doesn't have Patti's vocal power, but then, do you need that much vocal power in a movie musical where the sound system and sound tech is totally different from the stage production? True, Madonna's vocal range isn't as good as the role has previously required but I think they did a good job adapting and re-arranging it to suit her voice. I think Madonna did a great job playing Eva, I was really positively surprised by her performance.

[gstew]

Posted: 2/4/05 at 11:37am

Yes, I must say, Madonna was pretty darn great in "Evita". I actually forgot it was "Madonna" as the film progressed, much like when I saw her in London doing "Up For Grabs". A pretty lame show, but Madonna was quite good. In the first scene, she comes out to massive applause, but seemed very nervous and her delivery was very stiff. I thought, "Oh no- this is going to suck". Then , after she got her first big laugh from the audience, she COMPLETELY eased up and was really very good, very natural, very in-the-moment. It was almost like she needed that approval to calm down. I've heard that she's a one-take wonder in recording studios and I think she starts to falter when she has to do retakes (remember how good she was on Saturday Night Live?) She did a movie called "Dangerous Games" with Harvey Keitel which was partially improvised, and the film was AWFUL, but Madonna was terrific. (I even remember Ebert & Siskel reviewing it saying how bad the film was but suprisingly Madonna was great.) I think the only weak spot of Madonna's performance in "Evita" was "Don't Cry For Me Argentina". It sounds so stiff and overenunciated, but I believe that falls on Andrew Lloyd Weber's shoulders, as he maniacally had her do that song the first day in the recording studios, and did countless retakes, and "patched" the song together line by line. Listen to the remix of that song, where Madonna more-or-less gets to sing it through, and it's a much better vocal performance.

[bronxboundexpress]

Posted: 2/4/05 at 12:17pm

I keep hearing people say how Madonna doesn't have Patti LuPone's power. What does that mean? The keys were lower. Madonaa could let us understand the words. I think Madonna has power as a pop singer as opposed to Broadway singer who just screams as loud as they can. People make fun of Madonna for being a slut but what if she actually does have talent?

[Allie]

Posted: 2/4/05 at 12:31pm

And as for Madonna vs. Patti Lupone... I'm sorry, but Madonna was born to play the role in the movie… just as Patti was born to play it on stage.

I really like this, CurtainUp2.

Posted: 2/4/05 at 12:34pm

There does seem to be some similarity in the stories of two women who slept their way to the top.

[bronxboundexpress]

Posted: 2/4/05 at 12:41pm

Exactly. She's perfect for the part.

[WISHIHADATONY]

Posted: 2/4/05 at 12:45pm

I liked the film a great deal because of the spectacular direction by Alan Parker. Unfortunately, Madonna's performance is rather "vacant." She simply did not have the acting chops for the part and is best remembered from the film waving in the crowd scenes.

Her performance of DON'T CRY FOR ME ARGENTINA on the balcony worked to a certain degree. NOT because of Madonna's rather cold unfelt performance, but because the direction gave us wonderful crowd reaction shots (ala Spielberg) that created some thrilling moments in this sequence.

I wish she had worked more with an acting coach for this part...she could have and should have been better.

She does give a lovely performance of "You Must Love Me." However, Madonna was miscast, a bit too old for the part and the acting nuances were just simply above her current capabilities.

It reminds me of her performance recently on the TSUNAMI RELIEF TELETHON. I would never have dreamed that a singer could make John Lennon's IMAGINE boring, dull and cold. Her performance of that song, at that time, should have had us crying with goosebumps on our arms. While vocally proficient, she came off as giving a mechanical terribly uninspired performance.

Why doesn't this amazingly wealthy woman take lessons in acting and in musical performance? Surely she can do better.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 2/4/05 at 12:49pm

Bronx, I've heard people make fun of Madonna for lots of things, but for being a "slut," as you so nicely put it, is never one of them. Do you think about ANYTHING you write before you post it?

And what's the big deal about the score being lowered for Madonna? It's the same music, it's fine. If it was the other way around, no one would complain at all - if the stage version was very very low, and someone came to do the movie so they raised up the score. So many people are in the mindset that having high notes = amazing singer, and that if a score is lowered of altered then the performer is obviously not good. That is such bullsh!t.

[bronxboundexpress]

Posted: 2/4/05 at 12:49pm

Madonna should be the president of the Unites States.

[chess12]

Posted: 2/4/05 at 12:58pm

I went to see "Evita" with fairly high expectations and felt it was a letdown. Although I've liked Madonna ever since I first heard "Borderline" way back in the dark ages, she's never seemed convincing as an actress in movies. In music videos, however, she blows everybody away. I kept waiting for that sparkle in her videos to show up in "Evita" and it never showed. She seemed flat, bored and scared. The best part was toward the end when she laid in bed and sang live instead of lip-syncing. That was the only time that she seemed to care about what she was doing. I think it's a bit ironic, since her lip-syncing in videos is one of the things that has helped sustain her career for so very long. That, along with her song-writing, dancing, producing and such. I also think that Madonna herself would admit that there are far better singers and actors than her, but she's always been in the right place at the right time. That woman can sure seize an opportunity.

[ElTico68]

Posted: 2/4/05 at 12:59pm

I am in the lukewarm camp. I thought Madge was good in the movie, Antonio was very good. The movie was quite good... I loved the "Dangerous Jade" sequence with all the army guys in the shower (grin); but as a whole it didn't quite move me the way I wanted. And I've never really seen the stage play (I was in a not-so-good production of it) so I wasn't comparing, really. And I totally hated, HATED, the fact that they had Eva sing "Another Suitcase". It made no sense. That song belongs to the mistress.

[bronxboundexpress]

Posted: 2/4/05 at 1:05pm

It made no sense that Madonna sang ANother Suitcase? You mean it made no sense because that's not they way it was done on stage and everythign has to be the same as it is on stage. Think hard. Changes have to be made when adapt something like. WHy should it be the same? If Eva sang it in the show and the mistress sang it in the movie you would probably be saying the THAT didnt make sense.

Posted: 2/4/05 at 1:06pm

Munk - obviously you weren't in NYC in the very early 80s - trust me, Bronx isn't the first one to recognize the truth about Madonna.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 2/4/05 at 1:07pm

No Bronx - you are always wrong about everything - it wouldn't be the same. At all. You really are being a little sh!thead on here lately. Looking at all of your other posts, including your most recent in regards to Ossie Davis, why would you even attempt to explain something like you just did to something and make them feel like they're wrong? You are wrong - you often times are, because it is YOU that doesn't think about thinks before you type them. You really are a waste sometimes, why do you insist on being a jerk?

[ElTico68]

Posted: 2/4/05 at 1:10pm

I wasn't gonna get into it. But oh well... in my mind, and the way I understand the song, it relates to someone who's somewhat of a victim, weaker. Eva is not weak or a victim at all. She's quite strong, actually.

[bronxboundexpress]

Posted: 2/4/05 at 1:40pm

munkistrap, what the f**k is your problem? All I was doing is making a simple point that he may be just pissed because the movie wasn't the show. It was my susal theatre snobbery theory where people may be dismissing a directors choice for the sole reason that it goes against the original. Jesus Christ. god

[CurtainUp2]

Posted: 2/4/05 at 1:51pm

"There does seem to be some similarity in the stories of two women who slept their way to the top."

Now D... is that any way to talk about Ms. Lupone?

[joeyjoe]

Posted: 2/4/05 at 1:58pm

munk, ignore the child... it's just looking for attention...