Madonna in "Evita" — Page 2

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.

---

Sucked

---

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.

---

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

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.

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.

Exactly. She's perfect for the part.

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.

---

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.

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.

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?

---

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

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