Madonna's Evita — Page 3

No argument there, Matt. But it still wasn't the huge hit everyone expected. Yes, there hadn't been movie musicals of any serious stature for some time when it was released, but sixty mil as a profit was pocket money compared to the triple digit they hoped to realize.

---

If you watch Madonna in, say LEAGUE OF THEIR OWN, she's relaxed and fairly natural in front of the camera. Yet in EVITA, there are at key moments an underlying stiffness (particularly in the build-up to "New Argentina," when she literally looks blank. She's required to give a fairly "canned" performance, devoid of sponteneity, because the entire performance was locked in during the recording. Yes, she could've done more with her face ... but she's frankly not experienced enough. So Parker coaxed from her a standard issue music video bit of "acting" which really doesn't sustain for 2 hours. Too bad, because she might've found the chops if she could've improvised something, anything on the set. You see glimmers late, when she's dying. The emotion allowed her to match the words. But even during 'Don't Cry for me..." Parker doesn't trust her, and overdoes the cuts to the crowd.

To get back to an early RobbieJ post about the show's weakness: He's right. I saw the original staging, loved the score ... but it's a chilly show that keep you at arm's length. That's because we're not allowed to make up our OWN minds about Eva. It's all hammered at us by Che. So rather than Eva driving the show, she's played as a kind of pawn of Che's. He tells us who she is, what to think, how rotten she was. And very little of the material lets us inside Eva's MO. This sort of Brechtian approach makes for compelling political commentary on the Peronista era(s), but not the most dimensional leading lady.

---

"Parker's not exactly an unknown quantity and did a pretty phenomnal job of transferring HAIR to the screen."

Um...., say what? I must have missed something, what was Parker's role in "Hair"?

What happened to Milos Forman?

---

I didn't get that either... and Fame wasn't a transfer...

Okay, she found out she was pregnant towards the end of shooting. The day they filmed the Waltz was the day she found out about Lourdes.

---

That's really not a film heavy on the choreography, though so I don't think that made much of a difference.

---

I honestly didn't notice anything lacking in that part of the film. And that's at the beginning of the film after we find out Eva has died and her funeral procession. It wasn't supposed to be jumpin' by that point anyways.

---

Updated On: 10/29/04 at 11:38 AM

In the performing arts, stage is my preference. It's what I was trained in and what It's what I've done for the past twenty-five years. I'm always skeptical when a play or musical is about to be transferred to the screen because in MOST cases what I've loved about the play or musical has been totally F**ked up by the transfer to film. Take the cases of "A Chorus Line" and "The Wiz". Both disasters in my opinion, compared to what I had seen on the stage. I would not even begin to start on the plays that have been butchered on film. I'm not saying that there have not been any successful transfers. "Hair" is one of the better musical transfers and "Amadeus" one of the better transferred plays to film. There has also been that RARE occasion when the film was actually better than the stage production.

I loved the stage production of 'Evita"! I thought that Patti and Mandy were both brilliant! I saw that production a number of times and the energy was just incredible so I fully expected that the movie version of "Evita" was going to be a piece of crap.

It was not!

I really enjoyed the move and I later purchased the DVD. I thought that both Madonna and Antonio delivered good performances. I've now seen the film a few times and I'm pleased that it is one of the transfers from stage to screen that I can actually watch. As I said in a previous thread, I think that the comparison of the stage and screen versions is a bit like comparing apples and oranges. Film is different from stage (I know that that seems obvious but to some people it seems not to be, so I had to say it). The power and energy needed to reach the back row of the balcony in a theatre is not necessary when a camera can get right in your face and the sound can be equalized and edited to get that perfect fit.

I don't think that Patti would have had the subtitles needed to pay the role on film and she would have probably been too strong in the softer parts of the story. Madona, on the other hand, would have lost her voice after a week of performing that role on stage (as written). There is no way that she could sing that part in a stage production. I think that trying to compare them is a fruitless argument and as for who else would have been better in the role, well we can only speculate. Madonna has played it well, it's been recorded, it's not going anywhere and, IMHO, they did not f**k it up.

---

bronxboundexpress wrote:

"I think Madonna was excellent in this role and her voice was perfect for the music since this is a pop/rock opera and that is the style in which she sang the music. Those of you who wanted some musical theatre person who did it on stage who was going to sing the part in that typical over-emphasizing-every-note-nazal-singing-with tons of vibrato-musical theatre voice are dreaming. This is a new age here and were ARE the MTV generation and I think this is the greatest and most underrated movie musical ever to come out. The way it was shot like a music video(like PINK FLOYD: THE WALL which Alan Parker also directed) is amazing. No other movie musical you guys know was shot completely this way. As far as cinematography and art direction, this movie had EVERYTHING "The English Patient" (which beat it out at the Oscars) had plus a great roock sountrack. There is no other movie like this and I will fight anyone on this board to defend that.


Marquise responds:

hahahahhahahahahahahahahahaROTFLMAOhahahahahahahahaha

Updated On: 10/29/04 at 12:54 PM

I agree with what most people are saying. Her voice just wasn't strong enough for the role. Granted, I give her a lot of credit--she did a MUCH better job than I ever thought she would. And I actually liked her performance much more when I first saw it (before I heard Patty Lupone sing the role). I mean, Madonna was okay, but nothing spectacular, and i hate when they put big stars in musicals just to have the name.

By the way--whoever it was that said Bernadette Peters was up for the role---WOW--I really think she would have been incredible :)

---

During, "You Must Love Me" I started crying. Did anyone else do that? I mean, she looked really sick and the sound of her voice while singing it was heartbreaking.

---

I loved Madonna in the film. I agree that they should have let her belt more--like she does in her own music. But, I adored her and the film. I thought Antonio was fantastic and perfectly cast.

I thought the opening was STUNNING--I cried. I cried because it was a beautiful juxtaposition between how Eva's life began and how it ended. I cried because I was finally seeing a movie musical done so beautifully--Evita was the first in a LONG time.
I also cried during her death scene--which was splendid.

I thought "Waltz for Che and Evita" was FANTASTIC. The fun thing about the Waltz is that it was filmed over time (for each location they danced through) and they had to keep letting the dress out the bigger Madonna got.

I really liked the film--and it did lay down the foundation for the new wave of movie musicals. It got incredible reviews, as did Madonna.

And, I'm sorry: you can dislike Madonna and have all the opinion you want about her. But, I think her career speaks stunningly for her talent. And, it truly is so laughable to me that I can not bother to defend her---I just don't have to!

---