Report from London: EVITA

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 7/12/06 at 11:42am

EVITA, the new production at the Adelphi Theatre in London is Tony Blair's kind of gal. She's a perfect saint, who despite having spent a few years sleeping and stepping her way to the top, spends most of her time post marriage (after all that's all she really wanted wasn't it?) showering her descamisados with affection and money, embracing her servants and doing endless charity work to support her hardworking husband.

Huh?

Are we talking about Eva Peron or the late Princess Diana? Grandage, Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice seem to have found a nice scapegoat in the later, who seems to be a great excuse to give the British a revisionist take on their classic 1974 musical. In truth, the myth of Eva Peron has been spun and repackaged so many times, that poor perfectly embalmed body of hers must be dizzy by now.

Originally conceived as an angry diatribe against collapsing British politics under PM, Edward Heath, EVITA has endured Maggie Thatcher (in the 1978 Hal Prince London staging), Ronald and Nancy Reagan (the 1980 Broadway production), Bill Clinton and the dot com boom (Alan Parker's film version) to arrive in London today a lady devoid of her political unpleasantness completely, which is a shame.

Perhaps Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice have read some of the "new" biographies which, as all revisionist histories do, paint a more sympathetic, misunderstood stance on Eva Duarte, or perhaps they themselves now identify more with the "oligarchs" than the "descamisados" than when they first wrote the piece, but Michael Grandage's production, even while staying largely true to the text (few choice trims excluded) practically begs for apology of the show's original politics each step of the way.

Even as the lyrics speak of Eva laundering money, trying to become a saint at the expense of her government, destroying the upper class in retaliation for a lifetime of snubbery, Grandage's staging states nearly the opposite.

This Eva Peron is handled with kid gloves, lest any real conflict or debate erupt and the greatest casualty as a result is that the "Che" character, now an "every man" much as in Alan Parker's film version (the single greatest influence apparently for Grandage's uninspired staging and Christopher Oram's massive sets) is no longer a true foil. The program notes state this was always ALW and Rice original intent, but thats as revisionist writing as the myth of Eva herself. The character was conceived and performed on the concept album as "Che Guevara" a perfect voice for their young discontent, who particularly under Hal Prince's staging gave the piece a sizzling bite in the ass.

It doesn't help that Matt Rawle has none of Antonio Banderas's charisma and despite some fine vocals, blends so effortlessly into the enormous designs, he comes across more as a petulant child than even an outraged disenter. "The Waltz for Eva and Che" seems more, in fact like an annoyed mother sending her bratty son off to the bus for school (and by now we've seen how good Eva is with children).

The bizarre revisionism does a horrible disservice to the piece and in particular to the show's stunning star, Elena Roger.

Let me step aside a minute to say, that yes, everything you have heard is true. Ms. Roger is a star. Boy, oh boy is she a star, and she's giving one of the finest breakout peformances I've ever seen on a musical stage. A sort of diminutive Cate Blanchett with the legs of Ann Reinking, and a voice that can slide from the brittle intensity of Julie Convington to the throbbing vocal heat of Lola Beltran in slide of a single measure. That she’s actually from Buenos Aires doesn’t hurt either and whatever Grandage, Rice and Webber may be trying to say or not say (do they know what they are trying to say about Peron at this point?) Rogers seems to know the entire truth. It’s written each step of the journey in her expressive eyes, wry mouth and her body that slides and kicks in choreography (brilliantly devised by Rob Ashford) I suspect no previous Eva would have dared to try or will probably ever try again. It’s a dream performance, and one that could probably reach ungodly heights if Grandage let her unveil the bitch in the character you can see Roger fighting to repress.

So what else is new Buenos Aires? A fine Peron in Philip Quast, a touching mistress in Lorna Want and a Broadway transfer.

Ah yes, the transfer. Will it happen? Should it happen? Frankly, I was excited to hear about a new production that would completely abandon Hal Prince’s brilliant but much seen original staging. Can a production be mounted that works without it? I believe it can. Somewhere out there is a director who could make it work (perhaps Stephen Daldrey, whose BILLY ELLIOT is a triumph of theatrical conceit).

But frankly, I don’t think Grandage has come up with a production compelling enough to be the New York revival. His vision is as whitewashed as the walls of the Casa Rosada and he gives us not a single moment that reaches the thrilling theatricality of Prince’s staging.

Ironically, the U.S. is at an eerily similar place today that England was when ALW and Rice first wrote the piece in 1974: an economic slump, a hugely unpopular political leader, baited elections….

I saw its time to restore Eva to the nasty political bitch she’s meant to be. Bring back the Hal Prince staging with Elena Roger and give us something to root for.

Updated On: 7/12/06 at 11:42 AM

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 7/12/06 at 11:58am

Thank you for sharing - I can always count on your reviews to be fair and largely accurate when compared to my tastes.

[tophertilson]

Posted: 7/12/06 at 12:10pm

"Snubbery." What a fantastic invention that word is. Sincerely. :)

[apdarcey]

Posted: 7/12/06 at 12:14pm

the only quibble i take with you mb (and you know how much i respect you) is that che was never meant to be che guevara. che is the name of an everyman in la argentina and the character was conceived as such. a man of the people who can give us the populace's general feelings on the rising power.

now true, it might come out weaker than if it actually were che guevara, i believe that. also eva should not be whitewashed. there is a power hungry bitch in there that wants to shame the middle class (and ends up shamed by the upper class). it seems from your review that grandage is going for a sympathetic main character rather than an accurate portrayal of an actual historic figure. maybe a new new york director would help?

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 7/12/06 at 12:24pm

AP - I simply mean that "Che" on the original concept recording is expressly "Che Guevara" -- he even gets an entire song about his failed insecticide product ("Ladys Got Potential"). As I understand it, Alan Parker is really the first director who made the choice to interpret "Che" as an "every man" and not THE political revolutionary. The British newspaper, the Independent says that the entire concept of EVITA came about because of a chapter in the book “Great South American Leaders” juxtaposing Eva Peron and Che Guevara.

My quibble isn't that Grandage follows the Alan Parker route, but more directly he does so to seemingly eradicate a palpable opposition for Eva. Even Banderas in the film seems a worthy foe, but Matt Rawle is just a non entity.

The production is definitely very pro Eva. Grandage actually makes her cancer "appear" much earlier - sometime in the middle of "Rainbow Tour" which in itself is almost a way to apologize for her one really nasty tantrum ("Who the Hell does the King of England think he is") - its almost as if he's saying, blame her bad politics on her cancer. I don't agree with that.

They have also cut the line "But your despicable class is dead, look who they are calling for now." Another very choice bit to take away Eva's bitchiness.

I'm merely of the opinion when the show works as a sort of Greek tragedy in that Eva is undone by her ambition and that is almost "struck down" with cancer by the Gods at the height of her zeal for power. I think that is actually the stance the original writing team had when they wrote it and the piece isn't really strong or ambiguous enough to host this huge spiral in interpretation.

I haven't seen many American directors who I think would do "better" than Grandage. Almost everything I've seen since I've been here - SUNDAY, HAY FEVER, BILLY ELLIOT, THE THIRD DAY, ROCK N ROLL has been better directed than most of the things I’ve seen by American directors in NYC the past year.



Updated On: 7/12/06 at 12:24 PM

[Harpo]

Posted: 7/12/06 at 5:17pm

Thanks so much Michael Bennett, I was looking forward to reading your review. I'm seeing it in early September and had high hopes, although your comments makes me think I may not care for it much. I have such a soft spot for this show that goes back more than 25 years and I like Evita just the way she was, darn it. Well, I'll keep an open mind. I'm seeing it on a Tuesday, which is an Elena Roger scheduled day, I hope I get to see her.

I'm also seeing Sunday/George on closing night. I'm even more excited about seeing it after reading your review!

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 7/12/06 at 5:21pm

The show has a special place in my heart too, Harpo, which is one reason why I was particularly harsh in my review of Grandage's work. But there is MUCH to enjoy and I'm sure you will enjoy the experience of seeing it!

[Flahooley]

Posted: 7/12/06 at 7:04pm

When I was a teen, I went to see a production of EVITA. During intermission I was all awash in the musical theatre magic that the show conjuers up. I was standing next to a woman and I impulsively turned to her and said "Isn't it great?!!" And she she looked me straight in the eye and said "Not if you actually lived through it."

I understood right there that musical theatre is not history. The Eva Peron of EVITA is the flashy one of media and myth. Hal Prince understood that. He never let up on the idea that you are seeing a hoax, that is why his version of the show has teeth.. otherwise, it simply cinderella rags-to-riches story.

Eva Peron was a evil woman who expoilted Capitol AND Labor for her own purposes. A dictator in Dior. When a production of the show aims to endear her to an audience that is bad enough, but to re-inforce the saint myth.. that is artistically irresponsible.

[EponineAmneris]

Posted: 7/12/06 at 7:22pm

Thank you for your review. VERY informative, fair and indepth. I enjoyed reading it.

[SweeneyPhanatic]

Posted: 7/12/06 at 8:57pm

I'm sorry to hear that they've cut "But your despicable class is dead, look who they are calling for now." That's one of my most favorite lines from any show.

And now for the same question I asked about "Sunday...George": Set details?

[RentBoy86]

Posted: 7/13/06 at 1:57am

Show curtain? I hated the show curtain for the recent tour - which is based upon the original staging.


I've always been confused by this show. I saw the recent tour and I wasn't sure what they were going for. Were they just simply trying to show Eva Peron and let the audience make up their minds as to whether she's evil/good? It seems she did some great things, but she also slept her way to the top, etc.? I've always been kind of confused by the show. I need to get the London recording to listen to the show again. It doesn't seem like it quite explains anything further. I'm not that familiar with Eva Peron, as a person, I only know what I know through the musical, so I'm still left a little confused about her life. Are they trying to say she's a good person because - reading from other posts - she wasn't, right?

[musical_devotee]

Posted: 7/13/06 at 6:21am

Yes, the review is good, I'll be seeing the show in August and I'm very curious.

One thing I must point out, though: One should not take the original Evita, or this new production as a history lesson. It's a great musical, but that's about it. ALW and Tim Rice used only one book as their source, Mary Main's EVITA: THE WOMAN WITH A WHIP. It was written by a person who belonged to the oligarchs and was thusly full of inacurate information, mostly gossips and slanders. It has no footnotes and no bibliography. ALW and Rice used it since it was one of the few books about Evita in the 1970-is available on English. So one should be very careful in making any historical conclusions based on the musical alone.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 7/13/06 at 7:34am

Musical devotee - you hit the nail on the head on a very good point I was trying to make!

EVITA wasn't written, I believe, to be a historical examination of her life, but I think part of my frustration is that over the years various directors and even the original creative team have taken into account subsequent sources and biographies to somehow even out their initial analysis of the character. Thus the show has gone from less of a sweeping deconstruction of celebrity to a more personal examination of her personal life.

It may be more level headed, but it makes for less compelling theatre.

As for the set; there really is no show curtain. There is a black curtain with a projection of a portrait of Eva Peron. It rises to reveal a very realistic looking side street in Buenos Aires, where the funeral procession/"Oh What a Circus" takes place.

When the show flashes back to Eva's youth. The street disappears revealing three absolutely massive buildings that line the back and side of the stages. Each building looks to be marble and has realistic balconys and doors that are used throughout the show, particularly in "Goodnight and Thank You," "Another Suitcase" and of course "Don't Cry for Me Argentina."

These buildings slide back and forth a bit, but are pretty stationary for the rest of the show. They are the most impressively large set pieces I have probably seen since the house set in SUNSET BOULEVARD.

The rest of the action takes place in front of the buildings in what I guess you would call the courtyard, with tables, pyramids of suitcases etc, setting the scene for each number.

The set is effective; its just so large and ultra realistic, I'm not sure it is the perfect landscape for any theatrical experience.

The lighting design, I forgot to mention, btw, by Paule Constable is amazing.

[musical_devotee]

Posted: 7/13/06 at 7:49am

What about "Lament"? Did they include the second verse, that is on the concept album, but was later omitted? I always liked it and felt it should be part of the show.

It goes:

The choice was mine and no one else's
I could have the millions at my feet.
Give my life to people I might never meet,
Or else to children of my own.

Remember, I was very young then.
Thought I needed the numbers by my side.
Thought the more that loved me, the more loved I'd be.

But such things cannot be multiplied.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 7/13/06 at 7:53am

"Lament" does indeed have the extra verse in it, but I think with some new lyrics.

[chernjam]

Posted: 7/13/06 at 7:53am

I remember Tim Rice in an interview on Evita saying "Yes, she's a bitch - but let's make her a beautiful one..."

That seemed to be enough explanation of the angle ALW and TR were going for in their approach to telling Evita's story

[rosscoe(au)]

Posted: 7/13/06 at 9:42am

I would love to see the white album staged, but must also say looking forward to seeing this, ever since i read the review in variety..

[musical_devotee]

Posted: 7/13/06 at 10:54am

Btw, the cast recording of this new London production is postponed for the second time. It was supposed to be released during the previews in June, then it was announced it will be released on July 17 and now the latest news is it will be out on August 7. Frankly, this is starting to annoy me.

[best12bars]

Posted: 7/13/06 at 10:58am

Thanks for your review and observations, MB. Very well written. I understand what you're saying about the white-washing of this show. It was written one way, and they're now trying to sanitize it into something else. Ever since the film adaptation pointed in that direction to make it more global-friendly.

I think you're right that a lot of it has to do with much of the "politics" being removed from Che, starting with him no longer being Che Guevera. For those who are doubting it, I have my original program from Evita with Che listed as "Che Guevara" alongside a photo of the real Guevara right next to the character of Che in the musical. No question about what the Rice/Webber intentions were at all. Plus I was in a production of Evita myself with the Hal Prince staging and Marin Mazzie as our Eva Peron. So, I'm pretty familiar with the original show (as written and conceived).

Thanks to your terrific description of this current production, I have a clear picture of what they're doing... but I'm not exactly sure why they're doing it, except to avoid a ban in Argentina or bad press in other Latin countries. Sounds like they're going for the "Pleez-All Evita" this time, but that doesn't necessarily make for solid, compelling drama, as you have pointed out.

[Eastwickian]

Posted: 7/13/06 at 11:28am

For me, whilst the show was lacking 'something', I liked the ambivalent nature of the production. I certainly didn't leave me with the impression that Eva was a saint - her sleeping her way to the top is made fairly clear, as is her embezzlement and emotional manipulation (posing with an ill little girl). Che outlines the detrimental effect the regime is having on the people ('little has changed for us people down here on the ground') and the country as a whole (the gold reserves depleting and beef rationing).

On other tack: Would audiences of today accept an incredibly unsympathetic lead character, even if they do get to the sing the hit song? I suppose Sweeney Todd has done all right...

[best12bars]

Posted: 7/13/06 at 12:16pm

I'm sure she's not portrayed as a complete saint here, and I didn’t get that MB is implying this. They would have to rewrite half of the lyrics to do that. But I can see how if Che is an "every man," or a general Greek chorus of ONE (turning up as various background characters)... it might have less of an impact than if his comments are coming from a political rebel like Che Guevara. (Even if his character is an anachronism and basically a symbol of the emotional turmoil bubbling up at the time.) At least he shows up with a history behind him and his observations. And it gives the character of Eva someone of weight to spar with and contrast with.

And I know what you mean about unsympathetic, but I think the real obstacle to overcome is to be "unlikable." And I think there is a difference. We may not feel sympathy for Eva (if she is portrayed as a full-fledged bitch on wheels), but there are plenty of folks out there who dig that "Joan Crawford" approach to the role. They still find the character appealing, even if they don't have sympathy for her or her actions. For Sweeney, we may not like what he does, but we have sympathy for the tragic circumstances that led him to his madness.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 7/13/06 at 2:36pm

I'm not at all suggesting that the new London production completely tries to depict Eva as a saint; it just seems afraid to depict her as a bitch after she marries Peron. As written, the piece demands that you show some of both, particularly in her politics. The new production just skirts the real possibility that once in office, Evita may truly have done some very nasty things. I mean for all the new information that has come to light claiming the early histories of her life may have been a little harsh, there are new reports of the Perons being Nazi sympathizers. How about showing that! Ben Brantley even points out in his review, she was "more fun" when the character was a little nastier. It's just better drama.

It will be even more interesting to see what is going on in American politics if this production does transfer to NYC in Fall, 07, particularly if Hillary Clinton does make a bid for Presidency or even VP.

There's even a book out called "American Evita: Hillary Clinton's Path to Power" It would be impossible to not draw parallels in the U.S. press.





Updated On: 7/13/06 at 02:36 PM

[JudasIscariot]

Posted: 7/13/06 at 2:45pm

Nice review.

What I want to know is why they take out, "The Lady's Got Potential," and keep in, "The Art Of The Possible."

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 7/13/06 at 2:56pm

Well, they are more or less following the text of the original Hal Prince staging, which cut "Lady's Got Potential" because the song was originally about Che Guevara's attempts to sell his patented roach spray, and instead came up with "Art of the Possible" as a literal musical chairs game among Argentinian military officials.

But without the Harold Prince staging, the song doesn't really work. They do sort of a wrestling match thing instead. They probably should have used the "Lady's Got Potential" lyrics from the film versioin, but that would have meant some really complicated staging and I think Grandage's over all work here is rather lazy.

[StageManager2]

Posted: 7/13/06 at 3:12pm

Judas, "The Lady's Got Potential" was never included in the original London and Broadway productions although it was initially featured in the concept album. Instead, Hal Prince asked ALW and Rice to write a new tune ("The Art of the Possible") to take its place. "The Lady's Got Potential" was rewritten for the film version, though, and I was hoping they'd use it for the revival instead of "Art of the Possible" because it gives Che another chance to be narrator (e.g. "Rainbow Tour", "And the Money Kept Rolling In and Out"). Besides, I never cared for "the musical chairs scene."

EDITED because Michael Bennett beat me to it. Damn it!

Updated On: 7/13/06 at 03:12 PM