I took a trip to Broadway to see this show specifically after falling in love with it in London and Elena's performance. It is very interesting that Elena has been received completely differently on Broadway than in London, where she got rave notices by the critics and a positive response from the audience. It seems the Broadway audience is polarised by her.
From talking to the people sitting around me who didn't like her when I saw the Broadway production, it seems the top complaint is her vocals. No, she does not have as strong a voice as Patti LuPone did; it doesn't bother me...not many people do. Even Elaine in London did not sing how Patti sang and used her head voice to get those Es out in 'A New Argentina' rather than using a Broadway belt. Broadway audiences seem to love belters in a way that London doesn't seem to really care about. I do think the LuPone factor haunts this role on Broadway in a way that it doesn't in London, where no-one outside of Broadway savvies have heard of her (the OBC recording is not even sold in Britain; the shop Dress Circle sells it but it is imported).
I suppose I can understand why some find her shrill, but my reply is that Eva Perón was shrill in her speeches too. Look up any video. Elena feels like a perfect fit for it. Benedict Nightingale said this in his positive review in the London
Times:
Roger is Argentinian herself and quite a revelation. Philip Quast’s Perón looms over her like a brontosaurus over a stick-insect, but, whether she’s shimmering in triumph or preparing for a poignant death, it’s Roger who commands the stately marble and elegant iron fretwork of Christopher Oram’s set. She has a grin the size of her body, and it can look flirtatious, sassy, voracious or delighted, depending on circumstances. There’s also a brashness in her voice, at times so jarring that I thought my ears were being attacked with an electric screwdriver — but then again, wasn’t that Evita? The score is ridiculously difficult though and Elena had no problems singing a less vocally challenging role like Fosca in
Passion, where she was a delight to hear. For me it is a combination of her voice (which I like) but also her acting, dancing (say what you will, but Patti could NEVER dance like that; in fact, the dancing was muted when Hal's production came to Broadway -- Elaine danced more) and her sheer energy. It's not quite the energy I saw in London, but it's been a six-year gap and Elena is a few years older now than both Patti and Elaine were when they did the roles. She was about the right age when she did the role in London. I think, for some reason, her voice was better in London and less scratchy on the top notes...not quite sure why.
What I cannot understand are complaints about her accent -- Elena is fluent in English now, and she wasn't when she started in London. She is completely clear and is her diction is no worse than Patti's ever was (for the record, I love Patti and Elaine in the roles too). And I still have never heard the Lament sung more beautifully than how Elena does it. I still think Elena delivers a great performance on Broadway and it was worthy of a Tony nomination (I don't really understand how Josh Young got a nomination, to be honest). But I do wish the people who dislike her could criticise her without resorting to namecalling like 'Her Shrillness'...LuPone-fanboys/-girls can get tiring.
A poster above said the show's been whitewashed since London...that's probably true, and I think it's partly to be less controversial given the much greater contingency of audience members from Latin America. Matt Rawle was a far more biting Che and I also think Eva is played far more sympathetically. Elena chose the sympathetic approach in London but I don't think the politics were as backpeddled as they are here -- several audience members have come over from Argentina, and I think they'd be pretty horrified if the role were played today like it was in the 70s, because even the anti-Peronists in Argentina probably wouldn't go to the extremes that were portrayed by then. Hal Prince called Evita "evil" back in the day; since then, more research has been done and the consensus is much more ambiguous. The jury's even still out as to whether Perón was fascist or not -- he won by democratic election, but as time went on, used more and more authoritarian policies. But the whitewashing is definitely more in evidence with Che -- Ricky can dance very well, doesn't try hitting the notes Rawle did, but the acting is...well, I don't know it's because he doesn't get the piece or whether he's been directed to be generally affable and perfectly friendly. The angry diatribe against Perón has sort of becoming meaningless the way Ricky delivers it, as if it were just a friendly piece of chitchat addressed to Perón.
Some of the bitchiness about Elena is complete lies though (she does not get less applause than Rachel Potter) and it paints a very bad picture of the audience IMHO who post with comments like that. As I said before, if Broadway won't have her, Buenos Aires and London are more than happy to keep her.
I think Rachel Potter is wonderful (so was Lorna Want in London) and like how the orchestrations have been improved since London, particularly with the increased use of the bandoneón. Not sure what I think of the new opening; I think it worked better how it was done in London, but I think it's been partly reworked to provide Ricky Martin with an *entrance*. A lot of criticisms of the London production seem to have been taken on board -- the set is more varied now, so you know whether you're outside or inside the Casa Rosada, and the flags are a nice touch (although it caused a major blooper in one performance I saw).
Not really the place to post about it, but...there's an usher who works in the mezzanine called Donna. I was absolutely terrified by her, as were several audience members around me. Not sure she's best suited to work involving dealing with people...
Updated On: 5/7/12 at 10:08 PM
