Evita (Dir/J.Lloyd) -OAT 2019 / Barbican ‘20 / Palladium ‘25

{Spoiler - click to view}
The idea of turning Evita into a ‘Make Argentina Great Again’ rally to reflect our times is definitely an avenue worth exploring, but the execution (the constant pyrotechnics, showers of confetti, balloons, poms poms and strobe lighting effects, all of which quickly become tiresome through overuse) isn’t successful. I’m not sure we needed Jamie Lloyd to make so explicit what were always obvious parallels anyway. The main problem with the concept is that it robs the piece of its time-and-place historical specificity; after all, this is a show about a particular historical figure in a particular country during a particular time, not just a show about populism in general. If you were a first-timer to Evita, you wouldn’t have a clue what was going on or where and when any scene was set. I felt this was playing to a ‘knowing’ audience already familiar with the story and the material; the appearance of the famous white dress at the end, after Eva’s death, seemed to confirm this sense of ‘nod-nod’/’wink-wink’.

We are left with no understanding of why the Peróns were able to seduce a nation. All the characters, including Eva, come across as thoroughly unlikeable. The original Broadway production was fairly ‘anti’-Evita, but Patti LuPone astutely realised that the need to make audience like or at least respect Eva (it often works well if the audience gets suckered by the propaganda itself); otherwise, the audience is baffled as to how this person became the myth she did. Here, though, Samantha Pauly’s Eva is never really more than a cold, sneering, self-entitled, petulant brat (even before she gets to Buenos Aires). We come close to getting something more than this when we near her death in the second act, but by then it is too late, because she’s dead five minutes later. Elaine Paige and Elena Roger both communicated what drove their respective Evitas and why they made the choices they made. But we never understand what drives this Eva and never feel any sympathy towards her. On Eva being sympathetic, this production has made a clear choice to revert back to the ‘mito negro’: Eva is a social climbing whore – end of story; and Perón is a fascist despot – end of story. These cardboard stock myths don’t really work any more in 2019, when we know more about Argentina and should be able to handle its ambivalent icons with more nuance.

Another problem is that Che has barely anything to do during the whole show. If you have a bad Che or a Che who is not directed, then the show can fall apart. This is what happened in the most recent Broadway revival; either Ricky Martin ignored or was not given any direction, so Elena Roger had nothing to act against, and any drama was removed. By contrast, get an angry, passionate Che like Mandy Patinkin or even Antonio Banderas, and you do get conflict and drama. Unfortunately, Trenton Saunders is never more than a passive observer, with barely any blocking. You often forget he’s there. There were several scenes, such as the ‘Waltz’ number, with just him and Samantha Pauly sitting on the steps of the set singing the songs to the audience, and not doing anything. Similarly, in ‘Surprisingly’, Eva and Perón just look at each other, but without any kind of chemistry or attraction, while a couple of dancers distract the audience during the instrumental section. There basically isn’t enough action. Without this, the show basically becomes a rock concert and nothing more. Why, for instance, were the mourners from the ‘Requiem’ still sitting there in mourning during the scenes in Junín? Why does Eva just stand and watch the Mistress deliver ‘Another suitcase’ when she really ought to have dismissed her and got to work on seducing Perón?

The (often non-existent) visuals often seemed to ignore or contradict the material. What does Magaldi mean here any he says Eva’s act hasn’t changed? She’s not with another man at the time or doing anything else typical of her; she’s just standing there, alone. The absent costumes changes means the audience doesn’t see Eva getting any richer or advancing in her career or through the social ranks during ‘Goodnight and Thank You’ – so what is her end of the transaction she makes with each of those men? Eva doesn’t ‘seem to lose interest’ when in France during the Rainbow Tour; she seems much the same. And she’s certainly not dressed up to the nines (or sixes or sevens) during ‘Don’t Cry for Me’.

It felt like Jamie Lloyd had a million ideas that he wanted to experiment with, but tried shoving them all in and decided to see what would happen. There some nice touches among those ideas. Even if it didn’t beat Hal Prince’s musical chairs, the staging of ‘The Art of the Possible’ was clever and inspired. Eva ‘silencing’ the dissenting Che by snatching away his microphone was powerful. Getting to see Eva’s furious reaction to her own death announcement (I like the fact they used the actual text of the real announcement from 1952) was arresting. But there weren’t enough of these that cohered throughout the show. The scene placement sometimes didn’t help. ‘You Must Love Me’ now immediately follows the second ‘Dice Are Rolling’. This means that straight after Eva asks Perón ‘Where am I going to?’, Eva then repeats her question (the first line of ‘You Must Love Me’ being ‘Where do we go from here?’), even though Perón has just told her with some finality, ‘Don’t ask any more’.

The performers are all exceptional, but I don’t think the casting was quite right. Adam Pearce pulled off his creepy Magaldi, but I don’t think the youthful (and certainly talented) Ektor Rivera came across as a convincing Perón. There’s an 18-piece orchestra but somehow it seemed tinny, particular during ‘Buenos Aires’. It didn’t seem powerful enough during what should be rousing numbers like ‘A New Argentina’.