|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2019 10:39:30 GMT
The symbolism of Che half naked until the end is that that is what has happened to Argentina under the Peron's - it is naked and broken with nothing left. For me it's a very powerful image. Ok, that makes sense to me, hence them using the colours of the Argentinian flag. Nice catch. Also, because they never actually met in real life, the fact that Eva and Che played agaisnt each other all night in this production, made it seem like he was more than just an 'everyman' figure of the country.
I wish this was another JCS. I went in with such high hopes too!
Though I disagree, you deffo speak for many people here! Yeah I noticed that re Che and Eva too. In most productions, including film, they never even make eye contact at all, until Waltz for Eva and Che. Which is really the only time they directly interact. Here they interact a lot more. Don't know why. Has Jamie Lloyd done a Q&A? Would love to hear one... |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2019 10:50:59 GMT
Finally going to this on Thursday evening. It seems Sam Pauly has been dividing opinion too. As the lynchpin of the piece, is she singing in key or is she really just “shrieking” as some others have opined. I personally think Evita is one of the best female roles out there, giving actresses the chance to showcase their vocals so is she not doing the score justice? When I saw it she shouted more than she sang, and when she did she sounded very flat. It was so shrill. It probably didn't help that I couldn't make out the lyrics at least 70% of the time Eva and Che were singing (lucky I know them, but a lot of people around me hadn't a clue what was going on!). |
|
184 posts
|
Post by MoreLife on Sept 17, 2019 10:56:18 GMT
Can someone explain to me why Che (in a Che Guevara tshirt! - really??) stripped down to his pants and got covered in paint and confetti and then just sat freezing on stage?? As for the t-shirt, I thought this tied in with the rest of the symbols used throughout and with the overall modernised language. I'll put my thoughts in spoiler format, as it may give away details about the staging etc. {Spoiler} {Spoiler}{}
The story of Evita as a social climber is told here - visually and formally - as if she were a very contemporary (pseudo)celebrity, an Instagram influencer etc. There's a public version of herself she presents to the world, and which she uses for her and Perón's propaganda, but we as the audience get to see behind the mask - hence the lack of wig and all that makes the iconic look we've been used to.
The world sees that image, so much so that the little girl does wear the wig and the white dress, and everyone immediately knows she is trying to look like Evita. For us in the audience there's plenty of hints of that, like the balloon held by Perón during 'Don't cry for me Argentina', which bears the iconic portrait of Eva, and yet we get to see Eva at her most "naked" and perhaps farthest from what she is projecting to the world.
I thought Che wears a "Che" tee precisely because that image has become equally as iconic, if not even more iconic than Eva's one, and many, over the years, have worn that t-shirt despite not properly knowing what Che did and what role he played in South American history.
Not unlike with Eva, there's a Che "public persona" and a perception of Che that the world associates with his name... but again, as the audience, we get to see past that and are presented with the real, more personal thoughts and actions of a narrator/observer who, at the end of the show, comes to personify Argentina and physically bears the signs of all the damage inflicted to the country by the powers that be.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2019 10:59:08 GMT
Can someone explain to me why Che (in a Che Guevara tshirt! - really??) stripped down to his pants and got covered in paint and confetti and then just sat freezing on stage?? As for the t-shirt, I thought this tied in with the rest of the symbols used throughout and with the overall modernised language. I'll put my thoughts in spoiler format, as it may give away details about the staging etc. {Spoiler} {Spoiler}{}
The story of Evita as a social climber is told here - visually and formally - as if she were a very contemporary (pseudo)celebrity, an Instagram influencer etc. There's a public version of herself she presents to the world, and which she uses for her and Perón's propaganda, but we as the audience get to see behind the mask - hence the lack of wig and all that makes the iconic look we've been used to.
The world sees that image, so much so that the little girl does wear the wig and the white dress, and everyone immediately knows she is trying to look like Evita. For us in the audience there's plenty of hints of that, like the balloon held by Perón during 'Don't cry for me Argentina', which bears the iconic portrait of Eva, and yet we get to see Eva at her most "naked" and perhaps farthest from what she is projecting to the world.
I thought Che wears a "Che" tee precisely because that image has become equally as iconic, if not even more iconic than Eva's one, and many, over the years, have worn that t-shirt despite not properly knowing what Che did and what role he played in South American history.
Not unlike with Eva, there's a Che "public persona" and a perception of Che that the world associates with his name... but again, as the audience, we get to see past that and are presented with the real, more personal thoughts and actions of a narrator/observer who, at the end of the show, comes to personify Argentina and physically bears the signs of all the damage inflicted to the country by the powers that be.
Great summary MoreLife - and really explains why I love this production :-) |
|
1,995 posts
|
Post by distantcousin on Sept 17, 2019 12:00:01 GMT
Gawd, I'm finally reading this thread (after seeing it last night) and the reviews are SO polarising. I love that!
For me, as an Evita superfan - (it's top 3 of all musicals for me), I found it astoundingly good. 5 out of 5.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2019 13:38:56 GMT
Gawd, I'm finally reading this thread (after seeing it last night) and the reviews are SO polarising. I love that! For me, as an Evita superfan - (it's top 3 of all musicals for me), I found it astoundingly good. 5 out of 5. Agree - and people with opposing views are explaining why they feel how they do really well - it's Theatreboard and discussion/critique at it's best :-) |
|
1,349 posts
|
Post by CG on the loose on Sept 17, 2019 16:19:21 GMT
I was also there last night and find myself somewhere in the middle of the extremes of views offered here. I love the venue - watching (abundant) smoke drifting in the breeze and leaves as well as (also abundant) confetti falling to the stage adds another dimension, rare enough in my theatre-going to be a little thrilling in its own right - though the fact that I was watching the smoke drifting and noticed the leaves falling may tell you something about how much of my attention the production itself was holding. I was a bit underwhelmed by Samantha Pauly's vocals, finding her both shrill at the top end and under-powered at the lower end of her range, but intrigued by her portrayal. No-one in the cast stood out for me, but equally no-one jarred either. There were elements that were visually stunning - quite literally at some points when the lighting blinded me to the action - and I enjoyed much of the choreography and staging in an abstract way without taking any great significance from it. So, certainly glad I went, but ambivalent enough that it's not one I would leap to recommend to others.
|
|
1,995 posts
|
Post by distantcousin on Sept 17, 2019 17:49:37 GMT
For me edgy is what Harold Prince did with the original production. Lloyd's production is just bonkers. Still I look forward to a second viewing.
Edgy in the 70's and 80's, yes. We have moved on, significantly.
|
|
1,995 posts
|
Post by distantcousin on Sept 17, 2019 17:53:33 GMT
Well, if it’s well played and well sung I’ll be happy enough (although she sounds a bit screechy on YouTube). We always knew this wasn’t going to be Evita as we knew it, there would be zero point in doing that. So we’ve got what we expected, which is something unexpected. I do find it a bit baffling though that in reinterpreting it so drastically he gives us the kid in the jewels and wig. If this is no longer to be about the historical character we all know, why bother making the reference? And is Che wearing only a pair of denim cut off shorts at the end? {Spoiler - click to view}
So the kid in the jewels and the wig is like a bratty kid prom queen - she sings "Dear Gentle Eva" and her and Eva look at each other with mutual disdain. At the end the kid holds out her hand and is given a fat pile of dollar bills which she puts into a bumbag around her dress.
At the VERY end during Che's final words (ending in 'Evita's body disappeared for 17 years') Eva stands there and is dressed in the big white dress and the iconic blond wig. (The first time we see a traditional Evita costume). I think it is making the point that this image of her, even though it IS how she looked, is something that has been cemented in her death. In life, she is portrayed as this rough gritty common girl, seeking fame in the style of X Factor contestants today.
In fact overall, I know we are always left in limbo of bitch vs saint in Evita, but this production is skewed very much towards bitch. Not entirely though, you do see glimpses of humility and feeling. It's made very clear though that most of the smiles for the cameras are fake.
Che during Waltz for Eva and Che gets undressed till he is in his boxers. At the end of the song Eva throws 2 buckets of water over him then one of ticker tape and he collapses as if injured. As the show progresses through her death he is then increasingly weak, such that when she dies it appears as if he has too. The interpretation I took is that Che represents the people, the descamisados and the prosperity of Argentina (now bankrupt). And they died over her reign as she was all mouth and actually did nothing for them. "Little has changed for us peasants down here on the ground."
This is all open to interpretation though!
Actually it was white and pale blue paint and then the confetti. A representation of a tarring and feathering.
I felt this scene was the best interpretation of the context of The Waltz of Eva and Che. (much like in the film)
However it was from that point that it clicked for me, that Che was actually Eva's alter ego - or should I say the physical manifestation of her conscience.... The Angel on her shoulder. Which I thought was so, so clever. (if indeed that is the intention, but it works for me)
|
|
2,743 posts
|
Post by n1david on Sept 18, 2019 10:15:45 GMT
Well, you can put me in the Love camp for this one.
Is it faultless, a throughly worked-out interpretation of Eva’s character and motives? No. Is it the only way I’d like to see Evita produced from now until the end of time? No. Do I think it gave a kick up the backside to a musical which risks descending into fixed ideas bordering on cliché? Yes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 18, 2019 11:23:34 GMT
Well, you can put me in the Love camp for this one. Is it faultless, a throughly worked-out interpretation of Eva’s character and motives? No. Is it the only way I’d like to see Evita produced from now until the end of time? No. Do I think it gave a kick up the backside to a musical which risks descending into fixed ideas bordering on cliché? Yes. You're right about that. I actually think it's great it's divided opinion as it shows they really have gone out and breathed new life in to something that really needed it (although I didn't know it needed it until now). My final visit last night. Better than ever for me. Up close and personal in row E and as was dark before Act 1 started you had the full effect of the lighting design which really focussed things and added to the drama. Another reason I feel it would work indoors. I get what people mean by Pauly shrieking - her voice is sharp - not sure if it's helped by having to design for sound outdoors. But the same was said of Elena Roger. For me I like the quality of her voice and she nails the notes. Her acting is also brilliant. IMHO a true triple threat - hope we see her in the UK again. Only downside - my God I was cold!!!! Poor Trent Saunders..... |
|
3,426 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Sept 18, 2019 13:32:09 GMT
Well, you can put me in the Love camp for this one. Is it faultless, a throughly worked-out interpretation of Eva’s character and motives? No. Is it the only way I’d like to see Evita produced from now until the end of time? No. Do I think it gave a kick up the backside to a musical which risks descending into fixed ideas bordering on cliché? Yes. You're right about that. I actually think it's great it's divided opinion as it shows they really have gone out and breathed new life in to something that really needed it (although I didn't know it needed it until now). My final visit last night. Better than ever for me. Up close and personal in row E and as was dark before Act 1 started you had the full effect of the lighting design which really focussed things and added to the drama. Another reason I feel it would work indoors. I get what people mean by Pauly shrieking - her voice is sharp - not sure if it's helped by having to design for sound outdoors. But the same was said of Elena Roger. For me I like the quality of her voice and she nails the notes. Her acting is also brilliant. IMHO a true triple threat - hope we see her in the UK again. Only downside - my God I was cold!!!! Poor Trent Saunders..... The steps have fan heaters underneath... ... or is that just a load of hot air? |
|
781 posts
|
Post by latefortheoverture on Sept 19, 2019 19:10:58 GMT
Saw this a few weeks ago, and bloody loved it. My first time seeing Evita and although very different, I did grasp it.
I do think that people going into this blind really do have their work cut out, you have to give it your full attention to get some of the abstract ideas presented.
Some of the direction is genius, some is no-where near as clever and/or necessary
The confetti and fireworks were completely unnecessary, but I loved them! The end of act 1 was electric.
We had Marsha Songcome as Eva, who- considering is 6 months pregnant- was unreal. I really couldn't believe what she was doing, I can't imagine how tiring it is for her. She deserves so much success!
Would love to be able to see this again- but doubt it'll return to regents park. Would be great if it had a little stint in the Barbican.
Also worth noting I loved this venue- amazing place, and great burger and chips for £10!
Can't wait to see carousel next year.
|
|
3,426 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Sept 19, 2019 21:06:04 GMT
We had Marsha Songcome as Eva, who- considering is 6 months pregnant- was unreal. I really couldn't believe what she was doing, I can't imagine how tiring it is for her. She deserves so much success! Would love to be able to see this again- but doubt it'll return to regents park. Would be great if it had a little stint in the Barbican. Also worth noting I loved this venue- amazing place, and great burger and chips for £10! Can't wait to see carousel next year. When the mummy keeps rolling in, you don't ask how... |
|
|
|
Post by theoracle on Sept 20, 2019 8:00:10 GMT
For me, seeing this last night really reminded me what a genius pairing ALW and TR were. What a shame they didn’t work together more! I thought Sam Pauly and Ektor Riviera were both stunning and the open air theatre felt like the perfect venue for a production as radically different as this. The choreography whilst stellar at parts (Buenos Aires/Rainbow Tour) felt forced at other points (Eva + Magaldi). I can see why some people may dislike it but I thought the show was pretty solid and made me want to see other radically different interpretations of classic shows. I wonder what Jamie Lloyd will do with Cyrano
|
|
1,995 posts
|
Post by distantcousin on Sept 20, 2019 9:42:51 GMT
Well, you can put me in the Love camp for this one. Is it faultless, a throughly worked-out interpretation of Eva’s character and motives? No. Is it the only way I’d like to see Evita produced from now until the end of time? No. Do I think it gave a kick up the backside to a musical which risks descending into fixed ideas bordering on cliché? Yes. You're right about that. I actually think it's great it's divided opinion as it shows they really have gone out and breathed new life in to something that really needed it (although I didn't know it needed it until now). My final visit last night. Better than ever for me. Up close and personal in row E and as was dark before Act 1 started you had the full effect of the lighting design which really focussed things and added to the drama. Another reason I feel it would work indoors. I get what people mean by Pauly shrieking - her voice is sharp - not sure if it's helped by having to design for sound outdoors. But the same was said of Elena Roger. For me I like the quality of her voice and she nails the notes. Her acting is also brilliant. IMHO a true triple threat - hope we see her in the UK again. Only downside - my God I was cold!!!! Poor Trent Saunders..... Yeah, seeing it in the dark totally worked for the tone of the piece.
I had no problems with La Pauly and her vocals at all. She hit all the notes, and her tone suits a tough character. I wouldn't particularly want to hear a "pretty voiced" Eva.
One other thing I liked is the fact the leads were all of American, and their accents encouraged a "foreignness" and "otherness" in their characters. For me, I always found the characters in previous productions slightly coloured by typical RP English accents., when the characters are anything but! Just my own personal taste there.
Like you, I felt for Trenty! Drenched in cold paint and stood in his boxers at 10pm on a mid September evening. Suffering for his art!!!
I SO hope it comes back in (what would have to be) a couple of years. Want to bring friends to see it too!
|
|
1,995 posts
|
Post by distantcousin on Sept 20, 2019 9:44:14 GMT
For me, seeing this last night really reminded me what a genius pairing ALW and TR were. What a shame they didn’t work together more! I thought Sam Pauly and Ektor Riviera were both stunning and the open air theatre felt like the perfect venue for a production as radically different as this. The choreography whilst stellar at parts (Buenos Aires/Rainbow Tour) felt forced at other points (Eva + Magaldi). I can see why some people may dislike it but I thought the show was pretty solid and made me want to see other radically different interpretations of classic shows. I wonder what Jamie Lloyd will do with Cyrano
Same. I've been hoping for years that Jamie Lloyd would get his hands on some ALW works - so it's been a dream come true seeing what he's come up with for Evita.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2019 9:59:12 GMT
For me, seeing this last night really reminded me what a genius pairing ALW and TR were. What a shame they didn’t work together more! I thought Sam Pauly and Ektor Riviera were both stunning and the open air theatre felt like the perfect venue for a production as radically different as this. The choreography whilst stellar at parts (Buenos Aires/Rainbow Tour) felt forced at other points (Eva + Magaldi). I can see why some people may dislike it but I thought the show was pretty solid and made me want to see other radically different interpretations of classic shows. I wonder what Jamie Lloyd will do with Cyrano
Same. I've been hoping for years that Jamie Lloyd would get his hands on some ALW works - so it's been a dream come true seeing what he's come up with for Evita.
I think Phantom is the ALW show that most needs new life breathed into it. Never gonna happen while the original still running though. Plus the “Phans” who ran the Love Never Dies hate campaign would probably spin into orbit if it was ever tinkered with. |
|
|
|
Post by theoracle on Sept 20, 2019 21:33:00 GMT
Same. I've been hoping for years that Jamie Lloyd would get his hands on some ALW works - so it's been a dream come true seeing what he's come up with for Evita.
I think Phantom is the ALW show that most needs new life breathed into it. Never gonna happen while the original still running though. Plus the “Phans” who ran the Love Never Dies hate campaign would probably spin into orbit if it was ever tinkered with. Oooh, Love Never Dies revival is much needed! I rewatched the DVD of the Australian production and I really think it has potential. I don't know when the "perfect production" will come about but I certainly think it will come about. Some of the music is really beautiful especially considering the new Lover Never Dies suite on ALW's Unmasked album |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 20, 2019 22:24:21 GMT
I think Phantom is the ALW show that most needs new life breathed into it. Never gonna happen while the original still running though. Plus the “Phans” who ran the Love Never Dies hate campaign would probably spin into orbit if it was ever tinkered with. Oooh, Love Never Dies revival is much needed! I rewatched the DVD of the Australian production and I really think it has potential. I don't know when the "perfect production" will come about but I certainly think it will come about. Some of the music is really beautiful especially considering the new Lover Never Dies suite on ALW's Unmasked album Beautiful score, terrible concept. If that score was to a completely unrelated-to-Phantom project with a different set of characters with a different narrative it could have worked, but there was far too much pressure on the "Phantom Sequel" for it to have been a success imo. |
|
371 posts
|
Post by popcultureboy on Sept 21, 2019 7:24:48 GMT
Beautiful score, terrible concept. If that score was to a completely unrelated-to-Phantom project with a different set of characters with a different narrative it could have worked, but there was far too much pressure on the "Phantom Sequel" for it to have been a success imo. Most of it had already been in Beautiful Game, to be fair. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2019 10:16:08 GMT
Oooh, Love Never Dies revival is much needed! I rewatched the DVD of the Australian production and I really think it has potential. I don't know when the "perfect production" will come about but I certainly think it will come about. Some of the music is really beautiful especially considering the new Lover Never Dies suite on ALW's Unmasked album Beautiful score, terrible concept. If that score was to a completely unrelated-to-Phantom project with a different set of characters with a different narrative it could have worked, but there was far too much pressure on the "Phantom Sequel" for it to have been a success imo. I’ve often thought this. It’s a shame as ALW was clearly inspired melodically in a way he hadn’t been for a while. But in retrospect this project was doomed from the start. Still, I would love to see it resurface. Doubt he’d ever lift the score into a new project (though that would be cool) so hope will be done somewhere at some point. Can just appreciate the music and let the story wash over you. Bit like Chess lol. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2019 10:23:56 GMT
Back to topic, for the last shows the Open Air FB post signed off with #WhereDoWeGoFromHere!
Call me positive but I’m taking that to mean there is an ongoing life for this production!
|
|
449 posts
|
Post by SageStageMgr on Sept 21, 2019 10:33:43 GMT
Saw the show last night ahead of closing today. Beautiful weather, first visit to the venue and I was very impressed. Staff very friendly and a sold out show - the atmosphere was electric!
I am a huge Evita fan and was very grateful for a genuinely fresh take; it is refreshing for a director to have carte blanche and not get trapped in the same staging. That said, I think in this production Jamie Lloyd’s good ideas are often lost under the weight of the ones which really don’t work.
The whizbangs and flashy lighting are fun showstopper moments and ideal for the venue. Are they ideal for this show? Can they replace old fashioned notions like having a set? I found this a very abstract production. Perhaps too much so, bordering on pretentiousness and delusions about how clever it is.
The problem for me is in stripping away the literalism of this show, Lloyd ends up actually hurting the narrative. Or in other words, stuff can look silly instead of metaphoric.
“Rainbow High” springs to mind; gone are full length mirrors, impressive quick changes and lush costumes - in with spray paint. Cue the Christian Dior and Lauren Bacall dressed “fantasy of the bedroom” shimmying around in a poorly graffitied nightdress.
Gone is the classic “Evita” look, short of a cameo in the closing seconds. This is the Phantom without his mask. Lloyd might argue he is deconstructing exactly who the real “Eva” was under the finery. A handheld microphone used to communicate her “public image”. A giggle, wink and gurn at the audience as she quips. “I don’t always rush in like this” - indeed - yes, we get it!
What was with Che and Eva drinking after every big number from strategically placed water bottles? Why am I thinking about that instead of investing in the characters and story?
This is the danciest “Evita” I’ll ever see. Which was a shame because was dancing was diabolical. Being generous I’d suggest the out of sync chorus must’ve had issues hearing the track, because it was as bad an ensemble performance as I’ve seen for a show with an otherwise excellent level of care shown in its production.
Samantha Pauly’s Evita will giggle as she knifes you in the back. She is petite, but otherwise bears absolutely no resemblance to Evita. She is shouty and shrill - but despite this she is still the wildcard of a weak cast. I didn’t quite know what she was going to do next; painfully blow another big note (“Buenos Aires”, “Rainbow High”) or absolutely knock it out of the park (“Peron’s Latest Flame”, “A New Argentina”.). She has a lot of the Idina’s about her. Sub-Elena Roger.
The slightly “less than gruff” Jon Tsouras was on as Che. He has a good voice, easily the best of the principal trio vocally. He lacked however in charm, charisma... or really anything to remember him by. Indeed, my lasting memory of his performance is being forced to sit in shivering in just his pants for the last 20 minutes, covered in a water-based paint substance. I wonder if this is what Mr. Tsouras always dreamed of when he decided to become an actor.
“Ooh”Ek-tor Rivera plays Perón just as a calculating cynic. He looks more like Che than Che does. Lovely accent and underwear model looks. Just like the real Peró... oh.
Why is Adam Pearce playing Magaldi? I know he has an “Evita” connection but, just why? He’s a bass-baritone for starters, never mind his “look”. (Although to be fair in this version it was made clear he is unpopular and unsuccessful as a heartthrob).
Frances Mayli McCann is lovely as The Mistress and, much like Lorna Want back in the 2006 Grandage production, ends up absolutely shining as a one-song-wonder.
I haven’t seen as much dancing around (badly) with balloons since “All the Fun of the Fair” but at least that had (albeit an old and croaky) David Essex.
So in all, glad I saw it - a fresh take and some brave choices from director Lloyd. But much like wearing your underpants on the outside (or stripping down to your pants in front of a thousand people and getting covered in blue and white paint) it might be “different” and make you stand out from the rest - but most people will still wish you hadn’t.
|
|
3,426 posts
|
Post by ceebee on Sept 21, 2019 11:32:45 GMT
Wow, bet you're fun at long-winded parties.
|
|
