"Evita" Review

[mrdreamjeans]

I'm a bit out of sync with other actors when it comes to reading reviews of their work. Most actors either don't read them or like to pretend they don't:) I don't avoid them. In fact, I seek them out. I used to write for a weekly paper in Houston as their theater critic; having had that experience, I like to read reviews to see how well they are written not to necessarily agree or disagree with the content.

The review in The Chicago Tribune was particularly well done. I am reprinting it here with full acknowledgment of the talents of the writer, Chris Jones. Enjoy! I've got to get my act on the road, do laundry and other errands today, as it is supposed to snow heavily here tomorrow:)

THEATER REVIEW
'Evita' Revival Recalls Braver Era - In Theater

By Chris Jones
Tribune Arts Reporter
Published November 20, 2004

Thirty years ago, an original musical still could cut a broad swath
through mainstream popular culture. Today that would be unthinkable.

Songs from "Evita" were a fixture at the top of the British charts. And the
UK pop-royalty of the time -- the likes of Barbara Dixon and David Essex --
pushed the initial concept album onto everyone's turntable. That was two
years before the show had even smelled a theater.

Some of us who were teenagers memorized every idiosyncratic Tim Rice lyric
-- from "High Flying, Adored" to "Another Suitcase in Another Hall." Heck,
they were hard to avoid. Julie Covington's version of "Don't Cry For Me
Argentina" was the best-selling British single of 1977.

This nostalgic touring version of "Evita" brings the 1970s flooding back.
Despite the passage of time, this is a close re-creation of Hal Prince's
throbbing original West End production, closely re-created by the
still-throbbing Prince.

Whatever one may feel about the lasting quality of this material, this
likely is the final chance to revisit a significant moment in musical
history. On the corporate road, such tours are rare. There are no movable
light fixtures or computer graphics on display. The pit still is full of
human beings blowing into brass and reed. The ensemble -- every capable,
union-affiliated one of them -- sports full Equity production contracts. Bet
Prince insisted.

And the signature aspects of the staging -- the catwalks, the movie screen,
the caricatured choreography, the purloined Brechtian cheekiness -- are
present and correct. About the only things missing are the torches that once
lighted the stage. Tougher fire codes, perhaps.

Reliving scenes of youthful admiration can be dangerous. "Evita" never was a
subtle endeavor, and time emphasizes its camp qualities. At times during the
revival, you realize every 1970s musical used pretty much the same dark set.
And back then, shows sure put a lot of stock in sticking banners in people's
hands and having them pump their arms.

But at least "Evita" dealt with issues. It was prescient in its exploration
of the link between politics and mediatized personalities. And it had Che
Guevara as narrator, for goodness sake. Try selling that to investors today.
It's also one of the two decent extant Andrew Lloyd Webber scores ("Sunset
Boulevard" is the other). And you only have to listen to Rice's later, safer
lyrics to appreciate the daring work he did for "Evita."

In no other musical do characters step out of a scene and tell the audience
that they, too, use and abuse lovers for their own devices. They even point
fingers at the front rows.

This was the work of the young, the audacious and the talented. People tend
to think of "Evita" as looking forward to the 1980s, but it was more linked
to the political shows of the 1960s ("Viet Rock" et al.). It was a universe
away from "The Phantom of the Opera."

This revival has a former Chicago actress, Kathy Voytko, in the lead. You
can see why Prince cast her. Voytko has a huge voice, but she is a striver
and a tireless worker onstage. Her huge smile and gaping eyes never look
entirely comfortable. Neither did Eva Peron.

Bradley Dean infuses the scratchy Che with an operatic tenor. It's neither a
subtle nor a sufficiently rock-driven performance -- it suggests a Marxist
seminar taking place at Juilliard -- but Dean sounds good on the high notes.
And there's a sweet cameo from Kate Manning as the mistress pushed out by
the star, but not before getting the show's best ballad.

"Evita" never had a decent end. But its melodies still lock in the skull
while the lyrics tickle the brain. In this retro incarnation, it's easy to
see how "Evita" changed the face of the Anglo-American theater. It's a pity
its creators later lost their nerve.

Comments

[dr-scott.livejournal.com]

I've seen quite a few of these -- Op Ed-style pontifications run as a review. He spends a bit of time on this production, a bit of time on the show, and a lot of time on a political/artistic analysis of the show in the context of pop and Broadway culture. In this he tries to display hor superior he is -- note the condescending "Whatever one may feel about the lasting quality of this material..." line. Sheez.

I did love the "still-throbbing Prince" bit. :-)

[ciddyguy.livejournal.com]

did love the "still-throbbing Prince" bit. :-)

I noticed this too and wondered, Hmmm, could he be one of the family? :-)

Actually, Hal Prince is married to a pretty wife, according to the pic Neil took and posted in an earlier post. Still, he's pretty good looking.

[mrdreamjeans.livejournal.com]

I recognize your point, but the "qualification" you cite is, I think, forgivable given the desire to bash Andrew Lloyd Weber and dismiss all of his work out-of-hand. This critic concedes that some people challenge our show's place in history, but offers context and seems to be on "Evita's" side:) I do think that Weber and Rice did their best work with "JC Superstar" and "Evita".

Jones makes points about Equity, union actors on tours and musicals of substance. They are important points to me. If Hal Prince hadn't been involved, this tour of "Evita" would have gone out non-union. The paying audience would still have been charged the same price for tickets; the producers and presenters would have made their profits; but actors' pay and benefits would have been decimated, recorded music instead of a live orchestra would have been used (like Mama Mia in some cities) and the standards of the production would have been much less.

[dr-scott.livejournal.com]

Hmm, I didn't realize non-union touring companies were common. Wouldn't that restrict where they could play to non-union towns?

I actually thought he was trying to have it both ways -- occupying both a (deniable) position of looking down on Weber's work while arguing for the value of this one. By doing so he avoids losing any reputation points with the snobs. Then there's the "art was so much more serious when it was political" point made at the end, which sounds like old farts through the ages. This is review to program the reader's opinion with the right political attitude, not a discussion of the work and the production's successs in realizing it. And it's very common, so much so we hardly even see anything wrong with it.

[mrdreamjeans.livejournal.com]

Good point! I do understand when this happens, so perhaps I'm just happy to see a reviewer gracefully make my political argument for me:) The most important element of a review should be the entertainment value of the production.

It is now quite common for tours to go out non-union, since big business has taken over as the primary producers. These tours play all of the major markets, but there is no marketing that lets the public know the difference. They are promoted as straight from Broadway...a big stretch of the truth. It's why my union has picketed many of these tours..(recent examples are the tours of "Oliver" and "The Music Man"). It's also not fair to old school producers who are putting out a first-class product without an equitable playing field.

The tours can play "union houses", because the running crews are union; however, the actors are not. The actors are treated as expendable and to some degree we are responsible for this poor treatment. There are always some actors who will work for less; jobs are difficult to come by. Every time I get a job, I've beaten 500- 1000 to 1 odds!

Non-union actors have no protections and there are no guidelines to provide even the most basic of health care and benefits. Believe me - the quality and level of professionalism suffer, but you still pay premium prices. It is a sad state of affairs, so our tour, in particular, is making it clear that we are all union actors. The words "Member of Actors Equity" has been added to every bio.

[sflonestar.livejournal.com]

I will probably face the wrath of a lot of LJers, but I am not afraid to admit that I am an admirer of Andrew Lloyd Webber. I have always admired his ability to come up with one or two drop-dead gorgeous numbers for each of his shows. Unfortunately, then it's almost like he loses interest and the rest of the music tends to be bland and repetitive, making most of his shows inconsistent. In my opinion, his most consistent works are the musical scores for JC Superstar and Cats. I have never liked Tim Rice's lyrics which I always found clumsy and banal. What has happened to Webber anyway? He really has faded. His last few shows have not been hits and I haven't heard anything about him recently. By the way, Neil, I am looking forward to seeing Evita when you come to town next year. Maybe we could organize LJ night at Evita! Just think of the rows of bears cheering you on!

[crunchmd.livejournal.com]

Most actors either don't read them or like to pretend they don't:) How refreshing to hear an actor admit the truth about reviews! I recently did a Christopher Durang piece and the director/producer instructed the cast and crew not to discuss **any** review of the show within the confines of the building. (Ironically, it was only his direction that was criticized in two separate reviews.) The reason, he said, it that it is considered "unprofessional". Excuse me, but historically on Opening Nite, Broadway talents have huddled around early editions of the Times doing that very thing. I think a well-constructed and supported critique, even if scathing, can be useful. The poorly written ones I discount, regardless whether it was favorable or not.

Reviews

[bruinwi.livejournal.com]

Hell, I've read reviews out loud in the dressing room for the entire cast to hear. Color me a rank amateur.

I'm nowhere near Neil's level, but even I know the difference between a bad review, a badly written review, and a piece written by someone with an axe to grind. One year, Nutcracker got a nasty review, directed at our director/choreographer, suggesting that Earle was such a hack, he couldn't choreograph a straight line. Now, I'm no dancer, but I know there's a vast difference between a person missing her mark, and and that same person being told to mark herself out of alignment.

Earl's choreography is very physical, and very demanding. I've been in the wings, watching the Dance of the Snow, which closes the first act. By the time they're done, those girls have been thru the equivalent of a marathon. While it is argueably true that ballet is populated by Gay men, it is no place for wimps! A study has shown that dancers from the New York City Ballet score better in overall strength, endurance and flexibility than pro football players.

I have nothing but the deepest respect for the dancers in our cast. As an extention of that, I stand in amazement at Neil's accomplishments in his show. FUCK the critics!

Re: Reviews

[mrdreamjeans.livejournal.com]

"I know the difference between a bad review, a badly written review, and a piece written by someone with an axe to grind." Exactly! And you're not a rank amateur to share reviews if everyone wants to see and hear what they have to say. Course, you can't let what one person in an opinion piece has to say, discourage you.. you can't let their words change how you do your job or look at your job. I don't let reviews, good or bad, affect my performance.

It's like being told in an audition that you're too old, too young, too short, too tall, etc...you have to know what you bring to the table and dismiss the negative. You have to believe in yourself! The attitude has to be fuck 'em! What do they know:)! Thanks for your truth!

[mrdreamjeans.livejournal.com]

Sounds like a very insecure director! I've never hear anyone say that it was unprofessional to read reviews and I've been doing shows and reading reviews all of my career. I don't discuss reviews with my colleagues if they don't want to know what they say, but it's certainly not a professional standard. LOL! Silly, silly director man:)

Besides, if you're going to believe the good reviews, then you've got to believe the bad ones. As I said, I look at the writing not the conclusions. It takes a person who is confident in their talent and vision to read someone else's opinion of their work then take the opinion for what it's worth:) Thanks for your post, John!

[crunchmd.livejournal.com]

After I hit "Enter" on the last post, I was reminded of a line from the musical revue "Scrambled Feet", directed at Frank Rich:

"I like your reviews because they're so soft and absorbent."

[nlotic.livejournal.com]

Wonderful review! I especailly like this qoute "The pit still is full of human beings blowing into brass and reed."

Congrats to you, cast, crew, and the pit.