Titan, on 26 August 2012 - 02:46 PM, said:
For me things like rainbow high/tour were very flat, which I don't think were helped by the static set. Some of it was a bit hammy, for example perons pleading hands when Eva collapses. Although that could have been actors choice. I'd never seen evita prior to the London revival and was so disappointed with what was so flat and unexciting (excluding some scenes such as buenos aires). Elena I didn't see what all the fuss was about, thought matt rawle was great though.
The tour was flawed, don't get me wrong, but I enjoyed it more than the London production.
To be fair your reservations about the "static set" (I never understand why audience members need the set to do something to be entertained; in the original production there wasn't even a set as such to speak of!) were addressed on Broadway. I will agree that Rainbow Tour was flagging a bit in London, although that was a problematic number in the original too, but it has been dressed up very well on Broadway.
I think Elena was and is terrific and thoroughly deserved the unanimous raves she got. Pity New York hasn't embraced her in the same way.
I don't think the Adelphi production was 100% perfect, but I must agree with the other posters (and indeed the London critics) that it was excellent. It got the best reviews ALW and Tim Rice have ever received for anything they've done and I do think it could have had a longer run if it had had better producers (i.e. not RUG). Cameron Mackintosh was originally going to produce but pulled out in 2005. With him behind it I reckon it would have had a good chance at selling as well in London as it is doing on Broadway. The Kenwright production wasn't terrible for Kenwright standards, but I continue to find it insulting that Kenwright degrades so many wonderful pieces with his cheap tat. And yes, I include his production of Evita
Guess we'll have to disagree.
As for the idea that Evita
's "time has passed", I don't think so, though it's certainly not quite in vogue at the moment. What goes around comes around. It's a dark, bleak show at heart and it's perhaps a difficult sell to a 2012 audience expecting spectacle, flash and happy clappy endings given the fact the show doesn't give a clear-cut view of its contradictory title character (IMHO one of its strength) and spends its last third chanting for the death of its leading lady whose husband's regime has left the country bankrupt.
Completely agree though that Ricky Martin doesn't have the foggiest re what he's singing on stage. He smiles a lot and that's kind of it. But I won't complain if it keeps the show running, I guess. It's sad that theatre's come to this, but oh well. Elena Roger's performance is probably affected as a result of having a weaker Che to play off, I think. I reckon part of the reason she came across a bit stronger in London was that her counterpart in Matt Rawle was sufficiently sardonic.