Your post is very accurate to my response as well. I'm not a huge Lloyd Webber fan, and Evita would probably be my favourite of his works, at least musically, but it doesn't manage to tell the story it seems to be angling to tell. It fails to convey a clear grasp of the complexities, of how she rose to power despite the opposition of the military and the affluent classes, and how she became a popular icon despite being, in her own way, a despot and a sham. In the end, Eva seems to be not much more than a well-meaning glamourpuss. When they were making the film, I was initially hoping that it might be substantially rewritten to address that, but although they wisely dropped the industrial chemist angle from Che's character, the changes to the recitative scenes were a bit ugly.
Mind you, it doesn't help that it had such a block of wood in the lead role, whose limit of acting comprehension was to stand around playing dress-ups. Parker could have done so much more with an actual actress as his lead.
Despite the fact that I really liked the design and direction, and the musical arrangements (for the most part), it's one of the very few films I wouldn't mind seeing remade.
The thing with Evita – the stage play, is that Webber and Rice (along with Harold Prince who in his mind Eva Peron was a villain "corrupted by power") were successful in telling THEIR version of her story. Rice called the real Eva “magnetic” but “unpleasant”, “dangerous” but “attractive”. He ordered Webber to make her a “wonderful b1tch”.
Webber also stated the real Eva was “extremely attractive” but that she was one of the most “unsympathetic" character he has ever written music for. He also stated Puccini would have “adored her”. In both there is an amazing mix of disgust and admiration. The stage play does the same thing, it tries hard to discredit her but ultimately, it loves her to pieces.
IMO, the stage show is one sided but so be it – This is the story Webber and Rice chose to tell – That of a glamourpuss (LOL) of loose morals, ambitious, ruthless and calculating but had some genuine desire to help the poor and mostly herself. They wanted to show her as a glamorous super-villain and weren’t really interested in making her all that sympathetic (although earlier versions were deemed too sympathetic and this was changed for the American premiere). For the most part, Eva is a great role for the female performer but it is a study of contrast – ruthless/compassionate, hard and calculating/glamorous and gentle, Villain/Heroine, Saint/Sinner etc. But having seen the stage show 7 times, Eva is portrayed as a super b1tch. Charming but a b1tch nonetheless.
This works great on the stage especially when you have an actress who is able to sink her teeth into such a meaty role.
However for film, telling a tale of a one dimensional heroine does not work - the story and character has to be fully fleshed out especially if it is a biopic and this is what EVITA is really – a biopic set to music. I do think that the film was successful in many aspects but having researched Eva for decades now I do think that the film does not really explain why an entire nation literally STOPPED when she died; why millions lost themselves in grief and when alive, why they gathered, by the hundreds, by the thousands, by the millions, to see her and hear her speak; why people literally carried her picture with them as if she was some sort of living saint or a family member (and still do) and why and how she changed a nation forever (for good or ill, take your pick)?
The reasons are far greater than simply being a great orator who wore pretty dresses and Van Cleef jewels and manipulated the mindless masses with her pretty yet empty speeches.
Would a former, uneducated B-film actress who posed for cheesecake photographs in the late 30’s and early 40’s and who through years of sexual exploits and luck, happened to become First Lady of the republic at 26, be called the MOST POWERFUL women on earth by the time she is 31 (by the international press), and who caused military men and corrupt politicians shake in their boots as a cold, dead corpse and inspire them to concoct a game of hide and seek with her mortal remains for fear that if found by the faithful, it would inspire a revolution, have this kind of impact for simply being a good manipulator who got lucky?
For many, the woman and the circumstances displayed in the stage play and film is enough to explain most of this away but for others, like the OP, questions will linger, especially if the scope of her influence within Latin America is scrutinized because this woman is very much alive down in Argentina, even more so than her husband – a 3 time President of Argentina.
Geesh… I’m ranting. Haha.
I do agree with your assessment of Madonna. Although I admit this is her finest moment in film, I am left wondering what the film would have been like had they cast someone with the acting chops of a Meryl Streep and vocal prowess of a Patti Lupone. A role like EVITA needed to be carefully cast and I was one of the many who was disappointed when Madonna’s casting was announced (although she did resemble the real Eva Peron quite a bit) and I also agree with you that this film should be remade. It’s been 20 years now….. I think enough time has passed that this can be considered a good candidate and if they do, hopefully they get someone who not only looks like the real thing, but can do justice to such a complex role and I am totally on board for casting a talented unknown.
reply
share