20 April 2015

SHE DIDN'T SAY MUCH, BUT SHE SAID IT LOUD

A review requested by K. Wild, with thanks for contributing to the Second Quinquennial Antagony & Ecstasy ACS Fundraiser.

The 1996 feature film adaptation of Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice's musical Evita is, generally speaking, just fine. It's biggest limitation, frankly, is that it's an adaptation of Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice's musical Evita, but that show and preceding concept album was neither man's worst hour, at least. There are alternate universes where they got a much better film Evita, though: one directed by stylistic madman Ken Russell in the late '70s, or even the same exact one we got in our universe, directed by Alan Parker, only it stars Michelle Pfeiffer. And I must confess that I am jealous of the musical lovers in those universes. Because our Evita is just fine... it's just fine.

That being said, adapting Evita into a movie was always going to be a hideous amount of work, and it was perhaps never going to turn out right. The source material isn't a dramatic play with passages of dialogue set to music to demonstrate intensified emotion or particularly important scenes; it's really more of a staged song cycle, much like Webber and Rice's earlier collaboration Jesus Christ Superstar. Compared to the utter dog of a film which that show was turned into in 1973, Evita looks like an uncompromising triumph. But it still leaves the movie with a structure that won't construct, and while Russell made a song cycle into the crazyfucker masterpiece Tommy, as Parker himself did with Pink Floyd: The Wall, both of those movies got to cheat. They both had concepts that not only permitted, but outright demanded a psychedelic treatment, and so both of those films get to turn into florid visual trips hung along the spine provided by an arty rock group's concept album. Now, I'm not saying that there could not be a psychedelic Evita, and if there was, nothing in this world would have kept me from it. But it's no surprise at all that Evita isn't psychedelic in the least.

The thing that it has as a story surrogate relates, broadly and with dubious accuracy, the life of Eva Perón née Duarte (Madonna), born illegitimately in 1919 in rural Argentina. It tracks her laser-like focus on sleeping her way into modest radio stardom, which put her in position to meet Colonel Juan Perón (Jonathan Pryce, who looks about as much like a "Juan" as I do like an "Ichiro") at a charity gala in 1944. They married, and she threw herself into a fiery populist campaign to get him elected president in 1946. Together they (mostly she) were extravagantly beloved by the people of Argentina, until her stunningly premature death from cancer in 1952 rocketed her to the position that she still occupies of secular saint.

Fleshing that sketch out is where things get a bit rocky because, well, the film really doesn't (I'll plead ignorance as to whether the show does: I've never seen Evita staged, and I'm familiar only with the 1976 concept album that would be considerably re-worked for its 1978 theatrical debut). Parker does what he can with that favorite trick of silent filmmakers, the Zooming Newspaper Headline, but the almost totally sung-through story offers very little room for context or historical depth, and while that might play in the concert-like surroundings of live theater, the trappings of prestige cinema are too concrete, and Parker's directing too drably normal to survive such an abstract storytelling register. Evita doesn't end up feeling like a movie, but a series of music videos stitched together by montages. And, frequently interrupted by montages: one of the small number of brash stylistic tricks that Parker trots out, and probably shouldn't have, is to use impressionistic flashbacks and flashforwards to pep up what would otherwise be static moments of characters just standing there singing for a few minutes, and while I admire the effort, it doesn't land. We came for "Don't Cry for Me Argentina". We did not come to see "Don't Cry for Me Argentina" turned into a repository of footage we just watched, like, 40 minutes ago.

The music videos have the merit of being inordinately handsome, at least; with production design by Brian Morris and cinematography by Darius Khondji (who received his solitary Oscar nomination to date for this film), Evita looks lush and costly, but not at the cost of being stuffy and lifeless. It's a film of much grandeur, with no subtlety about it whatsoever, but it feels Big and Epic and Important in a way that very little Oscarbait actually manages to do. And within that framework, Parker's staging of individual moments - when he and editor Gerry Hambling can be bothered to let the action play out in chronological order, at least - certainly manages to be sure-footed and impeccably dramatic: the quick flow of the story through the flippant "Good Night and Thank You", or the jagged visual rhythm in "And the Money Kept Rolling In (and Out)" even manage to make a virtue of the ragged holes in the story's chronology.

Inasmuch as Evita was going to be primarily naturalistic, then, Parker's treatment of it is as good as it was likely to be. That's still limited by the story structure, and by the songs: though the rock music he relies on is a weird and sometimes unpleasant fit for a story of '1940s Argentina, Webber hadn't yet hit the wall of insipid mediocrity by the time of Evita, but Rice in the '70s was outright deranged, and the lyrics in Evita are baffling as often as not. Nothing matches the swirling vortex of madness found in the loopiest passages in Jesus Christ Superstar - the man who perpetrated "Like a jaded, jaded, faded, jaded, jaded mandarin" set that bar far too high to jump over it again - but there's plenty of choice "what the fuck were you thinking" moments, in places like "I came from the people, they need to adore me / So Christian Dior me..." in the aptly named "Rainbow High" or "Although she's dressed up to the nines / At sixes and sevens with you" from the iconic "Don't Cry for Me Argentina" itself. The film's solitary new song, "You Must Love Me" - specially designed for the purposes of being a hit Madonna single - doesn't quite come out unscathed (the word "must" connotes "are commanded to" too strongly for the line's primary meaning of "I guess you love me, huh" to naturally flow out), but the Rice of '96 is sufficiently calmed down that Evita manages the rare - maybe unprecedented - feat among stage-to-film musical adaptations of having its original, awards-courting composition be the standout number.

All that was baked in, though, and would have been a problem with any adaptation. But this particular Evita could still have done better with a better cast, and with no other changes been a considerably stronger film. Pryce's crisp British aura was a poor fit for Juan Perón, and he's not believable as a dictator, but the role isn't all that big. The male lead is actually Antonio Banderas as Ché "Not Guevara, Alan Parker Didn't Like That", the mysterious figure who drifts in and out of Evita's life as a host of different characters, always probing her conscience and snottily passing asides to the camera that clarify that for all her goodwill and charm, Eva had some massive limitations as a human being. What with the benevolent dictatorship and all. Though Evita is petrified to death of actually engaging with specific politics, so any attempts to actually analyse the Peróns' effect on Argentina is doomed to die in infancy. But anyway, Banderas is excellent in a role that lacks any interiority and specifically forbids an actor from faking it. It's all attitude and rolling the lines around as he sings them, and he's got that down cold.

But then there is the matter of the superstar albatross around the film's neck. It's easy to see why Madonna identified with the role and wanted it; it's easy to see why the studio wanted her. But she's just not good. The demands of the role tax her range considerably, and the dramatic flourishes all tend to flatten out (her "Don't Cry for Me Argentina" is a particular flat spot, in exactly the place that movie needs to put all its chips on a big showstopping rouser); she hits the notes, but frequently it audibly costs her to do that. That's bad enough, but she is a terrible actress, analysing the words in her songs like a pop singer and not the lead in a work of musical theater, and so her emphases are close but rarely exactly right. Her body language, meanwhile, is utterly helpless; she uses her arms to vaguely indicated and stress thoughts, like a malfunctioning audio-animatronic version of Mussolini. The only time she seems to understand what emotions should be foregrounded on her face is during Eva's sickness, when she adopts a saggy, weary look that almost manages to sell the pathos of the sequence, but without a strong foundation preceding it, it's hard to care.

Evita is so single-mindedly focused on Eva herself that no production, no matter how great all the constituent elements were, could survive the kind of stiff, wholly artificial and forced performance that Madonna gives. And of course, many of the constituent elements here are not great. There are enough individually good parts that I really wish I could fake it and give it a pass - Khondji was in excellent form when he shot this, which counts for an awful lot - but nope. Evita minus Evita is a washed-out slog, and all the lovely settings and handsome staging in the world can't compensate for that.

21 comments:

  1. Even as a lukewarm fan, I encourage you to give a listen to the '79 Broadway cast album, if only to get a taste of the performances. The '76 album doesn't share of the Jesus Christ Superstar concept album, which remains more or less definitive. Freaking Patti LuPone is the only woman with enough balls to give the character the scope that Webber/Rice obviously intended.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This movie introduced me to Evita, so I'll always have a soft spot in my heart for it. But yes, Madonna is all wrong for Eva both vocally and acting-wise. The changes they made to soften Eva's character are kind of dumb at best - this might be what you mean when you say it's "petrified to death of actually engaging with specific politics." The actual show wasn't an in-depth political treaty, but it kind of seems like it compared to the movie. Funny how just a few small changes can add up to a pretty large cumulative effect.

    I too 100% recommend the 1979 Broadway cast recording - it's without a doubt the best version of the show, sung by Patti and Mandy Patinkin in their prime.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I've never seen either the movie or stage version of Evita, but now I want to see a psychedelic version of it.

    If you want to "treat" yourself to more Material Girl acting, check out the Cinemadonna series by Todd in the Shadows on YouTube. Coming up is the notorious "Body of Evidence".

    ReplyDelete
  4. Eh, I liked it. Banderas and Pryce aren't exactly great singers, and I'm totally with you on Madonna's, uh, acting, but I still like the music. "Goodnight and Thank You" is a pretty good song, and while the exposition song is mind-bogglingly loopy, I can't find it in myself to hate something that opens with the lines "In june of '43 there was a military coup / behind it was a gang called the GOU..."

    ReplyDelete
  5. I was love with this when it came out, but you're right that Madonna never figured out how to play the role. It's like she started by thinking about how to sing the songs first, where a better actor would have thought about the character first, and let that foundation inform how they tackled the vocal performance. Madonna just seems lost in all the opulence. But Banderas is terrific in it.

    The movie did one thing right in my opinion- the re-orchestrated score is gorgeous and lush and wonderful. The soundtrack recording is the best thing to come out of the film.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The thing that always bothered me both times I saw it was the chronology and Che's arc specifically - that is the fact that he has an arc at all, since the first and last scenes take place at more or less the same time. It seems like the idea was that his bitterness and cynicism towards Eva was supposed to have been tempered in the "Waltz for Eva and Che," when he realizes that although she's not perfect, she always had good intentions and was trapped in a corrupt system, and also that she was dying, etc. Which is fine, but of course chronologically that comes before "Oh What a Circus," where his cynicism is at its height. And then suddenly it's the finale, which takes place perhaps five minutes after he's sung "Oh What a Circus," where he tenderly kisses Eva's corpse and accuses Juan Perón of...something (also never clear to me). This is related to the larger problem that neither the show nor Che at all knows how they feel about Eva, and not in, like, a purposefully ambiguous way.

    I still think the show itself is Lloyd Webber's best after Superstar though - I mostly like the songs ("Don't Cry" bores me to tears though, and is much better uptempo as "Circus") even if they don't make sense when inserted into the narrative. This problem seems to plague concept albums turned musicals - in the staged Chess, e.g., none of the songs seems quite right for the situations they're describing.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "This feels like a two hour music video" was my thought on seeing this too. I disagree about Jesus Christ Superstar, though, which is weird enough to be memorable and actually works as a rock opera. The arena rock here is just trashy and grossly out of place.

    ReplyDelete
  8. @Not Fenimore - And of course, those are entirely new lyrics for the movie, using the melody of "The Lady's Got Potential" from the original concept album (where Che was a pesticide salesman or something - talk about nutty Tim Rice lyrics), but which had been cut before the piece made it to stage.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Original lyrics for Lady's Got Potential:
    But Eva's not the only one who's getting the breaks
    I'm a research chemist who's got what it takes
    And my insecticide's gonna be a best-seller

    Just one blast and the insects fall like flies!
    Kapow! Die!
    They don't have a chance
    In the fly-killing world
    It's a major advance
    In my world
    It'll mean finance
    I'm shaping up successful capitalist-wise

    ReplyDelete
  10. I'm relistening to the original version of this song now...oh boy. Who told Tim Rice this song was ok to record? More original lyrics:

    [Peron] began his career in the army overseas
    Teaching all the other soldiers all he knew about skis
    When others took a tumble he would always stay on

    Sure Peron could ski but who needs a snowman?
    He said:

    PERON
    Great men
    Don't grown on trees
    I'm one
    I ain't gonna freeze
    Dictators
    Don't grow on skis

    WTF does that mean??

    ReplyDelete
  11. @franklinshepard:

    ...Um...

    ...Uh...

    ...Right.

    Man, "Then an earthquake hit the town of San Juan! Kapow! Die!" seems quality lyric-crafting now.

    ReplyDelete
  12. @ Andrew Johnson : Love Todd in the Shadows! The Shanghai Surprise one is my favourite.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Well, too be fair, dictators don't grow on skis.

    ReplyDelete
  14. More germane to the discussion at hand:

    Lucas's point about Ché's weird character arc is an absolutely terrific one that I had never thought of before, and I want to thank him profusely for that. And I also agree that the "Don't Cry" melody is much more enjoyable in "Oh What a Circus".

    I'm not the biggest Patti LuPone fan in this world (please don't hit me), but I'll track down the '78 recording. I'm almost 100% certain that my library has a copy.

    As for Ché the insecticide salesman, I think that the real-life Guevara actually had a brief flirtation with trying to market a new bug killer? Which seems like the most random possible biographical detail to attempt to set to music, but the last thing I want to tell Tim Rice to do is be more sensible.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I mean, Eva, as a character is awe-inspiring, vocally acrobatic, and utterly without warmth, so the part is right in LuPone's wheelhouse.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I watched this once on cold medicine and kept thinking of Arnold Schwarzenegger in place of Antonio Banderas. That would've made this some kind of classic, all right. "Uh new Ahgentinuh. Dah voice of dah people."

    ReplyDelete
  17. Thank you for the review, Tim! Great points and spot-on commentary as always.

    Some thoughts:

    1. You wish for an alternate universe where Michelle Pfeiffer was Evita. I wish for an alternate universe where Raul Julia was Peron. If not for his untimely death, it might have happened.

    2. I've tried listening to the 1978 version and I'm in the minority thinking that it's not very good? Peron trills his Rs in the most annoying way, while Mandy Patinkin sounds nothing like the grittier Colm Wilkinson or David Essex, to Che the character's detriment. And LuPone has vocal power and little else. My favorite version remains the concept album, crazy insecticide song and all.

    3. This movie made a mistake by removing the "Guavara" from Che. The "Che Guavara comments on Eva Peron, who died when he was 17" concept was always silly, but at least his commentary was grounded in something. Movie Che is just a ghost.

    4. Movie or concept album, there is no way to clean up "The Lady's Got Potential." Even the movie version features lines like "Peron was biding time out in the slow lane." Did they even have slow lanes in the 1930s?

    Thanks again!

    ReplyDelete
  18. Whoops, that should be 1979, not 1978, and Guevara, not Guavara.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Yeah, I notice none of us championing the Broadway album mentioned Bob Gunton. Sometimes it really does sound like he made a bet with Patti that he could roll every single R for as long as possible without anyone telling him to stop. I actually love him as an actor in general (he's quite good in the new Daredevil series), but not so much in Evita.

    As far as LuPone and Patinkin go, I guess it's a matter of personal preference. I heard Wilkinson in Les Mis first, so the concept album always sounded like Valjean as Che. And honestly, there doesn't seem to be much character work going on in the concept album at all. The Broadway version, by comparison, was recorded by people who had rehearsed and lived in these roles for weeks (not to mention the changes made help the piece play better). Both LuPone and Patinkin have a tendency to get annoyingly mannered at times, but I think the recording captures them young and fresh enough that not much of that is happening yet.

    Of course, ALW and Tim Rice didn't much care for the Broadway version themselves - Prince explicitly made the narrator Che Guevara, dressing him in the beard and fatigues, and made the show about media manipulation. Prince: "It’s not about politics. Media manipulation, that’s what it’s about. And the fact that we have next to no idea who really lives in the White House, for whom we’re voting, what’s going on. We’ve learned too well how to package things, and now, people." That is definitely not what ALW and Rice thought the show was about. But I think in many ways, it's not written well enough to be a show about characters, so Prince was right to make it about ideas instead.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Speaking as a huge fan of Madonna's music, it always does astound me that her very, very bad acting skills even managed to get in the way of her most singing-intensive role.

    Also, I'll continue with the Todd in the Shadows love. Can't wait for him to get to this movie in the Cinemadonna series.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Aaah, Evita. That divisive Parker film.

    I'm always extra anxious to hear your thoughts on musical. I don't love ALW but I feel he and Rice get a bad rep and I definitely think EVITA and JSC are the best thing he's done (by a mile). Like Benjamin above I think the JSC movie is very good and even when it goes wrong completely arresting.

    EVITA is less arresting but the better movie and the problems with it are, for me, mostly inherent in the text. It's a three person musical, mostly, which doesn't make for a particularly expansive film but I really do like the film and Madonna in it.

    So, I guess I'll be the lone defender of her in it. As a theatre lover I tend to get irked by changes in key but I'm generally appreciative of the key changes for the film, sure Madonna cannot belt like Elaine (the best Evita, vocally) or Patti but I legitimately feel her pathos for the most part. She's inconsistent, sure, but I don't mind that her Eva is less assertive in some spots. But, it's definitely a taste thing, and I definitely agree that her best moments come as Eva is ailing.

    I'm curious about your thoughts on "Don't Cry for Me Argentina" because I actually appreciate a less grandiose more sedate version of that song. Fair point on the body language which is most pronounced in "A New Argentina" but I'm not sure if it's on her or the direction but her clenched fists acting is odd, there.

    (I love Patinkin but I am emphatically NOT a fan of the OBC recording, although his version of "And the Money Kept Rolling" in is a treasure.)

    ReplyDelete

Just a few rules so that everybody can have fun: ad hominem attacks on the blogger are fair; ad hominem attacks on other commenters will be deleted. And I will absolutely not stand for anything that is, in my judgment, demeaning, insulting or hateful to any gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or religion. And though I won't insist on keeping politics out, let's think long and hard before we say anything particularly inflammatory.

Also, sorry about the whole "must be a registered user" thing, but I do deeply hate to get spam, and I refuse to take on the totalitarian mantle of moderating comments, and I am much too lazy to try to migrate over to a better comments system than the one that comes pre-loaded with Blogger.