Evita

[caramelpence]

Who has seen it? I think it's great.

[praxis1966]

Who has seen it? I think it's great.

Oh Jeezus... Look man, the Perons were Nazi sympathizers who helped smuggle war criminals out of Germany, kay? Bet there weren't any tunes dealing with that in Evita.

[caramelpence]

Oh Jeezus... Look man, the Perons were Nazi sympathizers who helped smuggle war criminals out of Germany, kay? Bet there weren't any tunes dealing with that in Evita.

Er yeah, you patronizing shit, I just meant it was a decent film/musical, not that I'm a Peronist. I'm not going to make it seem as if I'm an ardent fan of this film but I'll also point out that the accusations of fascism that were directed against the Persons were covered in the film, in the context of Eva Peron's visit to Italy - and whether the Perons were actually fascist sympathizers and whether the National Government can actually be characterized as fascist are issues of intense historical debate and not things that can be just asserted by someone as ignorant as yourself.

[praxis1966]

Er yeah, you patronizing shit, I just meant it was a decent film/musical, not that I'm a Peronist. I'm not going to make it seem as if I'm an ardent fan of this film but I'll also point out that the accusations of fascism that were directed against the Persons were covered in the film, in the context of Eva Peron's visit to Italy - and whether the Perons were actually fascist sympathizers and whether the National Government can actually be characterized as fascist are issues of intense historical debate and not things that can be just asserted by someone as ignorant as yourself.

Ignorant? Hah I've been called a lot of things but ignorant was never one of them. Anyway, while I'll admit that calling the Perons sympathizers was perhaps an overstatement (in fact the most credible research on the subject that I've read says that Juan's primary motivation in giving refuge to Nazis was greed rather than ideology), there are certain things that can't be denied nor are 'debatable.'

1) The Peron government did take in Nazi war criminals. There's no getting around that.

2) They received an awful lot of cash (likely blood money taken from dead Jews) for doing so.

3) Most historians concede that there's no real way of knowing exactly how many Nazis wound up in Argentina under the Peron government, but there are at least two who were known to be taken in that I'm primarily concerned with: Adolf Eichmann and Josef Mengele. The former was the lieutenant of the head of the SS whose duties were primarily focused in the area of the logistics of the Holocaust. The latter, nicknamed 'Angel of Death' and 'Butcher of Auschwitz,' was a doctor who performed experiments like cutting off an arm and a leg from a person and then sowing them on in reverse order. He was particularly fond of twin children as he liked to cut open their backs and then sow them together to see if they'd heal attached.

4) While the amount of involvement Eva had in smuggling these people out of Europe is murky at best, what isn't debatable is that the guy in the Peron government (Rodoflo Freude) who engineered the lion's share of these dealings was a Nazi sympathizer, a private secretary to Juan, and a close personal friend and benefactor of Eva.

Now I'm willing to admit that it may be difficult to characterize the Peron government as fascist or Aryan in policy or view, but the fact that the Perons benefited from this kind of thing is enough to make me eschew any romanticized tripe like Evita.

[Red Future]

Ignorant? Hah I've been called a lot of things but ignorant was never one of them. Anyway, while I'll admit that calling the Perons sympathizers was perhaps an overstatement (in fact the most credible research on the subject that I've read says that Juan's primary motivation in giving refuge to Nazis was greed rather than ideology), there are certain things that can't be denied nor are 'debatable.'

1) The Peron government did take in Nazi war criminals. There's no getting around that.

2) They received an awful lot of cash (likely blood money taken from dead Jews) for doing so.

3) Most historians concede that there's no real way of knowing exactly how many Nazis wound up in Argentina under the Peron government, but there are at least two who were known to be taken in that I'm primarily concerned with: Adolf Eichmann and Josef Mengele. The former was the lieutenant of the head of the SS whose duties were primarily focused in the area of the logistics of the Holocaust. The latter, nicknamed 'Angel of Death' and 'Butcher of Auschwitz,' was a doctor who performed experiments like cutting off an arm and a leg from a person and then sowing them on in reverse order. He was particularly fond of twin children as he liked to cut open their backs and then sow them together to see if they'd heal attached.

4) While the amount of involvement Eva had in smuggling these people out of Europe is murky at best, what isn't debatable is that the guy in the Peron government (Rodoflo Freude) who engineered the lion's share of these dealings was a Nazi sympathizer, a private secretary to Juan, and a close personal friend and benefactor of Eva.

Now I'm willing to admit that it may be difficult to characterize the Peron government as fascist or Aryan in policy or view, but the fact that the Perons benefited from this kind of thing is enough to make me eschew any romanticized tripe like Evita.

That Man is disgusting

[graymouser]

Oh Jeezus... Look man, the Perons were Nazi sympathizers who helped smuggle war criminals out of Germany, kay? Bet there weren't any tunes dealing with that in Evita.
Well, not in the film version. But in the stage version of Evita this was dealt with, albeit briefly; during a big production number about the Fundación Eva Perón, aptly called "And the Money Kept Rolling In (and Out)," there is a brief moment when a man dressed in Nazi clothing appears.

In almost every way imaginable, the stage version is superior to the film; the only thing the film has on it is that the song "The Lady's Got Potential" from the concept album is brought back, with lyrics that don't rely upon the oddball insecticide sub-plot from the original. In the stage show it was replaced by a song, "The Art of the Possible," which is quite a scathing number about military rule and politics, but can verge on being dull.

The album and stage show are far more critical of the Peróns, and the character of Eva was deliberately made more sympathetic for the movie - singing "Another Suitcase in Another Hall" instead of Juan Perón's young mistress, plus the pointless and awful "You Must Love Me" that was tacked on - in order to secure permission to film on location in Argentina. On the one hand, they got to have Madonna singing "Don't Cry for Me Argentina" at the Casa Rosada; on the other, in Hal Prince's production and most revivals, the narrator character is literally Ché Guevara, which was not done with Antonio Banderas. (The character was named Ché in the concept album but Prince insisted on it being Guevara - Ché being a very common Argentine nickname).

I rather like Evita; the politics of it are inconsistent at best, but the whole thing is done very well. It's a complex and rather critical work, so saying that "OMG the Peróns sheltered Nazi war criminals" is a very inadequate critique. The concept album has some superior performances but was in rough shape in a few places, while the stage musical has the best politics. I'd recommend avoiding the movie until you get a chance to see a live version of the show.

[praxis1966]

It's a complex and rather critical work, so saying that "OMG the Peróns sheltered Nazi war criminals" is a very inadequate critique.

If it's an inadequate critique then it's only because, judging by your description of both the play and the film, it's not adequately dealt with... Frankly, I don't care what the politics of Evita are whether we're talking about stage or screen given the historical reality. Unless the Perons are outright condemned for their actions (which they're not) I don't want anything to do with it.

[Rakhmetov]

Here's clip from the Broadway version with the Che character asking unpleasant questions?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZ3UwL97lb4

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19970103/REVIEWS/701030302/1023

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDqnyqI-tDg

[ZeroNowhere]

If it's an inadequate critique then it's only because, judging by your description of both the play and the film, it's not adequately dealt with... Frankly, I don't care what the politics of Evita are whether we're talking about stage or screen given the historical reality. Unless the Perons are outright condemned for their actions (which they're not) I don't want anything to do with it.If you are not concerned with the artistic merit or otherwise of the play this may well be the wrong board and thread to discuss it on.

[praxis1966]

If you are not concerned with the artistic merit or otherwise of the play this may well be the wrong board and thread to discuss it on.

See, you're focusing on the second sentence of the quoted post without regard for the qualifier I placed upon it in the third. Passing, momentary criticism mired in the romanticized view which comprises the bulk of the work in question doesn't suffice as condemnation...

At any rate, if you'd like me to directly address the film, I think Roger Ebert said it better than I could in the link Rakhmetov provided:


`Evita'' allows the audience to identify with a heroine who achieves greatness by--well, golly, by being who she is. It celebrates the life of a woman who... inspires the idolatry of the masses by spending enormous sums on herself. When she sings: ``They need to adore me--to Christian Dior me,'' she's right on the money.

Ebert goes on to hypothesize that the real reason for the popularity of both the stage and screen versions is the materialistic aspirations of bourgeois white women (marriage to a powerful man, material wealth, jewels, designer clothes, the full nine). In other words, Eva Peron (as seen in the film) is the original Imelda Marcos... And the filmmakers, and by extension their audience, are supposed to not only be OK with this but applaud the woman for it.

Considering this in combination with the criticisms of the historical Perons that I've already mentioned, I have a hard time understanding why any leftist would enjoy it.

[graymouser]

Ebert goes on to hypothesize that the real reason for the popularity of both the stage and screen versions is the materialistic aspirations of bourgeois white women (marriage to a powerful man, material wealth, jewels, designer clothes, the full nine). In other words, Eva Peron (as seen in the film) is the original Imelda Marcos... And the filmmakers, and by extension their audience, are supposed to not only be OK with this but applaud the woman for it.

Considering this in combination with the criticisms of the historical Perons that I've already mentioned, I have a hard time understanding why any leftist would enjoy it.
I like the stage musical, in no small part because I think Tim Rice made some great lyrical turns in it. For me, the London/Broadway show came off as condemning Eva politically but being captivated by her charisma at the same time. It's been a long time since I saw the film, but looking back it really is a very different piece - the stage show is much more anti-Perón and politically charged than the film was. From album to stage musical, you had a process where a lot of the politics were really clarified, the condemnation of Perón was made more explicit in "Oh What a Circus," there were scenes of people being disappeared in "A New Argentina," there was a Nazi featured as a sort of song-stopper in "And the Money Kept Rolling In (And Out)," and a number of similar touches. It adds up to the attentive viewer as a condemnation, albeit one that recognizes the complexities of Eva's fame and Argentine populism.

The stage show can't be condemned because of the weakness of the film, primarily because it didn't share that weakness. The character of Eva is much more likable in the film, and she becomes less its anti-hero and more a somewhat traditional heroine. Twisting "Another Suitcase" to be about Eva's heartbreak instead of Perón's philandering was particularly manipulative, as was adding the sappy and unneeded "You Must Love Me."

[praxis1966]

I like the stage musical, in no small part because I think Tim Rice made some great lyrical turns in it. For me, the London/Broadway show came off as condemning Eva politically but being captivated by her charisma at the same time. It's been a long time since I saw the film, but looking back it really is a very different piece - the stage show is much more anti-Perón and politically charged than the film was. From album to stage musical, you had a process where a lot of the politics were really clarified, the condemnation of Perón was made more explicit in "Oh What a Circus," there were scenes of people being disappeared in "A New Argentina," there was a Nazi featured as a sort of song-stopper in "And the Money Kept Rolling In (And Out)," and a number of similar touches. It adds up to the attentive viewer as a condemnation, albeit one that recognizes the complexities of Eva's fame and Argentine populism.

The stage show can't be condemned because of the weakness of the film, primarily because it didn't share that weakness. The character of Eva is much more likable in the film, and she becomes less its anti-hero and more a somewhat traditional heroine. Twisting "Another Suitcase" to be about Eva's heartbreak instead of Perón's philandering was particularly manipulative, as was adding the sappy and unneeded "You Must Love Me."

Fair enough. I'll buy that. It wouldn't be the first time a Hollywood interpretation completely bastardized the work it was originally based on.

[¿Que?]

Also, I think people should consider the political implications of the play in Argentina, particularly around the 70's and 80's. As I recall, the military government after Peron banned the album. I remember because my parents had the album, but forbade us to ever sing any of the songs in public.

[x359594]

The play of Evita opened in 1978-79 around the time of what Susan Sontag called "fascinating fascism," right on the cusp of the Reagan-Thatcher reaction. In her essay of the same name, she cited Leni Riefenstahl's photo book The Nuba as a current iteration of fascist art and discussed a few more examples (the essay dates from 1975 before the play was produced.)

Rightly or wrongly, when Evita opened it was also seen as an example of "fascist chic," the sort of entertainment that would appeal to upper middle class theater goers who were to cast their lot with Reagan and Thatcher.