DOWN ARGENTINE WAY

Far be it from me to judge a film without first seeing it (Bob Dole), but as a huge fan of “Evita” I must say that Madonna’s comments regarding the film version do not engender much enthusiasm (“Madonna’s Double Feature,” by David Gritten, Sept. 29).

The Maternity Girl says that “the more I learned of Peronism and Eva’s life, the more I realized how unfair Andrew Lloyd Webber’s musical was.” She assured President Menem of Argentina that the production would not depict Eva negatively.

Hello! The negative approach is one of the most appealing aspects of the musical. It is the tone Webber and lyricist Tim Rice intended. Eva is essentially the villain of the piece, yet at the end you still feel for her. The half-saint, half-whore duality gives the piece dramatic thrust. Obviously, in their research of the Perons, the writers discovered undeniable facts about the Peron regime (voter manipulation, press silencing, government bankruptcy) that suggested a less than saintly first couple. This is the story Ms. M signed on to tell.

A $59-million sanitation job? Oh, cry for us, Argentina.

CHRISTOPHER JOYCE

North Hollywood

*

I’m an “Evita” groupie. However, Gritten’s article has given me major anxieties. While I have never questioned the brilliance of casting Madonna in the lead role, I am quite disturbed by both her and director Alan Parker’s rethinking of the character of Eva Peron. While Madonna may think that Eva is treated unfairly, the vast amount of information I read about her says that “Evita’s” creators were more than kind.

Knowing the show’s themes, I couldn’t help but snicker while reading about Madonna’s exploits in securing filming permits with President Menem. The schmoozing and manipulation--Eva Peron probably couldn’t have done it better herself!

Madonna’s belief that it was “an act of God” that got her the role seems to me more like a deal with the devil.

DAVE HUTCHINSON

Mission Viejo