Rachel Zegler faces backlash from West End fans
The actress, 24, stars as Eva Perón in Jamie Lloyd's new production of Evita at the London Palladium in the UK.
She is playing former First Lady of Argentina in the show, which debuted in 1978 and was written by Tim Rice and musical legend Andrew Lloyd Webber.
While she's receiving rave reviews for her turn in the show, one aspect has sparked fierce criticism from some paying fans.
In a surprising move, she performs the musical's most famous number, Don't Cry For Me Argentina, from a balcony overlooking the street outside the venue.
Paying fans inside the Palladium are forced to watch a live stream of the performance on a screen from their seats.
The decision has sparked controversy among some West End fans who have spent up to $500 on tickets to the show only to not get to see its most famous song performed in person.
'I'm excited to see her, but not sure how I feel about paying that much to watch the most iconic moment on a screen,' wrote one viewer on X.
Another described it as 'a bit of a rip off' and slammed production for moving the performance outside.
Another angry fan commented: 'Sorry, are you saying I've paid that much for 2 tickets and she's singing the biggest number outside at people who haven't paid?'
'I think you might potentially be a bit gutted [if you were inside the theatre]. I know they had it on the projectors, but you might be a bit gutted to have missed the most important song,' insisted another.
However, others have praised the move, saying that it helps to benefit those who would normally never be able to afford to see a West End show.
'Absolutely stunning idea and a beautiful symbol – while the rich sit inside the theatre watching from the screen, Evita is outside on the balcony of the theatre addressing all those who can't afford to go to the theatre and/or are living on the streets of London,' said one fan on X. 'The whole idea of staging the song this way is truly incredible. Emotional. It says a lot, and I am here for it!'
'Singing to the people on the street while the people who bought tickets have to watch through a screen is genuinely amazing directing,' remarked another. 'So badly wish I could see this.'
Zegler's latest controversy comes after the widespread backlash she faced in recent months while promoting Disney's epic live action flop, Snow White.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
SBS Australia
5 hours ago
- SBS Australia
Don't look back in Anger: Fans rejoice as Oasis plays first show in 16 years
Bold, brash, and unapologetic, Noel and Liam Gallagher are back on stage for what some say is the most highly anticipated reunion tour of the century. The British brothers from Manchester are once again fronting Oasis, the band responsible for major hits 'Wonderwall' and Don't Look Back in Anger' and ranked among the best selling groups of all time. Their reunion comes sixteen years after Noel left the group, saying he could no longer work with his brother Liam. Now, with the hatchet seemingly buried, the pair are performing their first comeback show at Cardiff's Principality Stadium. Forming in 1991, Oasis emerged as the face of a new cultural moment in the UK. The moment was marked by the election of Tony Blair, the rise of UK artists like Damien Hirst, and UK models Kate Moss and Naomi Campbell ruling the fashion runways. With an unpolished and at times insolent charisma, the Gallagher brothers captured the mood of a generation. Rolling Stone UK reporter Nick Reilly says their success was, in part, fueled by what they represented. "I think the 90s generally was a period of optimism. You kind of speak of Cool Britannia and the fact that Noel was so closely aligned to Tony Blair. And I think, you know, that there was a sense of optimism in the air and Oasis were a massive part of that. So I think that that optimism and that kind of joy that they offered in their music was part of it, but also the swagger, the kind of old rock and roll spirit like you mentioned the 60s. I think in many ways this was the first time we'd seen a band since perhaps like The Stones or The Who that had that sense of swagger in British music and that sense of like unrepentant rock and roll lifestyle." The band's story was always volatile, marked by repeated clashes between the brothers even before their split in 2009. The first public clash was in 1994, when a gig in Los Angeles turned ugly after Liam flung insults at the band and chucked a tambourine at his brother. In 1995, an interview with the brothers found its way onto a vinyl entitled Wibbling Rivalry, cementing the brothers explosive reputation in the public mind. Noel: Not at all. Not at all. Not at all. What I'm saying is, what I'm saying is you think..." Liam: "You get into situations..." Noel: " think it's rock'n'roll to get thrown off a ferry, and it's not." Liam: "I don't think it's rock'n' roll. Noel: You f** was your quote, you prick!" There were numerous public clashes between the brothers in the nineties and early 2000's. Then, in 2009, after a show in Paris ended in a backstage fight, the group announced their split. Nick Reilly says after so much animosity between them, many fans never thought a reunion was possible. "And there's so many people that are in their 40s and 50s now that will remember that as one of the key milestones of their early years. So now, if we're speaking 16 years after they split up and suddenly the fans are given a chance to relive that one more time and have this band back together, when many thought it would be impossible given how acrimonious that split was in 2009. It's natural that there will be like a clamour of those fans who will want to see them again. But also I think that there's a certain timelessness with Oasis." But even in 2011, Noel Gallagher told reporters he had regrets about how things went down that night in Paris. "I regret it really because we only had two gigs left. If I had my time again, I would've gone back and done the gigs. That gig would have been dreadful because he was out of his mind. I would have done that gig and done the next gig and we'd have all gone away and we could've probably discussed it, what we were going to do. We may never have split up, we may just have just taken a hiatus and we could have all gone and done our other thing. Liam always said he would bring down Armageddon in the end. That's the way he kind of likes things to be, you know." Over the next few years, the brothers both launched solo careers, but Liam was adamant he would never return to Oasis. Then in 2018, through a series of tweets, Liam changed his tune - finally raising the possibility of a reunion. He told reporters in 2019 that he was serious about the idea. "The most important thing is about me and him being brothers. I've got another brother who he doesn't speak to. It would be nice if all three of us would be together. Obviously, our mum is still alive, so she gets upset by it. But he thinks I'm desperate to get the band back together for money. But I didn't join the band to make money. I joined the band to have fun and get off my head and go and see the world. I'd do it for nothing if everyone else is doing it for nothing." When Oasis officially announced a reunion tour in August last year many were in disbelief. Luke Mounteney was around nine years old when the band split, he says he was certain he'd never get this chance. ''No, I thought. No, I don't think anyone of us really truly thought it would ever happen. I'd sort of committed that my life, I would never get to see Oasis because I haven't seen before. So when it came about that it was a real thing, I don't think my heart rate dropped for a good while until I got tickets. And I remember I sat just crying with pure, genuine joy that I'd got a ticket and it was just an unbelievable moment for life, yeah.'' While fans had been pleading for the group to reunite for years, website issues and controversial dynamic pricing brought outrage, with many failing to secure a spot. While tickets were initially shown at one price, around $300, once fans reached the front of the digital queue, many found that basic tickets were rebranded as 'in demand' and double the price. For some fans though, no price was too high. ''Kind of what I expected it to be honest you know, it's their reunion they haven't been together for literally decades at this point. So I'd be willing to pay anything to, you know, see the reunion, especially first night as well. It's incredible.'' Following Cardiff, Oasis will tour the UK throughout July, August and September. The group will then head to Japan, South Korea, South America, Australia and North America. For 48-year-old Matt Hobman, this tour is not just about the music. ' 'They're more than a band aren't they? It's almost like a movement, isn't it? It's like, you know, it's like a piece of Britishness, I suppose, in terms of, yeah Oasis being the band that they are.''
ABC News
9 hours ago
- ABC News
AFL Saturday: 'I think players need to sharpen up ... I'm not sure I feel sorry for you'
26m ago 26 minutes ago Sat 5 Jul 2025 at 2:45am Space to play or pause, M to mute, left and right arrows to seek, up and down arrows for volume.
News.com.au
9 hours ago
- News.com.au
Yes, condemn the anti-IDF rappers. But then you don't get to ignore it when others do the same thing
Before we deal with more complicated matters let's acknowledge, without caveat, the numbskullery of a British rap duo called 'Bob Vylan'. First of all, on a note that carries no substance but bugs me nonetheless: Bob Vylan? Really? Is that ... is that allowed? We're just stealing the names of other musicians, now, and changing one letter? By that logic I could go around calling myself Chakira, and indulging in a little bum wiggle here and there, and committing tax fraud, and label it art. (That's a touch too harsh on Shakira. She did give us the second-catchiest World Cup anthem of my lifetime, and the raciest Super Bowl half time show since Janet Jackson, both of which warrant no small dividend of respect. Pay your taxes though, babe.) As for the real Vylans of the piece here. While performing at the Glastonbury music festival in Britain, the pair led chants of 'death, death to the IDF', referring to Israel's military, which were broadcast live by the BBC, and thus beamed around the world. As a general rule, surely we can agree that any sentence starting with 'death, death to' is heading in a very poor direction. 'Restraint, restraint from the IDF' may lack punch, but it also lacks any conceivable justification for, or incitement to, violence. Which is to say much of the indignation this week has been warranted. British police opened an investigation into the group, which is roughly in line with their treatment of other extreme rhetoric. Prime Minister Keir Starmer condemned them. Their agent ditched them. Shows across Europe were cancelled. The US government revoked their visas, stressing that 'foreigners who glorify violence and hatred are not welcome visitors'. (No word on whether hatred glorified by American citizens - say, members of Congress, or senior administration officials - deserves similar condemnation, but that's a whole other kettle of scalding hot water, and we shan't touch it today.) I'm not here to argue any of the backlash described above was wrong. It all ties into a broader question about how liberal societies should calibrate their restrictions on free speech, and across 34 years of life I have never yet encountered a perfect answer. You're fumbling around for the least objectionable border between irreconcilable rights. Not easy. You can sense the looming 'but'. I am here to wonder why these loathsome words, from a pair of formerly quasi-famous rappers - (I'm not quite deficient enough in self-awareness to call them nobodies) - are being treated as more outrageous, and worthier of action, than the daily, continuing tide of actual violence, and actual death, in Gaza. You don't go to any music festival in search of sophisticated views on foreign policy. There's a rawer form of humanity on display. So why is it that we seem, collectively, to care so much more, to be so more readily angry, about a chant at Glastonbury than the opinions, and decisions, of those privileged individuals who actually hold the power to shape what will happen in Gaza and Israel? The future tense there is deliberate. We all know what happened, past tense, on October 7 of 2023. We know of the innocent lives stolen, and the indelible trauma those horrors have inflicted on thousands of Israelis. We know civilians were dragged into the tunnels as hostages, where some remain all these months later. We know about the litany of other atrocities committed by Hamas, not just on that day, but for many years before it. We know it's a terrorist group whose existence hinges on an objective of genocide. We know it cynically uses Palestinian civilians as human shields, hiding in hospitals and neighbourhoods. And we recognise the cruel irony that follows, when Hamas condemns the deaths it goaded Israel into causing. So to banish any lack of clarity: a person who supports Hamas in Australia, or Britain, or America, or any other liberal nation, is insulting their own intelligence. We also know that, in this age of social media, the terrors of war are more easily witnessed and documented than ever before. Which makes the images from Gaza uniquely affecting. All these things we know. And not one of them gives Israel a carte blanche to do absolutely anything it likes in response. Not one renders all collateral damage acceptable. Not one frees Israel from the obligations of international law, or of basic morality. Not one strips all the women, children and innocent men in Gaza of their dignity and right to life. The responsibility of those with power is to consider what comes next; to build the best possible future they can. Not to seek vengeance for what came before. And this war ... what has it become, exactly? It started as a crime against Israeli civilians. Then it became a retaliatory mission, one of self-defence, whose stated aim was to root out Hamas. What is it now? Whole cities have been reduced to rubble. Some monumental number of the 2.2 million people who lived in Gaza are dead. And the survivors of this carnage live in tents, and walk kilometres to line up for food, ever fearful of gunshots from the soldiers above. Where does it stop? What is the objective? How does this end any other way than with the radicalisation of an entire new generation of Palestinians, and more decades of violence, and more despicable anti-Semitism rising across the world in a backlash to Israel's actions, and any prospect of a lasting peace being killed off for another lifetime? If you are genuinely angry, and genuinely horrified, by those words from Bob Vylan, then I ask this of you: as you read these quotes below, imagine the roles are reversed. Assess how you would react if a Palestinian said these things about the Israeli people. First is Nissim Vaturi, Deputy Speaker in Israel's Knesset and a member of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's party. He described the Palestinians as 'subhumans'. And he called for all men in Gaza to be killed. 'Who is innocent in Gaza? 'Civilians' went out and slaughtered people in cold blood,' Mr Vaturi told the radio station Kol BaRama. Air quotes there implied by him, not me. 'They are outcasts, and no one in the world wants them.' He argued that Israel should 'separate the children and women and kill the adults in Gaza', and said the IDF was being 'too considerate'. 'The international community understands the residents of Gaza are not welcome anywhere.' Too considerate! One truly does shudder at the thought of an inconsiderate IDF. Here is Defence Minister Yoav Gallant. 'The humanitarian aid currently entering Gaza is an absolute disgrace,' Mr Gallant said just last week. 'What is needed in Gaza is not a temporary halt of the 'humanitarian' aid, but a complete cessation of it. 'Stopping the aid will quickly advance us toward victory.' That would be the aid which is currently the only thing feeding children who might otherwise starve to death. Give Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich some marks, at least, for brevity: 'Gaza will be entirely destroyed.' Heritage Minister Amichay Eliyahu said there were 'no uninvolved civilians' in Gaza. None. Among a population of more than two million. All of them are complicit, apparently. Moshe Feiglin, leader of the Zehut party in the Knesset, is mercifully not a government minister. He is, however, a man of questionable opinions. 'Every child, every baby in Gaza is an enemy,' said Mr Feiglin. 'The enemy is not Hamas, nor is it the military wing of Hamas. 'We need to occupy Gaza and settle it, and not a single Gazan child will be left there. There is no other victory.' Look, I could keep going here. There is no shortage of material. And given the time, I could draw up a list of stunningly bloodthirsty language from Arab leaders as well. It's not all Israelis, nor is it all Arabs, nor is it all Palestinians, and that is part of the damn point here. Everywhere you look in this conflict, there's a refusal to recognise the humanity in other people. From the anti-Semites, you get a failure to distinguish between the actions of Israel's government and those of the Jewish people. And in the other direction, a failure to tell the difference between Hamas militants and the civilians, many of them small children for goodness' sake, whose bodies lie crushed amid the ruins. Perpetuating those attitudes will give us nothing more than pain and death, forever. Someone in a position of leadership needs to grow beyond them. Or you will be back here in 20 years reading the same rant, and I'll be back here in 40 years writing it again. After October 7, I made a point of watching the footage responsible news organisations would never publish. To call it harrowing would be a mockery of the word. Now the images that you, as a reader, will never see, are of Palestinian kids with their limbs blown off. Among other horrors. If you can muster fury for one, but not the other, then for the love of whatever god you believe in, do consider waking up. Consider the fact that everyone involved here is a human being, with the same inherent dignity. Consider the fact that, were you born in Tel Aviv, or Jerusalem, or Gaza, or the West Bank, you might be a victim, not a witness. The entire conflict is a catastrophe. It's repugnant. Every day it degrades us. So yes. Condemn the rappers. Cancel their shows. Prosecute them, if laws have been broken. But the next time a government official speaks of children as enemies, not from the stage at a music festival but from a place of real, substantive power, I expect your indignation to burn no less brightly.
