The Broadway critics are raving over “Love Letters,” starring Mia Farrow and Brian Dennehy — particularly over Farrow. The New York Times says her “remarkable performance . . . casts a heartbreaking spell.”

Several thousand miles away, however, people in Ecuador are raving about another Mia Farrow performance this year — one they found “heartbreaking,” but not in a good way.

And Farrow is trying desperately to ignore these reviews.

This Farrow role was billed as a trip to “show her support for indigenous people” in a massive lawsuit that accused the US oil company Chevron of polluting the jungle and poisoning locals.

The highlight of the dramatic visit featured Farrow reaching into the ground and, with world media present, holding up a dirty, oil-drenched hand.

The reviews were quick and gushing. “Isn’t Mia lovely . . . what modesty and what solidarity. Thank you, Mia!” gushed Ecuador’s president, Raphael Correa.

The country’s top newspaper noted that Farrow, known for her “altruistic personality,” is quite simply “one of the most influential people in the world.”

The Farrow visit was part of a campaign centered on an Ecuadorian court ruling that found against Chevron and ordered it to pay more than $9 billion in compensation, the largest civil penalty in history.

But, as Farrow knows from her other performances, there is often a final twist that can turn the story on its head. And so it is with her Ecuadorian jaunt and the Chevron suit.

A few months ago, a New York court found the Chevron judgment was obtained by fraud and bribery — mostly masterminded by Manhattan-based attorney Steven Donziger. The fraud was so outrageous that the judge found the Ecuadorian lawsuit was the equivalent of organized crime extorting money from Chevron.

The RICO laws, normally used against organized crime, are now being applied to Donziger and his associates.

The case was so corrupt, it’s impossible to list here all the outrages.

Basically the court found that the plaintiffs had bribed everyone in Ecuador from “independent” experts to the judges, and also corrupted or lied to US lawyers and scientific groups. (You can read all the inglorious details in Paul Barrett’s recent book, “Law of the Jungle.”)

But none of this sleaze had rubbed off on Mia Farrow. At worst, she seemed a naïve pawn — an artist who’d been altruistically trying to help peasants against the rich and powerful.

That is, until news broke that the Ecuadorian government had secretly paid her $188,000 to go there and hype the case against Chevron. Her “oily hand seen around the world” may have been the most lucrative gig of her acting career.

The truth leaked after the US company that acted as the conduit for the payment was forced (under fear of prosecution) to disclose that it had been secretly working for the Ecuadorian state.

The average salary in Ecuador is around $300 a month; Farrow’s $188,000 payday is an absolute fortune there. So the response from journalists and citizens on social media has been excoriating.

Farrow’s Ecudorian jaunt became front page news in the country, with cartoons mocking her and other celebrities for secretly pocketing astronomical sums for pretending to care.

One tweeter said he’d have taken a shower in oil for just $10; another said he’d take an oily bath for $1,000.

Here at home, Mia Farrow is very active on social media — but don’t ask her a question about her Ecuadorian performance: She’ll block you faster than you can say “rumble in the jungle.”

She did tweet once, admitting she’d been paid but disputing the amount. But an avalanche of derision followed, and she deleted the tweet. Now she refuses to answer any questions about the scandal.

But her South American audience is restless. They didn’t like the final twist in the plot — they have questions.

Does Mia Farrow have the courage to answer her critics and have another curtain call? The audience awaits.

Phelim McAleer is a journalist and filmmaker.