Meanwhile, across the river from 'Porgy & Bess'... 'Candide'!

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 9/25/11 at 3:22am

Oh, with something as great as Mary Zimmerman's ravishing 'Candide' now onstage at The Huntington Theater, I don't know why anybody is even thinking about Diane Paulus's A.R.T. mess.

Zimmerman, an artist with a vision, should offer to mentor Diane Paulus in the art of direction and respectful adaptation. If you're anywhere near 'Candide,' make sure you see it, and you'll understand why Zimmerman got the "genius" grant.

Updated On: 9/25/11 at 03:22 AM

[AwesomeDanny]

Posted: 9/25/11 at 1:55pm

Is it getting good reviews in Boston? I saw it in Chicago where it had pretty mixed reviews, if I remember correctly. I really loved it, even though it was still quite flawed. I would be quite happy if the production has made many improvements because what I saw had a lot of potential.

[SueleenGay]

Posted: 9/25/11 at 2:11pm

Word of mouth in Chicago was pretty much thumbs down. I opted out, as much as I love Candide. Not a huge Zimm Fan, but glad you liked it.

[gvendo2005]

Posted: 9/25/11 at 6:04pm

So which version is this?

[hubee]

Posted: 9/25/11 at 6:25pm

When I saw it in DC, it was one of the best things I've seen. I thought it was a brilliant production, though I don't know if changes were made between Chicago and DC (or Boston).

[inlovewithjerryherman]

Posted: 9/25/11 at 7:28pm

I feel like "Candide" will always be flawed. Either you try to get all that great material in and it's messy, or you do the hugely truncated Hal Prince version and people feel cheated out of the great material that was cut.

I recently saw a production in Philly at the Arden Theatre Company that was SO DREADFULLY long and boring.

[AwesomeDanny]

Posted: 9/25/11 at 8:01pm

gvendo, this is a new version written by Mary Zimmerman that stays extremely faithful to the book. Seeing it in Chicago, I thought it had some really amazing moments, but some parts dragged and got boring. From what I had seen of previous productions of Candide, I enjoyed this one most as I felt like in the end, Candide had really become a man with an understanding of the world and then he uses the knowledge to start over from nothing and let his garden grow, whereas most other versions tend to be farcical comedy until they're all left alone with nothing and then they sing "Make Our Garden Grow" out of nowhere. I felt that this version had achieved as much as it could by sticking as close to the book as possible, but it could have used some tightening up and maybe a slight divergence from the book when required. I heard Mary Zimmerman say that she can't start writing until the rehearsal process has begun because she needs an understanding of the cast, so I think that maybe the limited time she wrote it in had to do with some of the flaws. I read that the show was streamlined a bit for DC, so I'm thinking that the show has made a number of changes for the better. It's been almost a year since I saw the show, so that's a lot of time to make changes.

On a side note, how is Lauren Molina doing as Cunegonde? When I saw her, I thought she acted the role great, but her high notes in "Glitter and Be Gay" sounded underwhelming. They weren't bad at all, but they didn't have the big grand quality they usually do.

[madison228]

Posted: 9/25/11 at 8:58pm

I saw it on Friday night and thought it was really good! Lauren Molina brought the house down with "Glitter and Be Gay" - her high notes sounded great to me. The staging was creative and the pacing was brisk (although it still was close to 3 hours with a 15 minute intermission).

And I agree with AwesomeDanny that this is the first time I've been really moved by the final "Make Our Garden Grow" number.

[gvendo2005]

Posted: 9/25/11 at 9:16pm

AwesomeDanny, didn't John Caird kind of already do that with his version? I don't see the point in making more versions of shows that have already had enough.

[AwesomeDanny]

Posted: 9/25/11 at 9:44pm

gvendo, I didn't see that production, so I wouldn't know. The main attraction with this production is probably Mary Zimmerman's creative staging, which is simply superb.

Posted: 9/25/11 at 10:46pm

Please tell me they use the Caird revised script--the only one that works IMHO.

[gvendo2005]

Posted: 9/26/11 at 1:34am

To point out what AwesomeDanny said, it's a new script by the director that is apparently even closer to the book, though after seeing Caird's I don't see how much closer they could get.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 9/26/11 at 2:14am

I've only ever seen one other production of "Candide," and after that I didn't really get why its beloved by some people whose taste I respect. Then I saw this one and I got it.

Zimmerman's adaptation (though she gives everybody else in creation whoever had a hand in the book a credit before she takes here [See how it's done, Diane Paulus?!]) has gotten raves in Boston, including one critic/blogger who had this to say in his review:

Well, now the Midwestern MacArthur "genius" Mary Zimmerman has turned her prodigious talents to this long-standing challenge. And to my mind, she has indeed come up with the best of all possible Candides. Or at least the best one we are likely to see in our lifetimes. Yet suitably enough, the path of her production has been a wayward one. It endured mysteriously mixed reviews at its Chicago opening, but as it has toured the country it has garnered awards, and its reputation has steadily built; I hear it has been tightened slightly, and surely the lead performances (Geoff Packard, Lauren Molina, and Larry Yando have been with it from the start) have all deepened. Still, those initial notices seem bizarre at this point; this is one of those productions whose greatness you feel in your bones; and I don't think I'm alone in feeling that way ...

He's not.


blog link

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 9/26/11 at 10:13am

I liked it at the Goodman, but I wasn't crazy about it. Some of the Zimmermanisms seemed a bit trite and unnecessary and the choreography was a real mess. A few years earlier, I saw the Light Opera Works production in Chicago, based on the 1999 Royal National Theatre production, and I enjoyed it much more. The comedy was tighter and the staging was very clever and inventive. The entire set was the classroom surrounded by bookshelves and as the journey proceeded, the bookshelves would open in a variety of ways to reveal hidden sets that depicted the locale. Each scene was like a hidden surprise and kept me interested in what would be revealed next.

And I have to say I really think the book is more grounded with a single narrator than the chorus acting as multiple narrators throughout the journey. To me, it really blurred the focus of an already complex story. I was really excited about the Zimmerman production, but I left feeling a bit disappointed. Zimmerman truly has a signature style, but if you live in Chicago, you're more likely to be over it much in the same way people in Las Vegas are probably over the whole Cirque du Soleil thing.

[gvendo2005]

Posted: 9/26/11 at 5:46pm

I've only ever seen one other production of "Candide," and after that I didn't really get why its beloved by some people whose taste I respect.

I'm gonna take a rough guess and say you saw the '73 version?

[Mattbrain]

Posted: 9/26/11 at 6:03pm

Could someone enlighten me as to what Zimmermanisms are?

[gvendo2005]

Posted: 9/26/11 at 6:07pm

The director's apparent trademarks from her production work. To clarify my reply above, by "'73 version" I mean the one Hugh Wheeler wrote alone, with the singing sheep and the knockabout farcical quality.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 9/26/11 at 7:04pm

I was 12 in '73. I was interested in Jesus Christ Superstar and Godspell, not Candide.

[Mattbrain]

Posted: 9/26/11 at 7:37pm

"The director's apparent trademarks from her production work."

Which are...?

[gvendo2005]

Posted: 9/26/11 at 7:54pm

Okay, perhaps I should explain further. Ahem...

There are several renditions of Candide that have been published. Of the three, two are available for licensing. One is the 1973 version, the one-act version by Hugh Wheeler that Hal Prince directed, with the singing sheep and the knockabout farcical quality. The other is a 1999 version, adapted by John Caird from all previous versions for the Royal National Theatre. It is in two acts, sticks closer to Voltaire's story than any version yet seen, and really is the best version out there in the estimation of many.

What I am asking is if the non-Zimmerman production you saw and were underwhelmed by was the '73 version or the '99 version. Not whether or not you did or did not see or like the show when you were 12.

Mattbrain, if I knew the answer to YOUR question, I'd tell you.

[Mildred Plotka]

Posted: 9/26/11 at 8:27pm

Geez, Google Mary Zimmerman will ya. She's not exactly a new discovery.