Candide 1997 Broadway revival

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 4/15/20 at 8:50pm

I’m curious if anyone here saw this revival at the Gershwin theatre and what you thought of it and any memories you might have? I cant find very much information on it or even many pictures.

Updated On: 4/15/20 at 08:50 PM

[greensgreens]

Posted: 4/15/20 at 9:21pm

I was lucky enough to catch this. I remember liking it a fair deal, mostly due to the cast. If Kristin had played Cundegonde, it would’ve been quite something. But Daniely, Dale, Martin & Barrett were impressive. Some of the production stretched out into the audience, but I have heard that the earlier Prince production (wasn’t this 97 production a revival of an earlier Prince staging?) was MUCH more environmental and I was a bit let down as I was hoping for that. I remember many talking about streamlining and such, but I’m not a Candide expert. However, that season was completely dominated by Rent, so this one just faded in comparison. Did the production even recoup or play an extended engagement?

[castlestreet]

Posted: 4/15/20 at 9:26pm

This was around the beginning of the end for Livent! The show was mostly a critical success but failed to catch on with audiences. I want to say it’s run was around 180 performances.

This was Princes 2nd Broadway revival of this show, the original as stated above was the very definition of “environmental” with ramps going far out into the audience. The original revival from I believe 76/77 also failed to catch on.

At this point Prince has Drabinsky in the palm of his hand and if he told him he wanted to revive Carrie, I think Drabinsky would have said yes.

[Smaxie]

Posted: 4/16/20 at 12:13am

>The original revival from I believe 76/77 also failed to catch on.<

Prince's earlier revival played March 1974-January 1976 for a total of 740 performances, after causing a sensation at the Chelsea Theatre Center in Brooklyn. It won five Tony Awards, including a special award for the production itself, as it was before there was a Best Revival Tony Award category. I think it fell short of recoupment, but it was critically acclaimed and was as close as Candide has ever had to a successful commercial run in New York. 

[jagman1062]

Posted: 4/16/20 at 12:41am

I saw both Prince productions, the 1974 revival at the Broadway and the 1997 revival at the Gershwin.  I enjoyed the 74 revival much more as it was more environmental (as noted above) and there was more interesting activity throughout the theater. I was also 16 years old, so anything different would have impressed me.  Although I don't remember all that much of the 74 production other than liking it and overhead activity, I remember less of the 97 production.  I do remember thinking the show was pleasant, but not memorable.  Dale came out over the audience in some contraption and I can't even tell you what it was - a bucket of some sort I think.  Maybe a swing, too.  Overall, the production wasn't as remarkable as the earlier one.  Someone mentioned that the show would have been much better had Chenoweth been cast, and I agree.  I believe she made her Broadway debut that same season in the catastrophe that was Steel Pier and she would have been much better showcased in Candide, although she did come out of Steel Pier unscathed. As I recall she was the only bight spot in that incredibly boring show.

[temms]

Posted: 4/16/20 at 12:41pm

In between the two Broadway productions Prince directed the show at NY City Opera and that was sort of the basis for the '97 revival. Musically I like it because to me it's the best compromise between the Bernstein original and the scaled-down one-act Wheeler version. It puts in most of the major missing numbers ("Quiet", "Ballad of El Dorado/New World", the Act One finale, the full Waltz, etc.) without the bloat of the later Scottish Opera and National Theatre versions that bring in the character of Martin and has things like the King's Barcarolle and "We Are Women" and "Nothing More Than This" which, call me a blasphemer, are lovely but bog the piece down. It is Voltaire, after all.

I so wish we could convince the Hellman estate to let a production be done with her book - the score that Bernstein wrote simply doesn't really match the wild silly Hugh Wheeler script, even if it is closer to the novel than Hellman. That said, the City Opera/'97 revival remains my favorite compromise in terms of the material itself. 

[g.d.e.l.g.i.]

Posted: 4/16/20 at 3:03pm

I'm definitely callin' blasphemy on your opinion of "Nothing More Than This." The Venice scene in Act II gives Candide's arc a real climax and sews up the show's plot. After many travels that have mercilessly separated and reunited them, Cunegonde tries to steal a bag of money Candide's holding; the mask (literally) drops and he recognizes her... and realizes who she really is. This is more than merely a song of bitter disappointment in love, than "bad sex" (if you will); this is the moment when Candide finally sees that everything he has believed in his whole life -- spoon-fed to him by Pangloss, still unbelievably optimistic despite all that he has endured and seen -- is a lie, and that by believing in the lie he has been complicit in bringing things to this place. It's also Cunegonde's moment of transformation; she realizes how low she's become, and follows him as he leaves.

It's the moment the whole book has been working toward from the first scene; it should have a song. If there is ever a moment of heightened emotion, it's when he finally sees who Cunegonde is, and sees himself. "Nothing More Than This" is a perfect example of dramatic action in song; without it, the realization that follows and gives birth to "Make Our Garden Grow" is empty, the finale a mere static song.

Cutting it is like cutting the last scene in Hamlet because you don't want corpses. If you build a story to a climax, and then cut the climax, it just doesn't work. (Which has frequently been a problem with Candide, to be fair, but still.)

Updated On: 4/16/20 at 03:03 PM

[George in DC]

Posted: 4/16/20 at 3:22pm

Having seen both productions as well as the NYC Opera production Hal prince also directed, I think the 74  one is hands down my favorite.  I was in my teens when I saw it and I was simply amazed. Luckily the recording was almost of the entire show so I can remember a lot of the staging.  It was just plain FUN and, after seeing basically thousands of shows since then, it is still one of my top ten favorite nights at the theatre. The City Opera production and the 90s revival paled in comparison.

[temms]

Posted: 4/16/20 at 3:54pm

I'll certainly not argue against the merits of "Nothing More Than This" as a piece of writing and it's a glorious musical moment. I guess it comes down to what you want out of your "Candide". The one recording I cannot abide in any way is the '70s version with the circus band orchestrations and the actor-singers, but I know plenty of people who consider it one of their all-time favorite cast albums. For me the more it skews into Grand Opera the less I care - I've never felt any lack of an emotional connection to "Make Our Garden Grow" and for me the more you try and give Candide depth the less I like him. 

But that's just me and that's the beauty of this piece, it can be so many things. I guess for me I prefer it close to operetta which is not my usual taste - but too grand and I get bored, too sloppy and I miss what the music can be. I also prefer my "Company" without "Marry Me A Little" so feel free to discount my opinion entirely. I guess my favorite "Candide" is the OBC album and City Opera/'97 gives me the closest possible live equivalent to that. 

And actually it'd be a toss-up whether I dislike the '70s album or the later Bernstein-conducted one more. At least the '70s has some spirit, he took himself way too seriously by the time he got around to making that recording and it's just no fun at all. I still say I wish you could do the Hellman version.

[Jarethan]

Posted: 4/16/20 at 4:58pm

greensgreens said: "I was lucky enough to catch this. I remember liking it a fair deal, mostly due to the cast. If Kristin had played Cundegonde, it would’ve been quite something. But Daniely, Dale, Martin & Barrett were impressive. Some of the production stretched out into the audience, but I have heard that the earlier Prince production (wasn’t this 97 production a revival of an earlier Prince staging?) was MUCH more environmental and I was a bit let down as I was hoping for that. I remember many talking about streamlining and such, but I’m not a Candide expert. However, that season was completely dominated by Rent, so this one just faded in comparison. Did the production even recoup or play an extended engagement?"

Unfortunately, it was a huge flop.  Although directed again by Harold Prince, it lacked the sheer fun of the 1973 Prince production, which ran almost 2 years, but also lost money because its nut was too expensive for a production that only sat 700 or 800 people.  It’s staging was so inventive that Prince the  won for best director and it won another handful as well, although I don’t think anyone from the cast won. The production at the Uris was good, but not good enough, and the theatre was all wrong for the show...much too big; it didn’t stand a chance and had a very short run.  

i enjoyed it, but the Magic was gone.

[g.d.e.l.g.i.]

Posted: 4/16/20 at 8:38pm

For me, temms, John Caird's book for the RNT version gets it the most right, since what I want from Candide is for the score to serve the plot needs of the novella. Voltaire's original caused a major stir in social and political circles upon its publication, and unfortunately, much of its satire still rings true in the 21st century; Bernstein saw the challenge of the show as "dramatiz[ing] and musicaliz[ing] the stinging satire of Candide without turning it into burlesque," and I feel you can't do that by throwing out the plot as Hellman did.

(Only real problem is that while I think his book is closest to the source, his adaptation is a tad literal. Huge chunks of it are devoted to expository narration from Voltaire himself, at times hewing word for word to the original text. For the story-line to work at least as well as it does in the source, it has to travel at a brisk pace, and without lightness of touch, a lot of his script -- and its over-reliance on Voltaire as narrator in particular -- could play as dead air. But that's easily solved by "concentrating" the narration and the scenes, editing them to the essential, making the necessary points in sharp, swift strokes.)