Candida: The Search for Candor
Directed by Laurel Smith
Innis Town Hall
Thu. July 2 @ 7:15
Fri. July 3 @ 7:15
Sat. July 4 @ 4:15
Sun. July 5 @ 1;15
Tue. July 7 @ 7:15
Wed. July 8 @ 7:15
Thu. July 9 @ 7:15
Fri. July 10 @ 7:15
Sat. July 11 @ 4:15
Sun. July 12 @ 1:15
Tickets are $10 at the door
Review by Daina Valiulis
Candida is a George Bernard Shaw play that consists basically of two men squabbling over one woman for the entire play. Chopped up and presented to us in 90 minutes on a painstakingly detailed, naturalistic set, Burning Passions Theatre serves up an extremely self-conscious show that doesn’t connect until the very last scene.
The acting was contrived across the board, especially with regards to Jefferey Aarles, who plays Candida’s husband, Rev. James Morell. His extreme gesticulating and reactions never rang true, instead always seeming like grand demonstrations of what he was feeling rather than letting the truth speak for itself. As a result, every time he was on stage (which was most of the time), I lost interest in the story. In a similar vein, Christopher Ryan’s extreme moaning and weeping about the stage (as Marchbanks) was tiresome almost immediately. The only redeeming thing about the acting were the side characters, namely Miss Garnett (Whitney Barris), Rev. Alexander Mill (David Kynaston), and Burgess (Daryl Taylor) — who all seemed much more natural on stage, but didn’t really have a place in the plot, most likely due to the fact that so much of it was cut.
The love trio of Candida, Morell, and Marchbanks finally “get it” at the very end and genuine, quiet emotion emanates from them in the final scene, finally giving the audience something truthful to grasp. However, at this point, it is too little, too late.
A major flaw in this production is its uninspired loyalty to portraying Shaw’s work naturalistically, right down to the (inconsistently executed) British accents. If the choice is to produce Shaw, why not simply produce Shaw fully? Or else, if you’re going to chop it all up, why not go completely wild and interpretive? The middle ground doesn’t work and instead serves up a muddy, half-baked, and boring version of a play that is deemed a classic for a reason.
I really don’t mind that you hated me or that you trashed the show. If somebody’s calling you a reviewer and that’s how you felt, then you’re totally within your rights to do both, but at least do so honestly. You complain twice in your article about the script being “chopped up”. If you actually knew the script, you’d know that we’re performing the text in its entirety. Complain about the rest if you must, but in this instance to moan “why not produce Shaw fully?” is just sloppy journalism, and misrepresents the production.
I hope you have better luck with the rest of the Fringe. There’s lots of good stuff out there to enjoy.
firstly, Valiulis needs to do some homework before calling herself a reviewer. This play was not edited at all. It is GB Shaw in it’s true original form.
I don’t know what play she saw, but I saw some brilliant performances (especially by Aarels)and a beautiful production. The accents that she so smugly writes about are supposed to be different, education, class, location etc. I grew up in England and the accents onstage were pretty pure. Please rethink who writes what before you launch your diatribes on the web. It is a bit embarrassing for you.
Fair enough. Huge mistake on the play being presented in its entirety! I apologize – next time I will be more dilligent about that. As for the accents, that’s fair too. This column is just my opinion – this show was not my cup of tea and I don’t begrudge anyone who liked it or finds fault with anything I say. I definitely made some “sloppy” mistakes regarding this review, for which I am really sorry.