One of the four productions Peter Cotes made in Australia. Based on the play by Shaw.
Premise
Candida is married to Rev James Morrell.
Cast
- Joan Miller as Candida
- Lewis Flander as Marchbanks
- William Hodge as Burgess
- Jeffrey Hodgson as Rev Alexander Mill
- Madeline Howell as Proserpine Garnett
- Geoffrey King as Morell
Original play
The play was first performed in 1898. It is very popular in part because the title role is so great for an actress.
Production
Joan Miller, Cotes' wife, had performed the title role on the West End in 1953.
The production was shot in Melbourne.
It was one of four productions Cotes made in Australia, the others being Long Distance, Suspect, and Shadow of the Vine. He said he would have made more but for the credit freeze. Cotes made it a year before it aired.
Reception
The TV critic for the Sydney Morning Herald said the production "had all the virtues of brilliant casting and all the vices of poor technique... [it] appeared simply as a televised stage production, without any special reference to the distinctive vocabulary of TV, production itself. In addition, camera work, sound and sets were well below par for the course; camera angles were monotonous and too inclusive_, sound poor, and sets fussily elaborate and consequently distracting. Few will cavil at the quality of the acting, however."
The Bulletin also gave it a mixed review but said it "had a fine period setting, Miss Joan Miller in the title role, and dialogue to match the furnishings."
The Age called it "another example of a brilliant professional at work" although felt Miller "did not however have the impact of her earlier roles."
LITV thought it was full of "outstanding virtues" and said "it further substantiated the hope that the GMH hour this year will give us the finest series of live drama that has so far been achieved either by the national or commercial channels."
Vincent Committee
In 1963 the Cotes productions were raised by K Cairns in his testimony for the Vincent Committe..
Last year we produced a series of dramas under the direction of a leading British producer whom we brought out from England. That was Mr. Peter Cotes. His actress wife, Joan Miller, accompanied him. We produced three full length plays—Shaw's “Candida”, “Suspect” and •‘Shadow of the Vine”. We also produced a half-hour show called " Long Distance At the time the dramas were produced we were in the middle of the late 1961 financial recession and they had to be put on the shelf until last year when, with the support of General Motors- Holden’s they were shown. The amount it was possible to ask General Motors to pay towards the cost of those plays was something slightly less than half the total cost. In other words, our subsidy amounted to about 60 per cent, of the amount we would be able to recover from the sponsor.
Do you suggest that you lost money on them?
—Yes. Those figures can be made available if required.
By Senator Hannan.—Was the play in recorded form and could it have been shown on other channels?
—They were on tape.
Were they shown on other channels?
—In other capitals.
And even so you still lost on them?
—Yes, even though the cost to the sponsor was something more than three times the amount that he would ordinarily have to pay for a film. Despite the showing on a number of channels you still showed a loss?’
—Yes.
By the Chairman.—And the sponsor paid three times as much as he would have paid for a comparable pro- gramme from overseas?
—Yes, on film.
If you had purchased “ Candida ” on film from Great Britain the sponsor would have been that much better off?
—Yes.
And 1 take it that you would have made a profit?
—Yes, if it had been on film. We felt that this was a very impor- tant contribution to this problem of Australian production. The advantages of having a top British producer out here were considerable. His help to our own production people was invaluable although in terms of audience accept- ability I regret to say these plays had a rating of roughly 50 per cent, of the audience of films on other channels. We still feel sufficiently encouraged to be looking at the possibility of doing more drama.
You had 50 per cent, of the audience for what other type of film?
--The other programme was a Hollywood full length feature. It was the film “For Whom the Bell Tolls”/ But your locally produced film had a good producer?— One of the top producers in England. Better than any other in Australia?—At that time, yes, mainly because of his experience. The three plays you mentioned arc good plays?—Yes. Why were they 1 o poorly received by the public?
—Take “Candida”. I do not think Shaw could he said to be a popular plavwright compared with a feature like “ For Whom the Bell Tolls ”.
Do you know how much “ Pygmalion ” has earned?
— With respect, that is a very different proposition from “ Candida I suggest that “ Candida ” has earned a lot more than For Whom the Bell Tolls overall?
—I would not know that, hut I would certainly agree about “ Pygmalion
By Senator Cohen.—“ My Fair Lady ” has probable made more than ‘ Pygmalion has it not?
—Yes.
By the Chairman,—Can you give us a reason, other than the fact that “ For Whom the Bell Tolls ” was Hemmingway and “ Candida !! was by a gentleman named Shaw and. in your opinion, is not as good drama? Would there be any other reasons?
—No. This, 1 should say. was in a peak time on a Sunday night and was not relegated to fringe areas. It was 8 o’clock on a Sunday night. I think the possible presence of a high factor of youngish people, including possibly children, could have been a factor there. They do exercise a con- siderable control of sets. That could have been a factor, but generally I think in what might be called popular entertainment ” Candida ” at least was no match for the other programme. Unfortunately, we had no measurement of the other plays, although in other cities where we had ratings again the pattern was roughly repeated that the imported film did outweigh by a fair percentage or quite heavy percentage the local production.
Do you think there is an illogical but nevertheless very obvious and definite public reaction in favour of imported film compared with the locallv produced plav and drama?
—No.
Do you think the audience accepts them on their merits?
—I think we are inclined to under-estimate the capacity of Australian audiences. After all, I believe the Australian audience is getting a television service comparable with, and in many respects better than, anything I know in the world. The audience is very critical and I believe the taste is keen and the judgment good. Whereas in the early days the viewer would watch anything, he certainly will not do so now. He is quite demanding and very vocal and critical—constructively, generally-.and T think he is the greatest safeguard we have. He certainly maintains very consistently that we should improve, and he attempts to tell us how we can improve. T believe that after genera- tions of indoctrination bv American films the Australian viewer is very perceptive.
In June 1963 George Patterson argued “another factor which has not helped nurture the delicate Australian drama plant has been the tendency of some station managements to kill the completion from an Australian show by putting an imported blockbuster against it.” The example it gave was Cotes’ Candida, which “had no real chance of reaching a worthwhile segment of the available audience” as it was scheduled against For Whom The Bell Tolls, “This is not an argument in favour of ‘protection’ but a plea for greater understanding of issues important to the whole industry.” (George Patterson June 1963 p 13) See below. See TV guide here.
 |
| The Age9 Aug 1962 |
 |
| The Bulletin 11 Aug 1962 |
 |
| SMH 6 Aug 1962 p 4 |
 |
| The Age 26 July 1962 |
 |
| SMH 30 July 1962 |
 |
| The Age 2 Aug 1962 |
 |
| GMH People May 1962 |
 |
| The Age 31 May 1962 |
 |
 |
| George Patterson Report June 1963 |
