Camelot

I liked the look of this film. I liked Richard Harris as Arthur because he has the look of a medieval king. Vanessa Redgrave is a more formidable Guinevere, and Franco Nero is quite stunning to look at. But they are right. They are not singers. They are not very good weak singers (does that make sense). Now I never really bought into Julie Andrews as Guinevere in the music from the Original Cast, and I don't see her as a strong woman my mind's eye. But I do agree, it's time to take a big budget crack at this again. Imagine the pageantry that would be possible now and some of the wonderful musical talents to draw from. Back to the story. This is a touching story of a man who liked the battles but not the rule. He is forced into a marriage and then falls in love. However, the magical Lancelot steals her heart and things go sour. Arthur is left alone on the battlefield, and Camelot is only a memory. Great story...poor execution.

I wish I had seen the original Broadway production of Camelot. As a lad the Broadway cast album was a treasured staple in our house, played over and over again by my parents. Can you imagine a cast led by Richard Burton, Julie Andrews and introducing Robert Goulet as Lancelot?

So why couldn't Warner Brothers sign the original cast from Broadway for the movie? Robert Goulet had in fact come to Hollywood and didn't set the world on fire, but the other two were already big box office names by 1967. Julie Andrews had won an Oscar for Mary Poppins and just did the Sound of Music. And Richard Burton was one half of the most noted show business couple of the Sixties with his wife Elizabeth Taylor.

Jack Warner, usually a smart guy, said that he didn't think that anyone would believe that two guys like Arthur and Lancelot would put a kingdom at risk for the love of Mary Poppins. So Julie wasn't even asked and Vanessa Redgrave got the call. She's certainly sexy enough, but she opted for the Rex Harrison talk/sing in doing Guinevere. If you have the video or DVD of Camelot play that and then listen to Julie Andrews sing from the original cast album. My favorite song from the score is I Loved You Once In Silence and Julie Andrews is at her best singing that song. Vanessa doesn't come close.

Ditto for Richard Burton and Richard Harris. Though in the case of Harris I think he was toning it down a mite for a clearly handicapped co-star in the vocal department. Harris later in his life toured extensively in various productions of Camelot as Arthur, virtually taking over the role originated by his close friend Burton.

The biggest hit from the Camelot score was If Ever I Would Leave You, sung by Robert Goulet. In 1961 you couldn't get away from that song being played on the radio right in the midst of all the rock and roll. Goulet also toured in various stock companies of Camelot and like both Burton and Harris revived it on Broadway. I don't think anyone ever asked Franco Nero to tour.

But Redgrave and Nero certainly created their own screen magic, they got involved with each other on the set. But folks this is a musical and musically they don't measure up.

David Hemmings takes over the role of Mordred from Roddy McDowall who did it on stage. His Mordred is a clever schemer, but a coward as well. For myself the best Mordred ever portrayed on screen was in Knights of the Round Table by Stanley Baker. Baker's interpretation of Mordred is light years from Hemmings, he's a schemer, but he's definitely no coward.

I love the score of Camelot and when it was filmed I only wish the singing was half as good as the Broadway show.

Beautiful music and strong performances from Richard Harris and Vanessa Redgrave, however they are not singers and it hurts the picture mightily, leaving you wondering how much better it could have been with Richard Burton, Robert Goulet and especially Julie Andrews. True Burton wasn't a singer either using the talk singing method that Rex Harrison employed on My Fair Lady so Harris' replacement isn't as glaring as Redgrave/Andrews or Nero/Goulet. Where the picture really runs into problems through is the lumbering pace set by director Logan. A fine director of drama but with no skill at setting the right tone for a musical although that didn't stop the studios from handing him several throughout the years ending with the disaster of Paint Your Wagon. Some of the costumes are truly amazing and justly famous but this can be a trial to sit through.

I'm so used to demolishing contemporary productions and writing negative reviews that I often forget that that there are positive elements in some of the worst of films, and some well meant efforts in films that tried. So it is with the 1967 production of "Camelot" staring a plethora of names.

The film is an adaptation of the stage play of the same name, which itself is an adaptation of "The Man Who Would be King", a then contemporary retelling of the Arthurian legend as it had become interpreted by Hollywood and high brow publishers.

There's a lot of pageantry and production value injected and infused into this film. Everything from unearthing portions near the castle (the same used for "El Cid") to creating elegant armor highlighted with filigree and elaborate detail. The costumes, the sets, and emoting by the actors themselves falls into the "put best foot forward" category. Everything here is well meant. And to this end it is an entertaining film in its own right.

But it does fall flat here and there. The film was a business venture, like all films, but despite the resources allocated to the project, the production feels marginally rushed. The Broadway production with Julie Andrews and Richard Burton had made its mark a few years before, and the film was attempting to revitalize the waning coat tail interest in that production.

And that's just how the film feels; a somewhat rushed effort that was spared no expense to bring the fantasy world of Arthur, his castle "Camelot", queen, knights and all the rest. The clues are subtle, but there. The camera work is respectable, but not well defined nor planned out for any choreography staged. The pans and dolly shots are rough and unscheduled, or rough. Little pre-planning went into the shot setups. Zooms combined with dolly shots are mixed in with wide masters, giving the film the feel of being cobbled as opposed to created. The shots convey a "we need to shoot this quickly" feel, and it shows.

The art direction is interesting, but the technology of the time and emphasis on realistic colors during that period in commercial film making hold back a better production. The fact that other big names were brought in to pinch hit for the original Broadway cast that had established the play, again speaks volumes as to the kind of care that went into this film.

This isn't to say that the film is bad, but it could have been more. During this period in commercial film making name actors carried an enormous weight in marketing. They were truly "stars" during this time, as opposed to popular tabloid names akin to an adult version of high- school. Ergo name actors, or those aspiring to the such, were given A- productions, or, more correctly, placed in productions aspiring to be A- material. In short, people were hoping for Andrew, Burton and Goulet, but got Harris and company instead.

The musical numbers, as can be expected from a filmic translation of a Broadway play, are altered. The new takes on the old rifts are hit and miss; some are more successful than others. Yet again we get a sort of rough or unrefined feel from the musical numbers because of the haste in production. Again, respectable, but still unrefined in spite of the effort given.

I'm not one for remakes. I truly am not. But this one might be an interesting project to recreate, properly this time, with a little more care, and a little more time.

Not a great film, but decent entertainment. A snapshot of late 60s and early 70's commercial film making.

One of the reviews I once read of this marvellous film dismissed it as 'kohl and overacting'. No way. It has so many scenes that live in the memory as I write, not having revisited the movie for quite some time. The wedding sequence with all its lights; Guinevere, beautiful in her wonder of the magical land where leaves 'blow away altogether, at night, of course'; If Ever I Should Leave You (not sung by Franco Nero, as I understand, really, but you'd never guess); How To Handle A Woman ('what's wrong, Jenny? where are you these days? I don't understand you ...'); creepy Mordred; and the ending (run, boy, run) which is terrific. I have heard Burton as Arthur and have to say I was disappointed. They made the right casting choice for the movie. A pity some of the songs got cut (except it would have been even longer then, good for us who like it, intolerable for those who don't). Also interesting to compare with other Lerner/Loewe movies with their themes of magic, understanding, and change (My Fair Lady, Brigadoon, Gigi and Paint Your Wagon). As they sit together as a body, Camelot is one of the best.