Camelot

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.

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.

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.

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.

There's a reason why Hollywood in the late 1960s went into its worst recession since the direst years of the Depression in the 30s--it was lavishing ridiculous amounts of money on bloated musicals like this that totally *tanked* at the box office.

For some reason, the studios kept handing these big-budget adaptions of hit Broadway musicals to Joshua Logan to direct, even though they always ended up complete failures (check out the horrible use of color filters in "South Pacific" [1958], or Clint Eastwood and Lee Marvin *singing* in "Paint Your Wagon" [1969])). Like that later film, "Camelot" seems to go out of its way to cast its musical with stars who can't sing or dance to save their lives. Instead, the cast seems to be trying to tap into the interest in swinging "Mod" London of the mid-60s. (With Vanessa Redgrave and David Hennings, you have half the cast of Antonioni's "Blow Up" [1966]!) The film also tries to appeal to both a family audience *and* discerning adult viewers simultaneously. I can't imagine parents being happy about the frank earthy sexuality of "The Lusty Month of May," or the overt adultery of the plotline--but people looking for adult fare would be annoyed at the attempts at sweetness and light being thrown in as well.

Obviously, no one from either side was too happy, because this was a *big* flop for Warner Bros. when it came out. Seeing it in a *huge* theatre in 70mm may help maintain interest visually (the costumes are striking), but this will be lost if watching it on video (esp. if it's a "pan-and-scan" instead of a letterboxed version). This is a movie only for those who are die-hard musical fans that are willing to sit through anything--because this is one of the movies that effectively killed the genre's popularity.