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'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.

In Medieval England, a despondent King Arthur meets mentor Merlin - with wisdom confirmed by the presence of an owl perched upon his shoulder - in the forest. This leads to a flashback where castle "Camelot" figures prominently… Richard Harris (as Arthur) meets and marries Vanessa Redgrave (as Guenevere). They are blissfully happy, but she and newly knighted Franco Nero (as Lancelot) are unable to control their mutual attraction… The best thing about this film is the superb music, by Alan Jay Lerner and Frederick Loewe. But the best way to enjoy it is by obtaining a copy of the soundtrack featuring Richard Burton (as Arthur), Julie Andrews (as Guenevere), and Robert Goulet (as Lancelot) - the stars of the original Broadway cast...

The last time Jack Warner corralled a musical team was for the film version of "My Fair Lady" (1964). At that time, the studio passed on Ms. Andrews reprising her stage success because she was "not bankable." In both 1966 and 1967, Andrews was the undisputed #1 box office star in the world; in both years, she topped the annual "Quigley Publications" poll, with Mr. Burton also in the top ten. So, the story was changed to Andrews not being "sexy" enough. That the documented rapport between Andrews and her male co-stars in musicals (especially "Camelot") was unknown to filmmakers rings false; this isn't "Camille", it's a musical. Andrews, Burton and original "Camelot" residents like Roddy McDowall, Robert Coote and David Hurst are sorely missed.

***** Camelot (10/25/67) Joshua Logan ~ Richard Harris, Vanessa Redgrave, Franco Nero, David Hemmings

Now that movie musicals are in vogue again, maybe somebody at Warner Brothers will give the green light to remake this Lerner & Loewe spectacle that was poorly filmed in 1967.

This version is really a shame, considering how beloved the original 1960 Broadway musical is. Lerner & Loewe wrote some of their best songs for this show: "If Ever I Would Leave You", "Camelot", "What do the Simple Folk Do?" and "Fie on Goodness". But when making the film, producer Jack Warner chose tone-deaf actors, one of the worst directors in the medium, and had Alan J. Lerner rewrite his script, stressing the drama over the comedy (to the narrative's detriment) as well as throwing out half the score (including, sob, the show-stopping "Fie on Goodness"). Richard Harris and Vanessa Redgrave ARE great actors, and in their dramatic scenes, they are quite effective, but they most certainly are NOT singers, especially poor Ms. Redgrave (although, her orgasmic rendition of "The Lusty Month of May" has to be seen to be believed). Franco Nero, a beautiful, beautiful man, has a great opening with "C'est Moi", but then goes downhill from there. David Hemmings manages to bring some mirth to the film, but he's only in the last third, and by that time it's nearly too late (plus, they cut his only song!).

On the plus side, the film DID deserve the 3 Oscars it won: Best Scoring (if you take the voices out, the music sounds magnificent), Best Art Direction/Set Decoration, and Best Costume Design (the flick IS sumptuous). And the cinematography is rather breathtaking at times. (If you do watch it, try to see it on DVD, where it's letterboxed.)

So, if anybody from Warner Brothers, or any other studio for that matter, is reading this, give it another go: go back to T.H. White's original source novel and Lerner's original B'way script, keep ALL the songs intact, and hire actors who are proven singers, say, Ewan McGregor (he demonstrated his pipes in Moulin Rouge!) as Arthur, Kate Winslet (who scored a British top 10 hit last year) as Guinevere, and Hugh Jackman (who got his start in a West End production of Oklahoma!) as Lancelot. Please....

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.