Threaded Order Chronological Order
| CAMELOT | |
| Posted by: AnObserver 10:55 am EDT 08/04/20 | |
|
|
|
| I've never seen CAMELOT onstage but it's been said it doesn't really "work" and needs to be "fixed." Why doesn't it work? The book? I'm wondering if the fantasy element could be removed and the story made more generic contemporary about a beloved political leader and his wife. Mordred would be a Jared Kushner/Stephen Miller type. Well, no, I guess that wouldn't work. You'd have to change the title of the show and some of the lyrics and jousting, etc. |
|
| reply to this message |
| Guinevere - Likable | |
| Posted by: Whistler 06:48 pm EDT 08/05/20 | |
| In reply to: CAMELOT - AnObserver 10:55 am EDT 08/04/20 | |
|
|
|
| This shouldn't be hard: she's in an arranged marriage, young, and then falls in love. Arthur and Lancelot both understand that, too, so have their own conflicts about it. If the psychology's not in the text, for contemporary people to understand, it's in the sub-text. |
|
| reply to this message |
| re: Guinevere - Likable | |
| Posted by: lordofspeech 12:51 pm EDT 08/06/20 | |
| In reply to: Guinevere - Likable - Whistler 06:48 pm EDT 08/05/20 | |
|
|
|
| CAMELOT was my first Broadway show. By the time my mother took me, Burton was gone and his often-standby William Squire was in it. But it was, as you can imagine— not just for the sumptuousness of the emotions and the pageantry but for the high drama of the tension between honor and feelings— unforgettable. And Julie Andrews was unbelievably charismatic. Her desire to “cause a little war” was no more “wrong” than Maria VonTrapp going up to the mountains to sing. She wasn’t vain or flirty, she just hadn’t settled. And when she sees Lancelot bring that knight back from the dead, it’s not simply that she “falls in love” with him. It’s that, for the first time in her life, she sees a greater truth than she had ever thought possible. (It’s similar to what Arthur experiences; Lancelot is the fulfillment of his vision for the Knights.). It works. It’s not just that Lancelot is hot and Arthur is a bit of an odd duck (as in the film), it’s kinda about what’s spiritual and metaphysical and the fulfillment of a higher purpose. Anyway, I agree with everybody who says this show absolutely works. It just needs the director who can bring all of the elements together. And keep pushing for it to be more than a tawdry love-triangle. Corny as it may seem, the leading characters have a “higher purpose” which really informs their personal journeys. Like in “Man of La Mancha.” I don’t think the show is worth much if Guenevere is a minx (which is, kinda, what Christine Ebersole did with it when Burton brought it back to Broadway.). If Arthur grows into being a great man, so too must she grow into being a great lady. Think Deborah Kerr or Jane Alexander or...who do we have now?...a leading lady with gravitas and humor?...Audra for sure. (The broadcast with Marin Mazzie didn’t quite work, though she should’ve been right, but the Arthur’s musicianship was off throughout and there was just too much in the whole show that hadn’t been synthesized.) I’m getting off my soapbox. But I assert it’s a good show. It seems like Laura Benanti would be excellent, too, if she had very clear direction. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Guinevere - Likable | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 02:49 pm EDT 08/06/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Guinevere - Likable - lordofspeech 12:51 pm EDT 08/06/20 | |
|
|
|
| And Julie Andrews was unbelievably charismatic. Her desire to “cause a little war” was no more “wrong” than Maria VonTrapp going up to the mountains to sing. She wasn’t vain or flirty, she just hadn’t settled. And when she sees Lancelot bring that knight back from the dead, it’s not simply that she “falls in love” with him. It’s that, for the first time in her life, she sees a greater truth than she had ever thought possible. I agree. Guenevere is not perfect (who is? lol), certainly not at the start. The seemingly flip way she wishes for things in "Simple Joys Of Maidenhood" and "Take Me To The Fair" are not calculated evil, just that she has to grow to the realization that "sport" and reality are not the same. I would also tend to assume that when Lionel is mortally wounded in "The Joust," this is something she has never actually experienced before, and makes her realize just how horrible it is. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Guinevere - Likable | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 01:54 pm EDT 08/07/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Guinevere - Likable - Chromolume 02:49 pm EDT 08/06/20 | |
|
|
|
| ***Guenevere is not perfect (who is? lol), certainly not at the start. The seemingly flip way she wishes for things in "Simple Joys Of Maidenhood" and "Take Me To The Fair" are not calculated evil, just that she has to grow to the realization that "sport" and reality are not the same. I would also tend to assume that when Lionel is mortally wounded in "The Joust," this is something she has never actually experienced before, and makes her realize just how horrible it is.*** Persuasively argued, but for even a very young, immature person to joke about wanting to have people go to war over her is terribly distasteful, in my opinion. And given the conversation between Guenevere and the knights in "Take Me to the Fair," it sounds to me like she has a very good idea of exactly what might happen in the jousts. In fact, one of the things she and the knights envision is exactly how Sir Lionel is killed: He gets run through by a spear. Again, I think both of those songs would probably work fine in a completely comic musical, the way that "To Keep My Love Alive" works in A CONNECTICUT YANKEE. On that note: While I think both songs are very problematic in the original version of CAMELOT, I would say they're even more problematic in the version with Lerner's revised script, which opens with Arthur on the eve of battle against the forces of Lancelot and then flashes back. To start the show in a very dark way with a war about to begin over Guenevere, and then flash back and have Guenevere sing in her first song about how nice it would be if she were to "cause a little war," is really difficult to accept IMHO. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Guinevere - Likable | |
| Posted by: Billhaven 02:06 pm EDT 08/07/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Guinevere - Likable - Michael_Portantiere 01:54 pm EDT 08/07/20 | |
|
|
|
| It seems obvious to me that the song is meant to be humorous in an ironic way. It doesn’t land as it should, perhaps. It doesn’t land for you at all. To me, she is a princess who has been raised on tales and legends of romance and battles. The Trojan War for example. Many young people have a romantic vision of war until they are faced with the brutal reality of it. She gets what she think she wants by the end and it is nothing like her imaginings. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Guinevere - Likable | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 06:01 pm EDT 08/07/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Guinevere - Likable - Billhaven 02:06 pm EDT 08/07/20 | |
|
|
|
| ****It seems obvious to me that the song is meant to be humorous in an ironic way. It doesn’t land as it should, perhaps. It doesn’t land for you at all. To me, she is a princess who has been raised on tales and legends of romance and battles. The Trojan War for example. Many young people have a romantic vision of war until they are faced with the brutal reality of it. She gets what she think she wants by the end and it is nothing like her imaginings.**** I'm sure you're right that this was the writers' intention, and I'm glad it works for you. It used to work for me, too, and then I reconsidered, partly based on the fact that her cluelessness is amplified in "Take Me to the Fair," when she actually goads the knights to injure or kill Lancelot in jousts that are very soon to happen in real life. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Guinevere - Likable | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 02:48 pm EDT 08/07/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Guinevere - Likable - Billhaven 02:06 pm EDT 08/07/20 | |
|
|
|
| Many young people have a romantic vision of war until they are faced with the brutal reality of it. Which is one reason that a song like "Momma Look Sharp" can be so devastating. First, with all the bickering that Congress is doing over even getting a vote on independence, it's a sobering moment when the courier reminds us that young soldiers are dying out there. AND, the fact that he's so young as well makes it even more affecting. I think that with "Take Me To The Fair," Guenevere isn't really thinking about the consequences of her thoughts. It's still fantasy, and I think the idea of Lancelot actually getting killed in a joust is not real/final to her. But as I said, I think witnessing the almost death of Lionel may change her views on all that. It's like the difference between watching a violent war movie (you know the actors aren't really getting killed) and actually being in the middle of that war. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Guinevere - Likable | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 12:53 am EDT 08/08/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Guinevere - Likable - Chromolume 02:48 pm EDT 08/07/20 | |
|
|
|
| ***I think that with "Take Me To The Fair," Guenevere isn't really thinking about the consequences of her thoughts. It's still fantasy, and I think the idea of Lancelot actually getting killed in a joust is not real/final to her.*** "You will bash and thrash him?" "I will smash and mash him." "You'll give him trouble?" "He will be rubble." "A mighty whack..." "His skull will crack!" "You'll pierce right through him?" "I'll barbecue him." "A wicked thrust...." "'twill be dust to dust." "From fore to aft...." "He'll feel a draft." "You'll disconnect him?" "I'll vivisect him." "You'll open wide him?" "I'll subdivide him!" I think she has a pretty good idea of what might happen to Lancelot in the jousts. So unless Guenevere is so stupid as to think that many of those things wouldn't result in death, I don't know how there can be any excuse for her goading the knights -- and, of course, stupidity at that level would be no excuse, either. I wonder if this is one of the reasons, other than length of the show, why "Take Me to The Fair" was cut CAMELOT during the Broadway run? Perhaps a belated realization by the creative team that it reveals Guenevere as quite a despicable person. And, let us keep in mind, at that point in the story, the reason she wants to see Lancelot maimed or killed is not because he has murdered her family but because.....she finds him conceited and full of himself. Just a BIT of an overreaction, I would say. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Guinevere - Likable | |
| Last Edit: Chromolume 01:00 am EDT 08/08/20 | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 12:58 am EDT 08/08/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Guinevere - Likable - Michael_Portantiere 12:53 am EDT 08/08/20 | |
|
|
|
| So you really don't think that this is a game she could be playing, and she doesn't really ever expect the knights to do any of this - and they're all just having fun with all the boasting? Besides, why wouldn't she be going to the fair with her husband the King? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Guinevere - Likable | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 01:48 pm EDT 08/08/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Guinevere - Likable - Chromolume 12:58 am EDT 08/08/20 | |
|
|
|
| "So you really don't think that this is a game she could be playing, and she doesn't really ever expect the knights to do any of this - and they're all just having fun with all the boasting?" She may well be joking, or playing a game, with the knights playing along -- but even if that's true, the fact remains that severe injury or death is highly likely to happen during a joust, defined as "a sports contest in which two opponents on horseback fight with lances." In fact, I would say it's fairly unlikely that anyone could participate in a joust without serious injury, at least. That's why I find the song so hard to take. If Guenevere were to joke about the knights besting and humiliating Lancelot at arm wrestling, that would be a different matter :-) "Besides, why wouldn't she be going to the fair with her husband the King?" Well, that's an excellent question, and I would say one more reason why the song should be cut :-) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Guinevere - Likable | |
| Posted by: BroadwayTonyJ 06:53 pm EDT 08/08/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Guinevere - Likable - Michael_Portantiere 01:48 pm EDT 08/08/20 | |
|
|
|
| Jousting was a sport. The goal was to unhorse your opponent, definitely not kill or even seriously injure him. In fact, injuries were supposed to be avoided. Both knights wore armor and the lance tips were blunted. Jousts were all about horsemanship and fighting skills. Generally a king would not be the one to escort his queen consort to something as mundane as a local fair or cattle show. A queen often had favorites among her husband's knights. It was perfectly acceptable for those of her choice to escort her to such activities. I'm basing this information on all the movies and TV shows I've seen about knighthood, chivalry, crusades, and all that Middle Ages stuff. However, I am not really an expert on Camelot. Although I love the score as heard on the OBC album, I have only seen two productions, the '93 tour with Robert Goulet as Arthur and the '07 tour with Michael York, Rachel York, and James Barbour. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Guinevere - Likable | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 12:22 pm EDT 08/09/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Guinevere - Likable - BroadwayTonyJ 06:53 pm EDT 08/08/20 | |
|
|
|
| "Jousting was a sport. The goal was to unhorse your opponent, definitely not kill or even seriously injure him. In fact, injuries were supposed to be avoided. Both knights wore armor and the lance tips were blunted. Jousts were all about horsemanship and fighting skills." Thanks for that info. But, again, what actually ends up happening in CAMELOT is that Sir Lionel is indeed "run through" by Lancelot's spear, and dies from that injury (and then is prayed back to life by Lancelot). |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Guinevere - Likable | |
| Last Edit: BroadwayTonyJ 04:45 pm EDT 08/09/20 | |
| Posted by: BroadwayTonyJ 04:40 pm EDT 08/09/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Guinevere - Likable - Michael_Portantiere 12:22 pm EDT 08/09/20 | |
|
|
|
| It's been almost 13 years since I've seen Camelot on stage. Is the joust between Lancelot and Sir Lionel actually shown in some way or are we just told about it by the ensemble? I wonder if Lerner actually did any serious research on what the rules for jousting were around the year 500 A.D. in Europe. In movies like Prince Valiant, only bona fide knights were allowed to compete in jousts that were held by King Arthur. Of course, the musical Camelot is pure fantasy so historical accuracy doesn't really apply. Although I seriously doubt that a just and honorable king like Arthur would have permitted a joust requested by 3 of his knights for personal reasons. That just goes against what the sport supposedly was all about. By googling, I found corroboration that 2 well known noblemen were indeed killed in jousts during a period of several hundred years in the Middle Ages. However, in 1559 when Henry II of France was accidentally wounded in a joust from a shattered lance that pierced his eye and subsequently died from the infection that resulted, the sport (as it had been performed up until that time) was pretty much banned. However, some revised form of jousting continued in Britain into the 17th century, but apparently was less dangerous and was judged by some sort of point system. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Guinevere - Likable | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 07:01 pm EDT 08/09/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Guinevere - Likable - BroadwayTonyJ 04:40 pm EDT 08/09/20 | |
|
|
|
| Is the joust between Lancelot and Sir Lionel actually shown in some way or are we just told about it by the ensemble? It's narrated by the ensemble - one of two huge moments in the show where that happens out of the blue. Then again, I'm not sure how else they would have been able to stage it more realistically. (In an Ivo Van HOve production, we'd just be treated to films of jousting, lol.) Also, in terms of history, don't forget Henry VIII's jousting accident. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| The resident historian checks in | |
| Posted by: showtunetrivia 08:10 pm EDT 08/09/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Guinevere - Likable - Chromolume 07:01 pm EDT 08/09/20 | |
|
|
|
| CAMELOT is a fantasy, everybody, as much a fantasy as BRIGADOON. The legend of Arthur, who may (or may not) have been a fairly powerful warlord in the mess that was Britain after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, is complex, convoluted, has involved many, many contributions over the centuries. It’s so much part and parcel of English lore, it’s the core of what’s called “The Matter of Britain, the collected legends and quasi-history of the island. So we start with an actual post-Roman warlord,,c. 500. Centuries later, we have a bunch of medieval guys scribbling about his wonderful Golden Age, and pasting in all the stuff on chivalry and romance and codes of honor that would have had the original Arthur saying WTF? Chief among these was Sir Thomas Malory, c. 1485. Do you see any problems with somebody writing about something that happened a thousand years before? Like, getting facts straight? Hmm? Now we have T.H. White,,writing a popular novel, stealing from Malory and a bunch of other sources, and changing whatever he felt like. Arthur is no post-Roman warlord,,he’s a proper Anglo-Norman king (think Henry II in THE LION IN WINTER, and all Shakespearean kings, save Lear). And AJL took two portions of White’s THE ONCE AND FUTURE KING, changed the stuff he wanted to (like, Merlyn tells Arthur about Lance and Jenny...). And you get CAMELOT. There was no jousting in 500 CE. That’s centuries later. I could drone on for much, much longer—I started out as an English medievalist, had done a senior thesis on the Archbishops of York in the early Anglo-Norman era, and still ended up with a minor field in medieval ecclesiastical history... Laura |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The resident historian checks in | |
| Posted by: BroadwayTonyJ 11:23 am EDT 08/10/20 | |
| In reply to: The resident historian checks in - showtunetrivia 08:10 pm EDT 08/09/20 | |
|
|
|
| I'm crushed. For over 60 years I've been lied to by MGM and 20th Century Fox, not to mention the Chicago newspapers that carried the Prince Valiant comic strip all those years. My faith in Hollywood and the print media has been dealt a serious blow. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| “it was joust one of those things” | |
| Posted by: showtunetrivia 04:47 pm EDT 08/10/20 | |
| In reply to: re: The resident historian checks in - BroadwayTonyJ 11:23 am EDT 08/10/20 | |
|
|
|
| There’s a meme going round with something like a college professor saying, “Do you enjoy watching historical films and tv series?” “yes, I do!” And the professor replies, “Be a history major, and we’ll cure that!” Laura, also a Prince Valiant fan |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The resident historian checks in | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 11:14 pm EDT 08/09/20 | |
| In reply to: The resident historian checks in - showtunetrivia 08:10 pm EDT 08/09/20 | |
|
|
|
| Thanks, Laura :-) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The resident historian checks in | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 08:32 pm EDT 08/09/20 | |
| In reply to: The resident historian checks in - showtunetrivia 08:10 pm EDT 08/09/20 | |
|
|
|
| Thanks for this, Laura!! :-) But...are you saying that the knights would not have gone around singing "derry down, derry down" lol? ;-) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: The resident historian checks in | |
| Posted by: showtunetrivia 08:44 pm EDT 08/09/20 | |
| In reply to: re: The resident historian checks in - Chromolume 08:32 pm EDT 08/09/20 | |
|
|
|
| That part I find more believable than a lot of the other stuff! Laura, giggling |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Guinevere - Likable | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 06:59 pm EDT 08/08/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Guinevere - Likable - BroadwayTonyJ 06:53 pm EDT 08/08/20 | |
|
|
|
| Generally a king would not be the one to escort his queen consort to something as mundane as a local fair or cattle show. A queen often had favorites among her husband's knights. It was perfectly acceptable for those of her choice to escort her to such activities. I'm basing this information on all the movies and TV shows I've seen about knighthood, chivalry, crusades, and all that Middle Ages stuff. Good point. But I assume honor/chivalry would still be part of the deal. I do think there's more than a little flirtiness going on between Ms. G and the 3 boys...;-) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Guinevere - Likable | |
| Posted by: BroadwayTonyJ 09:32 am EDT 08/09/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Guinevere - Likable - Chromolume 06:59 pm EDT 08/08/20 | |
|
|
|
| Oh, for sure. No question that Guinevere is playing them. However, I'm also quite sure she just wants the 3 knights to rough Lancelot up a bit (or perhaps a lot) to teach him a lesson. The lyrics she sings are not to be taken literally or seriously, and the knights' responses are merely boasting and bluster. While I love the score, the show's book didn't really work for me in either of the versions I saw on stage. I'm also not particularly fond of the film version. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Guinevere - Likable | |
| Last Edit: Chromolume 02:14 pm EDT 08/08/20 | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 02:13 pm EDT 08/08/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Guinevere - Likable - Michael_Portantiere 01:48 pm EDT 08/08/20 | |
|
|
|
| Just my opinion, but I think that ultimately you're seeing the song so incredibly literally, and I'm not sure it was meant to be taken that way. This is still a "musical comedy," (meant in the "most glorious words" kind of way) even with darker elements, and I think if this were meant to be a much more serious song, we'd hear that tone in the music (which is very playful) let alone the lyrics. To add to that, the answer to the 2nd question (where is the King in all of this) - she's flirting, and the knights are flirting back. It's the lusty month of May, after all. Clearly, the seriousness of being Arthur's husband is something she wrestles with as well, but here I don't think this is all more than fun. And maybe the knights enjoy her insinuations, even if they know that they can't really have her. You know, it's like believing in a town that only comes to life once every hundred years. Not everything has to be literal/serious/heavy, and even as late as Camelot, I think musicals were still exploring a good deal of escapism, which is perfectly legitimate. I'm not saying you don't make good points, but I don't think that the material really stands up to such rigorous analysis. Lerner and Loewe were still writing to entertain their audience, not to provide a scholarly treatise on the myth of King Arthur. Even in Sweeney Todd, isn't the JOY and FUN of "A Little Priest" that neither of them are really thinking of the consequences of what they're proposing? Food for thought, lol? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Guinevere - Likable | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 05:25 pm EDT 08/08/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Guinevere - Likable - Chromolume 02:13 pm EDT 08/08/20 | |
|
|
|
| ***Just my opinion, but I think that ultimately you're seeing the song so incredibly literally, and I'm not sure it was meant to be taken that way. This is still a "musical comedy," (meant in the "most glorious words" kind of way) even with darker elements, and I think if this were meant to be a much more serious song, we'd hear that tone in the music (which is very playful) let alone the lyrics.*** I completely understand your point, and of course I agree that the lyrics of the songs were not meant to be taken seriously. But on a related note, I've always felt that the lighter and darker elements of CAMELOT are very poorly blended, as compared to many other musicals that have both. I think that's a large part of my problem with "Take Me to the Fair." Very shortly after Guenevere and the knights joke about severely injuring or killing Lancelot, one of the knights himself is killed -- but then, the show doesn't even stay consistently dark after that, it occasionally goes back to light humor and whimsy, as in the Morgan le Fey scene (although that's almost always cut nowadays). ***Even in Sweeney Todd, isn't the JOY and FUN of "A Little Priest" that neither of them are really thinking of the consequences of what they're proposing? Food for thought, lol?*** I never quite thought of it that way, and I don't agree that they're "not thinking of the consequences of what they're proposing" -- especially since they ACTUALLY START DOING IT very soon thereafter. I think the joy and fun of that song is that somehow, brilliantly, Sondheim (and the performers) are making us laugh fully and unreservedly along with a song about how the two characters are going to take dead bodies of people and grind them up into meat pies. But also, I think an audience's feelings about Sweeney and Mrs. Lovett are meant to be very different from their feelings about Guenevere. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Guinevere - Likable | |
| Last Edit: Chromolume 07:05 pm EDT 08/08/20 | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 07:04 pm EDT 08/08/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Guinevere - Likable - Michael_Portantiere 05:25 pm EDT 08/08/20 | |
|
|
|
| I don't agree that they're "not thinking of the consequences of what they're proposing" -- especially since they ACTUALLY START DOING IT very soon thereafter. That's the action, not the consequences. I don't think it *really* dawns on Mrs. Lovett what they're really getting away with until it's clear that Toby has figured it out. (Obviously she knows, but she isn't really taking it seriously until then,) And of course Todd doesn't get his "epiphany" (so to speak) until he finds his wife dead, and it's too late to revive her. And of course, that Lovett was hiding Lucy's identity from him. For Todd, especially, the consequences aren't that people will die, it's that someone he loves will die. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Guinevere - Likable | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 09:54 am EDT 08/10/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Guinevere - Likable - Chromolume 07:04 pm EDT 08/08/20 | |
|
|
|
| ***That's the action, not the consequences. I don't think it *really* dawns on Mrs. Lovett what they're really getting away with until it's clear that Toby has figured it out. (Obviously she knows, but she isn't really taking it seriously until then,) And of course Todd doesn't get his "epiphany" (so to speak) until he finds his wife dead, and it's too late to revive her. And of course, that Lovett was hiding Lucy's identity from him. For Todd, especially, the consequences aren't that people will die, it's that someone he loves will die.*** I agree with most of that, but I was addressing the audience's reaction to Todd and Mrs. Lovett, and to "A Little Priest" in particular, not the characters' own awareness of the full meaning and possible consequences of their actions. By the way, it strikes me that one of the reasons why the audience is able to laugh along with Sweeney and Mrs. L.'s plan to take the bodies of the people he's going to kill and grind them into meat pies is because, at that point, the only person we have seen Todd kill is Pirelli, who has been revealed as a despicable con artist and who then tries to blackmail Todd. And then, for most of Act II, the only people we see die are nameless characters who have no lines and with whom the audience has established no relationship -- until, of course, he murders the judge, who is the primary villain of the piece. And THEN, of course, he kills one more person after that, and tries to kill another.... P.S. I would say Todd has two epiphanies, perhaps. The first comes during the song titled "Epiphany," when it suddenly hits him that EVERYONE in the world deserves to die -- either because they are wicked or, if not, the victims of wickedness who should be put out of their misery. And yes, maybe there's a second epiphany, of a very different sort, when Todd realizes what he has done with his last murder, and this causes him to finally realize that "to seek revenge may lead to hell." |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Guinevere - Likable | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 04:51 pm EDT 08/10/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Guinevere - Likable - Michael_Portantiere 09:54 am EDT 08/10/20 | |
|
|
|
| And yes, maybe there's a second epiphany, of a very different sort, when Todd realizes what he has done with his last murder, and this causes him to finally realize that "to seek revenge may lead to hell." I unfortunately never got to see Len Cariou do the role, but I've been told that when Tobias went to slit his throat, he actually lifted his head a bit as if to welcome death, tacitly acknowledging his guilt. (And of course there was originally a lyric in "Epiphany" that was changed - "We all deserve to die / Even you, Mrs. Lovett, even I." Maybe too much foreshadowing?) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Guinevere - Likable | |
| Posted by: larry13 08:26 pm EDT 08/10/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Guinevere - Likable - Chromolume 04:51 pm EDT 08/10/20 | |
|
|
|
| I wasn't aware the lyric was changed. Do you know when or anything more about what it was changed to? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Guinevere - Likable | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 09:26 pm EDT 08/10/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Guinevere - Likable - larry13 08:26 pm EDT 08/10/20 | |
|
|
|
| I'm almost certain that the lyrics in "Epiphany" were changed FROM a repeat of "Tell you why, Mrs. Lovett, tell you why" TO "Even you, Mrs. Lovett, even I." The former version is on the original cast album, and I believe I've heard the latter in every production since then. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Guinevere - Likable | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 11:29 pm EDT 08/10/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Guinevere - Likable - Michael_Portantiere 09:26 pm EDT 08/10/20 | |
|
|
|
| I think you may be right after all. I was sure it was the other way around, but looking back at some sources now, it does seem that the repeat came first. Thanks for the correction. ;-) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Guinevere - Likable | |
| Posted by: larry13 09:43 pm EDT 08/10/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Guinevere - Likable - Michael_Portantiere 09:26 pm EDT 08/10/20 | |
|
|
|
| Thank you. I'm not able to access my OBC recording as quickly as I can FINISHING THE HAT. There on p. 355 are BOTH the lyrics you cite, in the order you cite, separated by several other lines of the song. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Guinevere - Likable | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 11:59 pm EDT 08/10/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Guinevere - Likable - larry13 09:43 pm EDT 08/10/20 | |
|
|
|
| Thanks. On the OBC album, there's definitely a repeat of "Tell you why, Mrs. Lovett, tell you why." Every time I hear that, I wonder when the repeat was changed to the other lyrics. I don't remember for sure what's in the tour video with Hearn and Lansbury, will have to check :-) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Guinevere - Likable | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 12:48 am EDT 08/11/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Guinevere - Likable - Michael_Portantiere 11:59 pm EDT 08/10/20 | |
|
|
|
| In the manuscript conductor's score, the lyric was changed to "even you/even I." But the copyists' marks on the first page date the score of that song to 2 months after the opening. So it may have happened then? (That was part of my mistake - I always thought that score had existed earlier - but seeing that date change made me think.) Usually such a change would be marked with a revision date, but there's no such indication in this score. The original *published* version of the script has the repeat of "tell you why" - I don't know if that was changed in subsequent printings. There is a youtube performance with Cariou (which I had actually never known about, and will now have to watch) and he does repeat "Tell you why" in that. I haven't checked the Hearn video. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Guinevere - Likable | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 11:03 am EDT 08/11/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Guinevere - Likable - Chromolume 12:48 am EDT 08/11/20 | |
|
|
|
| Hi, I just checked the video, and Hearn sings the "tell you why" repeat. | |
| Link | SWEENEY TODD, "Epiphany" -- George Hearn |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: Guinevere - Likable | |
| Posted by: showtunetrivia 06:36 pm EDT 08/07/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Guinevere - Likable - Chromolume 02:48 pm EDT 08/07/20 | |
|
|
|
| I agree. The scenes before this number have Lance being an insufferable prig. He outright says he’s perfect—physically, that is. He’s still working on the spiritual side (which is s nice bit, if you take it with his later admission that he loved Guenevere almost from the first moment they met, so he’s struggling with it even as he says that). She jibes back about working on his humility. So I think she’s not genuinely hoping he’s going to be sliced up (though his fellow knights might be), she wants him taken down a whole bunch of pegs. He’s egotistical, annoying, and he’s taken Arthur’s attention from her. There’s even one little passage where he says the medieval equivalent of “Oh, sire, let’s discuss this elsewhere, it’s not a matter for the little woman.” And it’s already established (in scene three, which I discuss below) that the King and Queen do work together. She’s got reasons to dislike him. It’s the deadly joust that rocks her to her core. The writer in me does want to raise a glass to AJL for one lovely bit of work I noticed while going through the libretto today. At the end of their first scene, she asks Arthur what would have happened if the arranged marriage didn’t come off. He says there would likely be a war. She, echoing the sentiments of her song, replies, “A war? How marvelous!” Scene Three is a few years later, and they are obviously a happy married couple. Arthur, with her help, comes up with the Round Table, etc. At the end of the scene, Arthur wonders if this will work, and admits “It’s folly...it’s infantile...” She interjects, “It’s marvelous!” So in our first two major scenes with Guenevere, she has progressed in three years with Arthur from thinking a war fought over her would be “marvelous” to thinking her spouse’s daring new plan to eliminate war and use “might for right” would be “marvelous.” That, ladies and gentlemen, is a skilled writer at work. Laura |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Guinevere - Likable | |
| Posted by: Billhaven 03:02 pm EDT 08/06/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Guinevere - Likable - Chromolume 02:49 pm EDT 08/06/20 | |
|
|
|
| Exactly. Her character has an arc. She is a young, impressionable girl who wants drama and romance. She gets both but has to mature along the way. Also, having Julie Andrews originate the part already gives her character likability. She has the audience's fresh memory of Eliza and Cinderella (and Carol and Julie at Carnegie Hall, for that matter). She was America's British sweetheart. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Guinevere - Likable | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 01:53 pm EDT 08/06/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Guinevere - Likable - lordofspeech 12:51 pm EDT 08/06/20 | |
|
|
|
| Although I do disagree about the show in general and Guenevere's character in particular, you support your opinions very well. By the way, I think one important thing to keep in mind is that, in the original stage version of the the show, at least, I believe we are supposed to think that Guenevere and Lancelot never sexually consummate their relationship, out of respect for Arthur. This was not the case in the movie, where during "If Ever I Would Leave You" we see a montage of scenes that make it clear they have begun a sexual relationship (without actually showing it, of course, as this was a musical film released by a major studio in 1967). And in the pared-down version of the show that has been staged in several places in recent years, and which I saw at the Two River Theater in NJ, there was at the end of Act I a scene of partial nudity that showed us the two characters have become sexually involved. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Guinevere - Likable | |
| Last Edit: lordofspeech 07:43 pm EDT 08/06/20 | |
| Posted by: lordofspeech 07:28 pm EDT 08/06/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Guinevere - Likable - Michael_Portantiere 01:53 pm EDT 08/06/20 | |
|
|
|
| Yes. Yes. I could (and have) gone on and on about what Julie Andrews’ first autobiography says about the creators’ decision to keep the Lancelot-Guenevere relationship chaste. I even said so somewhere below. I think she and they are correct. I think it weakens the storyline and the character if she lacks a moral integrity to match Arthur’s (as in the film and the Two-Rivers revisal). TH White was determined to de-mythologize all of them, but particularly Guenevere. He created her with black hair and a very passionate, selfish temperament. And in The Mists of Avalon, Guenevere is very complexly ignoble. But, in this show, she’s better than that. And the show becomes about the vision of the Round Table, which she too embraces. It’s for all three of them. And look at what is said in I LOVED YOU ONCE IN SILENCE so late in the play. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Guinevere - Likable | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 01:38 pm EDT 08/07/20 | |
| In reply to: re: Guinevere - Likable - lordofspeech 07:28 pm EDT 08/06/20 | |
|
|
|
| "I think it weakens the storyline and the character if she lacks a moral integrity to match Arthur’s." I completely agree, but one of my problems with the character of Guenevere as written in the musical is that her transition from 1) a terribly immature and selfish young woman who wishes to have people go to war over her and goads three knights to injure or kill Lancelot in the jousts, to 2) a mature woman of moral integrity, is just too sudden. We're supposed to think all of this happens in an instant, when Guenevere sees Lancelot apparently bring Sir Lionel back from the dead after he's killed in the jousts. Now, admittedly, seeing something like that happen would be likely to have a huge effect on all spectators, but it still seems too facile a way to completely transform all aspects of Guenevere's personality all of a sudden. And I just wish the character didn't seem quite so incredibly selfish and, as someone else phrased it, even bloodthirsty as she does in "The Simple Joys of Maidenhood" and "Take Me to the Fair." |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| On a related note, thoughts/questions about the lyrics of two songs in CAMELOT | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 11:57 am EDT 08/05/20 | |
| In reply to: CAMELOT - AnObserver 10:55 am EDT 08/04/20 | |
|
|
|
| 1) When, in the title song, Arthur sings "those are the legal laws".....what are we to make of that? Is it conceivable that Lerner didn't realize what a glaring redundancy that is? The only other explanation would be that Arthur is trying to be clever and humorous with an intentional redundancy, but I for one don't find it clever or humorous. 2) Why do we suppose that Lerner changed the compelling lyrics "Oh, they found Guenevere with her bold cavalier..." to the prosaic, dull "Out the room, down the hall, through the yard, to the wall....?" |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: On a related note, thoughts/questions about the lyrics of two songs in CAMELOT | |
| Posted by: pagates 10:58 am EDT 08/06/20 | |
| In reply to: On a related note, thoughts/questions about the lyrics of two songs in CAMELOT - Michael_Portantiere 11:57 am EDT 08/05/20 | |
|
|
|
| My thought has always been that Mr. Lerner is making the point that these are "legal" and not "natural" laws in order to allow Arthur to emphasize his importance in the scheme of things in Camelot. All of the laws adduced apply to natural phenomena over which the king in most worlds doesn't have authority. "Regal" would work here to be sure, but the redundancy brings the point more directly to the hearer's attention. I can imagine it slipping by if regal were used. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: On a related note, thoughts/questions about the lyrics of two songs in CAMELOT | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 02:02 pm EDT 08/06/20 | |
| In reply to: re: On a related note, thoughts/questions about the lyrics of two songs in CAMELOT - pagates 10:58 am EDT 08/06/20 | |
|
|
|
| That's an interesting way of looking at it, but "legal laws" is still redundant, even if Arthur's meaning is as you suggest. It should instead be something like "Those are the laws as ordained by royal decree," which I believe is actually how he phrases it in a spoken line right before the song starts. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: On a related note, thoughts/questions about the lyrics of two songs in CAMELOT | |
| Posted by: showtunetrivia 07:17 pm EDT 08/06/20 | |
| In reply to: re: On a related note, thoughts/questions about the lyrics of two songs in CAMELOT - Michael_Portantiere 02:02 pm EDT 08/06/20 | |
|
|
|
| I regard “legal laws” as one of those show tunes that most annoys me. Laura, grumpy and pedantic to the end |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: On a related note, thoughts/questions about the lyrics of two songs in CAMELOT | |
| Last Edit: BroadwayTonyJ 06:13 pm EDT 08/05/20 | |
| Posted by: BroadwayTonyJ 06:12 pm EDT 08/05/20 | |
| In reply to: On a related note, thoughts/questions about the lyrics of two songs in CAMELOT - Michael_Portantiere 11:57 am EDT 08/05/20 | |
|
|
|
| I'm sure the phrase legal laws is intentionally redundant. Lerner is trying to be funny and Arthur is trying to be charming or whimsical. All the things that Arthur lists, e.g., /A law was made a distant moon ago here:/ July and August cannot be too hot/, are obviously not real laws, they are wishes or fantasies. By saying legal laws, he's doubling down on the whimsy. Obviously what is funny is very subjective, but whenever I hear the line, it makes me smile (at least) and sometimes actually laugh. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: On a related note, thoughts/questions about the lyrics of two songs in CAMELOT | |
| Posted by: peter3053 03:06 pm EDT 08/05/20 | |
| In reply to: On a related note, thoughts/questions about the lyrics of two songs in CAMELOT - Michael_Portantiere 11:57 am EDT 08/05/20 | |
|
|
|
| The "legal laws" line definitely has redundancy. He should have written "Those are the regal laws", which would work (to a degree...except that the laws of nature wouldn't have stemmed from the king, except by magic possibly worked at his command). I think the line about the "bold cavalier" was written for the abridged album version, to work as a song out of context; as I recall from the libretto, the onstage version was always "Out the room..." etc. Hope that helps. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: On a related note, thoughts/questions about the lyrics of two songs in CAMELOT | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 03:58 pm EDT 08/05/20 | |
| In reply to: re: On a related note, thoughts/questions about the lyrics of two songs in CAMELOT - peter3053 03:06 pm EDT 08/05/20 | |
|
|
|
| Thanks. I had thought of "regal laws" as an alternative, but as you say, that doesn't really work, either. Anyway, do you think it's possible Lerner didn't realize what a howling redundancy "legal laws" is, or was that an attempt at humor? I guess we'll never know.... And that's very interesting what you wrote about "bold cavalier." The full version of that section of the lyrics in the score and then on the cast album are as follows: "Out the room, down the hall, Through the yard, to the wall, Slashing fiercely, left and right, Lance escaped them and took flight." "Oh, they found Guenevere With her bold cavalier, And as swords rang through the hall, Lance escaped them, one and all." I suppose the latter version is clearer out of context, when heard on a cast album, because in the score version, we're not actually told what he's escaping from. Whatever, I do like the "bold cavalier" version must better. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: On a related note, thoughts/questions about the lyrics of two songs in CAMELOT | |
| Posted by: peter3053 03:11 pm EDT 08/06/20 | |
| In reply to: re: On a related note, thoughts/questions about the lyrics of two songs in CAMELOT - Michael_Portantiere 03:58 pm EDT 08/05/20 | |
|
|
|
| Yes, and the singer on the album who does the "bold cavalier" line is superb! I actually love the tragic scope of "Camelot" and forgive the show for its shortcomings because of it, but the story-telling is somewhat lumpy. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: On a related note, thoughts/questions about the lyrics of two songs in CAMELOT | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 01:58 pm EDT 08/07/20 | |
| In reply to: re: On a related note, thoughts/questions about the lyrics of two songs in CAMELOT - peter3053 03:11 pm EDT 08/06/20 | |
|
|
|
| ***Yes, and the singer on the album who does the "bold cavalier" line is superb!*** That's Bruce Yarnell, most well known for having gone on to be Ethel Merman's leading man in the 1966 Music Theater of Lincoln Center production of ANNIE GET YOUR GUN (and on the great cast recording of that production). |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Who says it doesn't really "work"? | |
| Posted by: KingSpeed 05:24 am EDT 08/05/20 | |
| In reply to: CAMELOT - AnObserver 10:55 am EDT 08/04/20 | |
|
|
|
| I think it's a great show, top to bottom! I Love You Once In Silence.... | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| I agree with you | |
| Last Edit: seeseveryshow 12:04 pm EDT 08/05/20 | |
| Posted by: seeseveryshow 12:02 pm EDT 08/05/20 | |
| In reply to: Who says it doesn't really "work"? - KingSpeed 05:24 am EDT 08/05/20 | |
|
|
|
| It’s a fine show in every respect. I never took any of the criticism seriously. People expected another FAIR LADY and it wasn’t. But it was an intelligent, moving, beautifully written and scored, and stunning looking production. This opinion is based on a 60 year-old recollection of the original production, which I was lucky to see twice. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I agree with you | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 02:17 pm EDT 08/10/20 | |
| In reply to: I agree with you - seeseveryshow 12:02 pm EDT 08/05/20 | |
|
|
|
| "It’s a fine show in every respect. I never took any of the criticism seriously. People expected another FAIR LADY and it wasn’t. But it was an intelligent, moving, beautifully written and scored." It's great that you love it, but ever since the original production, there certainly does seem to have been enough criticism of the show -- especially the book -- that the criticism deserves to be taken seriously, which of course doesn't mean you have to agree with it. Also, do think it's telling that huge cuts and changes continued to be made to the show even after the Broadway opening, not to mention the fact that Lerner himself made some pretty major, further revisions for stage productions as late as 1980 (and also for the screenplay, but I won't count those because I realize a movie is a different animal). |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I agree with you | |
| Posted by: Erik_Haagensen 12:28 pm EDT 08/11/20 | |
| In reply to: re: I agree with you - Michael_Portantiere 02:17 pm EDT 08/10/20 | |
|
|
|
| Lerner's screenplay for CAMELOT is actually somewhat of a return to his initial vision for the piece, which was much darker than what opened on Broadway in 1960. I got a copy of Me'l Dowd's first-day-of-rehearsal script for CAMELOT a number of years back, and when I read it, I was surprised to see scenes from the movie that were not in the Broadway script virtually word for word. And Guenevere and Lancelot definitely slept together on the first day of rehearsal and out of town. There was, of course, new material written for the screen as well. But the screenplay as a whole is more in concert with the first-day-of-rehearsal script than it is with the Broadway version. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I agree with you | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 05:28 pm EDT 08/11/20 | |
| In reply to: re: I agree with you - Erik_Haagensen 12:28 pm EDT 08/11/20 | |
|
|
|
| And Guenevere and Lancelot definitely slept together on the first day of rehearsal They couldn't have waited until tech, at least? ;-) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I agree with you | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 02:04 pm EDT 08/11/20 | |
| In reply to: re: I agree with you - Erik_Haagensen 12:28 pm EDT 08/11/20 | |
|
|
|
| Thanks, Erik, that's really interesting information. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: CAMELOT | |
| Posted by: Glamourboy 06:22 pm EDT 08/04/20 | |
| In reply to: CAMELOT - AnObserver 10:55 am EDT 08/04/20 | |
|
|
|
| Rather than pairing it down, I'd love to see a version that allows all of the story and the grandeur...performed over two evenings, in the vein of many epic plays recently. I think the problem is that they tried to fit a long story into a short musical. With Game of Thrones being so popular, I wonder if someone should take a shot at going all out and finally doing a definitive Camelot. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: CAMELOT | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 11:15 am EDT 08/05/20 | |
| In reply to: re: CAMELOT - Glamourboy 06:22 pm EDT 08/04/20 | |
|
|
|
| "Rather than pairing it down, I'd love to see a version that allows all of the story and the grandeur...performed over two evenings, in the vein of many epic plays recently." If the book of the musical had been written differently, I'd agree with you. But I would say the most poorly written parts of the book, most of which were cut for the pared-down version, certainly don't amplify the grandeur of the story. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: CAMELOT | |
| Posted by: musicaldirny 10:33 pm EDT 08/04/20 | |
| In reply to: re: CAMELOT - Glamourboy 06:22 pm EDT 08/04/20 | |
|
|
|
| The wonderful production starring Brent Barrett at Paper Mill Playhouse proved that the show, with a running time of almost 3 hours works. The problems people usually refer to are the length, and the fact that Act 1 is a light romantic comedy, and Act 2 is a dark drama. I think audiences have caught up with, and are more accepting of the darkness of the show.. |
|
| Link | Peter Saxe Music |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: CAMELOT | |
| Posted by: JereNYC (JereNYC@aol.com) 10:04 pm EDT 08/04/20 | |
| In reply to: re: CAMELOT - Glamourboy 06:22 pm EDT 08/04/20 | |
|
|
|
| Given that all the original creators are dead, why continue futzing around with CAMELOT? If a new grand extravaganza version of the Camelot myth is wanted, someone should commission new writers to write something completely new to tell that story. I don't think CAMELOT itself will withstand expansion any more than some think it withstands shrinkage. Where would all that extra material actually come from? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: CAMELOT | |
| Last Edit: altonido 12:24 am EDT 08/05/20 | |
| Posted by: altonido 12:21 am EDT 08/05/20 | |
| In reply to: re: CAMELOT - JereNYC 10:04 pm EDT 08/04/20 | |
|
|
|
| "If a new grand extravaganza version of the Camelot myth is wanted, someone should commission new writers to write something completely new to tell that story." Trust Frank Wildhorn to take up the challenge. His musical "Artus-Excalibur" has played Germany, Switzerland, and Korea in the last six years or so. Arthur, Guinevere, Lancelot, Merlin, etc. are all present. |
|
| Link | Artus-Excalibur |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: CAMELOT | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 01:55 am EDT 08/07/20 | |
| In reply to: re: CAMELOT - altonido 12:21 am EDT 08/05/20 | |
|
|
|
| His musical "Artus-Excalibur" He should really have picked one title instead of two. Or at least ditched the hyphen. (On the other hand, I'm sure glad it wasn't "Excalibur!! : The Musical"...) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: CAMELOT | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 05:32 pm EDT 08/04/20 | |
| In reply to: CAMELOT - AnObserver 10:55 am EDT 08/04/20 | |
|
|
|
| Because you didn't mention it, I wonder if you're aware that a drastically condensed and scaled-down version of CAMELOT has played in several places in recent years. I saw a production of it at the Two River Theater in New Jersey, and while it certainly doesn't solve all the problems in the show, it does cut lots of the more extraneous and least well-written portions of the script. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| I loved that Two River production! | |
| Posted by: Amiens 06:43 pm EDT 08/04/20 | |
| In reply to: re: CAMELOT - Michael_Portantiere 05:32 pm EDT 08/04/20 | |
|
|
|
| It was directed by TV's Frasier producer/writer David Lee who has directed a few other great shows for Two River. I can't remember if he was also credited with the cut/edited script. IIRC the cast was cut down to just Arthur, Guenevere, Lancelot, Mordred and three ensemble men, but they all entered as anonymous commedia style players putting up a modest set and pulling well-designed props and costume pieces from trunks. That's probably a description that would admittedly make most people reading this wince but the concept really worked for me and allowed the lush songs, gorgeously performed by those sexy young actors to really soar. The show had none of the formality and pomposity often associated with it. And I'll stress again, the youth of the cast was really engaging and poignant. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: CAMELOT the book problem | |
| Posted by: NewtonUK 02:54 pm EDT 08/04/20 | |
| In reply to: CAMELOT - AnObserver 10:55 am EDT 08/04/20 | |
|
|
|
| When CAMELOT first opened in Toronto, it was over four hours long. Opening night droned on until 12.40 am the next day. Soon after, book writer Alan Jay Lerner was off for three weeks with a bleeding ulcer. He came back, and Moss Hart had a massive heart attack. Hart never returned to the production before its Broadway opening. Lerner took over as director, and Burton was very supportive. They tried to find a director to take over theshow but to no avail. They got the show down to about 3 hours for the Broadway opening. A few months after the opening, when Hart was able to work again, he and Lerner revisisted the show, making various cuts, including two songs: 'Then you may take me to teh fair', and 'Fie on goodness.' So much for 'the show is frozen'. 'Before I gaze at you again' was given to Andrews on the day of teh first of two previews prior to the Broadway opening. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| The four-hour myth | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 03:12 pm EDT 08/04/20 | |
| In reply to: re: CAMELOT the book problem - NewtonUK 02:54 pm EDT 08/04/20 | |
|
|
|
| Despite what Lerner wrote in his memoir, and despite some slightly contradictory reporting even at the time, I'm pretty confident when i say that it was never four hours long. It ran around three-and-a-half hours at the first performance, and that includes the intermission. The list of classic Broadway musicals that ran around three-and-a-half hours at their first performances out of town would include Carousel, The King and I, My Fair Lady and Fiddler on the Roof. (There are myths that the first performance of Carousel ran four or four-and-a-half hours and that the second-act ballet ran something like 50 minutes. Nonsense.) I mention this because three-and-a-half hours was not all that unusual. Show Boat, on the other hand, truly does seem to have run a bit over four hours at its first performance in Washington, D.C. I think part of the reason why the Camelot myth got out there was because the curtain rose significantly late on opening night in Toronto. I'm linking the ovrtur Trivia & History page on the original production. The note at the top discusses this. |
|
| Link | Camelot trivia and history |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: CAMELOT | |
| Last Edit: theatreguy40 01:49 pm EDT 08/04/20 | |
| Posted by: theatreguy40 01:48 pm EDT 08/04/20 | |
| In reply to: CAMELOT - AnObserver 10:55 am EDT 08/04/20 | |
|
|
|
| a lovely score! But the book is very problematic. For me (My 2 cents) -- the "I Want" song for Guenevere ("Simple Joys of Maidenhood") put her in a very bad light. She wants "will kith not kill her kin" over her and for war to waged over her --- all of which makes her very selfish and rather bloodthirsty. True, she is supposed to be very young and therefore immature and eventually she will see the error of her ways... but her opening song does not make her a likeable character for the audience to root for. Also, her attraction to Lancelot does not make her any more likeable - especially since Arthur is a very likeable guy and you wonder why she is "straying" away from him. Plus, once Arthur realizes that Guenevere and Lancelot are betraying him (even intellectually and not physically) you don't care for his lack of action. Again - just my 2 cents... |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: CAMELOT | |
| Posted by: GrumpyMorningBoy 09:33 pm EDT 08/04/20 | |
| In reply to: re: CAMELOT - theatreguy40 01:48 pm EDT 08/04/20 | |
|
|
|
| I agree. But I've always wondered if a successful production of the show elevates everything to real mythic proportions -- say, the way "Lord of the Rings" does -- so that none of the choices feel naturalistic and everything can be dismissed as if it's been kissed by the wrong kind of magic? I haven't read ANY of those books. Not Tennyson, not White, nothin. And so, I never really know: were these stories generally read as parables? Were they intended to be moralistic? Are audiences supposed to relate to these characters, or are we supposed to imagine that they live in an entirely different realm where typical emotional rules don't apply? - GMB |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: CAMELOT | |
| Last Edit: lordofspeech 10:25 pm EDT 08/04/20 | |
| Posted by: lordofspeech 10:18 pm EDT 08/04/20 | |
| In reply to: re: CAMELOT - GrumpyMorningBoy 09:33 pm EDT 08/04/20 | |
|
|
|
| I’ve never had much of a problem with the show. I maybe just love it too too much. The Pellinore stuff has to be cast right. Not sure who would be right. Someone truly balmy, an anachronistic eccentric, perhaps an Eddie Izzard. His bits can’t be the annoying intrusion they sometimes seem. Of course Jason O’Connell could do it. Maybe Jay O Saunders or Michael McKean. There are still some gorgeous character actors. George Hearn? Ed Dixon? But they’d have to be able to be really funny, not just a proper idea of what’s funny. Julie Andrews made an interesting point in her first autobiography that the romance with Lance cannot be consummated until after the rescue. Otherwise she’d be just too lightweight a character. She needs to have the same noble mettle as Arthur and the same conflict. (Curiously, her romanticism in “Simple Joys of Maidenhood” need not detract from that.). This is a change from the source novel (in which she’s an all-too-human brat) and from where Josh Logan and the hyper-sensual Redgrave took the character in the film (wherein Redgrave was so mesmerizing alive and beautiful and sexy that the centrality of Arthur and the Roundtable was completely, catastrophically upstaged). Anyway, I think a director with the right two leads could make the whole thing work. But Guenevere has to have heroic scale as well as winsome humor. If she’s simply an attractive, terribly young queen (as she was in the version whose Arthur was played beautifully by Robert Sean Leonard, at Westport), the play cannot work. I think Pellinore doubling as Merlin is a good idea. And, though I liked the cutting down of the Robert Sean Leonard version, you need at least two ladies in waiting (one of whom could play Morgan LeFay...why not?) But it you can’t find the right Arthur and Guenevere, don’t do it. It seems to me that Malcolm Getz and Melissa Errico would be a fine pair. And, for nobility, Audra McDonald seems the perfect Guenevere. With Robert Sean Leonard. That’s a beautiful match. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: CAMELOT | |
| Last Edit: Chromolume 02:02 am EDT 08/07/20 | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 01:53 am EDT 08/07/20 | |
| In reply to: re: CAMELOT - lordofspeech 10:18 pm EDT 08/04/20 | |
|
|
|
| I've seen that done. But Pellinore (or, cloyingly, "Pelly") was still this annoying, twee, boring nebbish with a dog. What I've never ever understood is why Arthur would want to hang around with this bore. (Also, though the director was a good friend of mine and I thought much of her work on the show was very good, I still was made to have the impression that Merlin became Pellinore, which I don't think works.) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: CAMELOT | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 02:04 pm EDT 08/07/20 | |
| In reply to: re: CAMELOT - Chromolume 01:53 am EDT 08/07/20 | |
|
|
|
| I think Pellinore is completely unwatchable and unplayable as a character, regardless of the talents of whoever is cast in the role. As for Merlin, even that role is not well written, for what little he's given to do, exiting about 15 or 20 minutes into the show and never being heard from again. Except -- we do hear from him again when Arthur quotes him, and the quote is such a horribly misogynistic Alan Jay Lernerism that it makes us hate Merlin retroactively: "Merlin told me once, never be too concerned if you don't know what a woman is thinking, they don't to it often." I really don't expect to hear that line retained in any future productions of CAMELOT! |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: CAMELOT | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 02:56 pm EDT 08/07/20 | |
| In reply to: re: CAMELOT - Michael_Portantiere 02:04 pm EDT 08/07/20 | |
|
|
|
| I forgot about that line. Yeah. that doesn't play at all anymore, even if Lerner meant (or hoped) that it would be taken with a bit of humor (no matter his own personal views on women). Is Pellinore actually supposed to be a stand-in for Pickering? The idea that the lead *needs* a sidekick of sorts? (Even Tommy has Jeff, though Jeff - and Pickering - are much more interesting characters.) Maybe they were wrong in assuming Arthur needed that. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: CAMELOT | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 12:55 am EDT 08/08/20 | |
| In reply to: re: CAMELOT - Chromolume 02:56 pm EDT 08/07/20 | |
|
|
|
| "Is Pellinore actually supposed to be a stand-in for Pickering? The idea that the lead *needs* a sidekick of sorts? " I suppose that might have been what they were thinking -- especially if we consider that the same actor originated both roles :-) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: CAMELOT | |
| Posted by: Erik_Haagensen 03:38 pm EDT 08/07/20 | |
| In reply to: re: CAMELOT - Chromolume 02:56 pm EDT 08/07/20 | |
|
|
|
| Lerner rewrote that line for the 1980 revival. He tried several variants and ultimately replaced it with "But no matter. Merlyn said to me once, 'Never ask a woman what she is thinking. She may tell you.' But what do you do while you’re wondering?" | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: CAMELOT | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 01:50 pm EDT 08/08/20 | |
| In reply to: re: CAMELOT - Erik_Haagensen 03:38 pm EDT 08/07/20 | |
|
|
|
| Thank you, Erik. I did see the 1980 revival with Burton, but I didn't remember that the line in question had been rewritten. I can certainly understand why it was :-) | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: CAMELOT | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 11:29 am EDT 08/05/20 | |
| In reply to: re: CAMELOT - lordofspeech 10:18 pm EDT 08/04/20 | |
|
|
|
| "Guenevere has to have heroic scale as well as winsome humor." I agree, but I don't think it's possible for anyone to play her that way with the lines and songs originally written by Lerner. Would you say that Guenevere is being winsomely humorous when she wishes that she could "cause a little war," or when she goads the knights to maim or kill Lancelot in the jousts? Lyrics like that belong to a comic character villain in a fully comic musical -- like the character Morgan le Fay (speaking of CAMELOT!) in A CONNECTICUT YANKEE, who sings "To Keep My Love Alive." |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: CAMELOT | |
| Posted by: StageDoorJohnny 03:06 am EDT 08/05/20 | |
| In reply to: re: CAMELOT - lordofspeech 10:18 pm EDT 08/04/20 | |
|
|
|
| I've always wanted to see the doubling of Merlyn and Mordred -- the Yin and Yang of Arthur's story. I've also got an idea how to add to the magic, with adding to the playing time -- hope I get to try it someday! | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: CAMELOT | |
| Posted by: Snowysdad 01:20 pm EDT 08/04/20 | |
| In reply to: CAMELOT - AnObserver 10:55 am EDT 08/04/20 | |
|
|
|
| Why doesn't it work? The book? 1. The score: a mixed bag, some really lovely songs(The title tune, Before I gaze at You Again, I Loved You Once in Silence, How to Handle a Woman) mixed in with some that are second rate (Entry songs for both Arthur and Guinevere, The Seven Deadly Virtues, Fie on Goodness). 2. The book: It does not keep its eye on the arc from where the story starts to where it ends for catharsis, and therefore meanders losing focus. Also most of the secondary characters beyond the principal trio are never adequately fleshed out giving them life. I have never had a clue who Mordrid and Pellinore are in relationship to the lead characters, and that's just an example. 3. The brilliance of T.H. White's novel is its scope, the epic story it tells and the musical just can't reduce it enough to engage. Much the same problem as trying to make Gone with the Wind into a musical. My Fair Lady it ain't! |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: CAMELOT "lovely Songs" | |
| Posted by: claploudly 04:01 pm EDT 08/04/20 | |
| In reply to: re: CAMELOT - Snowysdad 01:20 pm EDT 08/04/20 | |
|
|
|
| But you don't even include one of Broadway's most famous and lovely songs "If Ever I Would Leave You"? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: CAMELOT "lovely Songs" | |
| Posted by: Snowysdad 10:53 pm EDT 08/04/20 | |
| In reply to: re: CAMELOT "lovely Songs" - claploudly 04:01 pm EDT 08/04/20 | |
|
|
|
| You are right......................MY VERY BAD!! | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: CAMELOT "lovely Songs" | |
| Posted by: AnObserver 04:05 pm EDT 08/04/20 | |
| In reply to: re: CAMELOT "lovely Songs" - claploudly 04:01 pm EDT 08/04/20 | |
|
|
|
| And "If Ever I Would Leave You' won Best Song at the Golden Globes! Ha! Shows how not on top of things that organization was then. See link. | |
| Link | https://www.goldenglobes.com/film/camelot |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: CAMELOT "lovely Songs" | |
| Last Edit: WaymanWong 03:50 am EDT 08/05/20 | |
| Posted by: WaymanWong 03:48 am EDT 08/05/20 | |
| In reply to: re: CAMELOT "lovely Songs" - AnObserver 04:05 pm EDT 08/04/20 | |
|
|
|
| The Golden Globes apparently had different criteria than the Oscars. The Globes also gave an award to Loewe for Original Score. However, at the Oscars, when ''Camelot'' won Original Song or Adaptation Score, the prize went to Alfred Newman and Ken Darby. P.S. As much as I love the title tune and ''If Ever I Would Leave You,'' my favorite underrated gem here is ''Before I Gaze at You Again.'' |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: CAMELOT "lovely Songs" | |
| Posted by: keikekaze 04:45 pm EDT 08/04/20 | |
| In reply to: re: CAMELOT "lovely Songs" - AnObserver 04:05 pm EDT 08/04/20 | |
|
|
|
| Actually, the best song in Camelot, if you add melodic appeal and thematic importance together, is "Follow Me." It's the only one that gives me the feeling that I've enetered a semi-mythical, semi-legendary time and place where something magical might actually happen. But the fact thet we've now mentioned some half-dozen songs from Camelot that are wonderful tells us that the score is not the problem. (In a Broadway musical, it almost never is.) The problem is that there is simply too much going on in the four volumes of The Once and Future King to make complete sense out of in one evening. Given the time constraints, many important plot or character elements have to be skipped or slighted. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| "Follow Me" versus "I Loved You Once in Silence" | |
| Posted by: GrumpyMorningBoy 09:28 pm EDT 08/04/20 | |
| In reply to: re: CAMELOT "lovely Songs" - keikekaze 04:45 pm EDT 08/04/20 | |
|
|
|
| I'm a bit lucky, in that I listened to / grew fond of CAMELOT when I was still awfully young, and too young to appreciate what made for a good musical versus an almost good one. And such, that score has a lot of affection in my mind. And I have to agree that "Follow Me" is the true gem of the composition. It's the melody that most often just sneaks into my head. But in terms of the match of song to lyric, "I Loved You Once in Silence" really is top-drawer Lerner & Loewe. Those chromatics lend so much regret to the longing, especially the third note on a phrase like "and now there's twice as much grief..." Just really, really nice. Those boys could really write a song. - GMB |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: "Follow Me" versus "I Loved You Once in Silence" | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 10:48 am EDT 08/05/20 | |
| In reply to: "Follow Me" versus "I Loved You Once in Silence" - GrumpyMorningBoy 09:28 pm EDT 08/04/20 | |
|
|
|
| "I'm a bit lucky, in that I listened to / grew fond of CAMELOT when I was still awfully young, and too young to appreciate what made for a good musical versus an almost good one". I know exactly what you mean. But also, I do think that the score of the show is FAR superior overall to the book, so if we're talking mostly about listening to the cast album, that would partly explain our very positive reaction. We didn't have to endure all those pages and pages of mostly bad dialogue. Plus, I would say that even the flaws in the score itself -- or rather specifically in Lerner's lyrics, because I think the music is great throughout -- don't matter quite so much out of context. For example, Guenevere's immaturity, selfishness, and her lack of comprehension of the realities of war, violence, which we've discussed elsewhere in this thread. Re "Follow Me" and "I Loved You Once in Silence": I'm not a fan of the movie of CAMELOT, but I do think they did a nice job with the arrangements, orchestration, and performance of those songs. In particular, the film arrangement of "Follow Me" for a chorus including children is quite beautiful. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: "Follow Me" versus "I Loved You Once in Silence" | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 10:39 pm EDT 08/04/20 | |
| In reply to: "Follow Me" versus "I Loved You Once in Silence" - GrumpyMorningBoy 09:28 pm EDT 08/04/20 | |
|
|
|
| I have to agree about "I Loved You Once In Silence" - brilliant song, in terms of both music and lyrics. I also really love "Fie On Goodness," which Snowysdad finds "second rate." The newly scaled-down version of the show that was mentioned earlier does restore that song and also "Then You May Take Me To The Fair," which both are very welcome. (Though it should be said that "Follow Me," along with all the magical/fantastical elements of the original plot, goes missing.) |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: "Follow Me" versus "I Loved You Once in Silence" | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 10:51 am EDT 08/05/20 | |
| In reply to: re: "Follow Me" versus "I Loved You Once in Silence" - Chromolume 10:39 pm EDT 08/04/20 | |
|
|
|
| ***I also really love "Fie On Goodness," which Snowysdad finds "second rate." The newly scaled-down version of the show that was mentioned earlier does restore that song and also "Then You May Take Me To The Fair," which both are very welcome.*** I liked the restoration of "Fie on Goodness," but I wish they had left out "Then You May Take Me to the Fair," for reasons I've mentioned elsewhere in this thread. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: CAMELOT "lovely Songs" | |
| Posted by: Michael_Portantiere 05:28 pm EDT 08/04/20 | |
| In reply to: re: CAMELOT "lovely Songs" - keikekaze 04:45 pm EDT 08/04/20 | |
|
|
|
| "The problem is that there is simply too much going on in the four volumes of The Once and Future King to make complete sense out of in one evening." Agreed, but I think the main problem is the wildly shifting tone of Lerner's book for the musical, not so much the amount of territory it tries to cover. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: CAMELOT "lovely Songs" | |
| Posted by: keikekaze 06:38 pm EDT 08/04/20 | |
| In reply to: re: CAMELOT "lovely Songs" - Michael_Portantiere 05:28 pm EDT 08/04/20 | |
|
|
|
| Yes, that too. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: CAMELOT | |
| Posted by: AnObserver 01:26 pm EDT 08/04/20 | |
| In reply to: re: CAMELOT - Snowysdad 01:20 pm EDT 08/04/20 | |
|
|
|
| Well, Mordred is the bastard son who turns out to be the villain of the piece. And Pellinore gives Arthur someone to talk to, like Higgins' friend in My Fair Lady. I forget the character's name. I'm not much of a MFL fan, except for the songs and the original play, of course. But, you're right, it's easier to fit into a stage musical. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Colonel Pickering | |
| Last Edit: TheOtherOne 04:42 am EDT 08/05/20 | |
| Posted by: TheOtherOne 04:42 am EDT 08/05/20 | |
| In reply to: re: CAMELOT - AnObserver 01:26 pm EDT 08/04/20 | |
|
|
|
| "And Pellinore gives Arthur someone to talk to, like Higgins' friend in My Fair Lady. I forget the character's name." | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: CAMELOT | |
| Posted by: StageLover 11:19 am EDT 08/04/20 | |
| In reply to: CAMELOT - AnObserver 10:55 am EDT 08/04/20 | |
|
|
|
| The Book did it....it's endless. A pared-down version was well-received in LA about 10 years ago... |
|
| Link | https://variety.com/2010/legit/reviews/camelot-1117941893/ |
| reply to this message | reply to first message | |
| re: CAMELOT | |
| Posted by: Billhaven 02:15 pm EDT 08/04/20 | |
| In reply to: re: CAMELOT - StageLover 11:19 am EDT 08/04/20 | |
|
|
|
| I saw this paired down version at Westport a few years ago with Robert Sean Leonard as Arthur. It not only reduces the story into a fairly routine love triangle, it reduces the scope of the theme. There is no Court or promise of a new enlightened society that the Round Table encompasses. There aren't even any other women besides Guenevere (which makes Lusty Month of May a bit spare and creepy). With no pageantry, magic or grandeur you are left with the soap opera story. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.386413 seconds.