Threaded Order Chronological Order
| 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 |
| 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 |
Time to render: 0.161032 seconds.