Threaded Order Chronological Order
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
Time to render: 0.026513 seconds.