| re: One difference from Once and Future King that no one is mentioning | |
| Posted by: AlanScott 05:12 pm EST 12/08/22 | |
| In reply to: re: One difference from Once and Future King that no one is mentioning - Delvino 09:19 am EST 12/08/22 | |
|
|
|
| I think we see the kind of thing you describe with Arthur all over the place in musicals. Look at how little Julie Jordan sings at all. Sweeney has no solo in act two until the final reprise of "The Barber and His Wife." Of course, there are differences in various ways, but it's amazing how little leads in some musicals sing, especially in act two. Nellie's last big solo is "Honey Bun." King Mongkut gets only one solo in the entire show. Even "Song of the King" includes Anna. Look at how little even Billy Bigelow gets in act two of Carousel. We can also look at Fiona in act two of Brigadoon. Anyway, obviously I can go on and on with examples. Musicals have their weird lack of rules when it comes to what to musicalize. Having said all that, obviously I agree that the choices they made don't altogether work, and that no rewrite can solve a show if the score is at fault in the ways that the Camelot score is at fault, but I'm not sure that Arthur necessarily needs more to sing in act two, although the right additional song (one not too on the money) might have helped. I really think that if Lancelot had been written differently, we'd have a much better show. But it also may be that the original material is just too much to cover in three hours, and the losses attendant upon the cutting down of complexities was impossible to overcome. I will, however, always defend Pellinore. While his humor is tiresome, and perhaps less of him would be an improvement, Arthur needs a confidant. Not that you brought him up, but people are always saying he should be cut. I think "The Persuasion" is still part of the licensed materials, although more than one version of the show may be officially offered now. I think the biggest problem with Logan's take is that he just wasn't a very good movie director. Some have complained about the design, but I think the design, along with Redgrave, is one of the saving graces. Well, perhaps not the strange disjunction between the initial stylized design and then the design that seems, to me at least, a more plausibly realistic look both in sets and costumes than had been seen in various famous earlier films set in similar times and places. I wonder a bit if, like Lindsay Anderson, Logan was very taken with Harris (I can't especially figure out why someone would have been), and that is why he let him give that performance, or if that was the performance Logan wanted. Watching it recently, it seemed to me like Harris felt he had to find ways to justify Arthur's inactions, and so he indicates indecision and insecurity all over the place in his line and lyric readings from the very start. It just reads as bad, overdone, fussy acting. Because that is what it was. Arthur was so different from the role in This Sporting Life that had put him on the map, and he seems to work overtime at being so different. And too many poor camera setups, too much jumpy cutting. All of it manages to nearly completely counteract the film's real strengths in some areas. Of course, the basic material is probably the biggest problem. And in the second half, sections of it go so long without songs that it starts to feel like a drama with occasional songs rather than a musical. |
|
| reply | |
|
|
|
| Previous: | re: One difference from Once and Future King that no one is mentioning - Delvino 09:19 am EST 12/08/22 |
| Next: | re: One difference from Once and Future King that no one is mentioning - showtunetrivia 05:32 pm EST 12/06/22 |
| Thread: | |
Time to render: 0.010484 seconds.