Threaded Order Chronological Order
| Sat Matinee "Camelot" | |
| Posted by: stan 08:42 pm EDT 04/01/23 | |
|
|
|
| Would have made a fairly good Encores show -- but this one was dudsville. When I was about 14, I saw the Burton, Andrews, Goulet production -- standing room -- I knew it got fairly poor reviews, but thought it was great. I was a real fan of the Knights of the Round Table and the King Arthur legends. Burton played the King as a depressive -- an older and wiser gentleman -- dealing with a captivating, young, Guinevere who could sing beautifully, and a slightly fey Goulet, trying to be manly. Today I saw a nicely spoken English guy (probably would have been better as Prince Hal), a very manly Lancelot, and a weak heroine (under voiced). Never did I think I was in a chivalrous court -- Arthur had to tell us he was at the end of the Middle Ages (how the hell did he know that when his presence was in the 8th or 9th Century) -- except for a very silly (but played seriously) Morgan le Fey, who called herself a scientist (before the 18th Century you did not have Scientists -- philosophers who described nature (no experiments, yet) and alchemists and physicians -- never scientists) who predicts the discoveries of the 19th century -- and why did they all know Voltaire?? who was the fact checker? I was mildly engaged and loved the sword fights, but my more skeptical wife was chafing to leave. There should have been more comedy with Mordred (Roddy McDowell was a hoot). I'll skip the choreography which could have been done by any HS cheerleader. Robert Coote was a terrific Pellinore in the orginal, and today's guy was OK. Oh well. | |
| reply to this message |
| re: Aaron Sorkin had no respect for Harper Lee' why would he for Alan Jay Lerner and TH White? | |
| Posted by: NewtonUK 10:51 am EDT 04/02/23 | |
| In reply to: Sat Matinee "Camelot" - stan 08:42 pm EDT 04/01/23 | |
|
|
|
| He rewrites as his political/social beliefs lead him, with no concern every about what an author may intend or write,. And every author he 'improves; is a better author than he is. End of rant-let. | |
| reply to this message |
| re: Aaron Sorkin had no respect for Harper Lee' why would he for Alan Jay Lerner and TH White? | |
| Last Edit: singleticket 10:44 pm EDT 04/02/23 | |
| Posted by: singleticket 10:43 pm EDT 04/02/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Aaron Sorkin had no respect for Harper Lee' why would he for Alan Jay Lerner and TH White? - NewtonUK 10:51 am EDT 04/02/23 | |
|
|
|
| I haven't seen enough of Sorkin's work to agree completely but what I have seen has made me try to avoid it. I also saw only one act of the current Camelot revival and I've read in other posts that people like what he did with the second act. But I found the first one hundred minutes to be like Disney for adults in that we must have our beliefs confirmed to us over and over again like liturgy or else possibly lose the culture war. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Aaron Sorkin had no respect for Harper Lee' why would he for Alan Jay Lerner and TH White? | |
| Posted by: ryhog 09:59 pm EDT 04/02/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Aaron Sorkin had no respect for Harper Lee' why would he for Alan Jay Lerner and TH White? - NewtonUK 10:51 am EDT 04/02/23 | |
|
|
|
| and every author's chosen literary steward signed off on every word of it. But of course you imagine that you were bestowed that responsibility. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Aaron Sorkin had no respect for Harper Lee' why would he for Alan Jay Lerner and TH White? | |
| Last Edit: EvFoDr 09:14 am EDT 04/03/23 | |
| Posted by: EvFoDr 09:14 am EDT 04/03/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Aaron Sorkin had no respect for Harper Lee' why would he for Alan Jay Lerner and TH White? - ryhog 09:59 pm EDT 04/02/23 | |
|
|
|
| Well actually Harper Lee's estate sued the production because of how much Aaron Sorkin's script deviated from the novel. So it wasn't all roses and lollipops. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Aaron Sorkin had no respect for Harper Lee' why would he for Alan Jay Lerner and TH White? | |
| Last Edit: Singapore/Fling 10:40 am EDT 04/03/23 | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 10:38 am EDT 04/03/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Aaron Sorkin had no respect for Harper Lee' why would he for Alan Jay Lerner and TH White? - EvFoDr 09:14 am EDT 04/03/23 | |
|
|
|
| Isn't Harper Lee's estate run by someone that people claim swindled her and stole her money? Or was it that the estate is separate from the guy who now has the rights to that book, and the estate is attached to the old play and he to the new play? I just remember there was a lot of drama pre-Covid. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Aaron Sorkin has always used literary license | |
| Posted by: waterfall 01:37 pm EDT 04/02/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Aaron Sorkin had no respect for Harper Lee' why would he for Alan Jay Lerner and TH White? - NewtonUK 10:51 am EDT 04/02/23 | |
|
|
|
| Sorkin often writes thing that are "wrong", in the interests of a bigger picture. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with his beliefs. Case in point: the finale of Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip featured the producer, alone in his theater. The last thing he does before he leaves is to turn OFF the ghost light. Anyone who has ever worked in a theater knows that you turn ON the ghost light on the way out. Sorkin surely knows this - but 90% of America does not. Given that, turning on the light made more sense. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Aaron Sorkin has always used literary license | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 08:10 pm EDT 04/02/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Aaron Sorkin has always used literary license - waterfall 01:37 pm EDT 04/02/23 | |
|
|
|
| I'm not sure the one case that can be made is that turning the ghost light off made more sense... i think it's kind of lazy, and a good director would also have been able to see turning it on and walking out in a way that felt like an end, in a beautiful way. I don't remember the end of the show, but I bet there is an even better way to end it that makes actual sense in the context of the world the characters are in. Turning off the lights of the writers room, for example, or the work lights of the theater, or unplugging the countdown-to-show clock, whatever it is. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Aaron Sorkin had no respect for Harper Lee' why would he for Alan Jay Lerner and TH White? | |
| Posted by: Amiens 11:50 am EDT 04/02/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Aaron Sorkin had no respect for Harper Lee' why would he for Alan Jay Lerner and TH White? - NewtonUK 10:51 am EDT 04/02/23 | |
|
|
|
| What were the major (or minor) changes Sorkin made to To Kill a Mockingbird? | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Aaron Sorkin had no respect for Harper Lee' why would he for Alan Jay Lerner and TH White? | |
| Posted by: NewtonUK 01:21 pm EDT 04/02/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Aaron Sorkin had no respect for Harper Lee' why would he for Alan Jay Lerner and TH White? - Amiens 11:50 am EDT 04/02/23 | |
|
|
|
| The most glaring change was the character of Calpurnia, who became, in Sorkin's version, very sassy in her relationship with Atticus. And she spoke her mind, always. In 1933-35, when TKAM takes place (and all through the 60s and 70s at least) a black housekeeper who behaved as Sorkin's housekeeper does would have been fired, and become unemployable. Throughout the novel there are examples of Atticus' inherent racism - he talks of fully racist neighbors like Miss Dubose, and makes it clear that her racism does not keep them from being friends - he is also unconcerned about KKK activities in Maycomb County. He is clear that he is defending Tom Robinson because of injustice, not race. Atticus, in the novel, is much more evolved than most f his neighbors on race issues - but they are still a part of his everyday life and experience, and do not trouble him unduly. And Scout, our narrator , is a VERY reliable witness in the novel. At the trial of Tom Robinson, when Tom is being questioned by the Prosecutor, Dill starts sobbing. Jem takes him out of the courthouse and Scout follows. When asked why he was crying, Dill talks about how the prosecutor was talking to Tom Robinson. 'The wat the man called him 'boy' all the time, an sneered at him, an' looked around at the jury every time he answered." Scout replies ... "Well, Dill, after all he's just a Negro." Not even Scout, in Harper Lee's novel, is spared the tinge of the racism that is in every part of life in Alabama in 1933-35. Even more than the movie, Mr Sorking wants Atticus and Scout et al to be outliers - saints in a tainted society. That wasn't Lee's point. Her point was much more about the real Alabama. Even the good people were racists. It was just part of the fabric of life. I know Alabama and many people there - one - a well known writer - came to see TKAMB on Broadway, and left at intermission crying in pain and anger at the whitewashing of Lee's novel by Mr Sorkin. Ms Lee's novel is beautiful hard, and complex. Mr Sokrin's play was like an episode of The West Wing. Nice enhlightened liberals up against horrible people. harper Lee had no interest in stories which are that reductive. If Mr Sorkin had been brave or selfless enough to understand Ms Lee's novel, he would have seen that portraying Atticus and Scout as Lee wrote them would have been much more powerful - reminding us that the systemic, endemic racism in our society is the real danger. But Mr Sorking was just looking for heroes and villains. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Aaron Sorkin had no respect for Harper Lee' why would he for Alan Jay Lerner and TH White? | |
| Posted by: Chazwaza 08:13 pm EDT 04/02/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Aaron Sorkin had no respect for Harper Lee' why would he for Alan Jay Lerner and TH White? - NewtonUK 01:21 pm EDT 04/02/23 | |
|
|
|
| Maintaining civil neighborly friendships with people who exhibit racism is not solely an example of that character BEING racist. Especially in a time when the prevailing default was racism against black people. I really really think you missed the point Lee was making about Atticus if you think him talking to racist neighbors, despite them being racist, was meant to show him as inherently racist himself. But I agree that Sorkin's play is a far cry from the book, and I didn't find it a very good play or a very memorable experience in the theater. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| It’s worth remembering… | |
| Last Edit: MockingbirdGirl 07:26 am EDT 04/02/23 | |
| Posted by: MockingbirdGirl 07:25 am EDT 04/02/23 | |
| In reply to: Sat Matinee "Camelot" - stan 08:42 pm EDT 04/01/23 | |
|
|
|
| … that Camelot is not set in the “historical” Middle Ages, but in the literary one of E.B. White’s imagination. So for instance: Morgan le Fey, who called herself a scientist (before the 18th Century you did not have Scientists -- philosophers who described nature (no experiments, yet) and alchemists and physicians -- never scientists Historically, true. But in The Once and Future King: “Arthur was tired out…. He was like a scientist who had pursued the root of cancer all his life.” (Chapter 14) Indeed, I find that Broadway musicals are generally a poor source of historical accuracy, and rarely worth critiquing of those grounds. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: It’s worth remembering… | |
| Posted by: duckylittledictum 09:09 am EDT 04/02/23 | |
| In reply to: It’s worth remembering… - MockingbirdGirl 07:25 am EDT 04/02/23 | |
|
|
|
| That would be T.H. White. Big difference. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Haha, yup (nm) | |
| Posted by: MockingbirdGirl 09:19 am EDT 04/02/23 | |
| In reply to: re: It’s worth remembering… - duckylittledictum 09:09 am EDT 04/02/23 | |
|
|
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Haha, yup (nm) | |
| Posted by: Robt 12:06 pm EDT 04/02/23 | |
| In reply to: Haha, yup (nm) - MockingbirdGirl 09:19 am EDT 04/02/23 | |
|
|
|
| Also, in the quote you give, White is telling us --from modern day author to modern day reader--Arthur was like a scientist; it was not spoken by one of the characters during the era in which the book was set. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Haha, yup (nm) | |
| Posted by: MockingbirdGirl 01:06 pm EDT 04/02/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Haha, yup (nm) - Robt 12:06 pm EDT 04/02/23 | |
|
|
|
| Oh, please. Have you read the novel? It's deliberately full of anachronisms, both used by the narrator and by the characters themselves (especially Merlyn, who own a complete set of the Encyclopeadia Britannica and references the as-yet-undiscovered island of Bermuda). There are plenty of legitimate reasons to criticize this production. Not being sufficiently historically faithful to the actual Middle Ages is not one of them, since it was never intended to be. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Haha, yup (nm) | |
| Posted by: Robt 04:22 pm EDT 04/02/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Haha, yup (nm) - MockingbirdGirl 01:06 pm EDT 04/02/23 | |
|
|
|
| Yes, I have read the novel--and its individual components in their original versions--many times. White, as author uses anachronisms because he is a 20th century author who wrote his books for a contemporary audience. He was not attempting to write in the voice of someone from any mythic or historic period. The only "in story" anachronisms come from the character Merlyn (as White spells it), because it is explained that he lives backward. So a character in Sorkin's "Camelot" using an anachronistic word like "scientist' is different from White using it in auctorial voice in his novel. That was my point. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| He calls Jenny | |
| Posted by: dramedy 07:58 am EDT 04/02/23 | |
| In reply to: It’s worth remembering… - MockingbirdGirl 07:25 am EDT 04/02/23 | |
|
|
|
| His business partner instead of loving spouse. That went over real week 1200 years ago like it would today. I know he tried to modernize it but these colloquial changes really take one out of the fantasy world of the musical. My friend and I both commented and then I see this post So it must be a common thought for patrons. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Sat Matinee "Camelot" | |
| Last Edit: Chromolume 11:54 pm EDT 04/01/23 | |
| Posted by: Chromolume 11:51 pm EDT 04/01/23 | |
| In reply to: Sat Matinee "Camelot" - stan 08:42 pm EDT 04/01/23 | |
|
|
|
| Robert Coote was a terrific Pellinore in the original Given that Pellinore is clearly supposed to be Pickering The Sequel, I guess that would make sense. But oh, what a boring, ponderous character IMO (as opposed to Pickering). It seems to me that Arthur needs better friends, lol. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| They were taping the show tonight | |
| Posted by: dramedy 11:46 pm EDT 04/01/23 | |
| In reply to: Sat Matinee "Camelot" - stan 08:42 pm EDT 04/01/23 | |
|
|
|
| I doubt it is for archives since it hasn’t opened. Anyone know why taping previews. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: They were taping the show tonight | |
| Posted by: waterfall 12:10 am EDT 04/02/23 | |
| In reply to: They were taping the show tonight - dramedy 11:46 pm EDT 04/01/23 | |
|
|
|
| "I doubt it is for archives since it hasn’t opened. Anyone know why taping previews." They can tape for archives whenever they want, but my guess would be B roll, for ads and such. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: They were taping the show tonight | |
| Posted by: Singapore/Fling 12:54 pm EDT 04/02/23 | |
| In reply to: re: They were taping the show tonight - waterfall 12:10 am EDT 04/02/23 | |
|
|
|
| If we’re talking about in-house archival, many theaters do that during previews, and then pull B-roll from that. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: They were taping the show tonight | |
| Posted by: waterfall 01:08 pm EDT 04/02/23 | |
| In reply to: re: They were taping the show tonight - Singapore/Fling 12:54 pm EDT 04/02/23 | |
|
|
|
| "If we’re talking about in-house archival, many theaters do that during previews, and then pull B-roll from that." Mostly accurate. Lincoln Center is its own thing in this way, particularly where the Vivian Beaumont is considered. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: They were taping the show tonight | |
| Posted by: stan 09:48 am EDT 04/02/23 | |
| In reply to: re: They were taping the show tonight - waterfall 12:10 am EDT 04/02/23 | |
|
|
|
| I won the lottery on the day tickets went on sale, so I was in the 7th Row Right Center (right aisle) -- just behind the subterranean entrance. 12 seats (the camera in my row -- 4 seats, 4 seats in front and 4 seats behind) + two cameras in the center (24 seats) and 12 seats on the mirrored left center section. Looks like more than a rehearsal cam. I could see the sweat on their brows. There was no blockage (which I was pre-concerned about), except bulky knights occasionally stood at the stage corner. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| I doubt chess would have been played in England | |
| Posted by: dramedy 11:32 pm EDT 04/01/23 | |
| In reply to: Sat Matinee "Camelot" - stan 08:42 pm EDT 04/01/23 | |
|
|
|
| The timeline bothered me a lot especially since there were so many inconsistencies. I liked it more than you but my friends hated it. Of the 7 shows I saw this week Sweeney Todd was the best by far and the was going to skip it since I’ve seen it so many times before. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I doubt chess would have been played in England | |
| Posted by: mikem 10:28 am EDT 04/02/23 | |
| In reply to: I doubt chess would have been played in England - dramedy 11:32 pm EDT 04/01/23 | |
|
|
|
| dramedy, if it's not too much trouble, could you give a bullet on each of the seven shows you saw this week? I always find it interesting to read people's thoughts when they see a lot of shows back-to-back. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: I doubt chess would have been played in England | |
| Posted by: lowwriter 11:46 pm EDT 04/01/23 | |
| In reply to: I doubt chess would have been played in England - dramedy 11:32 pm EDT 04/01/23 | |
|
|
|
| We all have different friends and the two friends of mine, both women, who saw it liked this Camelot very much. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Sat Matinee "Camelot" | |
| Posted by: peter3053 09:53 pm EDT 04/01/23 | |
| In reply to: Sat Matinee "Camelot" - stan 08:42 pm EDT 04/01/23 | |
|
|
|
| Oh dear. Perhaps Lerner knew what he was doing. I'm curious - Aaron Sorkin has been quoted saying he took out the magic. So how does Arthur come across when he's describing the mystical natural laws surrounding Camelot in the song Camelot? If there's no magic, this song would reflect on his mental state, surely? Also, I don't quite get it: If Merlin isn't magical, doesn't "youthen" (as the original has it, amusingly), and doesn't know the future in this production, why does everyone else make those anachronistic references such as to Voltaire??? In short, what the hell is going on??? |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| They are metaphors and not magic | |
| Posted by: dramedy 11:44 pm EDT 04/01/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Sat Matinee "Camelot" - peter3053 09:53 pm EDT 04/01/23 | |
|
|
|
| In camelot. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: They are metaphors and not magic | |
| Posted by: peter3053 12:44 am EDT 04/02/23 | |
| In reply to: They are metaphors and not magic - dramedy 11:44 pm EDT 04/01/23 | |
|
|
|
| Are they, though? It seems he's describing a magical place, a genuinely magical place. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: They are metaphors and not magic | |
| Last Edit: Delvino 09:15 am EDT 04/02/23 | |
| Posted by: Delvino 09:10 am EDT 04/02/23 | |
| In reply to: re: They are metaphors and not magic - peter3053 12:44 am EDT 04/02/23 | |
|
|
|
| C'mon, it's not Brigadoon; it's merely a character waxing poetic to his bride-to-be, painting a picture to mitigate the coldly arranged partnership. He's a historically anointed young man with the undiscovered soul of romantic (too), the show insists. And stakes wise, if the Arthur-Guinevere emotional alignment -- matching its ruling synergy -- doesn't secure our investment, the subsequent triangle cannot happen. We have to believe in the marriage for its destruction to have plot weight. Lerner gave Arthur a paean that bordered on myth to sell himself, not a kingdom. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: They are metaphors and not magic | |
| Posted by: allineedisthegirl 08:56 am EDT 04/02/23 | |
| In reply to: re: They are metaphors and not magic - peter3053 12:44 am EDT 04/02/23 | |
|
|
|
| Arthur is doing a real estate sales pitch. They both know it's not "true." db |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| Don't use Sorkin as a Study Crib before your Exam | |
| Posted by: stan 09:57 am EDT 04/02/23 | |
| In reply to: re: They are metaphors and not magic - allineedisthegirl 08:56 am EDT 04/02/23 | |
|
|
|
| I was annoyed by Sorkin in his play the Farnsworth Invention. I was intrigued by Philo Farnsworth in 9th Grade and his invention of the Television. Good fodder for an English term paper on how his invention led me astray. Sorkin misconstrued several aspects of Farnsworth's life and innovations for dramatic effect -- I wrote Mr S a letter, which was never replied to (or maybe never received). I believe Mockingbird's script altered some of the intentions of the book. | |
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Don't use Sorkin as a Study Crib before your Exam | |
| Posted by: JereNYC (JereNYC@aol.com) 03:00 pm EDT 04/03/23 | |
| In reply to: Don't use Sorkin as a Study Crib before your Exam - stan 09:57 am EDT 04/02/23 | |
|
|
|
| I was also annoyed by THE FARNSWORTH INVENTION, not least because I think it's a pretty good play. My issue was that Sorkin actually changed the outcome of the climatic trial by having Farnsworth lose the case when, in reality, he'd won. I mean, this was the whole point of the story. It went beyond poetic license. It was a prime example of "if you don't like this story, write a play about something else, please." It was as if if the writers of the TITANIC musical just decided to have the ship not sink at all and make it to New York on schedule instead. What's the point of any of it, if you're not being true to, at least, the barebones of actual history? By the same token, I'm actually not all that annoyed by bio-musicals, like FUNNY GIRL or ANNIE GET YOUR GUN that bear only a passing resemblance to the life of the person they're supposed to be about. I guess musicals get a pass from me in this regard that plays don't. Maybe it's because it's easier to take a play more seriously. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
| re: Don't use Sorkin as a Study Crib before your Exam | |
| Posted by: lordofspeech 09:10 pm EDT 04/03/23 | |
| In reply to: re: Don't use Sorkin as a Study Crib before your Exam - JereNYC 03:00 pm EDT 04/03/23 | |
|
|
|
| T H White’s The Once and Future King is a fascinating read. Anachronisms galore, and a modern point of view on the anti-romance of Guenever and Lance. She’s venal and a brunette, he’s quite ugly and an emotional wreck. The Sword in the Stone section (the book is in sections) is wonderful and witty. Besides, as Arthur is trained by Merlyn’s changing him into a variety of animals and birds, we see how Arthur learns what society and justice and killing are. By this unique upbringing, Arthur has a much greater scope than most men. So when the horrors of Morgause and her would-be gallant sons begin, we watch all of it from the distance Arthur had. Lerner had a great task but ultimately caught the quasi-poetic as well as some of the ironic commentary on civilization itself. He caught the lightning. If you saw it when you were in second grade, as I was, you never forgot the show’s magic, the striving for nobility, and the spectacular presence of the three leads. And the wondrous stories of how the creators went back and revised and rehearsed it til it really worked are themselves a kind of legend. Forgive me then, for seeing this pedestrianization of the work as a travesty. The Lerner estate was remiss. |
|
| reply to this message | reply to first message |
Time to render: 0.200919 seconds.