CAMELOT Returns to Broadway - Reviews Thread- Page 25

[JasonC3]

Posted: 4/7/23 at 11:38am

In addition to Donica's powerful vocals, he has an incredibly compelling stage presence that radiates a sexy warrior stature (yes, I know his look may not appeal to everyone) not every understudy can match, so that likely affects how the love triangle is perceived.

[Shalfoard]

Posted: 4/7/23 at 12:45pm

JAS said: "MCfan2 said: "If the cast album is anything to go by (there's a bit of speaking on it as well as singing), Andrews didn't use a French accent. I don't think her character was meant to be French -- she came from another kingdom, but I don't think it was ever specified which one."

Guinevere was from Wales, I believe."

She sings to St. Genevieve, her namesake, in "The Simple Joys of Maidenhood," but she's definitely not French.  She's British,  probably Welsh.  Why would Julie Andrews be hired to originate the role if it were otherwise?

The other board has a lot a interesting comments regarding this revival. It certainly sounds like it's a botch, like other recent revisals of Lerner's works. Did Sorkin even bother to look at T.H. White's THE ONCE AND FUTURE KING, one of the great fantasy novels?

[sm33]

Posted: 4/7/23 at 2:06pm

JasonC3 said: "In addition to Donica's powerful vocals, he has an incredibly compelling stage presence that radiates a sexy warrior stature (yes, I know his look may not appeal to everyone) not every understudy can match, so that likely affects how the love triangle is perceived."

I wholeheartedly concur with this, and I could see the vibes being very different with someone else in the role. 

[Dylan Smith4]

Posted: 4/7/23 at 7:43pm

Jordan is out again tonight. A bunch of understudies are on tonight. 

[Alessio2]

Posted: 4/7/23 at 8:36pm

Apologies if this has been asked already or if not the right place, but is there a RUSH policy for this show?  I am aware of the lottery...TIA

[Dylan Smith4]

Posted: 4/8/23 at 12:42am

Saw the show last night. It was pretty good, but REALLY long. I have never seen this show before in my life. I’ve only listened to the OBC Cast Album. There were some people who left during intermission. Mostly because they were falling asleep during the first act. I guess this show isn’t for everyone. Phillipa and Andrew! Wow just wow! The chemistry those two have on stage is so picture perfect! I was disappointed that Jordan Donica was out but that happens. Matías was a great Lancelot! If you sit in the rear loge seating and you happen to catch Matías as Lancelot, you may think you are seeing Kit Harrington sing on stage. However that doesn’t happen! The set is simple but gorgeous! There were some elements of the set that I wasn’t particularly expecting but it turned out well. Overall, this is a beautiful piece of theatre but you need to prepare for a long show. It was so nice to be back at Lincoln Center! Can’t wait to go back there in the future! 

[bear88]

Posted: 4/8/23 at 2:12am

ErmengardeStopSniveling said: "I'm still grappling with my thoughts on this one.


The good:

The orchestra sounds wonderful. Those sitting close can feel the floor reverberating beneath you from the orchestra. Can't remember the last time a Broadway pit had 2 bass players.

The cast is excellent.Phillipa's voice doesn't ring as much as others I've seen as Guenevere, but she's just so winning and giving a nuanced acting performance that it doesn't matter. I wasn't sure about Andrew Burnap in act 1, but in act 2 you really see his growth into an adult king, and I found his work very effective. Donica sounds wonderful.Taylor Trensch is having fun.

The set design illustrates the vast loneliness of the castle.Gorgeous lighting and costumes. No sound issues. 59 Productions (projection design) is the best in the biz.

I don't mind the lack of accents. If done effectively, I suppose that could illustrate the "otherness" of both those characters, but French accents can be so bad onstage that this choice worked for me.Did Goulet and Andrews both use French accents in the original?


The other stuff:

I'm often a Sorkin and Sher fan, but both are pulling from their bag of tricks and I'm tired of it. Sorkin's anachronisms and constant banter register as annoyingly cute in this context. There are inherent problems with trying to adapt a book like this, and in some ways it heightens the limitations of the source material in trying to shoehorn in the songs. We barely get an intro to Merlyn, and then he's dead but looms large in Arthur's mind; you get act 1's only two uptempo songs directly next to each other (May and Fair); the jumps in time can be episodic and chaotic; act 2 is overstuffed and has to move sooo briskly through the Mordred/Morgan/affair plots; Morgan is an interesting idea but not 100% successfully executed. About halfway through, I started daydreaming about what someone like Peter Morgan or David Hare or Tony Kushner or Yorgos Lanthimos might have done with CAMELOT instead of Sorkin.

The scenic transitions are clumsy. Changing the direction of the thrones at the end of act 1 just...because?This is a revival that could have benefited from an out-of-town tryout.

Sher once seemed like such a confident & singular theatre artist, and 2017/18 something shifted with him and it seems like he's questioning and second-guessing his artistry, what the audiences will like, and what he "should" be doing. Artistic evolution is vital of course, but it doesn't seem like such a natural journey for him.There are enough interesting things here to keep me engaged, but the one-two punch of Pictures From Home and now this make me worried about his future output as a director.

In terms of the show's view of race, I almost wonder if it would have been better off with an actor of color as Arthur, and a white "himbo" as Lance. It feels like that's what Sorkin & Sher want Lance to be, but he's not being played as such.

Maybe this CAMELOT would have been better if Sorkin wrote a nonmusical play about King Arthur for Sher to direct, instead of this Frankensteined piece that doesn't know if it should be a play or a musical, or a comedy or drama or tragedy. It wants to be too many things, and just kind of ends up being nothing. I'm interested in seeing it again in a month or two to see how my feelings evolve."

I haven’t seen the musical, but this is a terrific review that makes me curious to see the show despite the fact that it’s a rather pointed pan. Also, I think I liked My Fair Lady more than you did. 

[broadwayboy222]

Posted: 4/8/23 at 2:19am

From what I gather the production offers the digital lotto for 39.00 with winners able to buy one or two tickets, LincTix for 30.00 for those 21-35, one ticket per member (however many dates appear already to be sold out,) and a student rush two hours before curtain for 32.00 with valid student ID, one per ID. 
 

For those that have attempted the student rush, has anyone had any luck? Would absolutely love to see this production, as I have a friend in the cast who is a swing, but the LincTix appear to be sold out for the dates I’ll be in the city and I know the lotto odds are typically very difficult with most digital lotteries, so it appears that student rush may be the only option to score a reasonably priced ticket, if they are even available. 

[Tenor8674]

Posted: 4/8/23 at 6:56pm

I saw it this afternoon and thought the production was gorgeous.  Soo flubbed Before I Gaze at You Again, the only noticeable mistake.  I still think Follow Me could have been retained with offstage voices instead of having to cast a Nimue. I do like Matias and Andrew being the same height too.  Matias was excellent as well as the entire cast.  Show still is a little long, but it went by quickly.  The Morgan le Fay rewrite as a scientist and Mordred's mother, not Aunt, necessitated that the Candy Song, Persuasion, to be dropped so I guess it will never be recorded.  

Updated On: 4/8/23 at 06:56 PM

[PipingHotPiccolo]

Posted: 4/9/23 at 12:33am

I had a very mixed reaction to this, but lets start by recognizing something that can get lost by us theater perfectionist nerds: this is a gorgeous score, a real classic that holds up, and its a thoroughly engaging and complex story. i dont want to lose sight of how lucky we are to have such a lush, full, production on broadway. i loved watching/hearing it. 

My main takeaway is the supreme irony of Sorkin's work here: he is infamous for his blind spot when it comes to writing women, CJ Cregg being a notable exception. So I find it rich that I think by far the most successful revisions to the book here concern Guinevere: i loved how modern, intelligent, and FUNNY she is now. He turns her into an equal of Arthur's, and while some of his modern language didn't work all that perfectly, I was impressed every time Guinevere opened her mouth.

And maybe thats because it was Phillipa Soo's mouth doing the talking. I thought she was ultimately moving in Hamilton, but at times stiff; I certainly didn't expect her to deliver such an absolutely perfect performance as she did tonight. She's genuinely funny from the jump, and her singing is just heavenly. In Act 1 especially, the show takes off whenever she's center stage: Lusty Month of May and especially Take Me to the Fair are sheer delight. She carries the show because

Burnap is good--really good!-- but his character fades back a bit. He does nice work with Sorkin's comedy and there isn't a false moment to be found- hes doing everything asked of him. He's such a brilliant actor, and Arthur really does grow from nervous boy to disappointed, hopeful man, over the course of the night, and thats no small feat! But something is off kilter here and I can't quite articulate it. He's doing great work, but he seems miscast? And while he sings quite well, Arthur is given two of the first numbers, and he seems out of his depth. 

Donica was out and his understudy, Matias De-La Flor, was perfectly adequate- but that just doesn't cut it as Lancelot. He sings perfectly well but no baritone, no power, and absolutely zero heat with Soo, and it left an enormous hole in the show. I hate to sound harsh on someone clearly talented being shoved into the spotlight to fill huge shoes and I actually wonder what he'd do with Arthur. But its a crime for these producers to not have hired a cover that can really sing the role OR exude the magnetism that drives the plot. The other knights all seemed way more likely to sweep Guinevere off her feet.

While the Company is solid (Trench was good, Dakin Matthews was phenomenal) my real gripe lies with Sher. Act 1 feels very long-- but then Act 2 feels rushed, with so much happening at warp speed. VERY little of the show is staged at all creatively, the set is austere, and beautiful, but barely used at all, with many songs simply delivered like a staged concert. (As such, there really isnt a bad seat in the house, and the "cheap" sets we bought in the Loge were well worth it). Lusty Month of May is somewhat fun, and Sorkin/Sher do a great job with Fie On Goodness. But the rest is just fine? And many of the songs seemed edited down to a chorus or two? How to Handle A Woman is 90 seconds long. So why bother with it? Most egregiously, the humorous/touching end to What Do The Simple Folk Do is edited out completely.  Soo saves Take Me to the Fair, but its barely staged. 

As I said up top, im grateful to hear this score, i appreciate the updates by Sorkin, its certainly a solid production of a classic. And thats enough as far as Getting Your Money's Worth! The pieces are there--Sorkin, the cast, the orchestra-- but it feels like the production team just stopped there. The result is quality that still left me wanting something more. 

Was surprised to see a number of empty seats at a Saturday night show on a holiday weekend. But makes me think I'll have no problem revisiting this down the road, mostly to see if Donica rights the ship a bit.

Updated On: 4/9/23 at 12:33 AM

[broadfan327]

Posted: 4/9/23 at 3:07am

I was there Saturday night as well.  My seat in the left orchestra was partially obstructed, I could not see the projections.  I agree with the Lancelot understudy underperforming the role.  This is probably the first Vivian Beaumont Theater production that did not utilize the space well based on LCT's previous efforts in the space where you see your money on the stage.  I wanted to like it more than I did.  Arthur has a shouting scene near the end, some of the audience members behind me were laughing at it when it was not intended for comedy.  I heard other audience members saying out loud after the show that they did not like it.

[MCfan2]

Posted: 4/9/23 at 8:43am

Tenor8674 said: "The Morgan le Fay rewrite as a scientist and Mordred's mother, not Aunt, necessitated that the Candy Song, Persuasion, to be dropped so I guess it will never be recorded."

I didn't realize she's Mordred's mother now! Either no one else has mentioned it, or I just missed it. That must change the dynamic of that part quite a bit! (I was going to say "changed the Arthur/Morgan dynamic," but then I remembered that Arthur and Morgan never actually interacted in the original, aside from him yelling fruitlessly at her to come release him from her invisible prison.)

[Dolly80]

Posted: 4/9/23 at 11:51am

MCfan2 said: "Tenor8674 said: "The Morgan le Fay rewrite as a scientist and Mordred's mother, not Aunt, necessitated that the Candy Song, Persuasion, to be dropped so I guess it will never be recorded."

I didn't realize she's Mordred's mother now! Either no one else has mentioned it, or I just missed it. That must change the dynamic of that part quite a bit! (I was going to say "changed the Arthur/Morgan dynamic," but then I remembered that Arthur and Morgan never actually interacted in the original, aside from him yelling fruitlessly at her to come release him from her invisible prison.)"

We’re you asleep?

[MCfan2]

Posted: 4/9/23 at 3:31pm

Haven't been able to see the show (it's been some time since I've been able to get to NYC), so I'm just relying on what you all say.

[Jeffrey Karasarides]

Posted: 4/10/23 at 9:57am

Will Aaron Sorkin’s First Musical Be a Hit? Why Broadway Director Bartlett Sher Thinks ‘Camelot’ Will Shine

[goldenboy]

Posted: 4/10/23 at 10:18am

production never been a fan of Camelot. This 0roduction. Is gorgeous.Getting rid of Ninue, the thing in a tree was brilliiant as in  prior productions it always knocked me out of the viewing thinking why and  who is thus person singing in a tree?    .Kudos to Sorkin and Sher for losing that awful character.tree and song

the leads accross the board are stellar and the chemisyry brtween them thrilling 

 

Sorkin/Sher have improved this musical which I always found a bore having .witnessed a micjael York touring version,a Richard  harris  broadway  version and that.long miscast. Movie.All dull dul  and pretentious .

My only slight beef with this production is at the end of act one Arthur admits he knows of the affair with Lancelot and Guinivere and forgives it knowing the marriage was arranged and in the spirit if Camelot he forgives

At the end of act two,  Mordred exposes the affair and war ensues declared bynthevsame forgiving Arthut

 

 So this  some explanation..Maybe the  affairs kept wuietly are fine but affairs exposed to the media and public are not?

Something acknowledging that would solve rhe problem

 

Stilll a must see gorgeous production.

I

still a gorgeuos musical.best work Sher has dine

[Spirit-of-the-City]

Posted: 4/10/23 at 1:06pm

I also saw this a few days ago. The production was glorious, as was the music. I have read the posts on this board, and I think that many of the early problems of the show must have been fixed. I heard no references to Voltaire, the pace seems right, and the second act is dynamite. Wonderful singing and acting, though I am looking forward to seeing it again when Jordan Danica returns. 

It is a world of ideas, rather than one of magic, as you might expect from an Aaron Sorkin treatment. So much is relevant, despite the obvious idealism of the King Arthur story, which has been told in many ways, depending on where we, the audience, are at a particular time. I have to say that it was terrific to visit a world of idealism, rather than one of cynicism, for a few hours. 

Bravo to all involved - sets, costumes, lighting, projections, orchestra all merged to enhance this memorable evening. I will certainly see it again - this is going to get better and better.

 

[Someone in a Tree2]

Posted: 4/10/23 at 1:50pm

So Friday night we got to see what a Camelot without magic would look like. 
 

Not entirely true: Phillipa Soo was utterly magical channeling Rachel Weisz in her version of Guinevere— gorgeous, powerful, funny and beautifully sung. The orchestra and ensemble delivered the score with beauty and richness. Dakin Matthews’ Merlin and Pelinore were both glorious, and it was magical hearing Lerner’s original jokes for Pelly delivered to such great laughs. 
 

Less than magical? I loved the opening image of the black-robed court entering in a snowstorm (even if the feeling suited Macbeth more than Camelot), but nothing in the design for the rest of the evening came close. The reliance on video projection in place of scenery was utterly not up to the high standards set by Michael Yeargen himself. 
 

Also less magical was Andrew Burnap’s Arthur. He seemed underpowered in his key opening scene and never recovered to give us a king to compete with his glorious queen, fatal to the triangle and fatal to the show. 
 

Aaron Sorkin’s antimagical script started out with style but soon made clear how little regard it had for the Lerner and Lowe score. (How many jokes do we really need about the title song being just a song about the weather?) His script was long and wordy and he had to make room somewhere. So he cut the verse to “How to Handle a Woman” leaving us to wonder who is the old man Arthur is singing about. He cut the reprises, cut the punchline verse to “What Do the Simple Folk Do”, gave Jenny’s one revealing solo in Act 2 to Lance, and on and on to the end of the long night. 
 

My big question for the Camelot team: why would you WANT to do a Camelot without magic, because that’s surely what you got. 

Updated On: 4/10/23 at 01:50 PM

[TaffyDavenport]

Posted: 4/10/23 at 1:52pm

*Dakin Matthews

[Someone in a Tree2]

Posted: 4/10/23 at 1:54pm

Thx it’s fixed. (You’re so zippy!)

[Dylan Smith4]

Posted: 4/10/23 at 2:13pm

*Aaron Sorkin :)

[Ensemble1681133217]

Posted: 4/10/23 at 2:42pm

First post on broadway message board! Have always enjoyed reading but never felt the need to post until today.

We were also there on Friday night - and I have to say, I had the opposite reaction.

I thought Andrew Burnap's Arthur was marvelous. Humble, witty, regal, quietly confident, and wonderfully open hearted and idealistic. So terrifically nuanced. He kept me in the story the entire time. I greatly appreciated this update to both the characterization that Burnap provided, and in the updates to the script. The rewrite seems to purposefully make Arthur a self doubting and humbled young King. Burnap honored this beautifully. This was far more attuned to the character I remember from The Once and Future King. 

I agree that the script is quite talky and stuffed, some of the scenes flow and some of them are just too long. I wish they hadn't cut so much of the music

If you are hoping to see the original characterizations and interpretations - skip it. If you are open to new light being shed here for a new Camelot that speaks more to our current...predicaments - I think you will thoroughly enjoy

To each their own!

 

[UWS10023]

Posted: 4/10/23 at 6:13pm

Are theaters still doing cast covid testing?

[Someone in a Tree2]

Posted: 4/10/23 at 7:35pm

I've heard that regular covid testing for casts in Bway houses ceased completely last Wednesday. Can someone else on the board verify this?

[PipingHotPiccolo]

Posted: 4/10/23 at 7:40pm

Someone in a Tree2 said: "So Friday night we got to see what a Camelot without magic would look like.


Not entirely true: Phillipa Soo was utterly magical channeling Rachel Weisz in her version of Guinevere— gorgeous, powerful, funny and beautifully sung. The orchestra and ensemble delivered the score with beauty and richness. Dakin Matthews’ Merlin and Pelinore were both glorious, and it was magical hearing Lerner’s original jokes for Pelly delivered to such great laughs.


Less than magical? I loved the opening image of the black-robed court entering in a snowstorm (even if the feeling suited Macbeth more than Camelot), but nothing in the design for the rest of the evening came close. The reliance on video projection in place of scenery was utterly not up to the high standards set by Michael Yeargen himself.


Also less magical was Andrew Burnap’s Arthur. He seemed underpowered in his key opening scene and never recovered to give us a king to compete with his glorious queen, fatal to the triangle and fatal to the show.


Aaron Sorkin’s antimagical script started out with style but soon made clear how little regard it had for the Lerner and Lowe score. (How many jokes do we really need about the title song being just a song about the weather?) His script was long and wordy and he had to make room somewhere. So he cut the verse to “How to Handle a Woman” leaving us to wonder who is the old man Arthur is singing about. He cut the reprises, cut the punchline verse to “What Do the Simple Folk Do”, gave Jenny’s one revealing solo in Act 2 to Lance, and on and on to the end of the long night.


My big question for the Camelot team: why would you WANT to do a Camelot without magic, because that’s surely what you got."

I agree with so much of this--- particularly the fact that Soo was a revelation, practically perfect in the role. I also found the deletion of the punchline to What Do The Simple Folk Do to be unforgivable. 

But i do disagree with the criticism of the removal of all the magic nonsense. Updating the book to be squarely in favor of justice, reason, fairness, science-- it strengthens the parable. It makes the ending pack a punch. It makes everyone more human. I applaud Sorkin's effort to drag this tale out of the 1950s on these fronts...