1961 Camelot, why no Tony's???- Page 2

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 11/14/11 at 7:26pm

^^^^ Thanks, best12bars!

I believe the interview you mention is the one with Arthur Schlesinger that Jackie gave about a month after Jack's death. The point of the VF article is that Jackie's image as a doting wife removed from policy decisions was a calculated one, and that her careful nurturing of the Kennedy legacy began almost instantly after the assassination. (It's not a smear job; if anything, it suggests she was smarter and far more involved than she let on.)

The implication is that the story about CAMELOT being Jack's favorite record may well have been invented by his widow as part of the myth-making.

As I'm sure you know, Kennedy was both a charismatic and controversial figure during his presidency. At least half of the people in the country would have sneered at any attempt to associate him with King Arthur. But many of those same people began to see him differently almost immediately after his murder.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 11/14/11 at 8:45pm

Camelot may not be a great musical but that it didn't even get a nomination when the three and only three nominated musicals that year were Bye Bye Birdie (the winner and clearly the year's best show), Do Re Mi and Irma la Douce is very surprising.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 11/14/11 at 9:39pm

True, Henrik. BIRDIE may have been seen as "the next great thing" with its appeal to youth and use of pseudo-rock music. But it's hard to see how DO RE MI and IRMA could have been such stiff competition (though each had its fans, of course)--and anyway, Tony Awards aren't limited to three nominees as far as I know.

It's clear there was a strong backlash against CAMELOT at first, not just a case of the show getting lost amid stiff competition.

I still think it's a lovely score (including the numbers Hart cut when he got out of the hospital). As a record, I think it holds its own with MY FAIR LADY quite well and surpasses the GIGI soundtrack.

[allofmylife]

Posted: 11/14/11 at 10:45pm

I directed a production of the show back in the 70s and I remember Tams Witmark sent me the music, scores and parts for "Take Me To The Fair" and "Fie on Goodness" separately. It was a sort of "Okay... if you REALLY want to do them..." attitude. Both numbers killed. I think "Fieon Goodness" is very important to the storyline (and "Take Me to the Fair" is all through the bg music, so you really need it as well.) Plus, everyone EXPECTS those songs to be there.

The reviews we got were "It's a long show, but with the two added songs, the score is even better. So brace yourselves for a long, melodic knight." (sic)

As to the Tonys, I can see why it didn't win. Birdie was so, so, so of its time and that time was perfectly 1960. "Do Re Mi" had two stars as big to Broadway audiences as Burton and Andrews. Nancy Walker and Phil Silvers were pure box office gold. "Irma" was an amazing show. One woman and 14 Frenchmen. I saw the original production (again, like Camelot, as a kid) and I remember it better than the other shows I saw that year (Gypsy, Camelot and Birdie). The show was really hauntingly scored, by the woman who wrote Piaf's songs and the cast was amazing. And I have always been a sucker for a belting alto over a soprano (sorry, Julie.)

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 11/15/11 at 2:02pm

Allofmylife, I think all of us - especially you who, as your name might imply, might be biased vis a vis that season - can agree that Camelot should not have won the tony that year. But for a show so famous and with such hit songs and major stars to not even be nominated for best musical is, especially by current standards, when only three shows made the cut, quite surprising.

Bye Bye Birdie is for my money still a pretty great show.

[best12bars]

Posted: 11/15/11 at 2:24pm

There have been other "classics" by favorite authors that have failed to be nominated for the top prize.

Sweet Bird of Youth wasn't up for Best Play. Neither was Inherit the Wind or Auntie Mame. The competition was a lot tougher in many cases back then.

Updated On: 11/15/11 at 02:24 PM

[PattiLover]

Posted: 11/15/11 at 4:14pm

The score to Camelot is one of the only shows I've ever fallen in love with at first listen. To me, it's the book that is creaky and floppy. The score is not the problem - shortening it or cutting it to shreds is a major mistake.

The story is there, the score is there, the characters are (mostly) interesting. All it needs is a solid book. And don't cut the Morgan La Fey stuff, I think the magical and mythical elements are fun, it's the soap opera love story that sinks the show like a stone.

Also, Mordred is a part that needs to be beefed up. He's too pipsqueak of a villain to tear down the entire concept of Camelot. "The Seven Deadly Virtues" is a cute song, but not dark enough for a character who causes so much havoc. "Fie on Goodness" is a great song that could help out his character more, but it's constantly cut to save time.

For all its lousy qualities, Camelot is probably the most A+ of all the B- shows ever written. People love the show, despite how sluggish it can feel, and the score is beloved, possibly due to the Kennedy association.

Love Camelot, but I agree that the show as a hole just seems to stumble and fall quite often. Yet, people still love it. Weird.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 11/15/11 at 4:14pm

Camelot wasn't the only casualty for Best Musical that season. The other musicals not nominated were:

Christine
Vintage '60
Tenderloin
The Unsinkable Molly Brown
Wildcat
Show Girl
13 Daughters

The deadline must have been moved up because Bye Bye Birdie is actually listed as being part of the 1959-60 season (as was Christine, which opened after Birdie), yet it was nominated with shows of the 1960-61 season. It's rather confusing.

Regardless, it's all about perspective. It really has more to do with the climate and opinions at the time of nominations. While it has earned classic status mostly from the names involved and the popularity of the score, at the time, it might have been considered a probable flop from a respectable team in the likes of Tenderloin and Molly Brown.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 11/15/11 at 5:09pm

But, Mister Matt, CAMELOT ran twice as long as any of those other shows (well, almost twice as long as MOLLY BROWN) and its score remains much better known. I think that's why most of us are surprised it wasn't even nominated.

allofmylife, Marguerite Monot (nee Monnot) was the composer who wrote IRMA's score. Along with Michel Imer, one of the great French songwriters of the 20th century.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 11/15/11 at 6:03pm

But, Mister Matt, CAMELOT ran twice as long as any of those other shows (well, almost twice as long as MOLLY BROWN) and its score remains much better known. I think that's why most of us are surprised it wasn't even nominated.

Right, but at the time of nominations, they had no idea how long anything would run. As previously mentioned, Camelot was received rather tepidly by critics and had only run a few months by Tony nomination time. Look how long Jekyll & Hyde ran (nearly twice as long as Camelot). It also wasn't nominated for Best Musical or Best Score (which was already fairly popular before the Broadway production). Juan Darien: A Carnival Mass was nominated instead. And of the nominated scores (Juan Darien, Titanic, The Life, Steel Pier) Jekyll & Hyde remains much better known by the public. These things happen.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 11/15/11 at 6:28pm

Sorry I wasn't clear, Mister Matt. I didn't mean to imply that length of run influences Tony nominations (as the nominating committee never knows how long a hit will run).

My point was that the eventual run contributes to our perception of a show's popularity in its original run and thus the general surprise here that CAMELOT was ignored for "Best Musical."

But as you and others have pointed out, CAMELOT was largely a "TV hit", something much more common in these days of mass media advertising of Broadway shows.

[After Eight]

Posted: 11/15/11 at 6:37pm

The cutoff dates for Tony Awards back then occurred in March, and the awards themselves were presented in April. That's why shows like Destry Rides Again, Gypsy, Carnival, et al. were moved to the following season for Tony consideration. In all likelihood, if the cutoff date had been had been May 1, Carnival would have won best musical and Bye, Bye, Birdie would have lost to Fiorello/Sound of Music. I still feel Ethel Merman should have won for Gypsy in whatever season.

But the Tony Awards were capricious even then. From 1964-66, the awards were presented in late May and June, with cutoff dates changed accordingly. Then in 1967, they went back to being presented in March-April until 1977.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 11/15/11 at 7:57pm

As we all know - and as I myself seem to have momentarily forgotten in marveling for a moment at Camelot's exclusion - the nominations are voted by a relatively small committee (perhaps even smaller then than it is now). A show from big name talent being such a big disappointment (as many on this thread have explained) to many of that small community of voters can go a long way to explaining its not making the cut. Even a show that in retrospect has become something of a classic.

And as best12 points out, this was not the only time this has happened.

However, sometimes surprising non-nominations can be explained by a glut of quality work prompting presumably very difficult decisions by the committee especially when they were set on limiting nods to four (to many of us the fact that only three musicals were nominated the season of Camelot accentuates the snub). But even in highly competitive years, sometimes one has to ask WHAT WERE THEY THINKING? That is to say at least in some of the categories.

Example: 1964 was a banner year for musicals. As a result She Loves Me, one of the most beloved shows of all time, was not nominated for best score (the nominees were Hello Dolly, Funny Girl, 110 In The Shade, and High Spirits, all of which, of course had excellent scores). And Barbara Cook was not nominated for her legendary performance as Amalia Balash (the nominees were Carol Channing, Barbara Streisand, Inga Swensen, and Bea Lillie, for the respective shows listed above for best score - and few would question those nominations were well deserved). Conversely, in the best show category, She Loves Me was nominated, along with three out of four of the best score nominees (110 being the exception). Best book had a different foursome: Hello Dolly, She Loves Me, High Spirits and The Girl Who Came to Supper.

Interestingly Noel Coward was the director of High Spirits but did not write its book (although of course he wrote the play from which it was adapted). Yet he was nominated in the category for the book of The Girl Who Came to Supper, which he had co-authored. He also wrote the score for The Girl Who Came to Supper but did not receive a nomination for it.

All sounds begrudingly reasonable so far. Even from the perspective of a die-hard She Loves Me fan (given the competition of many truly great, or at least very fine, shows that year).

But then, consider the best actor race. Bert Lahr won for Foxy. Notably, two highly acclaimed performances that season - Daniel Massey's George in She Loves Me and Edward Woodward's Charles in High Spirits were not nominated. Lahr's competition instead was, of all people, Sydney Chaplin in Funny Girl (bizarrro!), along with Steve Lawrence in What Makes Sammy Run? and Bob Fosse in Pal Joey.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 11/15/11 at 8:16pm

Frankly and though I can't prove it, henrik, I have assumed there to be considerable corruption in the Tony nominations since I lived in New York and kept track of who was on the nominating committee. Unless things have changed since the 80s, we're talking about a very small group of people, all of whom are intimately connected in various ways to the people whose shows they are nominating.

I don't mean "corruption" on the vast conspiracy level, just that committee members have personal motivations that we'll never figure out without a private detective. And they are too few in number to comprise a "representative statistical sampling". And only rarely do their decisions generate enough controversy to be subjected to in-depth public scrutiny.

As Norman Rothstein of Theatre Now once said to me, "There are only 40 people working in the theater at any given time. And we all know each other much too well."

[After Eight]

Posted: 11/15/11 at 9:35pm

Regarding the question of only three nominees for best musical in 1961, it would seem that the nominating committee that year in all regards was quite exigent, since several other categories which could have had four nominees were only given three. In the case of best choreography, there were only two. And stage technician had but one.

Now, one doesn't have to agree with these choices, but it seems to me that the committee set a certain standard for excellence in nominees, and if less than four in a category reached it, then there would be less than four nominated.

And perhaps that was a better idea than just shoving in any nominees to fill out a category, which could allow something like Starmites to be nominated for best musical.

[Ed_Mottershead]

Posted: 11/16/11 at 6:50am

When Do Re Mi opened, it garnered rapturous reviews for its stars, with the NYT comparing the show favorably to Guys and Dolls. So, for a while, it was a hot ticket. However, Merrick was focussing on Carnival when it opened and there wasn't a great push to keep Do Re Mi going. Irma la Douce was a delightful show, with Elizabeth Seal giving a well-derserved Tony Award performance. Despite its glorious score, Camelot has a (for the most part) plodding book which I think may have stood in the way of its being nominated for a Tony.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 11/16/11 at 9:02am

Isn't that still the way it works, After Eight? Doesn't the committee still choose sometimes to have fewer nominees in some categories?

[MrMidwest]

Posted: 12/7/12 at 2:35pm

Julie & Richard perform on Ed Sullivan

[WOSQ]

Posted: 12/7/12 at 3:42pm

Lots of memory stirrings with this thread:

The nominating committee in "the old days" was literally a committee of about 5 or 7 people who met over morning coffee and hashed out a slate of nominees. Now there are secret weighted ballots and everything. The number of actual voters was small then too, probably never more than 100.

Camelot did get lukewarm notices and also the word-of-mouth was not all that good. Essentially they were playing down their huge advance sale, but people weren't buying tickets to replenish that advance.

Then came the Sullivan show and old Broadway hands thought they were nuts to "give away" such a large piece of the performance for free. It was a new world when everybody realized it was a catalyst for future sales and the show strengthened and ran 25 months. I remember watching it and 'What Do The Simple Folk Do?' totally killed. Everybody loves it when in a musical the stars dance and Julie and Burton danced like they were wearing the red shoes.

The Kennedy connection happened after the assassination. Theodore H. White, a friendly journalist, did an interview for Life magazine with Jackie (I think it was her only interview for years.), and she talked about playing the cast recording and cited those memorable lines. Jackie (no fool, she) and the family (no fools, they) were very shrewd and cultivated the JFK-Camelot association very carefully over the years.
Do Re Mi ran exactly a year which has always made me think that was the length of Phil Silvers' contract. However he did play a tour; how long a tour I do not know.

And when will someone do a production of Irma La Douce? It is one of the very few hit shows not to be remounted.

Updated On: 12/7/12 at 03:42 PM

[South Fl Marc]

Posted: 12/7/12 at 4:35pm

I would love to see Camelot revived with a reworked book.

More than the reworked book, I would love to see it cast with an age appropriate Arthur. Richard Burton was 36 when he did the role which is probably the right age. I am so tired of geriatric actors doing the part. Michael York in the last revival was down right embarrassing.

[SondheimFan5]

Posted: 12/7/12 at 5:47pm

It's a wonderful score but overall not nearly up to par with My Fair Lady and even Brigadoon and Gigi. It's a loooong show. If any show needs a revival with a good book revision (and an Arthur of the appropriate age - 35 to 40) it could be wonderful, especially somewhere like LCT.

Some songs are memorable and have become classics, but much of the score is not memorable.

[madlibrarian]

Posted: 12/7/12 at 7:33pm

MY FAIR LADY was so successful and won so many prizes that CAMELOT was, indeed, a relative disappointment. But I'd also suggest that a degree of jealousy, or schadenfreude, led to the deliberate under-evalution of CAMELOT. That happens sometimes. Off the top of my head the best recent example might be how the critics and Tony nominators "punished" YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN for not being THE PRODUCERS.

Just a theory, folks. Your opinion may vary.

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 12/7/12 at 8:17pm

A wise observation, I'm sure, madlib. And isn't that true of American culture in general? We over-praise early works (though I'm not sure it was possible to over-praise MY FAIR LADY) and then condemn the same artists because later works never seem to measure up.

To me, the worst problem in CAMELOT is the comic subplot character of Pellinore. Obviously Robert Coote made a wonderful Pickering and in MY FAIR LADY, Stanley Holloway could pop in and out being his charming self. But Pellinore--again this is just my opinion--takes up way too much stage time while being stunningly UNfunny.

The more interesting subplot is that of Merlin, but of course that is resolved before the start of Act I, Scene 2. (If somebody is going to do a full rewrite, I'd suggest reducing Pellinore and keeping Merlin around until later, perhaps until just before Arthur has to make the impossible choice between love and principle.)

Now that the public is used to through-sung musicals, I wonder how people would react to a CAMELOT with all the great, missing songs restored and Pellinore's part reduced to just being Arthur's confidant and sounding board.

[noahseestheatre]

Posted: 4/18/23 at 8:42am

bumping this thread as CAMELOT's 2023 revival braces for Tony's season this year

[joevitus]

Posted: 4/18/23 at 10:50am

allofmylife said: "I directed a production of the show back in the 70s and I remember Tams Witmark sent me the music, scores and parts for "Take Me To The Fair" and "Fie on Goodness" separately. It was a sort of "Okay... if you REALLY want to do them..." attitude. Both numbers killed. I think "Fieon Goodness" is very important to the storyline (and "Take Me to the Fair" is all through the bg music, so you really need it as well.) Plus, everyone EXPECTS those songs to be there.

The reviews we got were "It's a long show, but with the two added songs, the score is even better. So brace yourselves for a long, melodic knight." (sic)
 

It's funny that, though the cuts after the opening when Hart returned saved the show, it's the score before the cuts that most people know via the Original Cast Album. Those are both terrific songs, simultaneously funny and dramatizing the cracks in the ideal world Arthur has hoped to build. I would imagine they would be expected, as least by any audience coming to Camelot knowing the recording (which, I imagine is how most people have discovered the show).