CAMELOT (2023) - Reviews — Page 4

ColorTheHours048 said: "As revivals go, I’d say likelihood of winning the Tony is Into the Woods, Sweeney Todd, or Parade. In that order. Camelot would be lucky to get nominated at this point, but I’m in agreement that the nomination for Dancin’ seems more likely at this point.

Sweeney may be a box office juggernaut, and the bigger production, but Into the Woods was perhaps the most universally acclaimed production of the season, not just revival. It was at the top of too many best of lists to count and it’s on a cross country tour, delighting audiences and critics, as we speak."

I adored ITW but I think too many people are overselling its Tony chances. It closed long ago and the original cast left well before that. Closed musicals and musical revivals tend to not do well in terms of wins and with two acclaimed currently running revivals (Sweeney and Parade), I think ITW has an uphill climb. It'll get nominated for sure but I just don't see it winning.

I think Into the Woods is in a similar place as the 2011 Follies revival which ultimately lost to The Gershwin's Porgy and Bess... Closed shows just don't tend to do as well, sadly. Yes, there is a tour going on, but I don't think that's going to make a huge difference.

darquegk said: "It’s now occurring to me that the Camelot I want to see is either a new show on the Arthur storyline that isn’t Lerner and Loewe’s… or a Shuffle Along style meta musical about Camelot, “Camelot” and the Kennedy era."

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing another take on 'The Once and Future King' book series, musical or not. I've only read some of it, but it was interesting. For example, Lancelot in the books is a man who secretly struggles with getting enjoyment out of watching people suffer, and who becomes a heroic knight because preventing suffering is his way of fighting against his own darker impulses. So he always feels himself a fraud with regard to the 'knight in shining armour' thing. (It's weird comparing that to the character that the musical adaptation came up with, ha.) Somebody could do a dark TV miniseries of the books or something.

Updated On: 4/14/23 at 09:00 PM

Kad said: "Can’t help but wonder what Tony Kushner would’ve done with this."

Doubtful anyone could craft a workable book for todays audiences around the Camelot score. Yes pretty at times. But dull and untheatrical by todays standards. Why is it revivals allow tinkering with books but never the music and lyrics?

Oh, that's ALL we need. I'd as soon paint a mustache on a Degas dancer as let Sorkin mess with a Lerner lyric.

"The Once and Future King" is only one book, unlike the Chronicles of Narnia or the Lord of the Rings. It was published in 1958 and became a bestseller. It retells the King Arthur myth for a post-WWII audience. It is made up of four parts or books, the first being the Sword in the Stone. The Sword in the Stone, in a slightly different form, had been published in 1938 as a children's book. "The Book of Merlyn" was published after T.H. White's death. It was originally supposed to be the final part of "The Once and Future King."

Saw the matinee today. I thoroughly enjoyed this production and show (I have never seen the movie or any other productions).

Andrew Burnap, Phillipa Soo and Jordan Donica were in the matinee today.

It started at 2:05pm and ended around 4:55pm

Saw the performance tonight and agree with the critics. It was quite boring. There was way too much dialogue for a musical and the tempo of the score felt slow. I was restless throughout the second act. It feels as if Aaron Sorkin turned this into a play with music.


The stage felt huge given the minimalist set. I love the projections, especially the park scene in the first act. But it made everything else feel smaller. I know Phillipa can project but all of her songs felt dull.


Finally all the magic/ mythical elements are gone and you are left with nonstop preaching about justice and equality. That took all the fun out of Camelot.

I saw the show yesterday and it was a slog.

I was so looking forward to a golden age musical afternoon - unfortunately all the changes did not work.

Too bad.

Helen Shaw:

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/the-theatre/review-camelot-aaron-sorkin-bartlett-sher

"The physical production is unfailingly pretty yet surprisingly un-sumptuous, perhaps because the projections offer an image but no tactility. Any single dress the costume designer Jennifer Moeller gives Guenevere to wear—say, the red velvet number with the drop shoulder, or her cloth-of-gold throne-room attire—contains ten times the set’s luxury. But the most serious absence here is the dream of Camelot itself. Sorkin’s particular Great Man idealism insures that Arthur is more perfect than ever, a man betrayed but kind, clear-eyed about the smallness of his contribution, hopeful that it will be part of humanity’s advance. But the Sorkin-Sher iteration of his kingdom isn’t worthy of him. “Once there was a fleeting wisp of glory / called Camelot,” Arthur sings to a little boy, whom he asks to tell their story. But this particular spot was never truly glorious. What kind of inspiration could it provide? Maybe let that part be forgot."

Merlin/more Pelli/Nimue

and magic were there for a reason -this has always been the problem with this musical. We could use a lot less of the turgid drama and maybe a little more of the fairytale fantasy until reality sets in at the end. Remember the lyric - one there was a spot......