CAMELOT (2023) - Reviews- Page 5

[JasonC3]

Posted: 4/16/23 at 10:38pm

I do wonder if Sher's reputation for big lavish productions worked against him here on some level with critics. That combined with preconceived notions they may have had about Sorkin (he seems to evoke strong reactions from people) could have played a part in some assessments.  While I concur with many of the actual criticisms raised, I found the concerns less problematic than the critics and still really enjoyed the production.

Updated On: 4/17/23 at 10:38 PM

[Phillyguy]

Posted: 4/16/23 at 11:10pm

I had not see the movie or knew much about the original production but 3 hours is a lot to ask of the audience. There’s simply not enough tension to keep the audience interested. I saw a lot of empty seats on Sat night. I don’t think this show will last. 

[UWS10023]

Posted: 4/17/23 at 2:04am

briansb said: "Maybe I've gone crazy, but this is probably the first time that I've sharply disagreed with critics. I really loved this production. I thought it was witty, thoughtful and entertaining throughout. Andrew is a star, Phillipa and Jordan were great as well, and I'm so glad I fought my initial gut instinct to just sell my tickets after seeing the reviews to come out. Perhaps it's a function of not being super familiar with the original musical, as my partner also loved despite him not being a big musical/Broadway person (more so than Sweeney Todd which we had just seen last week), but I hope this production finds the love I believe it deserves."

I thought Andrew was a star as well. Unfortunately Sorkin upstaged everyone with the critics. 

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 4/17/23 at 1:17pm

One of the things that I loved about CAMELOT is the fantasy aspect: Merlin the Wizard, Morgan Le Fay, the sorceress, etc, and that beautiful score. I am sorely disappointed with this revisal. CAMELOT isn't a perfect musical but it possessed its charms - - - which this production is simply devoid of. 

Updated On: 4/17/23 at 01:17 PM

[Dollypop]

Posted: 4/17/23 at 2:05pm

CarlosAlberto said: "Once of the things that I loved about CAMELOT is the fantasy aspect: Merlin the Wizard, Morgan Le Fay, the sorceress, etc and that beautiful score. I am sorely disappointed with this revisal. CAMELOT isn't a perfect musical but it possessed its charms - - - which this production is simply devoid of."

Have you seen this production?

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 4/17/23 at 4:28pm

Dollypop said: 
Have you seen this production?"

Yes, I have.

[RunnyBabbit]

Posted: 4/19/23 at 6:20pm

I won a lottery ticket and saw the matinee today. Excellent seat - center orch row K.

But the seat was probably the only thing worthwhile in this trip. Watching it felt like a never ending chore. And no one was done any favors. Ignoring the slog of a book for a moment, everything in the show felt muted - the singing, the orchestra, the tiny ensemble, the costumes, the set design. Well, what there was of a set design. It seems like bad choices were made at every turn.

Soo’s voice is lovely, but I’ve always thought it sounded very thin and it most definitely did here (although I did very much enjoy her performance in Guys & Dolls in the recent Kennedy Center production). Burnap’s singing, the very small parts of it there was, seemed fine, but nothing special. Given the clips that had come out already I wasn’t surprised that Donica’s voice was the only one who did the music justice. I agree with the NY Stage Review: “If there is ‘one brief shining moment’ in this production, it’s when Donica launches into ‘If Ever I Would Leave You.’” Although his Cest Moi was also a treat. I feel a little bad for this next part because he is a child, but is the kid at the end who plays Tom related to someone pulling the purse strings at the show? I can’t imagine how else he would have been cast. Some of the worst child acting I’ve seen on a Broadway stage.

I’ll admit it’s been a while since I’ve seen any production of Camelot, so it’s hard for me to decipher which parts of the book I should blame on the original writing team and which parts should be blamed on Sorkin (although his writing style certainly came barreling through). But I’m imagining both parties are to blame. Why bother “reworking” a book just to keep all the flaws? It seems quite a lateral move.

As I walked out all I could think of was the Nathan Lane/Cubby Bernstein skit line: “Do they say Fiddler is too Jewish? Do they say The Wiz is too Black? Do they say Camelot is too long? Actually they do say that.”

[dramamama611]

Posted: 4/19/23 at 11:54pm

I saw this Tuesday night, full cast. I seem to like it more than many....but wasn't in love with it.

 

I liked the set, but not the costuming. I loved the "montage scene of Fie on Goodness/Morgan LeFay/Guinevere & Lance, but found other blocking just an exercise in circling. I thought making Morgan a scientist was stupid....not because she's a woman, but WHY? I felt too many changes were simply too modern and woke.....forva time period that certainly wasn't. 

 

I disliked Taylor Trensch immensely, not because we're not suppose to like Mordred but because he seemed to be in a different play.

 

My biggest gripe, however, is Guinevere and Arthur's relationship. I think because we don't see them in love (or at least deep admiration) we don't feel the full pain of her dalliance with Lancelot -- it hurts us, because all three of them should be heartbroken. I hated the business partner scene entirely.

[sppunk]

Posted: 4/24/23 at 12:52pm

I was so looking forward to this and found it absolutely emotionless. It was t bad - the orchestration was beautiful and the set was well done. But it was just - there. No feelings.  

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 4/24/23 at 12:57pm

We're never going to get a Guinevere and Lancelot with that sexual charge that Redgrave and Nero delivered in the film. Those two were next-level passionate but it breaks your heart because Harris as Arthur is completely in love with his Queen - she...not so much and I agree that THAT is what is missing from this "revisal". 

[Hairspray0901]

Posted: 4/24/23 at 1:05pm

I saw this yesterday. The good: all three leads and the orchestra. The bad: everything else. ooof. One of the most boring shows I have ever sat through in my life. 

[UWS10023]

Posted: 4/24/23 at 4:56pm

I hear tell that the houses have been quite full.

[kdogg36]

Posted: 4/25/23 at 6:22pm

This production was my first exposure to Camelot, so I have a question for those who are familiar with the original book.

In the finale, when Arthur sang to Tom of Warwick about Camelot, it seemed to me that I hadn't seen any indication that Arthur's program had ever been a success, even "for one brief shining moment." Does the original ever give us a glimpse of a successful (if ephemeral) new order based on Arthur's principles?

[slow_the_rain]

Posted: 4/27/23 at 1:59pm

Saw this on Tuesday and was pleasantly surprised. I think my partner summed it up best: This is the best production we can hope to see of an otherwise bad musical.

Curtain was 7:00 and we left the theatre at 10:00 on the dot. The show does not feel long at all, though it does lack a certain spark/liveliness in moments of little action (the chess scene in Act II in particular). 

What Sorkin was able to do with the book works. The dialogue is fresh, and the sardonic reframing of I Wonder What the King is Doing Tonight and What Do the Simple Folk Do? works wonders. Some complained about Guenevere referring to the show’s title number as a song about the weather, but I thought it felt very much in keeping with her character and the directorial take on the show. Played straight and earnestly, the show wouldn’t work with today’s audiences. We freely critique politicians and the upper class in a way that we didn’t a mere 50 years ago. As is touched upon in the final scene, this production hones in on the humanity behind the myth. What we remember and pass on is legend, but the production wants to show us three dimensional people behind the tales. The idealism of Camelot is in how it is remembered, not in how it is portrayed.

That being said, the show sorely needs structural overhaul. The intercut Fie On Goodness sequence is staged to beautiful effect, and gives the show a sense of motion that it’s otherwise entirely lacking. The plotting is still as nonexistent as it was in its original form. I wish Sorkin had given us more to care about in the Arthur/Guenevere/Lancelot relationships. The tension between the three of them was muddled when it needs to be the driving force behind the show. Spending a little more time showing Arthur/Guenevere falling in love, and then Guenevere falling in love with Lancelot would’ve helped Sorkin to earn the touching final scene he has written between Arthur and Guenevere. I also felt Lancelot’s two ballads came out of nowhere. Could Sorkin have augmented the scenes to better emotionally launch Lance into romantic displays of balladry? I think so.

It’s amusing to me that people criticize the modern-ness of Sorkin’s book but have no issue with how the score does not suit the setting. Very little about the score evokes a time period other than the mid-20th Century. Patter songs stuffed with witticisms never conjure up the grandeur of Camelot, or any idea of the Dark Ages. The style if perfectly suited to Pygmalion/My Fair Lady but here it does not work. I’m reminded of the mastery of The King and I, and how Rodgers uses Eastern musical influence to enhance his usual pop music sound, and ground the piece firmly in its setting.

Performance-wise, I found Soo to be the strongest of the leads, even if she did blow through a joke or two. I absolutely loved Donica in My Fair Lady and Into the Woods but here was disappointed. Perhaps it is the physical restraint that limited the colors he could play with here, but his voice was still a highlight. Burnap was fine. He lands every single joke, but could’ve done more to grow into the role of King as the show progresses. I wish we’d had more time with Dakin Matthews as Merlin (I didn’t find his death jarring or off-putting as some). Marilee Talkington was a highlight for me. She has big Gillian Anderson energy and though she has little to do here, I’d love to see her in any number of roles. I’m glad I was forewarned about the child actor. Sorry to say but I’ve never seen a worse child performance in a show of this caliber. A lot of the gravitas of the final scene was blown because of the kid’s inability to keep up.

This got long, but I must say: This was my partner’s first visit to Lincoln Center, and first Sher revival. He was absolutely blown away by the direction and production value, and I’m glad I could see things through his eyes since many of us feel Sher hasn’t done anything massively innovative in nearly a decade. While he may have his same bag of visual tricks he trots out for every production, he truly is a master of beautiful stage pictures, and the blocking he does on the Beaumont’s thrust is unparalleled. The most thrilling moment of the night for me was the tail end of the overture, one of the only moments where Loewe musically captures the feel of Arthur’s court through fanfare and bombast. As trumpets soar, cloaked knights enter from below the rear of the stage, moving at an ethereal tempo. It’s a repeat Sher staging moment, but one that never fails to thrill. The characters seem to rise out of nowhere, appearing like visions of the past through the mists of time. Merlin may here be stripped of his powers, but Sher works his own magic with every show he touches. 

[ChorusKitty]

Posted: 4/27/23 at 11:26pm

Saw this revival tonight and I honestly almost left after the first act because it was so dull, but will admit I was glad I stayed for the second - but mainly because the plot finally started moving. I wouldn't say the second act redeems the first,  but at least a modicum of tension develops.  

I'm not sure what's happened, but the cast energy was so low, like you might see toward the end of a nine month touring bus and truck company where everyone is tired of each of other and the show itself.  Dakin Mathews in the dual Merlin/Pellinore role was the only consistent actor the whole evening. The leads all had some good moments, but then seemed to fall back in energy conservation mode.  The  lack energy carried over to the audience (I'd guess about 95% full). Most stood and gave a standing ovation for the leads, but it really muted compared to the audiences at every other show I've seen on this trip, including the equally (IMO) lackluster "New York, New York." 

[UWS10023]

Posted: 4/28/23 at 1:17am

Andrew Burnap got a Drama Dest nomination today! I was happy for him.

[Sutton Ross]

Posted: 4/28/23 at 1:07pm

ChorusKitty said: "Saw this revival tonight and I honestly almost left after the first act because it was so dull, but will admit I was glad I stayed for the second - but mainly because the plot finally started moving. I wouldn't say the second act redeems the first, but at least a modicum of tension develops.

I'm not sure what's happened, but the cast energy was so low, like you might see toward the end of a nine month touring bus and truck company where everyone is tired of each of other and the show itself. Dakin Mathews in the dual Merlin/Pellinore role was the only consistent actor the whole evening. The leads all had some good moments, but then seemed to fall back in energy conservation mode. The lack energy carried over to the audience (I'd guess about 95% full). Most stood and gave a standing ovation for the leads, but it really muted compared to the audiences at every other show I've seen on this trip, including the equally (IMO) lackluster "New York, New York.""

Aw man, I'm taking my in laws next week to this because they love Lincoln Centers "Spring Musical" as they put it annually. Sounds like a goddamn bore. They should conserve their energy when they are off stage, not on. I will never forgot how amazing My Fair Lady was except when Lauren started singing her songs (June of the year it opened) and she quite literally squeaked all of them out as she was clearly sick at the time. Like no one knew what what happening and why she wouldn't just get her understudy to do it. So, it seems like a real hit or miss situation over there. 

I hope they drink all the Red Bulls and wake up soon! 

Updated On: 4/28/23 at 01:07 PM

[JudyDenmark]

Posted: 4/30/23 at 12:14am

Saw this tonight, and went in knowing zero about the show other than that it's about King Arthur, the one song "If Ever I Would Leave You" (and probably could've only sung that title line), and that it's Lerner & Loewe. 

I got my ticket before reviews came out, largely because I really enjoy Phillipa Soo, Jordan Donica (from seeing him in My Fair Lady and last fall's NY Pops Broadway concert where he killed it), and the lush orchestra and high-quality production that I can expect from these LCT productions. I had skimmed some of these comments, and needless to say I went in fully expecting to be bored out of my mind. I coffeed up in the afternoon and again at the theatre before the show. 

Lesson: the way to see this show is to have those same low expectations and know exactly how long it's going to be, because it turns out I really enjoyed it! 

The great:
—All three leads. I didn't know Andrew Burnap at all, but consider me a fan now. I feel like this show absolutely depends on having three it-factor stars, because it was largely their talents that kept me engaged.
—The production. Yes it was fairly minimalist, but I thought it was just gorgeous. That cavernous theatre always awes me, and I thought they used the projections and lighting to beautiful effect. LOVED the costumes. It helped that I was in the second row and could see everything up close. The little girl in me wanted to play dress-up in every one of Guenevere's dresses, and I was impressed by the construction of the armor and... bondage wear (?) which I'm going to assume was accurately period haha. The sheer number of costume changes for everybody was wild! 
—The Lusty Month of May, best number in the show hands down. All of the chiffon and ribbons and flowers and harmonies, I was oohing and aahing. Beautiful. 
—The fight choreography. Didn't realize there'd be so much of it. Very impressed. 


The good: 
—Aaron Sorkin's book. Nothing to compare it to so no clue what was in the original, but I liked the wittiness (helped enormously by Andrew Burnap) and felt it got tedious way less than a lot of these comments made me expect. 
—The ending? Had no clue where the story was going, but did not expect that. I assumed it'd have a happy ending. I was moved. 


The not-so-good:
—This has to be the most boring score in all of musical theatre. Thank god for a lovely orchestra and great singers, because I keep thinking surely there couldn't actually be that ratio of solo ballads, but sure enough here comes another ballad. Gimme some more ensemble work and choral parts and it would've been much stronger. I think I'm ultimately just not a big Lerner & Loewe fan because I can count on one hand the number of their songs that I really love. Oh well.
—I did not really understand the Pellinore character. Maybe I missed something? He's like a homeless guy living in the woods and then the next thing he's Arthur's advisor? What? (Edit: Ok, totally missed that he was a king who knew the family. Never mind. Thank you, Wikipedia.)

#TeamArthur
(Though Lancelot can sing to me any day)

Updated On: 4/30/23 at 12:14 AM

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 4/30/23 at 4:05am

JudyDenmark said: "This has to be the most boring score in all of musical theatre."

You have wounded my soul with this comment.

[Phillyguy]

Posted: 4/30/23 at 8:29am

JudyDenmark said: "I had skimmed some of these comments, and needless to say I went in fully expecting to be bored out of my mind. I coffeed up in the afternoon and again at the theatre before the show.

Lesson: the way to see this show is to have those same low expectations and know exactly how long it's going to be, because it turns out I really enjoyed it!

The not-so-good:
—This has to be the most boring score in all of musical theatre.

#TeamArthur"

I think you are onto something here. Having low expectation and lots of caffeine are really the key to enjoy mediocre performances. I saw Bad Cinderella yesterday and totally enjoyed it. I went with low expectations after reading all the reviews and your post just made me realize I went to a tea tasting just before the show and all the caffeine probably helped. 
 

That said, Camelot was the most disappointing musical I’ve been to (not necessarily the worst) but I had such high expectation before the bad reviews came out because the original cast recording was so beautiful. You can feel the love and joy in the way Julie Andrew sang them. Philipa Soo just made it so adversarial that it’s hard to believe they’ve ever loved each other. 

The low energy I feel is partly from the ginormous theater that made everything on stage felt smaller. The voice/singing also didn’t project well to where I was sitting on side orchestra. 
 

Also #TeamArthur for sure 

[JudyDenmark]

Posted: 4/30/23 at 11:09am

CATSNYrevival said: "JudyDenmark said: "This has to be the most boring score in all of musical theatre."

You have wounded my soul with this comment."

Haha I’m truly sorry! I’ll have to listen to some of the songs in isolation - as a whole it just felt like the balance of what I want in a show like this (namely a lot more ensemble work, though to be fair I’m a bit of a vocal arranging nerd) was so off that it became hard to appreciate the songs individually.

[rattleNwoolypenguin]

Posted: 5/1/23 at 12:56pm

JudyDenmark said: "CATSNYrevival said: "JudyDenmark said: "This has to be the most boring score in all of musical theatre."

You have wounded my soul with this comment."

Haha I’m truly sorry! I’ll have to listen to some of the songs in isolation - as a whole it just felt like the balance of what I want in a show like this (namely a lot more ensemble work, though to be fair I’m a bit of a vocal arranging nerd) was so off that it became hard to appreciate the songs individually."

Now now I don't think it's the most boring score. There are plenty of boring forgettable scores out there that don't have an ounce of melodicism of "If Every I Would Leave You" or "I Loved You Once in Silence"

I think what's arguable is more that the score doesn't excite or invigorate the story. It's utilized boringly. The kind of score that makes you appreciate Rodgers and Hammerstein's craft even more comparatively. 

[Dollypop]

Posted: 5/5/23 at 6:29pm

Did the lottery and got tickets in Row F for tomorrow's matinee. I'm taking one of the few surviving members of the production we did in '79 with Brian Dennehy as Arthur.

[Dollypop]

Posted: 5/6/23 at 11:00pm

I saw the show this afternoon and liked it for the most part.

My biggest gripe was the disparate tones of the dialogue and the song lyrics. There's a certain elegance to the lyrics that the dialogue lacked.

Towards the end of Act One I found myself getting dizzy from the staging which has the actor's walking in circles.A bit of variety would have helped.

Loved the 3 leads.

Henry Winkler and his family sat across the aisle from us.

[inception]

Posted: 5/7/23 at 10:54am

I've been waiting to read your take, since you are probably more familiar with the show than anyone else on this board.

So happy you got great lottery seats!