CAMELOT Returns to Broadway - Reviews Thread — Page 12
Posted: 2/2/23 at 4:55pm
inception said: "Burnap looks young for Arthur. I thought part of the attraction of Lancelot to Guinevere is that they are closer in age? Or am I mixing that up with some other story?"
It's that Guinevere finds Lance more desirable than Arthur, not an age gap. He's supposed to be the youthful, impish king...and Guinevere is drawn to, in the words of Mel Brooks, "the well-hung stable boy." (well, in this case, knight)
Burton was 35, only 8 years older than Goulet; Burnap is 31. Arthur has become increasingly older across various past revivals so it's refreshing to see it cast appropriately young here.
Posted: 2/2/23 at 5:46pm
Super excited to see this cast. Andrew Burnap was terrific in The Inheritance and I look forward to see him showing all the different sides of a young, embullient and ultimately heartbroken Arthur. And Jordan Donica - he was so engaging as the Prince in NYCC's Into the Woods, wonderful voice, and I can't wait to see what he does with Lancelot. That look he gives Guinevere in the trailer - be still my heart! :) Fingers crossed for a new and different take with this younger cast...
Posted: 2/2/23 at 5:49pm
Thanks for the explanation.
It probably didn't help that people like Richard Harris kept playing the role into the upper years. Even Michael York was almost 70 when he toured in the role about 15 years ago.
Posted: 2/2/23 at 5:53pm
inception said: "Anyways, Burnap looks young for Arthur. I thought part of the attraction of Lancelot to Guinevere is that they are closer in age? Or am I mixing that up with some other story?"
Richard Burton was 35 in the original production. Andrew Burnap is just a few years younger. We’re used to seeing older actors play Arthur in revivals. Richard Harris was in his 50s in the 1981 revival and Robert Goulet was nearly 60 in the 1993 revival. Michael York was in his 60s for national tour in 2007.
Posted: 2/2/23 at 6:03pm
I really hope people get a better attitude about this production. I've just seen a lot of people on TikTok who are throwing this production down already and it literally hasn't even had a first preview yet. I for one am glad we have a place like Lincoln Center that is interested in revising/reviving old works to make them accessible to today's audiences. Isn't that what this community has been wanting? To make theatre more accessible and relevant to the world we live in? Stories like Camelot have helped shaped theatre, television, movies, etc. for literal decades and for people to be so blase about the production with a very exciting cast and creative team, just feels gross to me. I can't wait to see this production and I hope people give it a fair chance.
Posted: 2/2/23 at 6:58pm
CATSNYrevival said: "inception said: "Anyways, Burnap looks young for Arthur. I thought part of the attraction of Lancelot to Guinevere is that they are closer in age? Or am I mixing that up with some other story?"
Richard Burton was 35 in the original production. Andrew Burnap is just a few years younger. We’re used to seeing older actors play Arthur in revivals. Richard Harris was in his 50s in the 1981 revival and Robert Goulet was nearly 60 in the 1993 revival. Michael York was in his 60s for national tour in 2007."
I've seen it argued that the common casting of actors in or approaching middle age as Arthur is a mistake because it makes some of the character's missteps seem like they come out of ignorance rather than youthful naivety.
Posted: 2/2/23 at 7:02pm
WigWerk said: "I really hope people get a better attitude about this production. I've just seen a lot of people on TikTok who are throwing this production down already and it literally hasn't even had a first preview yet."
Thankfully this show isn’t gonna be a success or failure based on what TikTok thinks!
Posted: 2/2/23 at 11:24pm
inception said: "Why does this site seem to make photo links look so blurry lately?
Anyways, Burnap looks young for Arthur. I thought part of the attraction of Lancelot to Guinevere is that they are closer in age? Or am I mixing that up with some other story?
I hope not all the costumes are such muted colours. Looks like an 90's furniture store."
Ask Rob must be a BW thing lately as photos are showing up blurred.
Posted: 2/2/23 at 11:27pm
ErmengardeStopSniveling said: "inception said: "Burnap looks young for Arthur. I thought part of the attraction of Lancelot to Guinevere is that they are closer in age? Or am I mixing that up with some other story?"
It's that Guinevere finds Lance more desirable than Arthur, not an age gap. He's supposed to be the youthful, impish king...and Guinevere is drawn to, in the words of Mel Brooks, "the well-hung stable boy." (well, in this case, knight)
Burton was 35, only 8 years older than Goulet; Burnap is 31. Arthur has become increasingly older across various past revivals so it's refreshing to see it cast appropriately young here."
Then I guess Sher cast the right Knight lol -Dornica but that hair looks cool but is all wrong for the period hope they wig him.
Posted: 2/5/23 at 11:00am
Regarding Arthur's age, I just realized that Modred in this production is three years older! Of course, the text, if they leave that part of the text as is, establishes that Arthur was very young when he fathered Mordred -- young enough that one could argue that Morgause was a child molester, if the Middle Ages saw it that way (I don't know enough about the Middle Ages to know how they saw it). But it certainly makes for an interesting father-son dynamic.
Burton was about three years older than McDowall in the original, I believe, so again, a young Arthur is reflecting what the creators had in mind.
Posted: 2/5/23 at 11:45am
I’ve never been to this theatre so I was hoping those who have could answer a few questions for me:
1. Is this theatre within walking distance from Time Square area? My bus drops off at either the Winter Garden or Rosie O Gradys depending on traffic. Is it within reasonable walking distance from there or should I take a cab?
2. A view from my seat has great pictures from the lodge seats - is the view really that great? Or should I think about sitting in the orchestra?
Thanks!!
Posted: 2/5/23 at 11:49am
Yes you can walk from Times Square to the venue.
Posted: 2/5/23 at 2:07pm
perfectpenguin said: "I’ve never been to this theatre so I was hoping those who have could answer a few questions for me:
1. Is this theatre within walking distance from Time Square area? My bus drops off at either the Winter Garden or Rosie O Gradys depending on traffic. Is it within reasonable walking distance from there or should I take a cab?
2. A view from my seat has great pictures from the lodge seats - is the view really that great? Or should I think about sitting in the orchestra?
Thanks!!"
Are you comfortable on the Subway? By the far the easiest way from Times Square to Lincoln Center is by Subway. Just hop on an Uptown 1 Train at 50th Street and take it two stops to 66th Street-Lincoln Center.
If not, it's totally walkable. It's around a mile straight up Broadway to Columbus and then through the Lincoln Center campus (although probably a bit shorter if you head over to Columbus around 62nd street)
As far as seating, I haven't been disappointed with Lodge seats I've sat in, but the orchestra will be better. There's very little Lodge overhang, so just about anywhere in the Orchestra will be closer.
Posted: 2/5/23 at 2:13pm
I came across a copy of the London recording of CAMELOT from 1964, starring the late Laurence Harvey as Arthur. The recording is more complete than the original Broadway one; it includes "The Jousts" and the total finale and reprise of the title song. Harvey was not as good a singer as Burton (and the Guenevere and Lancelot are no Andrews and Goulet) but the finale as spoken by Harvey was thrilling and surprisingly moving. Makes me even more anxious to see this.
And I did see the original production just before it closed, with an excellent William Squire as Arthur and an impossible Kathryn Grayson, busily running her trills to no avail.
Posted: 2/6/23 at 1:00pm
I'm looking forward to this production and wish the cast well but doubt that "If Ever I Would Leave You" will come c
to the magic Goulet created in that song.
Posted: 2/24/23 at 11:37am
https://www.facebook.com/watch?v=967424181348208
Posted: 2/24/23 at 3:21pm
I just heard Jordan Donica sing "If Ever I Would Leave You" and I almost fell over. His voice is one of the very best on Broadway. Chills. I cannot wait to see this production!
Posted: 2/24/23 at 3:34pm
They both sounds absolutely fantastic. As does the ensemble. I can't wait to see this.
Posted: 2/24/23 at 3:35pm
Heavenly. I just love a grand old Lincoln Center revival and it looks like this is shaping up to be a good one.
Posted: 2/24/23 at 3:42pm
Jordan Donica's voice has never done anything for me...but he sounds amazing on "If Ever," and maybe someone should open a window in here!
Those ensemble vocals sound great too.
Updated On: 2/24/23 at 03:42 PM
Posted: 2/24/23 at 3:55pm
Well Donica certainly sings that better than I did at freshman year recital lol.
Posted: 2/24/23 at 4:00pm
Donica sounds sublime! He has the perfect voice for that song. Soo needs to give it a little more oomph, but it's only a rehearsal, so I expect she'll be just fine by the time the show opens.
Posted: 2/24/23 at 4:11pm
They both sound truly divine! Looks like this could be another Lincoln Center production worthy of its line-up of great LCT musical Golden Age revivals. I am curious about how different Aaron Sorkin's new book will be in comparison to the original.
