CAMELOT to close in July — Page 2

I think audiences - and myself - have come to expect some sort of “wow” moment from these revivals and this show had none of that. Minimal sets, nothing really exciting or new staging wise. I think Sher’s style has gotten worse and worse. South Pacific and Piazza were sweeping and gorgeous… but Bridges ( one of my favorite scores, but awful staging), Mockingbird (odd directional choices), and now this…

Grateful for the cast album. It’s easily my favorite cast album of the season so far. Still waiting to hear Sweeney though.

If LCT does keep doing revivals, I would love to see what they and Mr Sher could do with "The Most Happy Fella". It needs a big orchestra and I bet they could do a truly beautiful production of this work.

The only saving Grace of this production was Jordan Donica’s true star turn. He seemed to understand the assignment more than anyone and the stage was only truly alive when he was singing.

Correct.

If LCT is going to keep reviving shows, they they should consider FANNY. A marvelous score and Done.ks would be sensational as Marius.

Updated On: 6/28/23 at 09:05 PM

RippedMan said: "I think audiences - and myself - have come to expect some sort of “wow” moment from these revivals and this show had none of that. Minimal sets, nothing really exciting or new staging wise. I think Sher’s style has gotten worse and worse. South Pacific and Piazza were sweeping and gorgeous… but Bridges ( one of my favorite scores, but awful staging), Mockingbird (odd directional choices), and now this…"

Agree. I felt like regardless of issues with the book, I was banking on the show being lavish and beautiful to look at. For it to not be that makes the book issues even more glaring.

Sidebar: Can we get Cameron Loyal from BAD CINDERELLA as Lancelot for the tour? I’d sit through this misguided, misbegotten mishegoss if I could hear HIM sing his songs.

A West End transfer does not sound ideal. Apart from maybe South Pacific, Sher's revivals of golden age musicals have received only lukewarm reviews and and poorly sold runs in London. Unless they cast someone like Paul Mescal as Arthur, it sounds too ambitious.

I was very taken with the production and both Sher and Sorkin's approach to the material. I thought Andrew Burnap's Arthur was wonderful and really loved Soo and Donica as well. Glad I got to see this one during it's short run.

I thought The King and I did well in London? My Fair Lady less so (although I don't think it was a disaster). That said, I agree Camelot probably wouldn't do well in London.

I agree with most of these comments. I was excited to see a revival of an iconic show from the past, and it, for me, had a sense of being 'a moment' because of that. While I really enjoyed the performances, it did feel like it was a bit vapid and missing a spark. Too long, bogged down by scenes, but uplifted by the score. When the show is as long as this, if I feel like I am just waiting to get to the next song, something isn't right.

Hoping LCT can strike gold but it has been a while. Especially seeing Encores!' success this past season and currently with TLITP, I would think they would take notes from the 'reinventing classics' book City Center uses. We'll see, and I hope it's Show Boat or MOLM!

Auggie27 said: "I don't think LTC's marketing was the issue. The show had no identifiable word of mouth, meh reviews, and without stars and only the branded title from another age, it wasn't likely to pull ahead. I don't know anyone who said "You must see this!" The convos here were mostly respectful with well-parsed reservations. All astutely argued. For the record, I was there this very afternoon. Three stars all in, Burnap leaving it all on the floor (to me, the best of the trio, a fully worked out characterization that carries the story to its resolution), Donica singing his heart out, but the show just doesn't generate enough theatrical thrills. It's long, talky, the songs no longer organic to their textual cues, and thus afflicted with a distancing factor: you can't marry the score to the scenes that contain many of the numbers. You find yourself wondering why that moment -- "Lusty Month of May" "Fie on Goodness" - was musicalized to begin with. An imperfect show still, well, palpably imperfect."

Yes to all of this. I'm really sick of original-book wholesale rewrites. Except for the gay, seen-it-all-ready-to-die Merlin whom I found truly hysterically funny, yes, the comic lines that still worked best were Lerner's. Plus the engine of the play had been removed. Well, not removed...well, maybe replaced with a faux engine...It turns out Genny and Arthur had been in love all this time?? That this was a love story between Arthur and Guenevere???Then what was she doing with poor Lance??? They screwed up a beautiful political ideal for nought? Because Arthur decided to spend the night at the home of the mother of his problem child??? I understand why they gave "I Loved You Once in Silence" (probably my favorite ballad in the show) to Lancelot, because apparently Guenevere never really loved him, in silence or otherwise!! And it so spoiled Lancelot's arc after starting off so well (loved Jordan Donica's first two scenes and whenever he sang). To me, the the book was actually subpar Sorkin (I actually really enjoyed his Mockingbird re-write) and there was a lot that disturbed me, such as stating that Camelot was in The Middle Ages. No, Camelot is a myth out of time...and even if it wasn't ... did the people IN the Middle Ages know they were in or CALLED it the Middle Ages.. Anyway when "C'est Moi" is you're favorite thing in a production of Camelot (though Su's "Take Me To the Fair" was pretty wonderful too) this probably, in my opinion, is not a successful production.

If this production WAS set on the Middle Ages, how could Morgan call herself a "scientist"? That term didn't enter the lexicon until the 1800's.