Camelot First Preview Thoughts

[shesamarshmallow]

Posted: 1/13/07 at 4:09am

So, I went to see the first preview of what will become the national tour of Camelot tonight. And I'd be lying if I said that I didn't enjoy it. But it's just a mess of a show. It's my first exposure to Camelot besides endless listening to the cast recording. In the context of the show, most of the songs seem much more suited to My Fair Lady than the regality and pomp of Camelot. Michael York is horrbly miscast in what is already an extremely difficult character to portray. His voice isn't strong - maybe if it were, I could forgive the whole show feeling more like Father of the Bride than a love triangle. It's very much the performance you expect out of most stars who are meant to carry the show on their own name recognition - very characteristic of him as an actor and seemingly going through the motions of the part.
Rachel York and James Barbour have heavenly voices that overcome most any flaws in their characterizations - close your eyes and Rachel York sounds exactly like Julie Andrews does on the cast recording. I can't decide whether that's good or bad. As for James Barbour, he either did the best he could with a poorly written character or played it unevenly. Really, why introduce a character who's meant to be devout and incredibly loyal throughout the play with an arrogant song called "C'est Moi!"? (I did love the subtlety of his french accent.) But Barbour actually benefitted from the poor sound design - while the delay in the speakers behind me made his voice sound incredibly full and rich, it made Michael York's sound like a boy in a large barn. Hopefully, the sound design will be fixed in the new few days.

What's most stunning about this production, however, is the disconnect between what appears on stage and what is written in the program. Here are some excerpts from the director:
"We have some exciting new ideas of King Arthur and Guenevere and Lancelot. That triangle is much deeper than physical love, much deeper. My whole concept is that the three of them are one being. Arthur represents the mind, Lancelot represents the spirit and Guenevere represents the sexuality. Without each other they can't survive, so it becomes much more of a sizable tradegy in scope. ... King Arthur's time was not medieval, it was darker. He would have existed 400 to 600 AD, right out of the dark ages. That'll mean more leathers, more furs as well as just a way of behaving. ... It os perfect for our political climate: Put down your swords! Stop the War! It's political layer is why Kennedy was so fascinated with it in the 60s."
And my personal favorite part of the article:
"He is excited about the possibilities of a New York run and that it just may become one of Broadway's more important revivals."

Wow, right? He sounds like Corky Romano. I can tell you that nothing that appears on the stage sounds anything like what he describes. If Michael York is mean to represent the mind, he fails - his Arthur is much more like George W Bush, seemingly jovial, a bit dim and laughable when attempting menace. Rachel York exudes no more sexuality than is absolutely necessary (and we know she's more than capable from City of Angels). There's not a spot of darkness in any aspect of the show - the costumes are bright and glamorous (hardly a fur or leather to be seen) and the set looks straight out of a Disney movie. For that matter, much of the dialogue seemed stolen from The Sword in the Stone, but not having seen the original, I'm not sure whether that's unique to this production. Using new orchestrations for the generally upbeat score would have helped too, but it all sounds exactly as it did on the OBCR. Not only that, they cut the bad guy's only song - definitely a mistake when wanting to darken the tone of a show! 'One of Broadway's more important revivals' is pushing it - at best it's a passable production of a flawed yet fondly remembered show.

edited because stoic was the wrong word

Updated On: 1/13/07 at 04:09 AM

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 1/13/07 at 10:07am

Really great, descriptive review. Indeed, the true "Holy Grail" seems to be the pursuit to make any production of CAMELOT as rich as the images it conveys listening to the cast recording.

Sorry to hear this probably isn't going to be the production that solves the mystery of how to fix this problematic musical.

[shesamarshmallow]

Posted: 1/13/07 at 8:31pm

gratuitous bump

[theaterkid1015]

Posted: 1/13/07 at 9:12pm

I'm really looking forward to seeing this when it comes to town, but that's not for a while. I hope they fix it. Do you think Rachel York was trying to play Guenevere too restricted and hasn't gotten to the point of letting the sexuality shine through it? Or, is she just mischaracterizing it?

[Horton]

Posted: 1/13/07 at 9:18pm

interesting point of view.

[keen on kean]

Posted: 1/13/07 at 9:18pm

I was quite young when I saw the original but my recollection is that the Lancelot part is non-existant. Heavy reliance on the song delivery and Guinevere's reactions to carry that part of the story forward. Richard Burton not young but boyishly naive and very appealing. His sense of betrayal by the two people he loved was the linchpin of the show, and he did have a stunning speak/singing voice. The Mordred (?Roddy McDowell I thing) was slimy and malevolent - as soon as he came into the plot, the entire tone changed. But I do recall the sets being a little Hallmark-cardy - except I loved the tree in the first scene, the one Arthur falls out of. I remember it being huge and bluish-green. Don't know how they are going to swing this - love the music but the book without first rate performers is weak.

[shesamarshmallow]

Posted: 1/13/07 at 9:24pm

It just seemed that Rachel played the part as written, and not as envisioned by the director. I think the three parts of the same being concept is both weak and pretentious, especially in a show that really shouldn't pretend to be deeper than it is.

Mordred is barely in this production. He's honestly not on stage long enough to form an opinion about. That, and Michael York, is its biggest problem.

[lovesclassics]

Posted: 1/13/07 at 10:14pm

Thoughts re: the sexuality in Camelot.

If Michael York as Arthur is all wrong, not regal enough, and too old (you made a reference to Father of the Bride), then Rachel may be merely reacting to the lack of sexual chemistry. It might actually put Guenevere in a bad light if she were to play her too sexy without any heat coming back.

Actors don't work in isolation. Their and the director's vision for a role may be thwarted by the realities of what happens once they interact with others on stage.

She may also have opted to cool things down with Lancelot so as not to look like a slut, given how you say Michael York is playing Arthur.

I'll be very interested to see this in Schenectady.

lc

[JohnBoy2]

Posted: 1/13/07 at 10:17pm

The original production was very bright and colorful. Julie Andrews even had red hair!

[shesamarshmallow]

Posted: 1/13/07 at 10:22pm

Rachel has a gorgeous shade of strawberry blonde.

I have little problem with the way the show is presented - I just am worried about the sanity of the director who thinks this production is revolutionary.

[lovesclassics]

Posted: 1/13/07 at 10:25pm

So true, shesamarshmallow. Touting your vision at such a high standard is like drawing a bullseye on your chest.

lc

[keen on kean]

Posted: 1/13/07 at 11:18pm

There is a sense of Arthur not paying enough attention to Guinevere in the original - she is bored and a little lonely which makes her vulnerable to Lancelot. It isn't a matter of age as much as presence/absence. But I haven't seen the current version so who knows where the emphasis is now...

[Doogie]

Posted: 1/13/07 at 11:35pm

I cannot imagine Rachel York ever missing the sexuality in any role......

[lovesclassics]

Posted: 1/13/07 at 11:42pm

keen on kean,

Interesting insight. With Richard Burton as Arthur and Goulet as Lancelot, I can only imagine how torn Julie Andrews' Guenevere must have been between the two of them. I mean, what a presence Burton must have had. You can easily see how she would be in love with him. So his neglect makes real sense in making Guenevere vulnerable to Lancelot's virility and larger than life nobility.

In the NSMT production I saw, it was very apparent that Guenevere loved both men for different reasons. And the love that Arthur and Lancelot shared was palpable, too. It made the betrayal that much more tragic for all of them. It was played out as if it were destiny, beyond anyone's control. I liked it a lot.

lc

[wickedrentq]

Posted: 1/14/07 at 11:01am

"close your eyes and Rachel York sounds exactly like Julie Andrews does on the cast recording."

Doesn't surprise me. She can actually do an amazing impression of her, as she did at chatterbox. I certainly don't thinkshe's actually doing a Julie impression, but that just struck me as funny. Gah, I can't wait to hear her sing this role! I can only imagine how amazing she must sound.

"I cannot imagine Rachel York ever missing the sexuality in any role...... "

Amen Doogie!

Should we consider that this is the first preview and that the show might come together a bit more as it is intended? Perhaps not to the level it is being advertised as...

[Gypsy9]

Posted: 1/14/07 at 4:50pm

I saw the OBC of CAMELOT back in 1961 and was not that impressed with it, even with Burton, Andrews and Goulet. The book just sagged. Then I saw the revival many years later, with Richard Burton as Arthur, and was blown away by it. Burton's stage presence was just amazing and he carried the show. It was as if he had re-invigorated the role. I just can't imagine a 65 year old Michael York carrying CAMELOT.

Updated On: 1/14/07 at 04:50 PM

[keen on kean]

Posted: 1/14/07 at 6:21pm

Gypsy9 - I had SUCH a crush on Burton - his stage presence was phenomenal - missed his HAMLET years later but imagine it was the same.

[EganFan2]

Posted: 1/15/07 at 11:44am

WOW. I am going to see this when the tour comes round because I just love Rachel. I can't believe she's capable of sounding like Julie Andrews! I mean, her voice, as gorgeous as it is, is so deep and husky (which is what I love about it on recordings such as her "Let's Fall in Love" CD), and it would just be amazing to hear her sound completely different from that. Plus, she's just a beautiful lady and great actress.