Camelot tour review (spoilers!)

[wickedrentq]

Posted: 2/18/07 at 8:16am

Loved your review! Could not agree with you more about Rachel (well, except I haven't yet seen her in this, but I wouldn't expect anything less for her to be brilliant). So glad you loved her. I'm pretty sure I'm travelling to Philly just to see her in this.

[2ndBalcony]

Posted: 2/18/07 at 11:41pm

I saw it in San Jose. And in Los Angeles. (twice) I agree with your review. My only complaint about James Barbour (with whom I would totally have babies) is that he wanders off-key. Oh my goodness - his "If Ever I Were to Leave You" was passionate and wonderful. And completely at odds with the orchestra. James, I adore you. Please be more careful.

[folkyboy]

Posted: 2/18/07 at 11:42pm

i debated going to Philly to see the Camelot tour as well! i just hate that it's coming there so damn close to the Tony's!

[lovesclassics]

Posted: 2/20/07 at 12:37am

I just returned from Schenectady after seeing Camelot twice - Friday night and again on Sunday afternoon. Hands down, Rachel York carries this show on her incredibly talented shoulders. She is magnificent as Guenevere. I agree with everything melody2 said. Many reviews have compared Rachel to Julie Andrews, but dare I say it? She surpasses her with her vibrant and beautifully nuanced performance. She captivates the audience from the moment she runs on stage as the young romantic princess to her final tearful goodbye as a tormented and honorable queen. She's funny, sexy, strong, petulant, smart, playful and regal. She positively glows. And while her vocal quality is reminiscent of her predecessor's with its crystal-clear diction and lilting, soft-vibrato soprano, she has a richness and power in her voice that is truly distinct. The audience was abuzz at intermission. People kept saying over and over how wonderful she was.

Not so with Michael York. People were talking about his weak singing and his lack of authority. I'm afraid I have to agree. In fact, I found his performance to be the weakest link in the production. He's dreadfully miscast and misdirected. He is much too old to be trying to act so young. He looks every inch his age (65), so his attempts at boyishness make him seem weak and peevish. His voice comes across whiney and his mannerisms effete. He is dwarfed physically and emotionally by every other actor on that stage. Thank goodness the cast around him is so solid. They, along with Rachel, manage to lift the production in spite of him.

As far as his speak-singing goes, he is trying so hard to stay on pitch that you can see the effort in his face. He has no vocal power and therefore no emotional power. Where his voice should command, it winces. He looks incredibly uncomfortable in his skin. It is really quite astounding to me how such a legendary actor can be so ill at ease on that stage. He has no chemistry with either Guenevere or Lancelot - he seems to be orating rather than interacting - and his gestures are forced and unnatural. There is nothing organic about his performance whatsoever. I am mystified by the kind, even somewhat positive, reviews he's been getting.

My suggestions for improvement? Deal with the elephant in the room - his age. Abandon all attempts to make him youthful and play the relationships he has with Guenevere and Lancelot as more paternal. Make Guenevere's attraction to him be more about his vision, his honor, his integrity, his humanity, his passion for his dreams. Her attraction to Lancelot, then, in contrast, is more visceral, more romantic. Also, make the relationship between Arthur and Lancelot more of a mentor/protege situation. That would be far more believable that the current failed attempt to make them seem like peers or brothers. I think with these changes in "attitude," Arthur's compassion and understanding toward Guenevere and Lance would be more grounded.

As Lancelot, James Barbour is a very strong presence, but that has more to do with his amazing voice and physical stature than his acting. He truly does send chills up and down the spine with "If Ever I Would Leave You," and he manages a nice balance between sincerity and comedy with "C'est Moi." The lighting also adds to his power on stage. He is frequently bathed in bright white light as if rays from heaven are giving him strength. It's quite effective.

The costumes are hit or miss. Guenevere's gowns are exquisite (designers must adore building wardrobes for Rachel - clothes hang magnificently on her tall, slender frame). Arthur's tunics, on the other hand, only serve to make him look as weak as he seems. His frame is rounded and slouched. He is wider at the middle than the shoulders. He should have been given costumes padded at the shoulders and tapered at the waist. And he should have been given lifts for his boots. He needs to be more physically imposing. Better posture and carriage would go a long way toward creating a more believable knight worthy of Excalibur.

And now to the changes in the show itself. Moving "If Ever I Would Leave You" to the chamber scene has robbed the show of its romantic build-up. Guenevere's change of heart toward Lancelot is too sudden. When the song was earlier in the show, it served as a courtship of sorts. Lancelot was proclaiming his love for Guenevere and melting her defenses away. It created dramatic tension because we could see how much they loved each other, yet they were still not acting on it. Now the song serves as a reaction to Guenevere's expressed anguish over the thought of him leaving her. It's more pensive and ironic. It's more about them always being together in spirit than in fact. They have acknowledged that they must part, so the song is reflective, not causative.

And I ached to hear Rachel sing "I Loved You Once in Silence." She's the strongest element in the show. Please, give the audience the great joy of hearing her sing one of the most beloved songs from the score.

One final note, relative to Camelot old and new. As I was watching Michael York struggling to find the center for his Arthur, it occurred to me what is and always has been wrong with the book. It's mostly exposition and ideas. Most of the characters are telling their stories throughout. We are not engaged in the moment by any real action. Strong actors who speak from the heart and not the mind can overcome this liability to a great degree. Michael York and James Barbour are not such actors in this production. Rachel York as Guenevere, Shannon Stoeke as Mordred, and Time Winters and Pellinore are. For their performances alone, this Camelot is worth seeing. But if it ever hopes to transfer to Broadway, it needs a new king leading the charge.

lc

[bwaylvsong]

Posted: 2/20/07 at 10:15am

Camelot's music director did my production of Ragtime! Everything good that has been said is exactly what he teaches, and I am happy to see his clear success in such a high-profile production.

[skingdom]

Posted: 2/20/07 at 10:37am

rachel york rox my sox...the woman should win a tony award.

[wickedrentq]

Posted: 2/20/07 at 1:13pm

[WithoutATrace]

Posted: 2/20/07 at 1:24pm

Yes, Rachel York was absolutely brilliant in this production. I'm glad I got the chance to see her in it.

[sanda]

Posted: 3/2/07 at 8:44am

Will someone go to Philly to watch this tour in July? I plan to drive from Baltimore to Philly to catch it in a weekend. If someone would love to carpool with me, let me know.

Correction: June. Updated On: 3/2/07 at 08:44 AM

[sparrman]

Posted: 3/2/07 at 9:44am

"My suggestions for improvement? Deal with the elephant in the room - his age."

Or...fire the elephant! Seems a shame for him to bring down what sounds like an otherwise pretty good production. Richard Burton was 35 when he played Arthur, which is just about perfect; young enough to pull off the boyish first scene, but old enough to have a sense of the size and scope of the tragedy as the show ends.

Does this production have the opening scene like in the movie where Arthur comes out of the tent on the eve of battle and he asks the non-present Merlyn to show him where he went wrong? And then the whole show proceeds as a sort of flashback? When you've got a geriatric Arthur, I feel this prologue makes the boyish scenes a little easier to swallow.

[PB ENT.]

Posted: 3/2/07 at 11:52am

Will someone go to Philly to watch this tour in July?

Sanda~ Camelot plays Philly June 5-10. (I am trying to book Rachel for a Cabaret spot on June 11th as well.) I will cover the show during the run. I hope you get to see it.

[lovesclassics]

Posted: 3/2/07 at 11:55am

Sparrman,

Yes, the show opens with Arthur on the eve of battle, asking for enlightenment from the absent Merlin. The show then goes into flashback. At the end, it returns to the opening scene, at which point Tom of Warwick enters.

lc

[sanda]

Posted: 3/2/07 at 2:15pm

Hey, PB, thanks for the correction. Yeah, I put this on my todo list since I got the news that James Barbour did Lancelot. It's a dream come true. I will definitely be there.

[lovesclassics]

Posted: 3/30/07 at 6:51pm

Talkin' Broadway just posted its review of Camelot in Seattle. The trend continues - raves for Rachel York and James Barbour, tepid toward the changes, and somewhat negative toward Michael York. Interesting that he thinks it could make a run at Broadway with a casting change for Arthur. He suggests Patrick Stewart. I still say Kevin Kline would be very interesting!

Excerpts:

...even with the sincere and worthwhile efforts of Lerner heirs Liza (the tour producer) and Michel A.M. Lerner (who has augmented and revised his father's book), the show is still only a partial success...by and large this Camelot feels more reduced than really revised.

**********

The jewels in this version of the tale of the legendary "Once and Future King" and the heartbreaking triangle between King Arthur, Queen Guenevere and Sir Lancelot are Rachel York and James Barbour as Guenevere and Lance. York, who deserves a first class new musical starring role on Broadway pronto, is well-nigh perfect in both the acting and singing aspects of her role. While giving an interpretation of the fabled queen that is distinctly her own, York's song interpretations recall the vintage vocals and crisp lyric delivery of the role's originator, York's past co-star and chum Julie Andrews, while her acting, particularly in Guenevere's more saucy moments, sizzles in a manner not unlike what Vanessa Redgrave brought to the role in the 1968 film. York has excellent chemistry with Barbour, who takes his Lancelot on a clear emotional journey from self-impressed knight to achingly conflicted comrade of King Arthur and lover of Guenevere. His renditions of the self-aggrandizing "C'est Moi" and the show's power love ballad "If Ever I Would Leave You" are both completely satisfying.

**********

Less satisfying, yet hard to dismiss, is star Michael York's turn as King Arthur. The still charismatic film star would have made a marvelous Mordred in his youth, but he isn't quite comfortable as the fabled ruler of Camelot. York clearly aims and wants to please and is ingratiating throughout. However, he reads more fatherly than as a contemporary of Ms. York and Barbour in the love triangle, and his on pitch yet whispery vocals diminish such songs as "How to Handle A Woman" and the title song, though he and Rachel York do a good job trying to pick up each other's spirits in "What Do the Simple Folk Do?"

**********

There is enough merit in this incarnation of Camelot to suggest a Broadway run might prove successful, with a few more $ spent on a more lavish physical production. Yet, in all deference to Mr. York, a more suitable King Arthur would make or break it. Question is, would Patrick Stewart or someone on that order be interested in ascending the throne for a long enough run?

lc
Camelot in Seattle

[HumATune]

Posted: 3/30/07 at 8:13pm

Patrick Stewart? Yep that's a lof a more age appropiate than Michael York.

[keen on kean]

Posted: 3/30/07 at 8:21pm

I love Patrick Stewart but can't picture him as Arthur. Can't they consider someone under 60?

[lovesclassics]

Posted: 3/30/07 at 9:55pm

Out of curiosity, I just looked up Kevin Kline on imdb, and turns out he's 59. So I was trying to think of other "name" actors who were younger and might be right for Arthur. Then it hit me. What about Hugh Jackman? Okay, so I'm dreaming. It'll never happen. But can't you see it? Now THAT would give the love triangle some heat! I think he'd be fabulous.

lc

[sparrman]

Posted: 3/30/07 at 10:01pm

Hugh Jackman! That would make the love triangle REALLY interesting. It's a copout when Arthur is old and feeble; you feel that Guenevere is simply dumping grandpa for a young, handsome man. Richard Burton was certainly a sex symbol at the time he played Arthur.

[sparrman]

Posted: 3/30/07 at 10:02pm

Ha, lovesclassics! I seriously wrote my response without reading yours first. Great minds think alike...and so do ours. Updated On: 3/30/07 at 10:02 PM

[lovesclassics]

Posted: 3/30/07 at 10:04pm

Exactly, sparrman!

lc

[lovesclassics]

Posted: 5/3/07 at 12:12pm

Thought I'd revisit the Camelot tour reviews now that the show is in Chicago, a major theater market. Here are links to the Tribune and Sun Times reviews:

http://www.suntimes.com/entertainment/weiss/368643,CST-FTR-Cam03.article

Tribune Review Updated On: 5/3/07 at 12:12 PM

[chinkie azn jai]

Posted: 5/5/07 at 10:53pm

Just saw it this afternoon and I agree with everyone about Rachel York. She is amazing in this show. James Barbours's "C'est Moi" was a highlight of the show as well. Then we have Michael York...I hated his performance. I hated his delivery in almost every line. The set was pretty bad as well. Everything looked cheap and the show deck was VERY distracting with the very visable pink and green neon marking tape on the plain black floor. It was nice to see a full orchestra though.

[lovesclassics]

Posted: 5/6/07 at 12:37am

A friend of mine saw it Friday night, and apparently Michael York has not improved at all in five months. He reported that he STILL looked stiff and awkward. He used the term amateurish to describe his performance. So sad. But then there's Rachel. He gushed, just as we all have, about her Guenevere. He seemed to think that her ability to carry the show has perhaps made reviewers a little more forgiving toward Arthur since they enjoy her so much. Interesting.

Thanks for the report. Did you meet any of the cast afterward?

lc