Changes to CAMELOT- Page 2

[EganFan2]

Posted: 1/12/07 at 7:30pm

I am excited to see this new version. I saw a Troika production about seven years ago, and I loved everything but the script. I am also pleased that "Take Me to the Fair" is back in.

[JohnBoy2]

Posted: 1/12/07 at 7:49pm

Once again, the plot isn't what makes CAMELOT great, it's the score. Or, perhaps, as with the original, the cast. But, they don't have anyone near that original cast.

[BroadwayBaby6]

Posted: 1/12/07 at 7:55pm

I beg to differ- Rachel York is supernaturally talented.

[BobbyBubby]

Posted: 1/12/07 at 8:54pm

I'm skipping this when it comes to my town. I'm not a huge Camelot fan. One of the reasons I wanted to see it was to see York sing that lovely song, but it's cut, so there goes my trip.

[hermionejuliet]

Posted: 1/12/07 at 9:27pm

Wow - I loved "I Loved You Once in Silence" - too bad. However, I won't miss "Fie on Goodness." I think it would be great if a version played in Vegas at the Excalibur.

I always wondered why the themed resorts didn't add a matching show ....

Luxor- Aida
NY NY - 42nd Street, Thoroughly Modern Millie, Rent
Paris- A version of Baz's Moulin Rouge; Beauty and the Beast; La Boheme
Mirage-- ? Once on this Island (never seen it, but it sounds like it might match.
Treasure Island--- Pirates of Penzance
Ceasar's Palace - Julius Ceasar
Belliagio/Venetian - Light in the Piazza
Circus Circus - Side Show
MGM - The Wizard of Oz (when it was themed with Wizard of Oz); Lion King

Alright - done now... That is so sad... I should be doing something better on a Friday night!

[lovesclassics]

Posted: 1/12/07 at 10:25pm

BroadwayBaby6, I love you.

"Rachel York is supernaturally talented." Amen! I think she will be stupendous as Guenevere.

BobbyBubby, you'd seriously skip this tour because of one song? Sure, "I Loved You Once in Silence" is pretty, but it's not the greatest song in the show by far. "Before I Gaze at You Again" is much more emotional and heartfelt and gets the same message across in a much more meaningful way. It's got more levels to it, and I can't wait to hear what Rachel does with it. She is an expert at nuance. I think she'll have the audience in tears with it.

I saw the NSMT production last summer, and believe me when I tell you, cutting it down is a blessing. They did a superb job with it, but at three plus hours, it just didn't soar. I'm looking forward to seeing what this new creative team has done with it. Of course it's hard to trim "precious" material, but let's see what the new concept is before damning it.

lc

[nobodyhome]

Posted: 1/13/07 at 3:30am

"Well, having seen the original, I can state that they also got the cast right! It remains the single greatest cast of any show, I've ever seen; and that includes MY FAIR LADY."

JohnBoy2, when I wrote "the original version," I was referring to the original version of the script, not the original cast. Based on the surviving evidence, I would agree that they also got the cast right.

"... save that one of the points of the TH White novels that CAMELOT is based on is that these people are looking back on the failures of their lives. Yes, Arthur is young in the opening scene, probably not more than 18 (if White's source material is being used), but he's considerably older in the final scene, because many years have passed. The play is vague on the timeline, but again, if we look at White's books, Arthur was perhaps 50 when he fought the final battle with Mordred.

"I think it's important that we see these people age and become more and more aware of the consequences of their actions."

Yes, but Camelot is not The Once and Future King. Lerner made some major alterations from the source material.

Lerner is actually pretty clear in the script about the overall time frame if you look at the descriptions at the beginning of each scene. It's at most 10 years from the first scene till the last.

"The cuts were made because the songs did not advance the plot. As you know, very often good songs are cut from shows because they don't advance the plot."

But very few songs in musicals actually advance the plot. We like to think that they do, but they don't.

As for Rachel York being talented, I agree that she's very talented. Being talented doesn't make you a star.

Julie Andrews was a unique performer. Rachel York is probably more versatile than Andrews. Great stars are often not especially versatile. They do a limited number of things in a unique way, or have a unique sound or style. Something makes them special, and those special things are what make them interesting.

Rachel York's voice is virtually indistinguishable from a lot of other performers' voices. Her style is virtually indistinguishable from other performers'. Julie Andrews sounded like no one else. And she had a performance style that really wasn't like anyone else's.

[lovesclassics]

Posted: 1/13/07 at 10:38am

Nobodyhome,

Very interesting that last analysis of what makes someone a star. Those with a distinct persona are the ones who get "branded" so to speak. Those who are more versatile, whose own personalities disappear in service to the character, aren't as well known or memorable.

I have to disagree about Rachel York's voice, though. While no Merman or Andrews in terms of distinct vocal quality and styling, I believe her voice is distinguishable from others of her generation. Her solo album proves that. When doing Broadway, she sings in service to a character and therefore does change her vocal qualities with each role. But when she lets loose as just Rachel, she sets herself apart.

Sorry for getting a little OT, but I liked your points about star quality.

lc

[nobodyhome]

Posted: 1/13/07 at 11:57pm

Thanks, lc. I'd like to hear that CD. She certainly sings good songs on it.

I've always found her an admirable, dependable performer, but I've never felt the special spark of something distinctive that would make me find her more than that. It may just be that I haven't seen her in the role that would make me fall in love with her.

[lovesclassics]

Posted: 1/14/07 at 12:04am

What have you seen her in?

lc

[nobodyhome]

Posted: 1/14/07 at 12:23am

City of Angels, Putting It Together, Dessa Rose, Dirty Rotten Scoundrels, and on TV in KIss Me, Kate and as Officer "Nasty" on Frasier.

[lovesclassics]

Posted: 1/14/07 at 12:31am

That's pretty extensive. But I think the one that might put you over the top is Victor/Victoria. IMO, that's Rachel at her comic genius best. She was so unihibited. I really felt she stole the show from Julie Andrews, which was no small feat.

It's on DVD, and you may be able to rent it from Netflix. Don't know for sure.

If that doesn't sell you, nothing will.

lc

lc

[nobodyhome]

Posted: 1/14/07 at 1:40am

I did see part of Victor/Victoria when they showed it on TV. I can't remember if I stopped watching before or after York's character entered. I just wasn't enjoying it much.

I do think she's absolutely fine, just a trifle anonymous. Thinking about it, a role that she might be very good for is Susan in Love Life, if Encores does it sometime in the next few years. And I think that in 10 or 15 years, she might be terrific in some future production of Grey Gardens.

[allofmylife]

Posted: 1/14/07 at 5:36am

As I've said here before, opening night of the World Premiere of "Camelot" when I was six was the first musical I ever saw at The O'Keefe Centre in Toronto. The show seemed to run about five, long hours but nobody cared. It was Burton and Andrews and Goulet. I have as an adult met Andrews (twice) and Roddy McDowall (at my agent's Christmas party in Los Angeles, the man could sure tell stories) and Robert Goulet sat in my mother's lap and sang to her during his show at The Imperial Room in Toronto. I would love to have met Burton, but friends tell me it's better to live with the dream than the reality.

Anyway, truncating the show sounds like one of those cut down versions done at a Five Flags theme park.

It's Camelot, for gawd's sake. You expect schmaltz and pagentry, not brevity. And no "I Loved You Once In Silence????" The song is one of the greatest classics of the genre?

Maybe they should begin the show at the may fair and do a voice over, "Previously, in Camelot....."

Updated On: 1/15/07 at 05:36 AM

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 1/14/07 at 6:46am

>> Yes, but Camelot is not The Once and Future King. Lerner made some major alterations from the source material.

Lerner is actually pretty clear in the script about the overall time frame if you look at the descriptions at the beginning of each scene. It's at most 10 years from the first scene till the last.

Sorry, Lerner makes no such distincttion (I'm looking at the Random House edition even as I write this.). He says "many years" -- and many years could be ten but it could also be twenty.

Look at the themes in the play. If it's not about people coming to grips with the screw-ups in their lives and trying (and failing) to correct them before it's too late, then what is CAMELOT? A pretty show with a pretty score? That's too facile, even for Lerner and Loewe. If you notice, the score becomes more and more complex and uses far more minor chords in the second act, as things become more and more bleak for the three principals, building to the near completely discordant "Guenevere". And I would suggest that this was L&L's way of giving us a timeline, that they were using music to age their characters. And frankly, you dont get this kind of depth in a mere decade.

There's also Mordred to confound your timeline. Assuming that Arthur was 16 when he had sex with Mordred's mother and assuming that Mordred is at least 25 when he shows up on Arthur's doorstep, that's taking Arthur up to 41. Mordred would need at least a few years to sway the knights to his cause, so now Arthur is moving into his mid-40s. I'd still push him into 50 for the final battle, because it just makes logical sense.

Another point: lookng at the way the score changes, I can (sorta) understand why they would cut "Fie". It's a bouncy, funny song that feels, at that point in the show, shoehorned in -- although the production in Edmonton three years ago took the number and turned it on its ear, making it a dance piece more than anything else to convey the knights' frustrations with their inactivity: a real moment.

But it *is* a shame about "Silence". The song is a delicate little grasp for some final happiness before the chaos of Guenevere's trial, a sweet "little" melody that works beautifully for both characters at that moment in their lives.

[nobodyhome]

Posted: 1/14/07 at 1:23pm

"Sorry, Lerner makes no such distincttion (I'm looking at the Random House edition even as I write this.). He says "many years" -- and many years could be ten but it could also be twenty. "

Sean, I'm looking at the Random House script myself, as republished in volume 2 of Great Musicals of the American Theatre. From this script, I take the following, from the description (next to Time:) at the top of each scene:

Act One
Scene 1: Afternoon.
Scene 2: Immediately following.
Scene 3: Five years later.
Scene 4: A few months later
Scene 5: [No time is mentioned, but it's clearly the same day as Scene 4.]
Scene 6: Two weeks later.
Scene 7: The following day.
Scene 8: Immediately following.
Scene 9: Early evening the same day.
Scene 10: Immediately following.
Scene 11: Immediately following.

Act Two:
Scene 1: Several years later.
Scene 2: A month later.
Scene 3: Late afternoon the following day.
Scene 4: Immediately following.
Scene 5: Later that night.
Scene 6: Immediately following.
Scene 7: [No time given.]
Scene 8: A week later.

Are those descriptions not in your script? Where in your script does it say "many years"? Is there an introduction by Lerner?

Now, if you want, you can interpet "Several years later" to mean more than three or four. I interpret it to mean three or four here. On dictionary.com, I find several defined as "being more than two but fewer than many in number and kind." So this is a matter of interpretation, but I seriously doubt that it's more than 6 or 7 at most. If it were, I think it's not "several."

And then there are the events described in "Guenevere." It seems to me that those cover a month or two. If you believe it covers longer, I can't argue with you about it. It's your interpretation.

So if you decide that it's 7 years, say, between the acts, then that ups the total timeline to 12 or 13 years. If you decide that years go by during "Guenevere," you can up it as high as you want. But my interpretation is that events there are moving quickly, out of Arthur's control. I think it's two months, at most.

"There's also Mordred to confound your timeline. Assuming that Arthur was 16 when he had sex with Mordred's mother and assuming that Mordred is at least 25 when he shows up on Arthur's doorstep, that's taking Arthur up to 41. Mordred would need at least a few years to sway the knights to his cause, so now Arthur is moving into his mid-40s. I'd still push him into 50 for the final battle, because it just makes logical sense."

Sean, you don't need to remind me about the Mordred thing. Who brought it up first in this thread? I did.

Even if you make Arthur in his early 40s, Michael York doesn't remotely across as being in is early 40s.

"Look at the themes in the play. If it's not about people coming to grips with the screw-ups in their lives and trying (and failing) to correct them before it's too late, then what is CAMELOT? A pretty show with a pretty score? That's too facile, even for Lerner and Loewe. If you notice, the score becomes more and more complex and uses far more minor chords in the second act, as things become more and more bleak for the three principals, building to the near completely discordant "Guenevere". And I would suggest that this was L&L's way of giving us a timeline, that they were using music to age their characters. And frankly, you dont get this kind of depth in a mere decade."

The music becoming more complex doesn't necessarily connote a huge passage of time, merely the increasing complexity and difficulty of their lives.

By the way, since your post seems to be addressed to me, you seem to be implying that I said or implied that the show was nothing more than "a pretty show with a pretty score." I don't feel that, and I don't know how you got that from anything I wrote.

As for "Silence," it's a beautiful, moving song. But it's kind of questionable in that (according to the timeline I copied above), we have this exchange between Lancelot and Guinevere approximately two weeks after they meet:

Lancelot: Jenny, I love you. God forgive me, but I do.
Guenevere: God forgive us both, Lance.

So she basically admits that she loves him after two weeks.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 1/14/07 at 2:03pm

Well, we can tap dance around "several" all you wish, but I look at "several" to mean more than four. I take "several" to mean at least a decade. At least.

And yes, you brought up Mordred. I'm merely seeing Mordred through on your point.

Sorry, I cant accept that this is a musical about the angst of twenty- and thirty-somethings.

[Gypsy9]

Posted: 1/14/07 at 4:12pm

Sorry to break up this dialogue, but reading all the comments on this thread reminded me about a change in the ending that was prompted by the drama critic for the NY Daily News John Chapman, who raved about the show but had a suggestion to make the ending more optimistic than it was on opening night. The suggestion was followed by Lerner. The trouble with my failing memory is that I can't remember the specifics of the changes, except that it did make the ending more optimistic. Are there any more "old timers" out there that can help with this point? We're talking about 1960.

Also, as I said on a previous thread on this revival of CAMELOT, without a truly dynamic Arthur, this show, with its troubled book, is doomed to disappoint, regardless of its wonderful score. I don't see Michael York as being that Arthur.

Updated On: 1/14/07 at 04:12 PM

[keen on kean]

Posted: 1/14/07 at 6:41pm

Gypsy9 - by the time I saw CAMELOT, the change had already been made but could it have been the dialogue between Arthur and the young page? At the very end, just as Arthur knows the Round Table is finished and he is going into the final battle, he knights a young page, and then sings the reprise of Camelot - "Don't let it be forgot that once there was a spot for happily ever aftering..." - and Arthur's last lines are something like "Run, boy, run!" so you know that Arthur's dream will not be forgotten. Seems very integral to the story so I can't imagine how it would have otherwise ended.

[nobodyhome]

Posted: 1/15/07 at 2:47am

"Well, we can tap dance around "several" all you wish, but I look at "several" to mean more than four. I take "several" to mean at least a decade. At least."

Begging your pardon but I'm going to "tap dance" around it a bit more. "Several years" means at least a decade?

Here are a few dictionary definitions of several:

From the Merriam-Webster web site:
"2 a : more than one b : more than two but fewer than many"

From dictionary.com:
"being more than two but fewer than many in number and kind"

From Webster's New World:
"consisting of a number more than two but not many"

I think that if Lerner had intended to suggest that more than a decade had passed, he would have made it clear and said so. Lerner could be a careless writer, but I don't think he would have used several to suggest at least ten.

"Sorry, I cant accept that this is a musical about the angst of twenty- and thirty-somethings."

Well, I can't force you to accept it. But what I would say is that two of these thirty-somethings are a king and queen whose actions affect an entire country. Heavy burdens weigh on their minds (including, surely, their childlessness, left undiscussed). As you know, they have a song about the relief they desire from those burdens.

I see nothing in the text to suggest that any of them is older than early to mid 30s at the end. With Arthur, I also see nothing to suggest that he's not—except Lerner's own descriptions and specifications.

Lerner gives us indications of how old Arthur and Guenevere are supposed to be at the beginning. Arthur is in "his mid-twenties," and Guenevere is "very, very young."

The casting in the original production gives us no reason to believe that Lerner felt a need to suggest any age older than mid-thirties at the end.

And in the film, which Lerner was closely involved with, no attempt was made to suggest a long passage of time through makeup to age the major actors, who (at the time of filming) ranged in age from mid-twenties (Franco Nero) to late twenties (Vanessa Redgrave, looking younger) to mid-thirties (Richard Harris).

I do wonder if there's anything in the text that you can specify that would clarify why you find it so hard to buy that they could be in their 30s at the end. I do see one thing that could be interpreted that way, Arthur's few lines about feeling old. I don't know how old you are, but if you're not there yet, I promise you that lots of people in their mid-30s sometimes feel old.

And living in the middle ages, even as a king in relative luxury but still without central heating, air conditioning, aspirin, NSAIDs, penicillin, chiropractors and massage therapists . . . well, you get the idea . . . as well as the stress of wanting to make life better for your people, could easily make you feel old before your time.

For kings and comoners, I think it's fair to say that mid-thirties in the middle ages was older than mid-thirties is now.

[dblenn]

Posted: 1/15/07 at 3:59am

I went to the opening of the show on Saturday night and I have to say, the cuts were really fantastic. I understand everyone's concerns so far regarding the songs that are no longer in the show, but when you see this show.... they make sense not to be there.

This production is much more REAL than any other that I have seen. Mordred's song (Seven Deadly Virtues) was written specifically for Roddy McDowall, and does nothing for the plot. Shannon Stoeke's Mordred would not be caught dead singing such an out of place upbeat song in this production. Also, "I Loved You Once In Silence", while it is no doubt a beautiful song, tells the audience nothing that they do not already know and I can see how Casale, while trying to prevent a four hour show, would see it as a redundancy in context.

The only argument against a cut that I can see would possibly be "Fie On Goodness" which certainly moves the plot forward. While I did miss it from this production, they gor around it by explaining in one scene that the knights were restless for their "old ways". Though I admit that it is not as exciting as the song would have been, I suppose it worked.

Rachel York was absolutely marvelous and without a doubt carried the show. Michael York, while good, was not quite as strong as I would have liked to see him, but nonetheless, I found myself not nearly bothered by his age as I thought I would be.

The sets were huge and beautiful as were the costumes.... overall I would say that this show was good. Not amazing, but good. There were some great swordfights, which are always exciting, at just under 3 hours running time (with an intermission) it certainly makes vast improvements with pace on the original nearly four hour production that opened in the 60's.

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 1/15/07 at 7:06am

>> Begging your pardon but I'm going to "tap dance" around it a bit more. "Several years" means at least a decade?

To me. Clearly not to you. But put your dictionary aside for a moment and think logically about this: do you really believe that I am to accept that Arthur could do all this in a matter of a few years? (Oh, sorry, four or five.) England was a hopelessly splintered country, with fiefdoms all over the place. Some guys come along and says, "Hey, let's all get together and, by the way, I'm king" and everyone nods their heads in agreement and we move on to how happy everyone was with the Round Table and a unified England?

No.

Sorry, no. This took, even as the script says, several years to accomplish, and I dont believe for one second that we can pretend otherwise just to keep the characters at an age that you find an acceptable demographic to find an assured audience. Contrary to what you believe, while peasants had a shortened lifespan, the even basic creature comforts afforded royalty allowed them to live into their 50s and 60s, assuming they werent killed in battle or by duplicious relatives.

Know what's truly interesting about this dialogue? I'm looking at these people and seeing older-but-not-much-wiser folks who have lived their lives in fantasy and unrealized expectations and come to the end of the road still hoping for the best. You see the typical sitcom cast of Friends, perpetually young, never growing old because after all, in our Logan's Run society, one can never admit to being over a certain age lest it scare the horses.

And that saddens me, because it means that Broadway will now become like all the other so-called "popular" entertainments: geared to an audience of high school and college-aged. We've had discussions around here about the "dumbing down" of Broadway, and looking at this exchange, I'm starting to realize that it's not dumbing down at all, but gearing down. We want our shows about young! people and nothing else (which is why we're more likely to see a revival of Chorus Line right now than anything in the R&H canon), just as popular music and movies have now become almost the exclusive domain of the under-25 set. Sure, I realize there's a business reason for doing so, but I look at what it means and think to myself, Well, okay, so much for Broadway. We'll see more Disney and more rock concerts vaguely disguised as musicals, like Rent and SA. Shows with lead characters over 30 will no doubt slowly disappear because no one wants to see someone that old onstage. And your whole approach to Camelot simply underlines that theory: your resistance to the idea that, by the end of the play, these three people could be as impossibly old as T H White and Tennyson and everyone else who attempted the Arthurian legends would dare say they are simply brandishes that we are not to have old people on stage anymore, lest they be trotted out for their camp value. Shows with maturity? C'mon! It;'s Broadway!

Coming next season? An After School Rock special. Think I'm wrong? Guess again: it's called High School Musical. And it will be wildly successful. And more and more producers will look at it and think to themselves, Hey, why not? And we'll have more and more of these facile, underwritten, bright and shiny productions that cost more and more until we get to the point where we're paying three hundred bucks a seat to listen to someone sing the Alphabet Song.

That's the logical conclusion of your thesis. And it's very, very likely.

Posted: 1/15/07 at 7:07am

How far in the run were the cuts made to the original production? Wasn't Fie on Goodness cut originally too at some point or am I making that up?

It is a problematic show--as written IMHO, as much as I love long shows and hate cutting anything normally it's WAY too long

[lovesclassics]

Posted: 1/15/07 at 10:09am

The Times liked the cast, not the cuts or changes.

lc
LA Times Review

[shesamarshmallow]

Posted: 1/15/07 at 11:23am

The new production starts off with a prologue at the battlefield and then Scene 1 pronounces (10 years earlier). So 10 years passes over the course of the show, 8 of which are swallowed after the first scene. I guess that's to compensate for Michael York's apparently lack of aging, if it's not in the original script.

Opposite him, Rachel York (no relation) is wonderfully suited to Guenevere. At the reviewed performance, her microphone malfunctioned at "Simple Joys of Maidenhood," which she sold over an amplified orchestra, a triumph of technique over technology.

I wish I could have heard that!