Changes to CAMELOT- Page 4

[lovesclassics]

Posted: 1/17/07 at 9:48am

Oliver Brownlow,

Will you be seeing this National Tour of Camelot at some point? I would love to read your review of it.

And here's a review from the Orange County Register. It's a total rave. It's amazing how different people can experience the same show so differently!

Some excerpts:

Since charging onto Broadway in 1960, "Camelot" has been as enduring a part of the musical theater world as its subject, the reign of King Arthur.

Put McCoy Rigby Entertainment's new, stellar staging into the category of soon-to-be legendary, full-blown professional productions.

**********

York has the look and carriage of nobility, yet captures the reluctant essence of a man who, he tells his new wife Guenevere, "never wanted to be king" and has always leaned upon Merlyn, his magician, "to do my thinking for me." Fretting over the random use of his kingdom's tremendous might, though, Arthur transforms his court into something of honor and shining idealism.

**********

Guenevere is beautifully carved out by Rachel York (no relation to Michael), who vaguely resembles film star Julianne Moore but whose lovely vocals will remind one of Julie Andrews, as a jolly old gal adoring of Arthur's gentle naïveté and careful deliberation over every matter. She's gently saucy in "Lusty Month of May," quietly sad in "Before I Gaze at You Again."

**********

French knight Lancelot represents the heroism of Arthur's ideals, his own colossal ego played for big laughs. James Barbour resembles Broadway legends Richard Kiley in looks and Robert Goulet with his booming, spectacular vocal style. His Lance is virile beyond belief, but it's a bravado that's endearing, not off-putting.

**********

Under Craig Barna's supervision, Loewe's lilting score shines with gems such as "What Do the Simple Folk Do?," a charming song scene between king and queen full of lovely, informal gestures, and "If Ever I Would Leave You," Lancelot's stirring signature.

lc
OC Register Review Updated On: 1/17/07 at 09:48 AM

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 1/17/07 at 1:05pm

>> Because, I think your ideas are interesting, but reading through this thread, I have to side with nobodyhome on this one: you don't seem to be addressing any of the pertinent questions regarding the actual musical CAMELOT - which, has already been said, is not THE ONCE AND FUTURE KING.

No, it's not ONCE AND FUTURE KING, but it's *based* on it, which suggests that Lerner and Loewe and Hart intended, however vaguely, for their version of the Arthurian legend to be in line with Tennyson, White, even more contemporary takes such as Boorman's film Excalibur, as well as every other stab at the story. What all of these have in common is the overwhelming sense of Fate, the irresponsbility of Youth, and the sometimes sad reflections of Old Age. All three of these people try, in various ways, to recapture the innocent joy of their youth: Arthur, by pretending the affair doesnt exist until he has no other choice, Guenevere, by seeing in Lancelot the impossible goals she set as young girl for her fantasy lover until she sees as an adult what it's done to her *real* husband, and Lancelot, who sees his selfish actions result in the fall of the only thing that brought his one true friend any meaning. And the fact that they dont discover any of this in themselves until it's far too late in life to correct it is a running theme in all the major retellings. If we just leave them as young, naive innocents who somehow stumble onto all this, the story loses meaning.

And I think Lerner and Loewe give us this, in very subtle ways. Once again, look at the song "Once in Silence". It's a very simple melody, coming after a progressively denser and more discordant score: IMHO, this is Loewe sending a signal about these two people, folks who are trying desperately to recapture the youthful innocence of their love and yet cant. In an earlier draft, BTW, Loewe didnt even want an ending: the song would be interrupted by Mordred and his knights -- and from a thematic POV, that would have said even more about the futility of this relationship.

There's another very subtle clue, one they sorta/kinda explored in the movie. When Guenevere and Arthur first meet, it's winter. We see their love in full bloom in "Lusty Month of May"... springtime. The joust that brings Guenevere and Lancelot together comes during summer. When Arthur and Guenevere realize their marriage is falling apart, Arthur makes reference to the chill in the castle, a suggestion that fall is setting in. This leaves me little question that the final battle with Mordred takes us back to winter once more, and that cyclical sense of time, I think, would be reflected in the characters as well.

And then we have the problem of Mordred, who is supposed to be Arthur's son. If we subscribe to the theory that Arthur et al are in their 30s, how old does that make Mordred? 16? 18? 20, at the absolute most -- and yet does the part read like a boy barely out of his teens? I'd suggest that when he first appears, he's probably 25, which means Arthur has to be at least 40.

Again, IMHO, while the script doesnt state precisely, I dont see anything that says otherwise. If anything, I think you'd be hardpressed to say they *are* young; the only thing going for you is that debate about "several" -- and in light of everything else, that's not enough.

[Gypsy9]

Posted: 1/17/07 at 2:40pm

To: Oliver Brownlow
When I saw the OBC of CAMELOT in 1961 at the evening performance, I was just coming from the matinee performance of CARNIVAL on the same day. CARNIVAL was such a perfect musical, in my opinion, that CAMELOT paled in comparison, even with its stellar cast. It was a disappointment to me and even Burton did not stand out. It is really not fair to squeeze 2 shows into one day of theatregoing, but I was only in NYC for a short time.

When I saw the 1980 touring production of CAMELOT at the (too) large New York State Theatre at Lincoln Center, I saw a Richard Burton that was more mature in years and more mature in his interpretation of Arthur in the ways that you speak about. I will never forget the theatrical experience and can only regret that it was not filmed/video taped.

Your analysis of the various productions of the show is most interesting and, like you, I will not offer my 2 cents about the age assumptions of the characters. I will only say that the Richard Burton of 1980, though he may have been older than Lerner had in mind, was simply not too old to play Arthur. His performance was wondrous.

[lovesclassics]

Posted: 1/17/07 at 5:32pm

Wow. This thread is so fascinating - and so confusing at the same time. I'm learning a lot about a show I've seen only twice.

Just as opinions here are all over the map, so are the reviews. Look at this latest from Backstage.com. Definitely on the side of "thumbs down to the revisions."

Excerpts:

In its debut engagement, the McCoy Rigby touring edition occasionally captures the soaring beauty of the score by lyricist Lerner and composer Frederick Loewe (the My Fair Lady team), but the effort is ultimately undone by a problematic lead performance and misguided efforts to tamper with the book and score.

**********

The show’s dramatic build is severely hampered, and we are left feeling apathetic rather than deeply moved at the tragic denouement. The romance between Guenevere and Lancelot is ruinously shortchanged, not only by scene cuts but also by dropping the glorious ballad of tragic acceptance, "I Loved You Once in Silence" and interpolating "If Ever I Would Leave You" to that spot in the show, where it makes no sense. The excesses in the original material had to do with the text, not the music; so it’s inexplicable that two additional numbers, the rousing "Fie on Goodness!" and the clever "The Seven Deadly Virtues," are likewise missing.

**********

Rachel York, tackling a signature Julie Andrews role, makes the strongest impression, singing gorgeously and investing the character of the mischievous monarch with charm, grace, and wit. Unfortunately she can't stir up much chemistry opposite Michael York’s wooden portrayal of Arthur, which lacks conviction, energy, and nuance. Golden-voiced James Barbour is a dashing and properly pompous Lancelot, mining the role for maximum humor and musical splendor. Fine support comes from Eric Anderson as the magical spirit Merlyn, Time Winters as the befuddled Pellinore, and Shannon Stoeke as Arthur's conniving bastard-son Mordred.

**********

One thing all the critics seem to agree on is the quality of the cast. With the exception of mixed feelings about Michael York, they all love Rachel and company.

lc
Backstage Review

[allofmylife]

Posted: 1/18/07 at 2:49am

Someone in one of the giant posts on this thread said that neither Burton nor Harris was a singer.

Well, we've been subjected to Harris' solid gold hit "MacArthur Park" for decades now, so I guess he was some sort of a singer after all.

[Michael Bennett]

Posted: 1/18/07 at 3:14am

For what it's worth, I have always thought Modred was a teenager in CAMELOT, which would of course make sense with a 35 year old Richard Burton playing the role. Though, of course, Roddy McDowell (who looked very young) was in actuality only a few years younger than Burton. So who knows.

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 1/18/07 at 4:20am

I have Camelot and The Once and Future King mixed up irrevocably in my head. I think when I see the former I can't help but fill in the details from the latter and when I read the latter I can't help but plug in the beautiful songs.

Anyway, I think the show makes the most sense if Arthur is older than Guinevere and Lancelot. Not significantly older but noticeably so... older and wiser, so to speak. Isn't that Arthur's folly? He lets the two younger people in his life (who make youthful mistakes) carry on even though he knows better. In the book there is a sense of maturation in the characters that someone else in this thread talked about that Lerner and Loewe represented in the passing of the seasons. I also always assumed that Camelot took place over a number of years. I guess it only takes place in a few?

I also think the show would benefit greatly if the character of Lancelot resembled more his character in White's book. I know that much of his story is unwieldy (the show is already long) but it's hard to feel much sympathy for him or to understand why Guinevere and Arthur love him so much besides that they keep telling us they do.

I agree--you can't cut "I Loved You Once in Silence". You just don't do that!

As much as I love it, this is a show that begs to be rewritten entirely, I think. Or maybe a new musical of The Once and Future King, even. Is that too audacious?

[Oliver Brownlow]

Posted: 1/18/07 at 7:45am

lovesclassics: I don't know if I'll get to see this new production or not, but I'll try to see it if it hits the Chicago area or if it plays New York (I'd dearly love to see CAMELOT and SPAMALOT on Broadway on the same day).

SeanMartin: I've seen "I Loved You Once in Silence" interrupted at the final line in more than one production.

I still hope to avoid becoming involved in the "shootin' war" regarding the ages of the various characters, but in answer to your question about Mordred, "does the part read like a boy barely out of his teens?", I've got to say that Mordred's interests and concerns seem very adolescent, particularly in the later revised versions. It's not just that he has a warped personality and hates virtue. Beneath his mocking, detached-seeming exterior, he's very angry with Arthur and quite reasonably from his own perspective regards him as a corrupt hypocrite who preaches high morality while totally ignoring the existance of his only son (leaving him in the care of people who evidently treated him cruelly), and who abuses his power by unfairly protecting and defending his wife and "best Knight" from the consequences of their treasonous crime. This kind of intense concern for fairness and a strict correlation between publicly expressed morality and private actions is very typical of the adolescent mind. Adults tend to be more aware that things aren't always black and white, and of the necessity for compromise. And it's worth remembering that in the Morgan Le Fay sequence in the "Broadway Revision," Morgan (who's his aunt) refers to Mordred as a "boy." Not that I think that means Mordred ought necessarily to be played by a real teenager (Neil Patrick Harris would be more to my taste at the present moment, and he's 32 -- a very reasonable age for the son of Michael York's Arthur!); he could equally be viewed as being older but in a state of emotionally arrested development (and indeed, I've never seen him played by an actor who looked younger than about 20 except in a high school production). But I do think the role could be played as young as 16 or (maybe) 15. 18 seems more comfortable as a lower age limit, though, especially since Arthur immediately offers him training to become a knight, and as some of you may know, 18 became the age of "adulthood" precisely because, in medieval times, 18 was the age at which most men became physically large and strong enough to wear full battle armor and bear arms. Yet you might assume the training would take a year or two.

I'm curious, though, as to why you keep coming up with 25 as Mordred's probable age. Is it just a guesstimate based on your assessment of how the characters speak, behave, and relate to one another, or have you made some sort of calculation based on something more concrete? My apologies if you covered this in an earlier post.

Roninjoey: Boy, do I agree with you about the character of Lancelot! The "Lancelot" character in CAMELOT has always been cast physically as if he were Galahad (Lancelot's son, a physically beautiful "perfect" knight who I think eventually finds the Holy Grail and attains enlightenment -- or am I confusing him with Percival? Anyhow, he's involved with the Quests and the Grail). The Lancelot character T.H. White describes is a huge, hulking, powerful, UGLY man. The section of THE ONCE AND FUTURE KING that focuses on him is actually called "The Ill-Made Knight." Just as Betsy Joslyn's re-imagining of Guenevere as more girlish and naive illuminated that character, I think casting Lancelot as T.H. White described him would illuminate his character, and instantly solve many of the problems associated with the more usual approach.

A beautiful Lancelot singing "C'est moi, C'est moi, I'm perfect and awesome" is a little bit funny, but essentially the character always comes off as a conceited, unsympathetic asshole. A huge, powerful-looking, but physically unbeautiful Lancelot singing with naive, completely sincere joy about the things he's able to accomplish by God's grace, as it were, would create a very different impression. You wouldn't feel, as I think you do with a pretty Lancelot, that he's been handed everything on a silver platter his whole life. You'd know he must have suffered some kind of rejection and experienced some kind of pain in connection with his appearance, and that he must have had to work for things because no one would have been likely to have been inspired to lay roses at his feet. Guenevere's and the court's instant dislike of him, jealousy of him, and unfriendliness toward him, which seem all too justified in most productions, with an "ugly" Lancelot, might seem a whole lot more like a shallow, cruel reaction to his physical appearance, and as a result the audience's sympathies might be shifted in these early scenes to Lancelot, rather than lying with Guenevere, the court, & the knights jousting against him as I think they usually do.

It would completely change the dynamic between Lance and Guenevere, too. Her attraction to him would seem less inevitable, and thus more genuine. It would be much more understandable and believable that he was sexually naive, that he would have a hard time coping with strong feelings of romantic attraction in a first-ever romantic relationship, and that he might have devoted himself exclusively to training as a knight precisely because his appearance closed off more social pursuits. Not that I'm saying he should be hideous, mind, nor should he be really weird-looking. But ugly. Plain. With rough, irregular features. Unbeautiful. With the broken face of a boxer or a wrestler rather than that of a matinee idol, a storybook prince, or a Calvin Klein model. (As Katharine Hepburn as Eleanor of Acquitaine said in the movie of James Golding's THE LION IN WINTER, "We'll see the second coming first").

As for allofmylife's reference to Richard Harris' dreaded recording of "MacArthur Park": I thought no one was ever gonna say it!

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 1/18/07 at 8:58am

For the record, Mordred is the son of Morgause (Arthur's half sister) and Arthur. They have incestuous relations and Mordred is the product. He's also the youngest in a family that hates Arthur's family. So not only may he be a little mentally disabled because he's born of an incestuous relationship but he's been told all his life to hate Arthur's family. The family also hates and is jealous of Lancelot, if I remember right. In the original story, I believe Arthur kills Mordred and Mordred wounds him fatally in the final battle. So the character goes a whole lot deeper than Lerner made him. I think a lot of that made it into the movie though... that feeling of their relationship and this character.

You're so right, Oliver. I wonder why Lerner chose to turn Lancelot into an ubermensch character. I think it just worked easier for him to turn Lancelot into a cartoon because there's SO much backstory to Lancelot, and about how he was genuinely tortured by his love for Guinevere, his desire not to sin, and his desire not to bring Arthur down. Galahad was the character who achieved the grail, and then he ascends to heaven. I think the idea was that Galahad was what Lancelot would never be because Lancelot had sinned (and really, I think sleeping with Galahad's mother was his first sin. Up until then he'd been celibate).

But if I remember right Lancelot gets redeemed and then goes back to Guinevere anyway. The story also resembles Tristan and Isolde, which I think is basically the same story told in a different way (and I think makes it into THWhite AND Mallory).

I think we never get the sense of how much Lancelot worked to become who he was and how he gave it all up for his love for Guinevere. He wasn't the golden child, he was this guy who had to work for everything and the only reason he got it was because he was an instrument of fate and god's hand. If Lerner had been able to communicate that at all in Camelot, it would probably be a whole lot more compelling.

I do think he got Arthur's character and Guinevere's character right though. Most of it is really good, I think the fatal flaw is the portrayal of Lancelot.

I love Arthurian mythology. This is the best thread ever!

[keen on kean]

Posted: 1/18/07 at 11:30am

I love this thread! Thank you everyone for so many interesting observations! SeanMartin - your observation about the passing of the seasons is spot on. The ending is so much more poignant in light of that passage of time and opportunities. And Oliver Brownlow - the "ugly" Lancelot idea is brilliant. I wonder if the beautiful but cardboard Lancelot tradition arose because of Goulet in the OBC? He had the most robust voice but never seemed to raise his eyes from the stage floor. It made Guinevere seem more shallow - as though she liked him for his looks because there wasn't all that much else - even though the pivotal scene for her is probably *SPOILER* Lance's saving of the wounded knight after the joust.

[lovesclassics]

Posted: 1/18/07 at 4:18pm

I just listened to a live radio interview with Michael York and Rachel York on NPR out of LA. They said that the show is still undergoing revisions, taking full advantage of this tryout period at La Mirada. They were going to be rehearsing new changes this afternoon. Rachel said that "Seven Deadly Virtues" is being put back into the show and implied that there are other changes coming, as well.

They were delightful to hear. They have an obvious respect for each other, and they both feel very strongly about the quality/potential for this new version. There didn't seem to be any doubt that the ultimate goal is to bring this to Broadway. It seems that there is a real commitment to knock out all the bugs while on tour so that it is sharp and ready for a NYC run.

They both said something very interesting. The positioning of "If Ever I Would Leave You" into the chamber scene was something that Alan Jay Lerner had wanted right from the beginning, but "they" wouldn't let him. So now his son has honored his original intent by putting the song where he feels it rightfully belongs. Both Michael and Rachel agreed that it is very powerful there and made perfect sense.

I wonder. If that's where the song had been all along, and "I Loved You Once in Silence" didn't exist, would the change seem so jarring to people now? I know it's inevitable to make comparisons (especially for those who are so familiar with the original and all the other versions), but for people less familiar with the show, maybe this version will seem quite good. Sometimes going into things without any preconceived notions allows you to experience it fresh and enjoy it for what it is.

They also talked about this version being set in an earlier time period, the Dark Ages well before Medieval Times. This informs Guenevere's character with more sexuality, as shown in the choreography of "The Lusty Month of May." Rachel said that she views this number as a pagan ritual symbolizing fertility and the sexual awakening of spring. Makes sense.

I wonder how much this production is borrowing from the sensibilities of "The Mists of Avalon." That was a real twist on the Arthurian legend that was definitely more pagan and gave the women more power. The costumes (from what I can gather from the two photos I've seen), are similar to the ones used in that TV mini-series, too.

I tell you, for all the controversy, I'm really interested in seeing this production. I always like getting new takes on things, even if the execution doesn't necessarily live up to its billing. And it sounds like the performances are well worth the money.

You know, listening to Michael York's exquisite speaking voice, it's hard for me to imagine that he isn't commanding that stage. I really hope he can get more comfortable and seize the throne, so to speak.

lc
Updated On: 1/18/07 at 04:18 PM

[keen on kean]

Posted: 1/18/07 at 5:49pm

I hope by Dark Ages they mean early medieval - Arthur is not that primitive.

[allofmylife]

Posted: 1/18/07 at 6:07pm

I have directed a couple of productions of "Camelot". What a joy to mount from the pure musical aspect. The melodies are utterly haunting, ESPECIALLY "I Loved You Once In Silence." How could you possibly do the show without that? It's like doing Annie without "Tomorrow" or Wicked without the Tarzan yodel. And as for the ending of the song, I can absolutely GUARANTEE that the song is halted in the scores and orchestrations provided by Tams Whitmark at "From where we were, be---" Mordred appears and says "Don't reach for that dagger, Lancelot I arrest you in the name of the King" or something similar and then smash into the opening chords of "Guenivere" Bahm,bahm,bahm,bamn,boom, boom, boom (at this point, sorry rights holders, I've always inserted the lines "Out the room, down the hall, cross the yard to the wall, slashing fiercely, left and right, he escaped them and took flight", THEN a second chorus of "For they found, Guenivere, with her bold cavilier")....

[lovesclassics]

Posted: 1/18/07 at 7:49pm

keen on kean,

I may be getting my "ages" mixed up. They said it was set in around 500 to 600 AD. They laughed about there being no women in pointy hats.

Also, the interview is now up online. Go to the station's website, www.kpfk.org, and click on the archives. Once the page loads, scroll down to Arts in Review, Thursday, January 18, 2007 at 12:02 p.m. You can choose to listen one of three ways: click podcast, play or download. I chose download and it opened in my Windows Media Player and streamed from there.

As a bonus, you get to hear a couple of Rachel's songs from her CD - Fly Me to the Moon and All the Things You Are.

lc
KPFK Interview

[Oliver Brownlow]

Posted: 1/19/07 at 2:36am

I don't have the relevant reference materials in front of me, but my recollection is that in some early version(s) of the script, "If Ever I Would Leave You" was actually sung a little earlier in the play, in Act One. So if true, it's quite surprising that Lerner would have wanted "If Ever I Would Leave You" in the place occupied by "I Loved You Once in Silence" in every version that he himself wrote, and even more surprising that "they" were able to follow him around from Toronto to Broadway to London to Hollywood and back to Broadway and London and HBO preventing him from doing this, apparently, at every turn, over a period of more than 20 years. I don't want to presume to say that I know more about Lerner's intentions for this song than his own son, but it does put one in mind of Hillary Clinton's vast right-wing conspiracy. And it doesn't help that placing the song there would seem to short-circuit the whole intent of the scene, in which Lancelot and Guenevere agree to end their relationship moments before they are discovered together -- hardly the moment for him to be singing, "Oh, no, not in springtime, summer, winter, or fall,/ No, never would I leave you at all." Are we sure the elder Lerner didn't just mention once over the breakfast table that he briefly considered this idea after a long night out drinking with Richard Burton, but that when he suggested it to Moss Hart he told him he was out of his mind and became so upset that he had a heart attack?

I'm joking, of course, but as many of you probably know, Hart actually had a heart attack during CAMELOT's Boston previews and was hospitalized until after its Broadway opening. It was Lerner himself who became the show's director while Hart recuperated, begging the question, who were the mysterious "they" who prevented him from moving "If Ever I Would Leave You" to the "I Loved You Once in Silence" position even while he occupied the supremely powerful dual position of author and director? One begins to suspect that "they" were simply the better angels of his playwriting talent.

Whatever. I predict that this weird, clumsy innovation will not be perpetuated beyond the current production. Cutting "I Loved You Once in Silence" is bad enough all by itself. This sounds much worse. I'm delighted, however, at the news that "The Seven Deadly Virtues" is being put back into the production. Perhaps they'll come to their senses regarding these other songs as well.

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 1/19/07 at 5:29am

Haha, while we're postulating... I really think it should just go at the end of the first act as the consumation of Lancelot and Guinevere's relationship.

I think... that "Before I Gaze at You Again" should be rewritten so that instead of playing it as Guinevere's developing feelings for Lancelot, it becomes a joke song for her... i.e. it becomes an uptempo (it would totally work, just sing it jaunty) and ironic. I've always thought it bore too strong a resemblance to "I Loved You Once In Silence" anyway. It's a little early in the play for her to get so melodramatic and that it would be a much more clever turn for the character.

And I think Lancelot should genuinely try to leave the kingdom. In the book he frequently leaves Camelot to get away from Guinevere so nothing happens between them--and it would add a certain power to "If Ever I Would Leave You" if we really got to see him choose between Arthur and Guinevere... and it would add a stronger suspense to the end of the first act. So that the second act opens several years later, and the focus is on Arthur and Mordred with "The Seven Deadly Virtues" which is a fun song anyway.

And maybe casting an ugly Lancelot would automatically put a different spin on the character. Someone should try it sometime. I guess you'd have to add references in the script to his ugliness though.

[2ndBalcony]

Posted: 1/19/07 at 1:21pm

I saw the production and attended the Q&A with the production members after the show.

As much as I adore "I Loved You Once In Silence", it really has no place in the show. It doesn't move the plot forward. "Before I Gaze at You Again" is a weaker song, but it is better for the plot. The lovers do not acknowledge their love until the second act, so putting a love song there just as people are rushing in to arrest them wouldn't really work for the flow.

Having said that, there does need to be some more development for Mordred, which is why his song is being added back in. Personally, I'd sort of like to have "Fie on Goodness" back in, but again, as much as it would help point out the disgruntlement of the knights under the rule of Arthur, it would also derail the plotline of the trio. This is really a love story, after all.

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned the swordplay that is in this production. There is lots of swashbuckling swordfighting. The cast spent 6 weeks learning how to fight with broadswords and they do sometimes hurt each other accidentally. In many productions, the three jousts that lead to the knighthood of Lancelot are done off-stage. In this production, we get to see Lancelot battle two of his opponents with broadswords on stage. And again in the Guinevere rescue scene.

[georgiede]

Posted: 1/19/07 at 2:35pm

Just to clarify- the knights began learning to fight with broadswords on the second day of rehearsal- so they only got 3 weeks of training, not 6. But Sean Boyd the fight choreographer is a gifted teacher and had them dueling like pros quite quickly.
This thread is very interesting reading.....

[Oliver Brownlow]

Posted: 1/20/07 at 7:29am

[quote from Roninjoey:]

"And maybe casting an ugly Lancelot would automatically put a different spin on the character. Someone should try it sometime. I guess you'd have to add references in the script to his ugliness though."

No, you wouldn't. That's the beauty of it. Nothing in the script as Lerner wrote it precludes Lancelot's being ugly.

As for "I Loved You Once in Silence" not moving the plot forward, I would submit that it is not intended to "move the plot forward." That is not the only legitimate function of songs in musicals, and I could give you a list of scores of well-accepted songs in classic musicals that don't "move the plot forward." Consider, for example, the title song in OKLAHOMA! Does that move the plot forward? I don't think it does. We'd better cut it in all future productions. How about "Shipoopi" in THE MUSIC MAN? Zip. We've got to cut it. How about "I've Grown Accustomed to Her Face?" Not really. The situation is precisely the same at the end of the song as it is at the beginning. You just know a little more about Higgins' feelings. It doesn't change until the following scene, and while audiences would be justly outraged if you omitted this song, in point of fact you COULD omit it, and it would have no effect on the plot as such. You'd just go directly from the scene between Higgins and Eliza at his mother's house to Higgins' return to his own house and Eliza returning to him as he plays her voice on his gramophone -- exactly as was done in the 1938 film version of PYGMALION, for which that final reunion scene (often erroneously attributed to Lerner) was originally created by George Bernard Shaw.

"I Loved You Once in Silence" is part of a dialogue between Lancelot and Guenevere. In it, she reviews their entire relationship from start to finish and expresses her feelings about it. Well acted, it's a dramatic scene in itself with a beginning, middle, and end.

In the first verse she remembers being secretly attracted to Lancelot and trying to hide her feelings, not realizing he shared them. In the second verse, she identifies with Lancelot and imagines how he must have felt being attracted to her and thinking she would never return his feelings. In the brief "B" section and beginning of the third verse, she sings about how liberating it was when they shared their feelings of love for one another; and in a musically altered conclusion to the final verse, she describes their present unhappiness. True, it doesn't "move the plot" in the sense of fundamentally changing the situation, any more than "Oklahoma!" or "Shipoopi" or "I've Grown Accustomed to Her Face," or, for that matter "If Ever I Would Leave You," which to my mind is much more dramatically problematic in its traditional position than "I Loved You Once in Silence" is in its traditional position. It's a lyric ballad intended to evoke sympathy. As with "I've Grown Accustomed to Her Face," you could in point of fact remove the song from the scene and the effect would be inconsequential in terms of plot development. Nonetheless, the plot does continue to move during the underscoring between the third verse and the reprise leading up to Mordred's entrance, as Lancelot suggests for the first time that he and Guenevere run away together. They quarrel about it, and then apologetically Lancelot withdraws the suggestion and promises not to mention it again, and not to attempt to continue their relationship. So the affair is at the point of disintegration as Guenevere calls him back for one last embrace and a final reprise. The irony is that if they'd skipped the reprise Lancelot might have slipped out of the room before Mordred's arrival. Of course, part of what is supposed to create dramatic suspense in this scene is the fact that the audience already knows Arthur has been delayed in the forest (voluntarily or involuntarily, depending on the version being used) and that Mordred is on his way back to the castle hoping to catch them in a compromising situation.

Even if one regarded the suggestion of moving "If Ever I Would Leave You" into the "I Loved You Once in Silence" position as legitimate, which on the basis of what I've heard so far I do not, I don't see how it would "move the plot" any more than "I Loved You Once in Silence" or even function significantly differently except to destroy the scene by creating irresolvable conflicts with the dialogue -- unless, of course, the dialogue has been rewritten, which is a completely separate offense. "If Ever ..." is a lyric ballad, too, but instead of reviewing their relationship as it is ending, it says, "I love you, and I will never leave you." So Lance is going to be saying, "I love you and I will never leave you -- by the way, I'm leaving, come with me to Joyous Gard"? And then, "I'm sorry I suggested that, I will never mention it again, and I accept that our relationship is over, goodbye -- by the way, I'm staying, NO, NEVER WILL I LEAVE YOOOOUU --- AT ALL!!!!!!" Sounds a little schizophrenic, doesn't it?

I don't mean to belabor this, and I don't mean for my remarks to prevent anyone who thinks he or she might enjoy seeing CAMELOT with "I Loved You Once in Silence" omitted and "If Ever I Would Leave You" peformed in its place from having that experience and enjoying it if he or she can. As a New York theatre critic aquaintance of mine likes to say, "I'd rather that you disagree with me and have a good time at the show." Nor do I wish to offend those who disagree with me.

Nonetheless, I think this idea sucks, and I hate it, and even if it is truly inspired by some once-expressed original idea or intention of Alan Jay Lerner's, which I regard as far from proven, I still think that the evidence of what he actually wrote in his several different versions of the work must be regarded as controlling unless there is very strong evidence to the contrary. Now, nothing I write here is likely to inspire the director of this new production put these two songs back in their original positions, but I don't admire what he's done, and I regard it as vandalism, plain and simple. Maybe if I get to see this production, I will change my mind, particularly if the changes cause me to see God, attain enlightenment, or have multiple orgasms -- but I don't think so.

I love CAMELOT. Unlike those who have expressed here and elsewhere that they think it's boring, overlong, has too many songs, is too much or not enough like THE ONCE AND FUTURE KING, and/or ought to completely rewritten, I think it's a great play with great songs which hasn't been seen very much in its best version (i.e., the 1980 revision), with the right cast or with intelligent direction -- and by intelligent direction, I mean direction focused on interpreting the play as written, rather than on re-writing it, hacking it to bits, distorting it to satisfy somebody's ego, or making damaging cuts to avoid paying the musicians overtime. It is a long play. It need not be and should not be boring, but as I said in a previous post, I've come to the conclusion that it must be long, and must be allowed to be long -- longer than is now usual. As I've said, I think there should be a sort of "opera house" version, by which I mean essentially that it should follow the 1980 revision, restore all the funny songs (except, of course, the Mordred-Morgan Le Fay duet), and include complete versions of all the scenes and songs used. Then, ideally, cast four bona fide stars in the roles of Arthur, Guenevere, Lancelot, and Mordred, and a genuinely funny comedian as Pellinore, and tell everybody involved to work a lot harder than people normally do to interpret their roles with real depth and to make the show as interesting and entertaining as possible.

People blame this show for being uninteresting. I've seen quite a few productions of it, and my experience has been that a lot of actors and directors make very uninteresting choices with it. Unfortunately, most of the professional models that are available are not very helpful -- but because those bad models exist, I'm afraid the result is that most people who do it don't work very hard to get the dramatic impact out of it, or to think freely about what would make it have the most dramatic impact. And it's very important to do this because CAMELOT is not a play like GUYS AND DOLLS, which is almost automatically entertaining if you just show up and say the lines and sing the songs at the right times. It's more like Shaw's SAINT JOAN, or BELLS ARE RINGING, or DEATH OF A SALESMAN, in that unless certain key roles are played in certain ways, the play cannot work as intended. You've got to really like Willy Loman and understand why other people might have liked him in his heyday. Ella Peterson has to be a very funny comedienne and mimic, and yet truly endearing, beautiful, and a soulful, rather torchy singer, with a hint of something fragile and tragic about her. And you've got to actually believe that grown men would be inspired to follow Joan into battle -- not just on stage, but in real life.

In CAMELOT, you need to feel for all four of the main characters -- Arthur, Guenevere, Lancelot, and Mordred, so that you're pulled in four different directions at the same time. Mordred is of course the antagonist, but the more the audience feels the underlying justice of his claims, the greater the conflict. I've suggested that I think a girlish Guenevere and an ugly, or at least unconceited Lancelot help make the play work. There might be other solutions that would work equally well, but I don't know what they are. The qualities of a great Arthur are harder to articulate, but I think he must be capable of soaring oratory. It is little appreciated how important Burton's voice was to his success in the role. There are actually two "prose arias" in the piece -- one in the first scene with Guenevere, when Arthur explains how he became king, and the other at the end of the first act -- the fully underscored "Resolution," in which he decides to suppress his anger at Lancelot and Guenevere's adultery out of his love for them, and for the greater good. Burton's voice was like a musical instrument. It hypnotized. I do think Michael York has some of the same vocal attributes, and that this might be very good for the role. Perhaps the main thing to remember about Arthur is that the T.H. White-Alan Jay Lerner version that we know so well today that we can remember nothing else was actually a reaction against what was then the stereotypical version of the character, a sort of remote, George Washington-like figurehead. White made him human, insecure, searching, a little silly. In every scene he is thinking very carefully and trying to do the right thing, and in almost his every utterance he is very sincere. The actor who plays him, I think, should be careful not to just rattle off the lines unthinkingly, but to think about them as carefully as Arthur does.

Again: for CAMELOT, you can't rely on the established models and just imitate them as you can with some other plays and roles. Somebody doing a good imitation of Rex Harrison in MY FAIR LADY, Robert Preston in THE MUSIC MAN, Yul Brynner in THE KING AND I, or Angela Lansbury in SWEENEY TODD can be pretty entertaining, but imitating (especially) the CAMELOT movie or HBO video performances just compounds the play's problems.

Sorry, folks, I guess it's another rant. I gotta stop checking this thread. I still want to see it, because I'd like to see Michael York do it, and because I love it so much that I always want to see it, no matter how rotten it is. But I'm not reconciled to the loss of "I Loved You Once in Silence," and I never will be. And if I'm not the target audience for this revival, who in Hell is?









Updated On: 1/20/07 at 07:29 AM

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 1/20/07 at 8:13am

What a flat out marvelous post...

Like you, I love the show: it was one of the first "Broadway" scores I heard on LP, and, coupled with my own love of the Arthurian stories, I was pretty well hooked from the start.

But there *are* problems in the book: the exposition is sometimes laid on with a trowel, and some characters that demand more stage time, like Pellinore and Mordred, never get it because we have so much other stuff we need to deal with. I'd be curious to see the draft that was performed in Boston (or Philadelphia?) during the out of town tryouts: a massive piece of work that saw entire scenes jettisoned wholecloth and the scenery used for them left in the alley behind the theatre. But at least in that version Lerner had assumed a posiiton of luxury with regards to telling the story, and I would imagine he had characters that were far more developed than the sketched out ones we see today.

I guess my issue with the current book is that it likes/wants to accomplish so much in a short time: it's trying to tell us the entire Arthurian story (everything short of the Grail and the Lady of the Lake) when it should be narrowing its focus. When you really look at the script, Pellinore serves no purpose aside from comic relief. He stumbles into the plot, then disappears, then returns in the second act in this sort of bland advisor position that does little more than to act as Horatio to Arthur's Hamlet. I'd cut that in a second. And Mordred, while a fun piece for an actor to chew on, doesnt do much asie from serve as the final plot lever to divide Arthur and Lancelot; if anything, I'd introduce him much earlier, rather than just have him show up midway in the second act. Consider what fun it would be to have him make his first appearance during the "May" scene, at the same time Lancelot meets Guenevere, and then let his character blossom in all its wonderful evil from there, in parallel to the love triangle.

IMHO, those against the show see the same book issues, but unlike them I dont think these issues are unsolvable. It simply requires a more stringent look at the story and ruthlessly eliminating anything that doesnt contribute to it. *Then*, once that's done, going back and selectively augmenting aspects of the Legend that *compliment* the core story.

[lovesclassics]

Posted: 1/20/07 at 1:47pm

This thread is so illuminating. Thank you all for continuing this thoughtful and intelligent discussion.

I'd just like to address a couple of points based on the radio interview with Michael York and Rachel York.

Regarding Mordred: Michael stated that in this production Mordred's first appearance is very early on - that he is a hovering presence that forebodes ill. This seems consistent with the NSMT production I saw last year. In that version, Mordred was seated in the loge boxes right from the top of the show, watching and reacting. It was quite effective in establishing a connection and intent. I wonder if in this new version he's actually been given dialogue.

Merlyn and his impact on Arthur's character: Michael York said that Merlyn is given more presence in this production, too, by having him referenced as a guide for Arthur even after his death. Apparently Arthur's reluctance at being king and his deliberation over every decision is heightened by his constant wondering what Merlyn would advise. I don't know if Merlyn actually has a physical presence in these scenes or not, but apparently he is felt through the dialogue.

Regarding "If Ever I Would Leave You" being moved to the "I Loved You Once in Silence" spot: I can actually see it working. If it's played as tragic irony and the dialogue has been modified to be consistent with that, it could be interpreted to mean that, if Lancelot were not being guided by a higher spiritual nobility, he would never leave Guenevere. It could demonstrate his tremendous inner conflict - never would I leave you, but I have to - and it's his way of telling Guenevere that his love for her will endure even when he's gone - "no never would I leave you at all." It also gives the show a big 11 o'clock number, which in some ways it needs.

The elimination of "I Loved You Once in Silence:" As pretty as it is, I do think it is expendable. What Guenevere says in that song is communicated in the basic storyline as it evolves - their unexpressed love for each other, their joy at discovering and acting on their mutual feelings, and the pain their love has brought to bear on them and Arthur. We already know this. The song doesn't tell us anything new. It is a beautiful reflective moment for Guenevere, yes, but it doesn't really serve the show in an essential way. People who don't know the show aren't going to say, "Gee, something's missing." It's only going to bother people who love the song and wish they could hear it - which might be an argument for keeping it in since, as OliverBrownlow suggests, a big portion of the target audience is people who do know and love the score. But from a purely mechanical standpoint, the song can go. It's a bold choice, one the producers may regret and reconsider if critic and audience reaction continues to be negative. But from what Michael York and Rachel York said in the interview, that's a change that the creative team, and the actors, all see as positive.

This thread does prove one thing: even though "Camelot" may be a flawed show, it stirs people. The subject matter hits a lot of chords that resonate. I am really looking forward to seeing it, warts and all.

lc

[lovesclassics]

Posted: 1/20/07 at 5:11pm

deleted Updated On: 1/20/07 at 05:11 PM

[SeanMartin]

Posted: 1/21/07 at 12:16am

After reading all these terribly civil exchanges, I'll simply add...

Everyone here is a poo poo head.

Not that I believe it, you understand, but we cant have a BWW thread without *someone* saying it.

[harris007]

Posted: 1/21/07 at 12:59am

did they cut morgan le fay and the witch that lures merlyn away?

[Oliver Brownlow]

Posted: 1/21/07 at 1:15am

Heaven and earth may pass away, but the profundity of SeanMartin's statement will endure forever. Let's lock this thread and put it in the vault!