Live From Lincoln Center: Camelot, airs this Thursday on PBS — Page 10

For me, the star of the night was GUNN. Beautiful, powerful singing, funny, great addition of the French vibe and solid acting.

Lloyd was a pleasant surprise, Keach was great, and Drescher's role was small enough that she didn't annoy me.

Also, congrats to esparza 333, you def. held your own with the big dogs.

---

Updated On: 5/9/08 at 10:09 AM

I've asked around this morning and nobody agrees with some of you who have said Marin was pitchy or flat, for the very simple reason that she wasn't.

Nathan Gunn was the stunner in the cast. I wish there were a recording of his version of "If Ever I Would Leave You" - sigh!

buddharich --

Oh, you "asked around"? Well, that convinces me I must be wrong.

Certainly the correct notes were to be found somewhere within her wide, unpleasant vibrato, but it wasn't centered upon them.

Thus endeth my participation in that "argument".

I have one question -- the musical is adapted from the book 'The Once and Future King' (which happens to be my favorite book in the whole world, coincidentally)

In the book, by the time this last battle occurs and the 3 of them meet on the battlefield, they really ARE that old

In the beginning of the book, they are young. The book probably spans 25-30 years

So, I'm not sure these actors are really too old for the end, maybe just too old for the BEGINNING?

T H White very specifically says that Lance and Jenny were old, and that their love was that sort that had grown over time and was therefore more meaningful

I guess my question is -- in the play/musical adaptation, is the story supposed to take place in a more condensed timeframe?

And if so, then I assume they are to be younger in the musical?

Sorry to ramble, it just struck me as odd that everyone is saying that Gabriel Byrne is too old, when he's pretty much the perfect age for the source material

(and I thought the 'forgiveness in your eyes' thing REALLY stuck out too -- he really wasn't looking at her. That said, I adore Gabriel Byrne, and I think that this role in this setting maybe just wasn't right for him. I think he really tried, tho)

---

fosca3 -

I seem to remember that the musical occurs within the span of about a dozen years. I think five years pass between Arthur's first and second scenes, and then the script says that seven years pass between acts.

This would put Arthur in his thirties at the end, which is still young enough to pull off the boyishness in the first scene. And as I said earlier, Richard Burton was 35 when he did it.

Ya know what piece of music I missed? THE JOUSTS.

I always thought they were thrilling. Are they no longer in the show? Has that sequence been replaced by the "Joust Ballet"?

---

Well... again, all i can say is this is one the greatest musical scores of all time and it's ashame that you can't somehow find your way to recognize how beautiful these songs are... but i give up, your bitchiness knows no bounds...

buddharich -

Well, if you're going to CHANGE arguments, you'll find we have nothing to argue about there. You're absolutely right, Camelot is one of the greatest scores of all time, and I fully recognize how beautiful the songs are.

ggersten -

I don't think Price directed this for TV. He's responsible for the debacle onstage; the debacle of how it was translated to TV is someone else's burden, I believe.

This production was excruciatingly painful. Gabriel Byrne made Michael York look good! Marin Mazzie was way too old and just going through the motions as Guenevere. You could almost see her marking out the blocking and gestures she was directed to execute. It was ridiculous not to use a British accent, and her singing was monotonous. There was no rich color to it at all. They should have cast Rachel York. She was magnificent on tour. Spirited and youthful, regal, strong, funny, feisty, heartbreaking and radiant. And her voice was incredibly warm, powerful and pure.

The only bright spot was Nathan Gunn. What a revelation! Christopher Lloyd was okay, but Time Winters on the national tour created a much more colorful and vibrant character. Lloyd was just being his typical self.

Overall this thing was a ridiculous mish mash done at warp speed. The strongest thing about Camelot is its score, and it was not served well here. Even the orchestra sounded colorless.

I'll bet the honchos at PBS are going to have a long talk with the folks at Lincoln Center about wasting their airtime and money.

Camelot has always had book problems, and this production only seemed to magnify them. As everyone on this board surely knows, if it hadn't been for Ed Sullivan, the original production would not have run nearly as long as it did.

buddharich wrote:

"Well... again, all i can say is this is one the greatest musical scores of all time and it's ashame that you can't somehow find your way to recognize how beautiful these songs are... but i give up, your bitchiness knows no bounds..."

Yes, the score is wonderful and the show is flawed. What's pathetic is your constant inability to acknowledge how totally dreadful this concert presentation was. You saw it free on PBS. Think of us who paid $225/ticket to sit through such major and pathetic ineptitude from a director who will never be a classy one nor a particularly good one.

Updated On: 5/9/08 at 12:38 PM

CAMELOT. Ah, CAMELOT. One of those shows that everyone has an opinion on. You either love it or you hate it; there seems to be no middle ground. It was even that way when it first opened! I think it's one of those shows that, if done badly, is excruciating, and if done well, is very moving. In other words, there can no weak links in the cast, the production values, etc. It all has to be stellar and seamless. Same thing goes for CARNIVAL.

I also thought Mazzie was a bit too old for the role, but then again, we were seeing it with the camera almost down her throat. In an actual theatre setting, they could bath her in surprise pink and she'd be fine. Nathan Gunn -- probably the best "Lance" I've ever seen. (I saw Steve Blanchard do the role in the Goulet tour and he was a little iffy.) No one has mentioned his "Ces't Moi" -- I thought it was great! Gabriel Byrne -- he had his moments, but his weak link was the vocals.

All the above aside, one of the great things about the concert version is hearing that magnificent score and the lush orchestrations played by the Philharmonic. I needed a towel after hearing the overture and the entracte...

Updated On: 5/9/08 at 01:06 PM

I won't be able to see this for a while so I was going to avoid this thread. However, a friend sent me his review which made me laugh out loud. Literally. With his permission I will reproduce (most) of it here. I would post the whole review, but it might get the thread deleted:

Honestly, it was such a train wreck that I couldn't bring myself to change the channel. Mazzie's performance was postively puzzling. The purposeful, all-American, slightly mannish stride she employed whilst gallumphing around the stage. That accent...OH THAT ACCENT. My friend wondered if she was the Princess of Wisconsin. And don't even get me started on the costumes. Was the fabric found at the Rag Shop on Route 17 in Paramus? IN THE DISCOUNT BIN??? Honestly, not since Diana Ross was completely undone by that tight 'fro in THE WIZ has the physical appearance of an (or should I say 'all') actor been so damaged. It reminded me of that exchange in TOOTSIE:

Doris Belack: I'd like to make her look a little more attractive, how far can you pull back?
Fat Camerman: How do you feel about Cleveland?

And that poor Bobby Steggert. In a role that certainly can read 'gay' (Roddy McDowell, anyone?), it was taken to a horrifying level. A role that could have a slight hint of 'swish', but that should also have an underlying menace and, in the end, become a maniacal terror, had all the edgy dangerousness of Meshach Taylor as Hollywood in MANNEQUIN. Make that MANNEQUIN 2. If one HAS to go the route of Gay As Villain...at least make him a scary, CRUISING villain. Or even Malificent. But this incarnation was offensive and toothless at the same time. Thanks Lonny Price. I revoke your early 90's Freedom Rings.

Gabriel Byrne doesn't really even merit any sort of criticism. He's a terrific actor, but was so wrong for the role. Yes, he couldn't find the beat if Gemigniani had his son beating it on him with a big club. But his feckless Wart never blossomed into the King. And so then, the rest of the show can never work.

I liked Gunn. His accent was actually pretty good, but his egotism was too knowing. He's gorgeous and sings beautifully, but if you're going to put him in leather pants, you put in him BAGGY LEATHER PANTS???? They should have been a little tight. Maybe not as tight as that woman whom I saw in Vegas who somehow managed to sport camel toe in leather pants (just how tight do those pants have to be and just how big must that vagina be to actually sport camel toe in leather???), but come ON!

I did delight when Kudish went for a big high note and managed to crack 5 times within it. Drescher may have actually worked if the rest of the night were of a polish that it could allow a bit of fun absurdity. But, alas, no. She was just another rusty nail in the coffin of poor Alan Jay Lerner.

Actually, the entire score took a beating, for the most part. Because of Byrne's comeplete ineptness, there was a desperation to the rest of the singing that screamed, 'IF I SING THIS WELL ENOUGH, I'LL SAVE THE WHOLE NIGHT.'

Didn't work.

---