Michael York will not be in CAMELOT the Fall- Page 2

[RevolutionaryCostume]

Posted: 5/6/07 at 10:43pm

I just saw Camelot in Chicago and I thought it was really well done. I had never seen it on stage before, but the movie is a favorite of mine.

I thought Rachel York was worth the price of admission alone. James Barbour was okay, but he lost his French accent halfway through the show and turned British. . which I found really odd.

I didn't think Michael York was as bad as everyone is making him out to be. I thought it was ridiculous that the pit was 3x louder than he was. . what I could hear of him was just fine. Arthur is a role that doesn't lose much when it is speak-sung.

But yeah. . I hope Rachel York stays with the show, she's the one you're paying to see, even though her name isn't on the marquee.

~Jacob.

[JustChillin8908]

Posted: 5/6/07 at 10:43pm

Why is my post not showing up?

Hope this fixes it.

[JustChillin8908]

Posted: 5/6/07 at 10:44pm

Grrr....

Well here's it again:

Now I kind of wish that I had seen it in Detroit rather than waiting for it to come to East Lansing (November). Although I'm rather happy that I don't have to see Michael York after reading the terrible reviews.

(It shows up when I hit "reply to this message"!)

[muscle23ftl]

Posted: 5/8/07 at 1:48am

Ouch, so yeah, I forgot Michael and Rachel York star in this. So will he be in Ft. Lauderdale as well?

Thanks.

[TM1162]

Posted: 5/8/07 at 9:31am

sanda... Yes, James was very specific that he would be leaving after Pittsburgh. He is getting married in August then plans to 'produce theatre'. I specifically asked if he had anything else he would be doing after Camelot, he said no, I'm all done on the stage. Although I think that some of it may be the legal troubles that have befallen him lately as well.

[lovesclassics]

Posted: 5/8/07 at 10:25am

muscle,

The entire current cast is contracted through July, with Pittsburgh being the final stop. So MY should be in Ft. Lauderdale. I'm sure the producers will announce changes in casting well before the tour resumes in September in LA.

lc

[ErinDillyFan]

Posted: 5/8/07 at 10:41am

I saw this in Detroit. Camelot is probably my least favorite of the "classic" shows. I didn't find anything special in Michael York's performance to recommend it. James Barbour's singing is the highlight of this show. I didn't find him a good actor (and I agree his accent kept changing), but he just took over the stage when he sang. Rachel certainly had the best overall performance, she sings wonderfully, but her character's best song "The simple joys of maidenhood" is a mediocre show tune.

[Holly Therese]

Posted: 5/8/07 at 12:16pm

After hearing all this I'm glad I saw it in Detroit. I pretty much agree with everything everyone else has already said-that James and Rachel are the reasons to see the show. I find it sad that James won't be returning to the stage (oh that voice!)but as already mentioned I'm sure it has a lot to do with his recent legal problems. Too bad...he was a really nice guy.

[sidneybruhl]

Posted: 5/8/07 at 6:52pm

I hope Rachel stays with the show. I would love to see her when the tour comes to Louisville, KY this fall.

[BobbyBubby]

Posted: 5/8/07 at 7:29pm

I saw it. York IS the only reason to go. Crap ass production.
York performs as if he just discovered acting.

[hermionejuliet]

Posted: 5/8/07 at 7:54pm

So - I have two sets of tickets for Camelot. One weekend after another. Is this a repeat type of show or am I better of "gifting" my tickets?

For the record, I love Camelot.

[lovesclassics]

Posted: 5/8/07 at 9:52pm

If you just can't get enough of Rachel York (like me), then going twice may be enjoyable for you. I went twice in one weekend and I feel I could listen to her sing that score endlessly.

HOWEVER, Michael York was truly painful the second time around. The first time I couldn't believe what I was seeing and hearing. The second time I couldn't believe he didn't get any better.

Barbour's songs are spine-tingling, but he is a lug of an actor. Poor Rachel. There is zippo chemistry coming back her way from either one of her co-stars. It's astounding what she is able to accomplish admidst the lethargy that surrounds her.

She is the ONLY reason to see this show. Without her it would be a disaster.

lc

[Holly Therese]

Posted: 5/8/07 at 9:56pm

Why don't you just go the first weekend and see if you like it enough to return? Then you still have enough time to get rid of them if you decide to.

[*thinkpink18*]

Posted: 5/8/07 at 10:00pm

Of course with my luck the people I was actually going to see the show for will be gone by the time I get a chance to see it. Ah well. I'll probably still go.

[somethingwicked]

Posted: 6/13/07 at 1:58am

According to her website, Rachel is staying with the show through July 22nd.

That would indicate she'll be leaving at the end of the Pittsburgh stop along with James Barbour.

[PB ENT.]

Posted: 6/13/07 at 9:00am

I covered the show on 6/5. Just a few personal thoughts...

Michael York is not the weakest link in Camelot, Barbour is! If he's claiming he is done with onstage acting, he certainlty proved it by me with his lack lustre, cardboard performance as Lancelot. Michael York may not have the singing chops, but his ability to jump into this role is hard to ignore.

Rachel did not perform opening night in Philly. But her understudy was wonderful! Rachel may well be leaving in the summer. She is slotted to perform with Peter Nero & the Philly Pops Broadway Showstoppers in October.
http://www.phillypops.org/

Lou Diamond Phillips is an excellent stage performer. He was very impressive as the King opposite Marie Osmond in the last King & I Broadway return. (Kevin Gray took over for LDP). He should have no problem filling the shoes for York's king.

This touring production needs a lot of work, regardless of the casting. Just my humble opinion.

BWW Review of Camelot

Updated On: 6/13/07 at 09:00 AM

[sanda]

Posted: 6/13/07 at 9:54am

"Jim isn't giving up his stage career, I don't think. I saw his name on a cast list for 1776 in Sacramento. He is playing Rutledge. "

melody2, could you provide the link to me? That's awsome. I always want Jim to play 1.Lancelot, 2.Javert, 3. Rutledge.

[Minnely]

Posted: 6/14/07 at 1:30am

wish I was in Sacramento...I would love to see him do 1776!

[goldenboy]

Posted: 6/14/07 at 10:36am

I caught Camelot in Fort Lauderdale last night. I saw it once before on stage with Richard Harris and Meg Bussert.

First off, the acoustics in the Broward Center were abominable. I could not hear anything that James Barbour said but magically when he sang, I heard every word.
Hmm. That's a problem. I didn't think his Lancelot was much to look at and therefore did not undersand Guinivere's lust and fascinationion with him. It did not seem organic or believable by any stretch of the imagination.

Michael York did fine. He is a noted FILM actor and the problem if any ( and I don't think there is that much problem with him as others seem to ascertain) is that he
is an internal actor (film) in an external medium (theatre) He did fine. He does lack the masculinity of say a Richard Burton or a Richard Harris but he brought his own Michael York boyish charm to the role. I did have trouble hearing him at times, but I felt it was the microphone system or the acoustics in the theatre as I had trouble hearing others as well. I don't think his age is a problem as some people have pointed out because on stage he looks no more than 45.

Rachel York did fair best in the proceedings. She overcame the challenged
acoustical system and I heard almost every word but even that took some doing on the listener's ear.

There was chemisty missing between the three leads. They all seem to be acting in their own show; going through the motions but not really connecting to eachother.
That is a director problem and an actor ego problem.

The scenery by John Iacovelli was far superior to the Richard Harris of years gone by. I thought the scenery quite extraordinary and really did it's best to transport you to the middle ages and get the right feeling. Iacovelli is the star of the show. Kudos to the set designer.

And now the problems. Lerner and Loew's score is gorgeous however I think some pruing of "Follow Me" and even some other ballads which do nothing to futher the plot needs to be gone. The biggest problem is that the book to Camelot is downright choppy, uninvolving, and talky. The introductions of Pellinore and Mordrid seem to come out of nowhere and you don't quite understand how Guinivere falls for Lancelot or who the hell Pellinore is or why Mordrid is so set upon destroying King Arthur and the Round Table. These characters as plots points seem arbitrary and make the audience fill in too many of the blanks. Confounding these inherent problems with the book are the acoustics and microphone system in the auditorium.

It is just not a very good show and it dragsalot. I found it to be talky and choppy and univolving in the Richard Harris production as well and I always figured the movie ruined what was probably great on stage: in retrospect in many ways the movie improved upon the stage production with it's jousting tournaments and May Day Celebration. (Although God knows in that production I wished they used a real singer instead of Vanessa Redgrave--oh Hollywood)

I believe Glen Cassale did a fine job with the staging and the set and a very bad book of a musical. Directors are only as good as their material. His major fault is not making the main characters relate to eachother on an organic level. And yes, that is a major fault but a major problem when stars are involved. I do think the sound design needs plenty of work. People all around me were complaining they could not hear and we were in the 4th row.

I also think the death of theatre are these massive structures like the Broward Center designed to seat thousands of people. You are amplified to such a degree that the dialogue is inaudible and it doesn't seem like its coming out of the actors mouths.

Camelot got mixed reviews when it openned initially but ran on its star power and
it's dubbing as a great musical by John F Kennedy. Talkalot, Dragalot, Singalot
whatever you call it, the book needs a major overhaul.

[lovesclassics]

Posted: 6/14/07 at 2:30pm

According to an interview in the Miami Herald, all three stars are leaving July 22. And Barbour is far from quitting the stage - he'll be doing 1776 this summer and Tale of Two Cities this fall.

lc
Camelot Stars Interviewed

[BobbyBubby]

Posted: 6/14/07 at 2:46pm

He easily gave the worst performance I've ever seen in an equity show. Ms. York, on the other hand, was simply stunning.

[lovesclassics]

Posted: 6/14/07 at 3:07pm

BobbyBubby,

If you mean Michael York, I totally agree. Just awful. I've seen better performances in community theater. Arms waving all over the place, a deer-in-the-headlights look in the eye, a ridiculous grin all the time, amateurish posturing, whiney, whiney, whiney line readings...

The guy was in his own bubble up there. He was just reciting lines instead of interacting - and he was reciting them very badly! The reason there was no chemistry up there had nothing to do with actor ego. It had everything to do with Michael York not knowing how to act on stage. He was so busy trying to "emote" that he paid no attention to what his co-stars (Rachel York and Time Winters in particular) were trying to give him. In my book, those two were the stars of this production. They managed to give life to the entire show, not just their own characters.

And I thought Barbour was fine when he sang. His vocal power is undeniable. Yes, he lumbered through the non-musical scenes. But he was nowhere near as painful to watch as Michael York. He at least had stage presence and didn't gesture wildly like some nervous high school kid trying to figure out what to do with his arms. His sort of socially inept take on Lancelot was actually kind of refreshing. I've seen too many productions where he's been all bravado. I thought it was quite a nice moment when he brought Sir Lionel back to life without any hint of self-aggrandizement. He was merely an instrument doing God's work. When Guenevere suddenly looks at him with respect and adoration, he was truly humble.

lc

[wickedrentq]

Posted: 6/14/07 at 10:28pm

Hmm, did Rachel start out the tour with blonde hair(wig?), did she just change it back to blonde, or is that just a weird picture that makes her hair/wig look blonde? I was staring at it, and like...something about her is different than in Philly...

And I'm sorry, but saying the 3 leads have no chemistry because of each actor's ego is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard.

And I'm sure many would agree that Michael is acting in his own show, some though slight less would argue the same about Barbour, but that is just not true about Rachel. In her interactions with Pellinore and the 3 knights in Take Me To The Fair, if nothing else, it is clear she is very much assimilated into that show with the rest of the cast.

If her leading man happens to be in his own bubble/show, there's really only so much she can do...

[South Fl Marc]

Posted: 6/14/07 at 10:32pm

Why couldn't he have left before Ft. Lauderdale. Michael York has never been a stage actor - he's not very good. Plus, he should be playing Pelinore - not Arthur - he is toooo Old.

[chenofan]

Posted: 6/14/07 at 10:35pm

Sorry to pass along bad news, but from what I know, The divine Ms. York will not be continuing her contract once the tour starts up again. Hopefully she will be headed back to broadway

Updated On: 6/14/07 at 10:35 PM