Camelot: Am Hofe König Arthurs

The legend of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table has endured for centuries, and has inspired many movies. One of them is the musical "Camelot," based on the stage production by Lerner and Loewe. Richard Harris stars as King Arthur, with Vanessa Redgrave as Queen Guinevere and Franco Nero as Sir Lancelot. The story follows the classic legend, Arthur creating the perfect land of Camelot, but suffering betrayal by his queen and favorite knight. The eyes are presented with a lavish sight of dazzling scenery, lush locations and beautiful costumes. There are memorable songs, such as "If Ever I Should Leave You," "What Do the Simple Folk Do?" and of course, "Camelot." This epic offers a lot for both the eyes and the ears.

One of the reviews I once read of this marvellous film dismissed it as 'kohl and overacting'. No way. It has so many scenes that live in the memory as I write, not having revisited the movie for quite some time. The wedding sequence with all its lights; Guinevere, beautiful in her wonder of the magical land where leaves 'blow away altogether, at night, of course'; If Ever I Should Leave You (not sung by Franco Nero, as I understand, really, but you'd never guess); How To Handle A Woman ('what's wrong, Jenny? where are you these days? I don't understand you ...'); creepy Mordred; and the ending (run, boy, run) which is terrific. I have heard Burton as Arthur and have to say I was disappointed. They made the right casting choice for the movie. A pity some of the songs got cut (except it would have been even longer then, good for us who like it, intolerable for those who don't). Also interesting to compare with other Lerner/Loewe movies with their themes of magic, understanding, and change (My Fair Lady, Brigadoon, Gigi and Paint Your Wagon). As they sit together as a body, Camelot is one of the best.

I liked the look of this film. I liked Richard Harris as Arthur because he has the look of a medieval king. Vanessa Redgrave is a more formidable Guinevere, and Franco Nero is quite stunning to look at. But they are right. They are not singers. They are not very good weak singers (does that make sense). Now I never really bought into Julie Andrews as Guinevere in the music from the Original Cast, and I don't see her as a strong woman my mind's eye. But I do agree, it's time to take a big budget crack at this again. Imagine the pageantry that would be possible now and some of the wonderful musical talents to draw from. Back to the story. This is a touching story of a man who liked the battles but not the rule. He is forced into a marriage and then falls in love. However, the magical Lancelot steals her heart and things go sour. Arthur is left alone on the battlefield, and Camelot is only a memory. Great story...poor execution.

In general I did like "Camelot" but there are a number of flaws that do let down what could have been a spectacular film to what is now a interesting but somewhat mediocre one. Well, starting with the positives, it is sumptuously filmed, with stunning cinematography and lush costumes and sets. The music score is marvellous, beautiful, dramatic, moving, haunting and lots more. Most of the performances are well done, particularly David Hemmings as Mordred who is deliciously devious and even detestable. And it was nice to see the late Lionel Jeffries as King Pellinore. The story is tragic and inspiring, the ending is moving and the dialogue is good. However, the film does drag a lot, not only because the pace is disappointingly pedestrian, but Joshua Logan's direction is very stodgy. Also, while Gene Merlino provided the singing voice of Lancelot beautifully, I personally didn't find the singing that great. Richard Harris and Vanessa Redgrave act convincingly as Arthur and Guinevere, but their singing is flat mostly. As Lancelot Franco Nero is wooden at best, handsome yes, but wooden. All in all, worth watching, but with more secure pacing and a perhaps better director, no offence to Joshua Logan, this could've been better. 6/10 Bethany Cox

There's a reason why Hollywood in the late 1960s went into its worst recession since the direst years of the Depression in the 30s--it was lavishing ridiculous amounts of money on bloated musicals like this that totally *tanked* at the box office.

For some reason, the studios kept handing these big-budget adaptions of hit Broadway musicals to Joshua Logan to direct, even though they always ended up complete failures (check out the horrible use of color filters in "South Pacific" [1958], or Clint Eastwood and Lee Marvin *singing* in "Paint Your Wagon" [1969])). Like that later film, "Camelot" seems to go out of its way to cast its musical with stars who can't sing or dance to save their lives. Instead, the cast seems to be trying to tap into the interest in swinging "Mod" London of the mid-60s. (With Vanessa Redgrave and David Hennings, you have half the cast of Antonioni's "Blow Up" [1966]!) The film also tries to appeal to both a family audience *and* discerning adult viewers simultaneously. I can't imagine parents being happy about the frank earthy sexuality of "The Lusty Month of May," or the overt adultery of the plotline--but people looking for adult fare would be annoyed at the attempts at sweetness and light being thrown in as well.

Obviously, no one from either side was too happy, because this was a *big* flop for Warner Bros. when it came out. Seeing it in a *huge* theatre in 70mm may help maintain interest visually (the costumes are striking), but this will be lost if watching it on video (esp. if it's a "pan-and-scan" instead of a letterboxed version). This is a movie only for those who are die-hard musical fans that are willing to sit through anything--because this is one of the movies that effectively killed the genre's popularity.