Camelot

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.

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.

There is a great deal of misinformation on this blog concerning Camelot (1967), the film adaptation of the legendary Broadway hit. First, Producer Jack L. Warner had asked stage stars Richard Burton and Julie Andrews to reprise their roles as King Arthur and Queen Guinevere. Both refused. At the time, Burton was co-starring with then wife Elizabeth Taylor in a succession of films (The Taming of the Shew, Faustus, Boom!). Andrews was interested until she was told Burton had refused. She also had a commitment to honor her second picture to 20th Century-Fox (the first was the wildly successful Sound of Music; the second the ill-fated Star!). She did not have the best working relationship with Richard Harris, with whom she had recently co-starred with in the epic Hawaii. Harris hated her in kind.

Camelot did not achieve its legendary hit status until after its director, Moss Hart, had overhauled the musical play long after it had been running. He had suffered a heart attack during the out-of-town tryouts. When the play opened on Broadway in late 1960, the critics were less than kind. While they liked Burton, Andrews & the music, they disliked the second act, when Camelot is under siege by Arthur's illegitimate son, the evil Mordred, and the disclosure of the the queen's infidelity. They did not appreciate the clash in styles, an enjoyable lighthearted first act overtaken by an overly dramatic second act. Hart remedied its faults by tightening the book and eliminating several - though lovely – songs, including Fie on Goodness!, Take Me to the Fair, and Before I Gaze at You Again. The show's hit status was also elevated by its best-selling cast recording, one of the most pleasing ever produced. An appearance by Julie Andrews and Richard Burton on the Ed Sullivan Show, singing Camelot and What Do the Simple Folk Do?, in full costume, helped the box-office sales, too.

Camelot, the motion picture, has its strengths, primarily perhaps the best adaptation of any Broadway score in the history of motion pictures. Musical Director Alfred Newman and his choral associate, Ken Darby, richly deserved their Academy Awards for their work. The costume, production design and art direction are also Oscar worthy. Beyond that, let there be silence.

Richard Harris overacts. Mon Dieu, what a ham! He sings acceptably, but overdoes the lyrics considerably with his e-nun-ci-a-tion, especially the title song. As others have noted, the blue eye shadow and ugly wig do not help. Visuals aside, his Arthur renders on the effeminate.

Franco Nero is handsome but can't act his way out of a paper bag. Stiff and wooden, his Italian accent is incongruous with his dubbed musical vocals.

Vanessa Redgrave, of the three co-stars, comes off best. Although not a true singer, her songs are passable. Her acting is laudable. She is beautiful, convincingly regal and winning in most her scenes. Her reaction to Lance's bringing the knight back to life is touching and real. She must have ignored direction from the director at times (thankfully for us), otherwise she would not have been as effective.

Under the sledgehammer, heavy handed direction by Joshua Logan, this film fails on every dramatic level. He has his actors amplify every single syllable and nuance – in extreme close up! Did he not watch his own daily rushes during filming? This is the same director who managed to wreck South Pacific (1958) and would go on to ruin another musical, Lerner and Loewe's Paint Your Wagon (1969). It was Logan – not Warner –who remarked, "Can you see two men and two countries going to war over Julie Andrews?"

Now that movie musicals are in vogue again, maybe somebody at Warner Brothers will give the green light to remake this Lerner & Loewe spectacle that was poorly filmed in 1967.

This version is really a shame, considering how beloved the original 1960 Broadway musical is. Lerner & Loewe wrote some of their best songs for this show: "If Ever I Would Leave You", "Camelot", "What do the Simple Folk Do?" and "Fie on Goodness". But when making the film, producer Jack Warner chose tone-deaf actors, one of the worst directors in the medium, and had Alan J. Lerner rewrite his script, stressing the drama over the comedy (to the narrative's detriment) as well as throwing out half the score (including, sob, the show-stopping "Fie on Goodness"). Richard Harris and Vanessa Redgrave ARE great actors, and in their dramatic scenes, they are quite effective, but they most certainly are NOT singers, especially poor Ms. Redgrave (although, her orgasmic rendition of "The Lusty Month of May" has to be seen to be believed). Franco Nero, a beautiful, beautiful man, has a great opening with "C'est Moi", but then goes downhill from there. David Hemmings manages to bring some mirth to the film, but he's only in the last third, and by that time it's nearly too late (plus, they cut his only song!).

On the plus side, the film DID deserve the 3 Oscars it won: Best Scoring (if you take the voices out, the music sounds magnificent), Best Art Direction/Set Decoration, and Best Costume Design (the flick IS sumptuous). And the cinematography is rather breathtaking at times. (If you do watch it, try to see it on DVD, where it's letterboxed.)

So, if anybody from Warner Brothers, or any other studio for that matter, is reading this, give it another go: go back to T.H. White's original source novel and Lerner's original B'way script, keep ALL the songs intact, and hire actors who are proven singers, say, Ewan McGregor (he demonstrated his pipes in Moulin Rouge!) as Arthur, Kate Winslet (who scored a British top 10 hit last year) as Guinevere, and Hugh Jackman (who got his start in a West End production of Oklahoma!) as Lancelot. Please....

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.