Camelot

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.

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

Beautiful music and strong performances from Richard Harris and Vanessa Redgrave, however they are not singers and it hurts the picture mightily, leaving you wondering how much better it could have been with Richard Burton, Robert Goulet and especially Julie Andrews. True Burton wasn't a singer either using the talk singing method that Rex Harrison employed on My Fair Lady so Harris' replacement isn't as glaring as Redgrave/Andrews or Nero/Goulet. Where the picture really runs into problems through is the lumbering pace set by director Logan. A fine director of drama but with no skill at setting the right tone for a musical although that didn't stop the studios from handing him several throughout the years ending with the disaster of Paint Your Wagon. Some of the costumes are truly amazing and justly famous but this can be a trial to sit through.

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.