MovieChat Forums > Camelot (1967) Discussion > A Bomb?

A Bomb?

posted 19 years ago by haristas
77 replies | jump to latest

This movie cost around $17 Million to make and grossed only $14 Million in 1968. It also got mostly negative reviews. I guess that would mean it was a failure. However, it has its admirers, and Warners has certainly made a profit on it by now. I saw it as a kid when it first came out and I remember being rather bored by it. Looking at it today on DVD I can see that it's over-produced and blandly directed, resulting in an overlong, cumbersome and pretenious movie. Still, it's nice eye-candy, and has some lovely songs, but too much of it is overripe and kind of silly. I'd rate it as only fair at best. Certainly not one of the better musical films.

[–] Teft 19 years ago

I couldn't disagree more. It is a near perfect film and captures all of the human experiences that matter most. It is a celebration of life. And how do you feel it's pretensious? That is an amazing statement. No offense, but are you using that word because it is often used as a negative comment or do you not know what the word means. How is this film pretensious? Or silly? Maybe you could help me understand by telling me what one of your favorite movies is.

[–] haristas 19 years ago

I see that I left out one of the 't's in "pretentious" in my statement. Sorry about that. Well, pretentious as I'm using it means "showy and pompous." This movie is certainly showy and, I think, often pompous. I'm talking about all the philosophizing in the movie. It's really too much sometimes. It's part of what makes the film so laden. A simpler approach should have been taken, with a resulting film that's quicker paced and far shorter. There's nothing this movie has to say that justifies it's great length. I'm just trying to be honest here. I actually like the film and have it in my DVD collection, having seen it as a kid, but it's far from perfect. And, I actually stole the "pretentious" comment from a review I went back and read in The New York Times from 1967, so it's not just me saying this. As for this movie being "a celebration of life," well, no offense, but that sounds a bit pretentious. And, one of my favorite movies? Well, in keeping with the kind of philosophizing this film does I'd say that 1937's "Lost Horizon" does it much better, and when they tried to musicalize that the results were disastrous. What the movie "Camelot" needed were all of the Broadway show's songs and a lot less of the dialogue -- or should that be monologues?

[–] swansabi08 18 years ago

Yes, some parts of the movie are quite "Showy"... but hey, it's a broadway musical turned to mavie... you've gotta expect that a little. The philosophising in the movie is completely necessary- it brings about the whole idea of the round table, and you need to see Arthur's thought process. It helps with characterization, mood... and all that good stuff. I think a fast paced show would've lost too much and wouldn't get to the deeper messages in the movie. I was just in a high school production of it, and there are so many special messages that come with the story. It is kinda long though, I'll give you that, and plot development and everything could've gone a lot faster, while introducing other things that should've been in there that were in the stage show, like all of Mordred's missing stuff. I appreciate the monologues myself, especially Arthur's dialogue... but I can see that not everyone would. So that's what I say, take what you want from a teen who was in the play.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Louisville88 18 years ago

I should say not! Even with the 14 million, its soundtrack stayed on the billboard charts for 87 weeks and is one of the top 100 bestselling albums of the 60's, the SIXTIES! It even beat out the soundtracks of Mary Poppins and the Sound of Music. Plus, the broadway album isn't even included. It was not a bestseller. That means That Vanessa and Richard have a better album than Julie and Richard. So all of you who say that the broadway album is better need to read these FACTS. The general public loved the film better. Now you are entitled to your opinion, but still, the film was much better. As for the 30 million being converted into today's market, lets try out over 200 million. That's most likely the correct conversion. I could listen to the film soundtrack everyday and not get bored. The Broadway version would drive me crazy. Especially with Julie over doing every song and Richard's off pitch voice.

[–] markedjuan 18 years ago

I was just a kid when my mom bought an LP of the soundtrack and we were all enchanted by the music and the orchestrations. Visitors to our home were always delighted by the singing of Richard Harris and surprised by Redgrave's lovely singing voice. Though Nero's voice was dubbed, the singer was wonderful and the rendition of "If Ever I Would Leave You" was romantic and not arranged to bring down the house as Goulet did onstage.

Sure Julie Andrews has a beautiful singing voice but she could never impart the wit and bitchery of Guenevere's songs. Regrave delivered the punchlines with elan.

I heard the soundtrack first before seeing the movie and when I did finally see I was overwhelmed by its majesty and power.

[–] eddyskiva 18 years ago

Camelot will forever be one of my favorite movies...I love it... but, fellow fans, let's be real... we love it for other reasons. Yes, it is overlong and enormously cumbersome. Personally, I blame that on Josua Logan. All the reasons I've disliked his other monster film musical (South Pacific) and many of his films, are evident here... he slogs along, letting broadway-style 'over the top' acting bring it down. Camelot has only a little of this, thanks to Redgrave and Harris, and their ability to keep it dramatic and real. Thank goodness. Camelot has few 'secondary' comedic parts also, where Logan always brought too much hokeyness... case in point, so many secondary characters in his films act like overdone cartoon characters(Billis in South Pacific, the owner of the coffee shop in Bus Stop). Logan's screen timing can be lumbering and awkward also (the pace of dialogue is streched out, forced, and unrealistic...demonstrated repeatedly with secondary characters in South Pacific, Picnic, Bus Stop). The same slowness shows up in much of Camelot. Not to mention the horrible choice of having Arthur concieve the Round Table under the belly of a horse, with it's genitals in clear view, and Guinevere dirty and grungy (for 'reality') washing the animal down. Last point I'll make, of his bringing this movie's pace down... look to his next musical...Paint Your Wagon...slow, poor singing, cartoonish, and someone thought that having the cast stomp in mud was somehow 'choreography'.
Again, thank God for Redgrave and Harris, and designer John Truscott. Despite all this.. I still love Camelot.

[–] quildarener 18 years ago

Richard Harris overacted. Vanessa Redgrave underacted. Franco Nero got it about right. Otherwise a botched attempt.

[–] mit800 18 years ago

slow, plodding, nonsensical and boring. Harris over emotes, Regrave has her dramatic moments but sings like she just started in the chorus in high school and the less said about Nero the better. Truly one of the worst transfers from broadway to screen. Right up there with Song of Norway.

[–] swlim22 18 years ago

Totally disagree. Richard Harris is awesome. I saw this first as a stage production years and years ago. Vanessa Redgrave's part was played by somebody I can't remember now. But Redgrave's singing is nowhere near chorus high school.
Perhaps as a movie it doesn't quite make it...but I am willing to make an exception precisely because it is a transfer from play to Hollywood. Harris and Redgrave might not have had the strongest singing voices, but I am very glad they didn't decide to dub over their voices. It's great when you can hear the actors doing their own songs. There are some parts in the movie which are slow, but they're forgivable. And what's wrong with conceiving the round table with the horse's genitals visible?

[–] inoldhollywood 18 years ago

The Broadway soundtrack was a blockbuster recording in 1960, just a few years before the movie was made. The film disappointed many people because of the stars they got to make the film version were not musical stars. They were not bad in their parts, but their singing was no better than a small town dinner theater troup, even though the orchestration was fairly well done. The public, however, wanted the original cast of Julie Andrews, Richard Burton and Robert Goulet. Richard Harris was picked only because he had a huge hit song with "McArthur Park".

What further worked against this film were the scenes which were photographed on soundstages they flooded with light from all sides and were clearly mismatched to the outdoor scenes made on location in natural sunlight. The continuity just did not work. The pacing of this movie was also alternately rapid, then plodding, then picked up only to be bogged down again. We can only see just so many closeups of Franco Nero and Vanessa Redgrave in cow-eyed expressions.

It was not a "bomb", necessarily, but it was definitely not up to the expectations of the movie going public at the time. In contrast, "Oklahoma", "The King and I" and "The Sound of Music" were beautifully translated to film. "Camelot" might actually do better as a remake.

[–] stirlingwarrior 18 years ago

$30,000,000 in 1967/68 would be equivalent to about $175,000,000 in 2006.
According to AEIR.ORG

[–] Louisville88 18 years ago

Actually, MacArthur Park came out after Camelot. Joshua Logan Liked Richard Harris better and the Broadway soundtrack was not a blockbuster hit, the film version was.

[–] mit800 18 years ago

The cast album went gold within a month after it`s release and was in the top 40 for 151 weeks. The movie stunk.

[–] Louisville88 18 years ago

Where are you getting your info? I have a book that list the TOP 100 bestselling albums of the 60's and the broadway album doesn't even make the cut. The film version was on the billboards for over 87 weeks and is the third best selling soundtrack of the 60's. The broadway album stunk in the sense that the cast didn't care that they were singing it plainly. And how people can like Burton over Harris is beyond me. Burton is so mono tone that I feel like falling asleep as he sings these classic songs.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mit800 18 years ago

WOW! Rant much. I think you protest a little too much. I think you`ve known all along that this movie was a poor effort by all of those involved but you can`t stand the fact that while the Broadway show was a solid hit and the album along with it the movie version is mostly forgotten now and people could really care less about it.

This is a film discussion board and as such is open to everyone, not just blindly faithful fanboys. Do yourself a favor and open a Vanessaforever fan site.

As for the albums, I`ve already stated the facts in my last post and even gave you evidence of it from Amazon yet you still try to convince otherwise. I`m sure there are fans of the film. I even thought well of it as a child but growing up I noticed the many, many flaws-including the rather lame singing attempts by all involved and the endless time it took to tell such a simple story. I suppose the length of the thing is because of the time it was made. Everyone wanted a roadshow attraction but some(including this) were worth the price of admission.

As far as Redgrave goes, I`ve always liked her. I have Julia in my personal collection (which I think was really the highlight of her career). She`s a fine actress but she`s no STAR. She does`nt have it written all over her like the true stars of cinema.

Best of luck with your new website!!

[–] Louisville88 18 years ago

Vanessa has many, many classics including Morgan!, A Man for All Seasons, Blowup, Isadora, Murder On the Orient Express, The Bostonians, Prick Up Your Ears, Mission Impossible, Howard's End, A Month By the Lake, Deep Impact, Playing For Time...I can really go on...which I think you know. Also, you can rant about useless info that doesn't matter because I know you made them up. I have more facts and have looked everything up and compiled it together. In my psychology class I had 50 people listen to Vanessa and Julie sing "The Simple Joys of Maidenhood" and 42 of them picked Vanessa. Everyone else said that Julie was to annoying and fake. That's their opinion. And this is a FILM website. Not a, "I like the Broadway show and I want the world to know how much I hate the film." website. Vanessa is a STAR and is considered by many people one of the greatest actresses of all time. Many critics and celebrities have praised her, including Katharine Hepburn, Jane Fonda and Tennessee Williams. And as a side note, Vanessa isn't as big as she could have been because of her politics. Americans see her as a threat because they don't know what she could do and since she has NEVER backed down, they know she wont change her mind. This happend after her Oscar in 1977. And just to let you know, I'm friends with Ms. Redgrave and she really doesn't care what people say about her. In fact, this will be my last response to you because obviously your just a little child who likes to cause arguments and it is really getting dull and I'm tired of reading your imaginary facts. Also, just for one last fact, Camelot was the 9th top grossing film of 1967 and it is still very popular. In fact, many schools show Camelot in the class and its considered a family film. Goodbye. I hope you grow up one day.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Louisville88 18 years ago

this website is not always right about the money. Camelot earned 15,000,000 and cost 17,000,000. It was a fiancial success on that part. Also, Thoroughly Modern Millie couldn't have earned 40,000,000 because it was #8 for the top grossing film (yes beating out Camelot hahaha) and other classics that are in the top grossed over between 25 million and I really can't remember what the jungle book grossed but it was the #1 movie. But Camelot's album was an enormous success and, like I said, was the third highest grossing soundtrack of the sixties. The other two were West Side Story and Romeo and Juliet, by the way, the actress who played Juliet, Olivia Hussey, played with Vanessa in the successful West End production of "Miss Jean Brodie". Also, Vanessa is very funny and every actor has at least one sour film. Your wonderful Maggie has Travels with my aunt which bombed. Also, Katharine Hepburn was offered that role and she dropped out because she knew it was a stinker. Looks like Maggie scooped up a stinker without much thought. Also, Vanessa doesn't go for big budget movies like the Harry Potter films. In fact, VANESSA has five top 10 grossing films. They are A Man For All Seasons, Camelot, Murder On the Orient Express, Mission Impossible and Deep Impact. With just 15 films Vanessa has made the industry over 2 billion dollars. Also, I recognize when Vanessa has done bad work, and she does as well, so you needn't try and act as if we don't know. And I really don't care about Vanessa being tall. And I hope you follow my advise because you really need it.

[–] Louisville88 18 years ago

Vanessa received great acclaim for The Prime of Ms. Jean Brodie and I know several roles that Ms. Smith could have never played. Those including Mary Stuart, Isadora Duncan, Leonie (In her Oscar nominated role in a great British Comedy), Julia, Fania Fenelonin...Really every role she has done is wonderful. Also, I do adore Ms. Smith. I really think she's funny...have you seen her in Murder By Death? I couldn't see Vanessa playing it. And there are roles that Maggie couldn't play that Ms. Redgrave has played. Also, Vanessa has a great respect for Maggie and admires her greatly and vice a versa.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Louisville88 18 years ago

Okay. But I really do like Smith and Andrews. I just think some PEOPLE (We'll leave it at that) did a better job than others with roles. But there are also parts they played that the others could never have played ie Mary Stuart. I'm sorry but its true. Vanessa is the perfect one. And I could have never seen Vanessa playing Dora in Murder By Death or Maria in the Sound Of Music (Can you imagine what she'd get for that! Its bad enough with Camelot) Just like Maggie and Julie couldn't have played Isadora Duncan or Max. Each woman has their own style and since they don't care, although I don't know about Julie she still seems pissed about My Fair Lady, we shouldn't. It is fun to argue once and a while. Also, did you want Brokeback Mountain to win? It sounded like you did.

[–] eddyskiva 18 years ago

Some good points... but Harris was not chosen for this role due to the song 'McArthur's Park'... that song came out in 1968. Camelot was filming in early 1967. Harris was chosen because he was popular, a good dramatic actor, good looking, and could 'talk sing' the part as well as anyone. Not to mention... Burton was too old by this point... and Andrews did not have the earthy, sensual quality they wanted for Guinevere.

[–] Louisville88 18 years ago

You are 100% true. Also, they said Vanessa looked like she was worth loosing all England for.

[–] markedjuan 18 years ago

I'd like to point out that not all the information on this website is always accurate, especially with regards to the box office of older films like Camelot. I've read in many sources that Camelot earned $14 million in rentals. The figure doesn't include the share of the theaters. Total rentals usually comprise 50% of the actual gross, which means Camelot must have grossed from $30 million to 35 million, which is more than $150 million in today's money.

A real bomb would be a movie like Star!, which cost as much as Camelot to make but earned just $4 million in rentals. Its actual gross of perhaps $10 million at the most is much lower than its production cost. For others, Camelot is a failure because it failed to surpass the grosses of the Sound of Music. But what other movie did so in the 1960s? Even Julie Andrews could never repeat the success of that movie. She may have starred in two of the top grossing musicals of all time but she also starred in two others that doomed this genre, Star! and Darling Lili. The latter earned just half of what Star! made.

[–] mit800 18 years ago

It`s funny, I was just reading in another book that Jack Warner-when casting the film of Camelot-let it be known in the industry that he would be happy for Julie to re-create her role as Guinevere but her asking price was to high at the time(1,400,000.00) and she was busy with other projects. People were saying at the time that Warner thought he had made a mistake in not casting Andrews in My Fair Lady and was trying to get the Golden Girl (of the moment) to do this instead.

Oh well, who knows, right? So many books and so much differing info.

Yes STAR was a bomb as was Darling Lili (just recently released on DVD due to popular demand--they said---go figure!), Dr. Doolittle, Hello Dolly, Finians Rainbow, and several others (i mean Song of Norway??? I ask you!!).

Everybody wanted to make the next Sound of Music (which in itself was a fluke--like GREASE a few years later). Tastes were changing at the time too and Andrews was caught in between. She was more of the Irene Dunne/Deborah Kerr variety than the Redgrave, Minnelli, Streisand types. Still there all fun to watch if caught at the right time.

[–] Louisville88 18 years ago

Really, because i've read that joshua logan didn't even want Juile stating that Guenevere needed to look as if she were worth losing all england for. If you watch the extras on the dvd he even says that. And i doubt 1,400,000 would have been a big deal sine jack warner gave them an endless budget sine that was to be the last picture he produced. basically, every movie is coming out on dvd except the really bad ones. Julie fans wanted darling lili as much as they would want her biggest flop. Also, isn't it funny how many of the greatest movies aren't shown on t.v.? i.e. sound of music, mary poppins even gone with the wind! many of these movies are lucky to get one showing a year. i know i haven't seen the sound of music in so long and mary poppins came on last year because of the dvd release. Also, logan chose redgrave because he found her "smashing" in morgan! (one of her oscar nominated roles)and knew she could play the part. Also, I'm not putting down Julie's voice. She had a wonderful pair of tubes that created beautiful notes, but Julie is more of a classic musical group. Meaning she can belt out that high note without a fuss. Camelot's music was changed so that Vanessa could sing it her way. By the way, she did take singing lessons. And Vanessa was praised for her "sweet little voice" and some critics even added that she was marvelous but during some of the high notes they wished for Julie Andrews. Also, Maggie Smith sang (I know you like her Mit800) and her voice wasn't strong. And Judi Dench originated the role of sally in Caberat and she can't sing any better. Also, Vanessa's daughter Natasha won a tony for best actress in a musical for caberat and she can't sing! Reviewers were stating that they didn't know why people made such a big deal about Liza belting out the songs because Natasha did just as good talk-singing. I think we should all respect these women for trying and being successful (although Ms. Smith's movie is basically a cult classic)with it. I like to listen to Julie andrews sing the soundtrack on occasion and I do enjoy it. I just favor the film version better because the stars acted their songs and gave them feeling and truth. Also, as I have stated before, the broadway production was a comedy while the film was a drama. They are two different generes. Julie's guenevere was basically a dum blonde while Vanessa's was a real women who plotted and planned what was to happen. Two different versions done equally marvelous by the actresses. Also, I would give this a film 3 out of 4 stars. If I were to go any lower it would be 2 1/2. I give it 3 because it is so, mostly with Nero, and Nero can't act. He had the look, but not the talent. Also, with Richard Harris whispering through most of the movie and many of his solo scenes being long, these things drag down the film. Vanessa however, is the films saving grace. Every scene she has is excellent and she makes the scenes with Nero better than if it were just him. The saving graces of camelot: Vanessa, music, costumes, story, Richard Harris (even with his faults). Also, every, or almost every, musical is long. If you elimenated the singing in the musicals and just left the story, imagine how short they would be. Just imagine West Side Story, The Sound of Music, My Fair Lady, The King and I--even Mary Poppins! They would all be much shorter-and totally different. Also, the way I see it, here's how the 1-10 comes out to a four star movie. 10=4, 9=4, 8=31/2, 7=3, 6=21/2, 5=2, 4=1 1/2, 3=1, 2=1/2, 1=bomb. Camelot has an average of 7 stars which would make it a 3.

[–] markedjuan 18 years ago

Great point. May I add that if Camelot had actually been a bomb, then why were Redgrave and Harris again considered for another big musical, Goodbye Mr. Chips? The pairing didn't materialize and Peter O'Toole and Petula Clark got the leads instead. The resulting film was a bonafide bomb.

I think the term BOMB has been liberally and unfairly used on many films aside from Camelot. In my opinion, a film is a bomb when the theaters screening it are always empty and it just disappears after a month. The late producer Ernest Lehman once marvelled at the long lines he saw when The Sandpiper opened in New York in 1965,. That film eventually grossed $13 million, which is equivalent to roughly $6 million in rentals and less than half of what Camelot made.

I've drawn up a list of some of the musicals that were produced in the late sixties and based on several almanacs, here are thirr box office returns:

Funny Girl: $26 million in rentals (or $58 million gross)
Oliver! $16 million in rentals
Thorughly Modern Millie $16 milion in rentals
Hello, Dolly! $15 million in rentals (or $38 million gross)
Paint Your Wagon $14.5 million in rentals
Camelot $14 million in rentals
Jungle Book $13 million in rentals

On the lower end of the list:

Chitty Chitty Bang Bang $7 million in rentals
Doctor Dolittle $6.2 million in rentals
Finian's Rainbow $5 million in rentals (or $13 million gross)
The Happiest Millionaire $5 million
On A Clear Day You Can See Forever $5 million
Star! $4 million
Darling Lili $2.3 million

Paint Yout Wagon and Hello, Dolly! are also regarded by some as bombs yet they earned more than what My Fair Lady pegged in rentals which was $12 million. I don't have the figures for Sweet Charity and Goodbye Mr. Chips but I've read in various biographies and magazine articles that they failed to recoup their $10 million production costs. Although the figure pegged by Finian's Rainbow looks unimpressive but it broke even. It cost only $2,5 million to film!

[–] Louisville88 18 years ago

I'd also like to add that Audrey Hepburn was paid 1 million dollars for My Fair Lady. If you the production notes to either the lp or the cd you'll read that Jack Warner sparred no expense to bring this musical to life. The fact is that is Ms. Andrews did ask for that sum, it is highly unlikely that she would have been turned down because of it since they had an endless budget and, with her in it, could have easily made back the money. Ms. Andrews just wasn't dramatic enough for the film. Every drama she had done up til than was a so-so movie because audiences wanted to see her happy, not sad. I also think its evident how she played Guenevere by her soundtrack. You can tell she was being an "air head" and that was definetly not what they needed. I think the world has accepted Vanessa as Guenevere more because she could have played her better. Otherwise we would constantly hear about Audrey and Vanessa taking the roles from Julie. I think the world talks more about her My Fair Lady loss because Julie could have done better.

[–] mit800 18 years ago

Maybe so!! I think though if Lerner and Loewe had stuck to the original script and kept it a little lighter than the sort of down beat film they made they could have cast Julie and it would have done a lot better than it did. I mean after all she played it to broadway audiences for 837 performances (or 2 years--if you will)so she (and the show) must have been doing something right.

I`ve never gotten the impression that she played Guinevere as an "air-head" nor have I ever read any reviews or recollections that she was played that way. I HAVE read that she played her at the start as light and girlish and proceeded to get a little darker and more manipulative as the play went on. Then, in the end, as miserable because she knew she had caused all the pain and bloodshed that was going on around her. You can hear it in the change in her singing on the cast album. Light and girlish--The simple Joys of Maidenhood. Manipulative--You May Take Me to the Fair. Sad and Winsome--I loved You Once in Silence.

I`m only going on what I`ve read and heard about the show, as I`m sure most people here are--since there are only a few who write here that have actually seen her in it.

I also think that you`re right about the MY FAIR LADY issue. Julie could have played and sung it better. Everyone knew Audrey could be a lady. They didn`t, at the time, know Julie (cinematically) could be one too.

[–] markedjuan 18 years ago

Good points from both of you. Julie can be so delightful as a lady when she's cast in roles like Maria Von Trapp and Mary Poppins (though some found her to be too aloof in the latter) but as the filmmakers of My Fair Lady and Camelot pointed out, she could never impart the realism needed for Eliza and Guenevere in a film. Audrey Hepburn was dazzling in the Embassy Ball. All she had to do was be herself and the world would have been at her feet and you believed it when she made that entrance. Andrews, as pretty as she is, would have looked like a fraud. Onstage, Andrews could have gotten away with Camelot and My Fair Lady, but film is a realistic medium. She could never sustain this facade of bewitching lady or bewitching queen.

I even enjoyed Julie in films like Victor/Victoria and Princess Diaries. The queen she played in the newer film was a beloved monarch and loving grandmother, and not a vamp. Andrews can never play a vamp. I am serious when I say this but Ursula Andress would have been more convincing than Andrews had she been asked to play Guenevere, even if they had to dub the singing voice. Julie's simply wrong for it -- can't even imagine her doing the sensual love scene with Franco Nero in the river.

Andrews can be terrific in dramatic roles as she proved in Duet for One, but pit her against another actress and you see a certain flaw in her performance. It shows in a TV movie where she played opposite Ann-Margret. Andrews was wonderful in the role as a mother of a gay man but when she played with Ann-Margret, it seemed she was suddenly just performing. Ann-Margret, on the other hand, was so realistic. Her persona was lost in the character she played. This is just my opinion but Ann could have played Andrews' role (a wealthy, classy lady) in the telefilm with aplomb, Andrews couldn't have made the switch as it would have had her playing a red neck floozy.

[–] Louisville88 18 years ago

Not saying it didn't last two years, but sometimes a play can be done 8-9 times a week.

[–] Louisville88 18 years ago

Also, in I loved you once in silence, Julie seemed just sad that this had happened. I'm glad, however, that they changed The Lusty Month of May for the film because, first of all, seeing Vanessa run around singing tra-la would have been awkward, it fit Julie better. and second it really wouldn't have been effective on screen since they could have displayed the things that Guenevere mentioned whereas the stage was limited, hence the joust scene. Also, Lerner and Loewe wanted Camelot to be a drama, but knew it would be too boring to watch on stage and gave it a lighter feel. I also wish they kept in "Before I gaze at you again" and "The seven deadly virtues" I could have seen those two being in the film. I'm also going off what i've read about the show. However, my grandmother saw it and has told me her feelings on the two. Basically it's Vanessa was better but Julie's a much better singer. I remember where i read the article that said she was an air head. I believe it was the New York times. The author stated the difference between the two since he had seen both the play and the film.

[–] Louisville88 18 years ago

Here is a review to Camelot from time magazine on november 3 1967:
Even on broadway, camelot never quite succeeded in capturing the wonderful, free imagination of White's original. The show suffered from a certain staginess-unconvincing battles, overweight choral numbers, anachronistic jokes. The movie, which should have opened up the drama, shuts it down instead. Logan makes every scene appear to be viewed from the wrong end of a telescope, minimizing the story and simplifying the actions. When Arthur sings about fishing, he awkwardly pantomimes the act of casting; when Guenevere chants the simple joys of maidenhood, she is forced to remain supine for 32 bars. Camelot's fantasy land is about as enchanted as a dolled-up back lot at Warner's. The picture's few supernatural elements-arthur magically turned into a fish and hawk-are offscreen occurrences, as if Camelot had abruptly run into budget trouble. Even the makeup seems to have been applied by an amateur; Harris' eye shadow is heavier than Redgrave's, and his white horse's is heavier still.
In a small but pivotal part, Hemmings is properly revolting as the evil princeling, and Harris invests his role with dignity and tragedy. But it is Vanessa Redgrave who emerges as the film's most telling virtue-a touching, tragic beauty whose elongated face and aristocratic grace are reminiscent of a medieval tapestry. Without her, Camelot would be disastrous. With her surprisingly true voice and regal talents, it has its brief, shining moments, though in the end Camelot is reduced to Camelittle. Arthur's final nostalgic song seems less a memorial for the dream castle that never was than for the picture that might have been.

[–] mit800 18 years ago

So what their saying basically is, even Redgrave couldn`t save it. I think the reason it ran as long as it did on B`way was because of the stars. The show was never the thing. I also think Burton would have balked at the changes they made and it would have stayed truer to the original play. A better director could have made it the magical experience it should have been. Josh Logan should have never made another movie after South Pacific. Maybe a remake could finally do it justice.

I don`t agree with the critic about her "amazingly true voice" as most of the criticisms I read were that the two leads were not the singers that this particular musical deserved. I do agree that dramatically she was fine. I also agree that with the way the picture was concieved that Andrews would have been wrong for it. Redgrave gave it a sort of freedom that was prevalent in the 60`s free love period.

In response to Markedjuan: I don`t agree that Andrews would have looked like a fraud at all in the Embassy Ball sequence of My Fair Lady. I think she was just what that picture needed as she was an untested film actress at the time and for an audience to see her go from guttersnipe to lady would have been more interesting to see than Hepburn who looked very much the fraud in the beginning of the picture.

Everyone knew underneath the dirt and tattered clothes that she was already a lady playing dress up (or down). Plus the singing bits would have seemed more natural than the out of sync dubbing that immediately takes you out of the film and back to reality. Besides the fact that she was dubbed by Nixon who was considered a sort of bargain basement Julie Andrews.

If you`ve ever seen the Wendy Hiller/Leslie Howard Pygmallion you can see that she was only supposed to be able to speak well and compose herself as a lady rather than the regal Princess that Hepburn came across as.

Then again, with a better director on Lady it could have been a better picture (even with Hepburn). It sufferred from the same stilted regality that ruined Camelot a few years later. One critic said (paraphrasing) `it had not so much been transferred to the screen as artfully embalmed`. Cukor seemed to have plopped the camera down and said `get in front of there and do your scene--action`. It shoud have been a magical experience as it had been on stage (even after Harrison and Andrews had left). Look what Carol Reed did with Oliver or Robert Wise with West Side Story and the Sound of Music (although I`m not a big fan of WSS it still had a good flow of story).

Maybe it was just the luck of the draw as far as directors were concerned.

Your thoughts?

[–] Louisville88 18 years ago

I agree with you that Logan should have been replaced. Also, a remake to South Pacific was made, with Glenn Close, to no avail. Vanessa's voice is true and that solidifies (? on spelling) her performance. If Vanessa was just plain bad, then her performance would have suffered. Basically, there saying Redgrave made it enjoyable and without her it would have been a complete waste. There's a difference to with a play and a movie. A play can last year after year because their are thousands of theaters out there that they can play on and every play isn't performed in every theater, whereas a movie theater has limited space and new movies come out every week and take up the space. Even if the movie was just like the play I can't picture Julie being Guenevere. She just doesn't have "the look" that would make it with the movie. She has the voice, and with the format the talent, but not really the look. Every actor faces that with a project. But I have to agree with a past post, Burton was just to old and wouldn't have fit in. He's always so serious. Plus, the movie was done 7 years after the play. Sometimes people just get to old to reprise their classic performances. I.E. Julie would not be first choice to play Mary Poppins in a remake and Vanessa would not be first choice to play Guenevere in a remake. Unless of course it takes place with the characters being several DECADES older! HAHAHA. A movie about an old Mary Poppins. I have faith in Audrey's performance, she did a good job I thought, but I feel Julie could have brought back the "magic" she had on Broadway. Also, Cukor brought in Nixon without even telling Audrey and Harrison wouldn't even help her because this was "his" movie (Also his last chance at stardom). Audrey took singing lessons and raised her vocals five octives. But at the last minute Cukor chocked and brought in Nixon. Also, just as Cary Grant did for Harrison, Hepburn turned down MFL saying that only Julie could do it (even though she really wanted to play the part). Warner said they weren't going to use her and Julie said she's rather have Hepburn in it than anyone else. Also what do you mean by "the show was never the thing"?

[–] mit800 18 years ago

"the show was never the thing" means that the stars were what drew audiences in and once they left it didn`t last much longer. My fair Lady, on the other hand, went on for quite a while after Harrison and Andrews left. Same thing happened with Victor/Victoria on B`way. Once Julie left it kind of died a quick death with Raquel Welch.

I saw Liza in it and it was pretty bad too. Toni Tennille took it on the road but it wasn`t out for very long. Maybe a year.

[–] Louisville88 18 years ago

Liza really only has Caberat. Basically every successful broadway show is that way. Once the stars that made it enjoyable leave, the audience losses interest until a revival comes along with better performances. Katharine Hepburn was Tony nominated for the musical Coco (yes, she sang!)and the play was sold out every night until she left. The musical hasn't been revived. As a side note, Lerner and Andre Previn did the book and music. Movies are that way to. Once a classic comes along, like Camelot, people can't imagine a remake, and if some crazy person does do one, the world rejects it. Imagine a remake to The Wizard of Oz, Gone With the Wind even the Sound of Music! They wouldn't make it. Infact, in that book about who played who the best, Redgrave and Harris are hailed as the Best King Arthur and Guenevere. They say that Julie played her with "a sweetness" and Burton with "a certain noblity" but that the other two gave the best. They don't count singing since Camelot is really the only king Arthur musical. Andrews would win that because she is by far better with her tubes than Vanessa. Also, Camelot is the fifth top grossing film about King ARTHUR.

[–] eddyskiva 18 years ago

Agreed... I hope we all can put to rest the Burton/Andrews in the movie thing... but last thing I've got to say on it... please folks remember....plays vs. movies... apples and oranges.... The majority of average people in 1960 did not rush to New York to see musicals, and therefore had no idea what they may have been missing. By 1965, Andrews Screen Persona was signed and sealed in the vast majority of (those same people's)moviegoers minds, and again, she just would not have been accepted by your average moviegoer as the Guenevere that Redgrave gave us.... heck they didn't even accept her in a great performance in Star! or Darling Lili. The times they were a'changin. It wasn't until Victor/Victoria that her persona was given new life. With Julie it would have been a very different movie, which went the way of Darling Lili... and not the film that has SO MANY posts... Gotta Love This!

[–] markedjuan 18 years ago

Golly, I don't agree with everything everyone has said so far on this thread but it's all very riveting!

[–] rorysa 18 years ago

A far better film musical about the days of Camelot: "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court" (1949, Paramount)

[–] Louisville88 18 years ago

And yet has really nothing to do with the story of Camelot. But it is a nice movie.

[–] rorysa 18 years ago

Right, to be more precise, it is a far better musical set in Camelot.

[–] Louisville88 18 years ago

I wouldn't say that.

[–] markedjuan 18 years ago

In response to Logan being replaced: Josh Logan may not have been the best director but it was he who insisted on casting Redgrave, even if she wasn't available right away. He convinced Jack Warnerto wait for her. It was Logan who inspired costume designer John Truscott to create his own Camelot, and Truscott went on to win two Oscars for his work on the costumes and sets.

He may have made an imperfect film but what we liked best about the movie wouldn't have been without Logan. It's why I love Camelot, even with its flaws. Logan staged a lot of great scenes -- ironically, the musical numbers of Lancelot ("Cest Moi" and "If Ever I Would Leave You") are the best numbers in the film as they are majestically staged. The jousting scene was also thrilling. These many great scenes offset whatever flaws the film has. That final secene with Redgrave and Harris is heartbreaking, and we all agree on that. Trust Logan to highlight the drama of that final scene. The 1982 Broadway revival justthrew that scene away. No impact.

For all his faults, Logan managed to leave an indelible impression. It's only his film that managed to bring out the passion of the Arthurian legend. Logan managed to tug at our heartsrings. we can't say the same for First Knight or King Arthur or Excalibur.

[–] mit800 18 years ago

No offense but... those are just excuses. one or two bright spots do not a great three hour plus movie make. Redgrave`s big scene was too little too late. The 3 hours of blah leading up to it killed any emotion that it could have had. IF EVER I WOULD LEAVE YOU was well shot for the most part (even with the backlighting and wind machines)but I wouldn`t call it majestic.

As for Logan waiting on Regrave he should have sought out some B`way actress who could sing and make a new star out of her instead of waiting on the (rather) reedy voiced Redgrave. The costumes were beautifully done if not a little overstated. Maybe the film would have made money if they hadn`t spent so much on the costumes.

My indelible impression of Logan was and is: God is he AWFUL

[–] Louisville88 18 years ago

The film HAS made money. You forget that the rest of the world saw it. All they had to do was give it 3 million and it made more than it cost. The U.s. total is not the only total.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] markedjuan 18 years ago

This thread seems to be going on forever because we can't seem to stop discussing our favorite movie, Camelot. It's nice to know that Camelot has its share of big fans like Lousiville88, Mit800, VanessaRedgrave-er, myself and many others who keep the discussions hot and alive. The fact that we keep checking out the discussions board means that we can never get over this movie.

I'd also like to add that had the box office performances of films been measured by gross during the 60s, many films wouldn't have been labeled as failures. But since they measured by rentals, the total gross was slashed by half. Today, everyone mentions the gross and nobody mentions the fact htat the studio gets just half of that gross.

Let's forget Camelot for a while and focus on Hello, Dolly! Its rentals was oegged at $15 million but the gross was actually close to $40 million, which made it the fourth top grossing film of 1969. But since the tradepapers used rentals, Hello, Dolly! seemed to look like a failure when in fact it helped cement Streisand's status as a major box office draw.

[–] mit800 18 years ago

Please don`t confuse me with the fans of Camelot for I am not at all. I think it has to be one of the worst adaptations of a stage musical (along with Chorus Line and Finians Rainbow and The Wiz) there ever was. Poorly paced, musically lacking and terribly directed. Adjust the figures all you like it will never make this dire mess a hit (or even a break even film).

As for Dolly. It may not have been the film the purists wished to see but at least it`s entertaining. It gets by on Streisands performance (both acting and singing) some great orchestrations and lively dancing (almost too lively). Mathau wasn`t a great match for Barb as far as chemistry goes but he was a fairly big name at the time and made a good curmudgeon. The les said about the rest of the cast the better. It`s an enjoyable film as it was a throwback to the musicals of old hollywood and still added a touch of modernism to keep the younger crowd interested (thanks agin to Striesand). I bought the new DVD of Dolly. Camelot I got on netflix a month or so ago and sent back the next day.

Graded:

Dolly B

Camelot D-

Horace. Horace Vendergilder. Mrs Horace Vandergilder. Just leave Everything to me....

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Louisville88 18 years ago

That's funny, you know how we sing! Wow you are obsessed! If I didn't like a film, I wouldn't keep checking it's post. You have a serious denial issue going on with this film. It's kinda sad too. You love the major flops Star! and Darling Lili, but you never talk about how they REALLY bombed. You have to attack Camelot for the purpose of complaining about Logan, who is a bad director, Nero, who wasn't good, but what's probably the most important, how Julie Andrews and the others lost out to non singers, even though Burton couldn't sing. Camelot will always be something because it was honored with the awards and the box office. If Andrews and the others made it in, the film would not have been a success because A: Burton was too old and gaining his liquor belly, B: Julie Andrews wouldn't have done a single thing to help the film beside sing like Mary poppins and have long hair which never flattered her and that big nose she always talks about, C: lOGAN WAS STILL Behind the camera.

You try to degrade Camelot beyond all reason and talk about we/us trying to help it out, well I do recall that the Worldwide gross brought it way above the cost of filming, the soundtrack sold more than the Broadway sounstrack, and even if the film didn't get the greatest reviews, Redgrave still shined and was voted as the best change over the Broadway show and since those reviewers really SAW the play, they can honestly make that decision. Also, don't try to make Redgrave out to something she wasn't. Although she is a big star and a great actress, she was not the box office gal you try to make her out to be and the reason why Andrews, once again, lost out. Andrews, even though her star was fading fast, would have still brought in the viewers. Redgrave had the talent and beauty to make it in a film even if she didn't bring in over 100 million a picture, although she does have some big box office films. She chose controversial roles over conventional roles that brought in the big bucks, unlike Andrews.

I also think it's funny how no one else save you and maybe that other person talk about Andrews being better based off of her singing. Could it be this isn't a hot topic like Audrey v.s. Julie because people know that, dispite not being the worlds greatest singer, Vanessa did a great job? I think it is.

I also find it funny how you say the same thing over and over again and never talk about the facts. It's always about "you people trying to help a bad film." All you have is your opinion, while I have COLD HARD FACTS that you can't seem to take.

I only check the Camelot postings to check what you wrote, and you always write the same remark no matter how you phrase it, and I always have to write the same facts that you keep on ignoring.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Louisville88 18 years ago

Actually, that would be Cleopatra with Liz Taylor, and Redgrave was praised throughout the film, not just that final scene. They also don't show "The Sound of Mucus" or Mary Poppins, save that stint on the Disney channel when the 40th anniversary edition came out.

I hope you don't bother with this thread again. You are rather boring. But I doubt you'll stop. That's what you said last time and lo, here you are!

I have one sentence that describes you perfectly, "La, la, la forever on one note."

Au revoir vous créature horrible.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Louisville88 18 years ago

Well, julieandrewsorbust, your post was deleted by Mit800. You see, they can't take it when they are wrong, so they argue with you like a little child. Then after they have been shamed, they delete their post and any other post that make them look bad. I read your post yesterday and I have to agree with you, Mit800 does have a personal problem. As you can tell, they just can't take facts.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] markedjuan 18 years ago

My posts were also deleted. I think I said something that explained why he hates Redgrave so much.

[–] Louisville88 18 years ago

He/she/it can't face the facts. If you'd notice, they always never reply to anything you write and always write the same thing over and over again. Then when you bring it up, they say, "Well maybe someone else deleted it because they saw how childish you were." Yeah right. Who else would be harmed by true facts? No one save Mit.

[–] rorysa 18 years ago

It's too bad that you take our criticism of Harris/Redgrave/Nero as a personal affront, but I just didn't care for them in this movie. I'm not sure what film I would like Nero in. I also am convinced that Burton and Andrews are legends/giants in the entertainment industry, and Harris and Redgrave were never on their level and will never be thought of BY MOST PEOPLE as being on their level.

[–] markedjuan 18 years ago

For better or worse, Burton and Harris are very much in the same league. In fact, Burton ruined his career by acting in too many bad movies and being too much of a drunk. The same may be said of Harris the hellraiser but he lived long enough to tackle more respectable roles. Burton became big because of Liz Taylor. Yet his marriage to Taylor was also the ruin of him.

As for Andrews, she'll always be beloved for Maria Von Trapp and Mary Poppins and nobody can take that away from her. Redgrave is a true artist because there's no limit to what she can do or play. She does Shakespeare, Ibsen, huge historical epics, action films and yes, even roles originated by Julie.

Andrews to some may seem like a bigger star because of her triumphs decades ago -- Redgrave is as current as any star today, which makes her seem less like a legend. She's NOW -- working onstage and on screen. She's not a a thing of the past.

Ask any four year-old who Harris is. Then ask them if they've heard of Burton.

[–] DryToast 18 years ago

I'm probably going to regret putting my two cents in but here goes.

Burton and Harris are very much in the same league ... Burton became big because of Liz Taylor.

This claim is absurd. Burton was an established star on stage and screen for a decade before he married Taylor. Seven Oscar nominations is a considerable achievement, and two of these are pre-Taylor.

I don't know how old you are, markedjuan, but anyone who lived through the 1960s would recall that Burton was thought of as John Barrymore, Laurence Olivier and Errol Flynn rolled into one. At Harris's height of popularity (briefly, in the late 1960s, early 1970s), he could never match the fame and prestige that Burton commanded for over two decades.

Frankly, I'm not fans of either of them, I think they're both big hams with very little interest in truth and honesty in their performances. But I just cannot stand it when someone states baloney as if it were fact.

“Maybe we're not supposed to sleep so well"

[–] rorysa 18 years ago

Markedjuan, your standard for who is a legend or giant in the entertainment industry is to ask a four year old? The fact that Harris came along later and had a supporting role in the Harry Potter movies makes him bigger than Burton?

Redgrave is as current as any star today? What planet are you posting from?

[–] Louisville88 18 years ago

Redgrave is still current. Her name might not be coming up in the mouths of the new generation as much as Angelina Jolie, but she is still one of the greatest stars ever and stays in the public eye.

As for Harris and Burton. I hear the young generation say Harris' name ALOT more than Burton. Why? Because Harris was in Potter which alot of them have seen and liked, then he died, was replaced, and lives on in their hearts as the best Dumbledore (? on spelling). So yes, Harris is a bigger name now than Burton, although Burton was big in his day.

[–] rorysa 18 years ago

Brad Pitt is a bigger name now than Laurence Olivier. WHAT THE HELL DIFFERENCE DOES THAT MAKE?

[–] markedjuan 18 years ago

As Louisville said, any kid can recognize Harris because of Harry Potter. As a segment on 60 Minutes said, Harris has been known the world over as Hollywood's King Arthur, but the next generation will know him as Dumbledore. And as TIME magazine said, Redgrave is arguably the finest actress of the English-speaking world. I agree with all that but you can argue about it too.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Emmywins305 18 years ago

I think Audrey was great as Eliza in My Fair Lady. She was a bigger box office star than Julie (unknown at the time) and it was thought she would look better in the part than Andrews. I only thought Audrey was a little off in her guttersnipe accent. Other than that, I thought her performance was flawless.

And Marni Nixon has a beautiful, world-renowned voice. I don't think she is second-rate Julie Andrews. One article I read said that some critics think of Marni as an even more gifted soprano than Julie.

I thought Josh Logan directed Camelot adequately-and it was great to look at. But I agree that while Nero was not very remarkable, and Harris was comptetent, it was Redgrave who truly stole the show.

[–] nutsberryfarm 8 years ago

it's impressive, for sure.

The food I've liked in my time is American country cookin'-Colonel Sanders 🇺🇸

[–] heatherchristie2001 18 years ago

In my opinion i did enjoy the movie very much. Actors were great,music was great but i must say the only thing i hated about it was a slight icky broadway wash to the whole movie.Appart from that loved it and as i have heard the Guenevere and Lancelot Love still lingers on. Makes the story a bit sweeter!

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]