Cast Ruined Film - Camelot (1967) Discussion

[–] rorysa 14 years ago

You've started a good list of Broadway-to-film bombs.

I'll add another: "The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas"

reply

More bad movie musicals - "The Producers"

reply

I actually like TBLWIT but I adore Dolly Parton so I might be bias.

I think as far as doing the original justice, RENT is one of the biggest offenders. Taking such a gritty play and watering it down is just inexcusable. Not to mention that they didn't even film in New York. It deserved better.

Camelot definitely belongs on the list and I didn't *love* The Producers or The Phantom of the Opera but I don't think they were flat out horrendous.

reply

[–] scribe1270 11 years ago

As far as Burton I think the director wanted Harris instead and Ms. Andrews was busy with other commitments besides.

reply

[–] Blueghost 10 years ago

I think both actors were busy with other projects. Casting had nothing to do with the success or failure of this project.

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dmnemaine 10 years ago

Casting had a lot to do with it. Casting non-singers in roles that require singers is ridiculous.

reply

[–] Eric-62-2 10 years ago

It's a tragedy that none of the people from the Broadway cast got to do it on film. Warner and Logan did in fairness, make a pitch to Burton first, but at the time he wasn't interested (besotted as he was at the time with making lousy films with his wife) and made a high-ball salary demand that they wouldn't give in on. They should have given in, because Harris is to put it bluntly awful in contrast to Burton. I can say this based on having heard a complete audio recording of Burton's last performance in 1961 before leaving for "Cleopatra" and also from a bootlegged videotape of him in the 1980 revival (done at the beginning and before his bad health and drinking kicked in again and forced him to bow out again for Harris). Both times he is terrific proving that he was the only actor who could ever bring forth the noble and tragic aspects of Arthur that make you feel for his plight. This has always been the fatal flaw of "Camelot" in that no other actor who has played the part has ever matched Burton's unique way of hitting the right notes in the character.

Julie Andrews did indeed turn down the film as well not wanting to do it without Burton, and supposedly she and Harris had not gotten along during the shooting of "Hawaii". Robert Goulet was never considered because he had no film experience and the production team really felt that Goulet and Andrews for that matter on film could not have brought what was needed to the characters. They were wrong of course but it was the usual "they don't look believable on film" prejudice that many film people had about stage performers.

The end result was an effort that is almost totally unwatchable with the one redeeming thing being Alfred Newman's great orchestrations.

reply

[–] Blueghost 10 years ago

by dmnemaine » Sun Apr 20 2014 05:54:43 Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since May 2006
Casting had a lot to do with it. Casting non-singers in roles that require singers is ridiculous.

I saw a revival with Burton in the 80s, with one or two other cast members from the original Broadway cast.

Harris did actually play Arthur on stage as well, though no doubt due to his casting in this film.

The truth about this picture is that it was rushed, and if you look at the shooting style you'll not ea lot of uneeded closeups to accentuate a lack of good direction.

Given time I think this cast could have carried the film, but it would have been a much different movie than what is preserved.

reply

[–] dmnemaine 10 years ago

One can only imagine what it could have been with Burton, Andrews, and Goulet reprising their stage roles. Fortunately we do have a few Ed Sullivan clips to give us a glimpse of what might have been. Harris wasn't too awfully cast as Arthur. The major disappointments were Redgrave and Nero.

reply

[–] mylesag 8 years ago

Are you kidding? Burton was NOT a singer to begin with. He did sing-talk, the way Rex Harrison did Prof. Higgins -- just talking on pitch.

reply

[–] Eric-62-2 8 years ago

Are you kidding? Burton was NOT a singer to begin with. He did sing-talk, the way Rex Harrison did Prof. Higgins -- just talking on pitch.

Collectively, Burton does a *lot* more singing in "Camelot" than Harrison does in MFL though he does do a good share of the pitch-talk variety as well. It's not true that he doesn't do any actual singing in the part. (he does more than Harris does in a lot of spots comparatively speaking)

reply

[–] DryToast 10 years ago

Both Burton and Andrews were asked. Burton said no, and Andrews wouldn't do it without Burton and especially did not want to work with Richard Harris.

"You must sing him your prettiest songs, then perhaps he will want to marry you."

reply

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] HomeinIndiana 10 years ago

Agree with OP. Richard Harris was okay. Redgrave's mannerisms are almost unbearable. (Recently watched the film.)

reply

[–] otter 10 years ago

The ruin of this film wasn't due to the casting director, it was a collaborative effort. The director, the cast, the writers, and the production designers did their best to make it the train wreck it is.

The songs are okay but the script is weak, the direction is plodding, the supporting performances are poor (Franco clearly can't speak English), the production design is the worst in the history of film, it makes it impossible to believe in the character's feelings. The best performances in the history of Hollywood couldn't have saved this mess, Burton and Andrews are lucky to have escaped it.

" Jack, you have debauched my sloth! "

reply

[–] greenbudgie 8 years ago

I don't care much for the cast in this either. I just wonder if Richard Burton would have been considered too old for the role by the time this movie was made. I think that this is the most sympathetically that I have seen Richard Harris play so far. The other main players definitely lacked charisma for me.

reply

[–] movieghoul 8 years ago

Burton was 40 when the film was made, certainly not too old. Don't know the whole story, but possibly Burton wouldn't do it unless they cast Liz as Guenevere.

reply

[–] greenbudgie 8 years ago

I'd liked to have seen Liz as Guenevere.

reply

[–] movieghoul 8 years ago

You probably didn't see her do What Do the Simple Folk Do? with Burton on Sammy Davis's variety show in 1964. I'm sure that would have changed your mind.

reply

[–] greenbudgie 8 years ago

I've never seen a clip of that Liz and Burton duet. I take it that Liz would have needed to be dubbed in 'Camelot.'

reply

[–] movieghoul 8 years ago

Actually, Dick and Sammy did most of the singing. What I most vividly remember 52 years later is that when they did the dance segment, Liz swiveled around while remaining seated throughout. You can't forget stuff like that.

reply

[–] greenbudgie 8 years ago

I wish that clip was still available. I'm getting strange imaginings of Sammy doing the Guenevere lines in that lyric.

reply

[–] Eric-62-2 8 years ago

Burton was 40 when the film was made, certainly not too old. Don't know the whole story, but possibly Burton wouldn't do it unless they cast Liz as Guenevere.

Not so. Burton simply made a salary demand that Warner balked at. He clearly wasn't interested in doing it and was in a phase of life where he only wanted to do films with La Liz, but if they'd given in, it would have likely resulted in Julie coming aboard too because her refusal was tied to the fact that Burton wouldn't be in it (she hated Harris).

reply

[–] mylesag 8 years ago

You KNOW better than the filmmakers? They cast the film with whom they thought was best, AVAILABLE and WANTED TO DO IT!! Burton was NOT interested in doing it; Andrews did not WANT to work with Harris (as she had a bad experience working with him in HAWAII). I think Harris, Redgrave and Nero was about as good as they could get for the film--and their singing was adequate. Nero had a great ghost voice in Gene Merlino.

reply