I haven't seen this movie in, oh, say, 7 years (and I was fairly young then, so I don't remember almost anything from the movie), but lately I've wanted to see it again. I've heard a couple songs from the broadway version with Richard Butron (I LOVE Richard Burton's voice!!) and I want to know, was Richard Harris any good? Which Arthur do you like better?
"Elphaba, where I'm from, we believe all sorts of things that aren't true. We call it history."
It would have to be Richard Harris. He actually SINGS the songs. Burton, who is a terrific actor, just can't keep my attention in a musical. What might have appeal on Broadway, doesn't mean it will have the same on film. The Broadway Camelot was a comedy because people knew that it would be boring to watch a drama. Hence the reason Julie Andrews is singing like she has gone mad. I've heard her singing the songs later in life, and she still does it as if she were a ditsy queen who knew nothing. When the film came out, it was turned into a drama because people could handle it when its 25 feet tall. You would be bored if you had bad seats in the theater. I'm also going to put in that Redgrave was better. She was, and still is, the best Guenevere. I enjoy the movie. I give it 3 out of 4 stars. My reasoning for this is because of Franco Nero. He really drags down the movie. Also, this is an honest posting. Just because I adore Miss Redgrave doesn't mean I'd give her the benefit of the doubt. Miss Andrews is a far better singer, but with the material, Redgrave succeeds.
shareI agree with you that Harris is much better of a singer... I have the broadway soundtrack, and after seeing the movie, I like Harris SOOO much better! He does actually sing the songs, versus speaking them in rhythm. I liked Julie Andrews a ton better too, though... in the movie some parts in "Simple Joys" were unbearable (like "Shall I never be rescued in the wood?"). The play and movie are a lot different though, so I don't know about the acting.
shareBurton can't keep my attention in a musical? CAMELOT on Broadway had to be blocked so that Burton was where ever the attention was because when ever he was on stage, the audience's attention was riveted to him, This went for whenever he wasn't singing.
You don't know what you're talking about.
[deleted]
[deleted]
No contest here...Richard Burton.
shareAlthough I suppose if I had to pick I'd say Burton, I think they were both wonderful actors and they both did wonderful jobs. I own both the Broadway and movie cast recordings. I enjoy both but the Broadway one definately gets more use. There is something about Burton that just commands my attention. He had such a presence, such...I don't really know how else to say it. R.B. and R.H. were actually friends and, I believe, they even made a movie together.
"Hard as lightning, soft as candle light...dare you trust the music of the night?"
Harris, no question. He's an amazing actor and singing plus the presence...no contest, guys.
white, snow, a ghost!!!
But why is the rum gone?
I totally Agree, Harris was the best and one of my fav. actors
shareIf you didn't see Burton in Camelot, consider yourself blessed- I can't watch more than ten minutes of this film without going into a rant. One of the great tragedies is that they never committed Burton's Arthur to film- Richard Harris is a fine actor but a King?- never mind the "once and future king". The play is far from perfect - and the film magnifies every flaw- was Redgrave ever worse?
shareHarris... absolutely... it's been said in here.... Burton 'talk sang' the role for a stage comedy.... and I've always thought that Burton's screen persona was totally different than what he must have presented on stage in Camelot. I mean really, Burton's screen roles showed him mostly brooding, serious, scowling, and (outside of The Taming of the Shrew) can you seriously see him actually SMILING and upbeat in any film role? It just wasn't this great actors 'thing'... so I've no question on why they cast the younger, more handsome, and more 'boyishly charming' yet rugged Harris.
shareOne of my favorite scenes, from any movie, is when Arthur has realized the truth about Lancelot and Guinevere (after Lancelot's knighting), and is struggling over what to do. ("What about their pain?", etc.) Richard Harris truly captured the emotional torment that Arthur was going through. His performance, during that scene (and the end, of course), makes me cry. I think it would be easy to overdo it (too angry, or too sad or something), and he nailed it. So yes, Richard Harris, for me. He's amzing. (He showed both the serious side of Arthur, as well as the playful, lighthearted side!)
Though Richard Burton is funny, both on the Broadway soundtrack and in the one scene I've seen of him doing the role, on the Ed Sullivan Show's "Broadway" dvd.
"You seem a decent fellow. I hate to kill you."
"You seem a decent fellow. I hate to die."
In reality Burton didn`t talk sing anymore than Harris. In fact I would say Harris did less singing than Burton. Burton sings all the way through "Camelot" (the title song) "I Wonder What the King is doing Tonight?" is mostly sung and only spoken in parts to create a dramatic difference. All of "How to Handle a Woman" is sung. Most of "What do the Simple Folk do?" is sung with only a few phrases spoken. The end title reprise of "Camelot" is spoken for dramatic effect with the Chorus singing behind him.
I think Burton was much better suited to the role from the scenes they show on Ed Sullivan and the B`way album. Harris was so affected in his performance it was distracting (and uneven). He overdid everything and came across as amateurish. The director (Josh Logan)didn`t help either. Harris is a fine actor in some things and not so good in others. Burton is the same-good in some things, not so good in others--but his voice seemed to overwhelm people and it made a difference in their perception of his acting.
See, I actually thought Richard Harris's performance was much more effective. I think he did "talk-sing" more than Richard Burton, as mit800 pointed out, but Harris put much more feeling into it. For example, in "Camelot", the title song - the song where (I believe) Guinevere is supposed to fall in love with Arthur because of his charm and sweet, naive nature. (Before she realizes who he actually is, of course.)
I think Richard Harris puts so much joy and enthusiasm into his performance of that song, you believe he actually is that idealistic and optimistic about Camelot. To be honest, when I listen to Richard Burton's performance (and it has grown on me, to an extent), I think he sounds bored. He sounds like he's just stating facts, rather than trying to convince Guinevere to stay in this enchanting land.
And while he might seem like he's overracting sometimes, I think Richard Harris was simple expressing everything Arthur was feeling in those moments. (Complete loss, betrayal, indecision, hope, etc.) He had a bit to deal with, and while Julie Andrews and Richard Burton do a wonderful job in their performance of "What do the Simple Folk do?", you don't feel the underlying tension in the song. I feel that's important because the song represents an attempt by the characters to recapture the joy of earlier, happier days, and forget their current problems; however, it's bittersweet because they can't fully escape the dark reality. In the movie, that comes across very clearly - due in no small part to the performances by Redgrave and Harris. (I like both versions, but I feel the way it was performed in the movie was more appropriate for the story.)
"You seem a decent fellow. I hate to kill you."
"You seem a decent fellow. I hate to die."
There's one thing I could never figure out: with all that eye makeup he wore and the way he pranced about throughout this film, was Richard Harris playing Arthur or Guenevere?
shareYou raise an interesting point. I think it comes down to some pretty simple things, as well as the levels of interpretation people have on men when they are 'animated'.
The makeup... well, who knows... we see it now... just like we can see the overdone makeup of any decade's styles and films... .just as people will see it in styles of today, 30 years from now. But it did bring out the beautiful blue of his eyes.
As for him 'prancing all over the place'.... well I would not go that far. I think Harris lends a physicality and youthfulness to it.... and deliberately 'motions' to act with his body, as well as his face, voice, etc...
and I appreciate that Arthur is 'lively' 'animated' 'warm'... contrasting the
'stoic' 'rigid' 'disciplined' of what Lancelot is supposed to be.
He's consistently good in this. When he runs in a circle shouting "A Roooooounnnd Taaabbblllle". When he runs into a room excited about the knights and the table, he unashamedly hugs Lancelot (raising eyebrows of audience members who may be uncomfortable with men being affectionate with each other). He moves gracefully across stairs in "What do the Simple Folk Do?" gesturing about a small boy he met 'singing in a voice three times his size'. He acts this part physically, and heck, it's a musical... and I find the sheer physical MOTION of his character wonderful. I've literally heard some people interpret Harris as being too 'queer' in his interpretation. Well, if they mean 'queers' can move gracefully, express themselves physically (outside of violence) and are unashamed of their body's ability to communicate.... ok. You'd have to put Brando, Clift, and Newman in that category as well.
Interesting stuff you bring up. Thank You.
That eye shadow (for men) was not the style of films in the '60s. I know of at least one film review at the time this movie was released that lampooned Harris's makeup. As for Harris's movements in this film, I was reminded of Richard Dreyfus performing Shakespeare in "The Goodbye Girl"--I wonder if Neil Simon was thinking of "Camelot."
shareI never thought of his performance as "queer" I just thought of it as hammy, overstated, and amateurish. But then that`s just me (well, sort of, I read some critcs opinions that said the same thing). It was a little heavy on the eye shadow though. Probably another of Josh Logans ideas.
The whole film is ill conceived from beginning to end. Harris over-emotes, Redgrave can`t sing and Nero well... at least he looked good. It could really use a re-make.
You're right, the leads are poor. I remember how disappointed I was with the performances of these songs after being a fan of the Broadway cast album. Even Alfred Newman and Ken Darby's magic couldn't help with these "vocalists." And Logan did to Lerner and Lowe what he had done nine years earlier to Rodgers and Hammerstein--ruin their stage musical success. "Camelot" is a dark and brooding film--it hardly ever comes alive.
shareA remake would not be good. Audiences wouldn't care about it. It would be like remaking My Fair Lady or the Sound of Music. They had their time and it was then, now they are enduring classics. Audiences want new age musicals, hence the popularity of Moulin Rouge, Chicago and the not so well received Rent and The Producers. There has to be a sexuality and a "hippness" that will draw the audience in. Camelot would not. At least as a musical. It doesn't have the right music type to keep people going. Caberat would be well received. Logan isn't a great musical director and I have to agree that Richard's make-up was heavy, he had more than Redgrave, but he did do a good job playing Arthur and that's what people will remember him for, that and being the best Dumbildore (I most likely spelled the name out wrong). Redgrave was wonderful and Nero, well he did look good. That, I think was another thing to bring down the film. The casting of Franco Nero wasn't the best choice.
shareI can't agree that Redgrave was wonderful. She's no Julie Andrews. Unfortunately, by that time, Jack Warner and Julie Andrews sure weren't having anything to do with one another.
shareIf you ignore the singing, which was wonderful since she wasn't trying to sing on Julie Andrews level like they did Audrey Hepburn, then Vanessa was truely wonderful. Not trying to start anything but Julie isn't Vanessa Redgrave in the acting department. But Julie can sing the pants off Redgrave.
shareWe just disagree about Redgrave being wonderful in this film. I found her to be as annoying as Harris and Nero. We also disagree about how much better an actress she is than Julie Andrews. I have no doubt in my mind that the original Broadway leads--Burton, Andrews, and Goulet--would have been vastly superior in the film. Another director was also sorely needed.
shareYeah, but the broadway show was a comedy and the film a drama. Julie Andrews has never been accepted in any of her dramatic films, save one which she was held as the only good thing about it, so having Andrews break down and do everything else would not have worked. She would have been just as sweet as she always is when she gets upset. Saying that Andrews is a better actress than Redgrave would be like saying Angelina Jolie is better than Meryl Streep. Apples and oranges rorysa, apples and oranges. I might also add that Redgrave has won every major acting award. If any of the original B-way cast was best suited for the film it was Goulet. Burton just doesn't fit for me, although he is a very gifted actor. We agree on a different director and one a few of the cast changes. With the new version, Julie would not have pulled it off and besides, were talking about two different mediums. A theatere performance is totally different than a film. That's probably why the three B-way stars were overlooked, although Logan said Julie Andrews didn't look like she was worth losing all England for. I have no doubt in my mind that the B-way show was good, but I also know that Redgrave was/is the best actress to play Guenevere (I have a book that says so) and many reviewers stated that she was the best improvement over the B-way show. Try Time, Life and Newsweek for starters. Agree to disagree is are position and I feel we won't convert one another to the others side, but I bet we'd have fun conversing in person?
shareLogan could say what he wanted about Julie Andrews. That was a non-starter. The chance that Jack Warner would hire Andrews or that she would ever work for him, after all the "My Fair Lady" stuff and its aftermath, is nill.
I never saw the stage show, but if you are correct that it underwent a wholesale revision in tone, from comedy to drama, in its transfer to film, that was yet another miscalculation by Logan (I would be surprised if Alan Jay Lerner, who wrote both the book and the screenplay, intended such a change).
Your reverance for Redgrave appears to be based in part on your belief that acting in a "drama" is more difficult or should be taken more seriously than acting in a musical or comedy. Again, we disagree. Redgrave won a Supporting Oscar for "Julia"--Andrews won an Actress Oscar for "Mary Poppins." Your desire to separate them puts you in the dubious Golden Globes camp--they are the only awards group that separates dramas from musicals and comedies in a few categories (which I always thought was stupid). Also, you can like a particular actress in one film but not another--I liked Redgrave in "Julia," but I didn't like her in "Camelot." You also dismiss the singing aspect of the Guenevere role as if it weren't that important. This is a MUSICAL!
Logan's casting choices for his film musicals was notoriously awful. Besides the leads in "Camelot," how about Mitzi Gaynor, John Kerr, Clint Eastwood...need I go on?
A supporting role is just as important as a lead and Vanessa is the only actor to have won a supporting Oscar for a title role. Vanessa has had four Best actress nominations and two supporting. I never said that drama was the drawing line with talent. Comedy is very hard as well, but when someone stays in the same medium you never get to know and Vanessa has been in several comedies and been rather successful. Actually, Lerner wanted Camelot to be a drama and made the B-way play a comedy because he knew people could take funny for three hours. Logan had no decision in the switching. Also, Julie would have done a film for Warner, but later in life she commented on how she would not have done Camelot because people would have compared it with My Fair Lady. Also, Julie's Oscar was a given since she lost the role of Eliza Dolittle, Julie even said when she won that it was because of Warner that she got it. I would have given her the Osacr for The Sound od Music instead of Mary Poppins. I like Julie Andrews alot and I love her Camelot album, but I prefer Redgrave's because she inhabited the songs and made them have "life". I think that Vanessa has a nice, sweet, simple voice and if she had tried to sing like Andrews then it would have been bad. I might also add that Redgrave received a Golden Globe nomination, lost to Anne Bancroft for the Graduate, and Julie a Tony, can't remember who she lost to. I'm going to add that with the singing, Redgrave's worked because Camelot was about simple times and simple things and having Guenevere run around the forest singing like Maria (West Side Story or Sound of Music) would not have worked. Andrews would have stuck out like a sore thumb if she had been casted.
If we (any and every poster) should complain about an album, it would be the revivial of Camelot. The actress to play Guenevere sounded as if she couldn't make up her mind that she was Redgrave's or Andrew's Guenevere (with the singing. She went from a simple tone to THE HILLS ARE ALIVE!)
I comepletely agree with Louisville88. I just can't understand why Redgrave is admonished for not singing like Andrews. She has a lovely singing voice. Nobody complained about Rex Harrison. Richard Harris is a much better singer than Burton and Harrison. I don't think he woukdn't have been awarded a recording contract if weren't for Camelot.
shareThank you. I also have to add that, if the stars were dubbed, how stupid and terrible it would have been. Vanessa would have looked like Hepburn in My Fair Lady, singing beyond her own capabilities and the dubbing not matching up i.e. I could have danced all night, and how stupid it would have been to dub Harris with a person who talk sings. Dubbing a talkie with a singer, yes, but not a singer/talkie with just a plain talkie.
share[deleted]
You Harris and Redgrave fans can bark all day, but comparing this film cast to the Broadway cast is a howler! Who will history remember more fondly: Richard Burton or Richard Harris? Julie Andrews or Vanessa Redgrave? Robert Goulet or Franco Nero? Don't even try to argue about it.
shareBeautifully stated. Thankyou!!
sharerorysa,
I'm afraid that the broadway cast will be forgotten. The fact is, that critics picked Harris as the best Arthur and Redgrave as the best Guenevere. You have to have seen the play to remember it, not be a die hard fan of Andrews. The simple fact is that they are the best. You all are just sore because they didn't get the call to play the parts AND because their album did better than the B'way album.
That is (as usual) nonsense.
You can go to Amazon and read the reviews of the albums and see which is clearly the favorite. The B`way version has over 40 positive reviews and the film less than 20 reviews with almost half being negative. The B`way cast will never be forgot by true music lovers while the film soundtrack is more of a curiosity piece. Even if I wasn`t a die hard Andrews fan I would still recognize the better quality of the B`way album (and so do most critics and patrons)
That is (as usual) nonsense.
I recall a time when the film soundtrack and the b-way soundtrack were on the same level. All it takes is one person to change the average and it really doesn't matter because not everyone leaves a review. I don't, except once, and I know many people that don't either. I too have looked at the reviews. Three people liked the OBC better and one person was unhappy because the cd didn't have all the songs. The OBC had three people who didn't like it. But whatever, you obviously will never change your mind and will never look at the facts which are so obvious that you must feel stupid if you acknowledge them.
"I'm afraid that the broadway cast will be forgotten. The fact is, that critics picked Harris as the best Arthur and Redgrave as the best Guenevere."
Whatever it is you're smoking, you may want to stop and see a physician about some prescription meds.
It`s of no use rorysa. Louisvilles got such a jones for Redgrave that he is blinded by all facts and grasping on to anything that will give this awful film some shred of acceptance. Most people know it was a failure both artistically and financially no matter how it is adjusted.
He just CANNOT accept that.
[deleted]
nobody lists it because nobody remembers it!!
shareoR YOU WISH NOBODY REMEMBERS IT. news flash, people hear more about the film than the play. In all my experience in the school system, no one has ever discussed the play save English class when they discuss the Arthur legends and they have exerpts from The Once and Future King by T.H. White. They say, "It was turned into an award winning play on Broadway and later into a hollywood blockbuster." And you know what, after the course is over, the teachers show Camelot. And in all my experience, the kids have enjoyed the film. Also, nobody's list it becaus ethey don't hate it, save you and the other person.
shareI think that it's YOU that has been smoking. I have a book that list the best actors to have played a character and Redgrave and Harris have been picked as THE BEST. Also, I don't smoke. So nothing is clouding my judgement as it is yours.
shareYou have ONE (unidentified) BOOK whose author you claim (without quoting) raves about Harris and Redgrave, and that's the support for your assertion that "critics" picked Harris as the best Arthur and Redgrave as the best Guenevere? If a controlled substance is not clouding your mind, what is the explanation for its cloudiness?
shareThe book is called "Who played who" and the critics are many including Time, Newsweek, Look and Life. Now of those critics, they all said that Redgrave was the better improvement over the Broadway show. But some other books include, and the titles may not be well known to me, but one of them is a book that rates all the movies and they say "With a radiant Redgarve and Harris.", the Amc classic Hollywood states, "A RADIANT REDGRAVE" and Leonard Malton (? on his last name but hoepfully you know who he is) states that she was a "charming Guenevere". Harris usually follows with praise, but Redgrave always gets the top praise. The only time she might get something wrong is when some people state that her voice wasn't as strong as Andrews. That's it. But she gets praise for it and since she never tried to be anything better than Andrews, it really shouldn't matter. If a character sings, Redgrave sings. Which is why she's sang in several other films and has been praised including the Oscar nominated roles of: Morgan!, Isadora and Mary, Queen of Scots, the Emmy winning role in Playing For Time, plus others. Redgarve sings with her soul.
shareI couldn't agree more. You took the words right out of my mouth. I love the Broadway album. I can only get through the latest Blue Ray version because the picture and sound are so good. Also, there is a good documentary showing how the film was made. Everything went wrong from the start. No Burton, Andrews, or Goulet, Stanley Donen was too expensive, Loewe wrote the book for the film, I believe, and changed the structure and tone of the movie from one of hope and exuberance to dark and dreary in comparison. Then Redgrave made major changes to her songs to make them more in tune with her personal political beliefs. The film went way over budget and had to be finished in a rush, which didn't help a bit. Camelot (the Kennedy years) was over, and this film did little to re create the magic.
shareThe talk singing is innate in the part...alan lerner says in his autobiography that after My Fair Lady he wrote all his male parts with Rex Harrisons voice in his head....Listen to Ive grown accustomed to her face...then the soliloquy from Gigi, then What the king is doing tonight...and youll hear what i mean
It is not our abilities that make us who we are...it is our choices
We performed Camlot for our Senior school play. We were an all girls school so for the men roles the nuns turned to a nearby boys high school. A set faternal twins were cast as Arthur and Lance. There was also a replacement Arthur.
We had so much fun back in 1966 making doing the play. I was one of the Ladys in Waiting and we sang all the songs.
The funniest part was the nun trying to teach Arthur and Gwenevere and also Lance how to kiss. The woman knew what she was doing.
The movie with Richard Harris, Redgrave and Nero has always been favorite of mine. Just ordered a copy of DVD and arrieved yesterday.
When the movie was released here in New Orleans there was a booklet that I bought at the theater.
In the beginning they really did not want Richard for the part of Arthur, they thought his was strange (which he was) and goofy.
If anyone else would have been cast I don't think I would have liked it so much.
He had so much personality, my favorate, in the beginning up in the tree. And of course,l when he realized what was happening between his wife and best friend.
Richard Harris is excellent and natural in the movie. I've only heard the Richard Burton version on CD, and I must say it is a kick to hear him sing. It seems that he MUST have been well suited, or perhaps perfectly suited for the Broadway version. So, each within his own genre sparkles in the part. Afterall art is really NOT a competition. But it is quite a wondeful reminisce!
shareI think I would pick Richard Harris over Richard Burton. I do think that while Harris was generally good in his acting performance, in Camelot he did overact a little. And I admit I wasn't very impressed with his singing. It was more emotional, but it sounded a little overacted and mostly like speaking, like Rex Harrison (whose "singing" I wasn't impressed with either).
I thought Vanessa Redgrave was better. Her acting performance was more subtle and she made more of an attempt to "sing" the songs. Her voice was pleasant, but I think Marni Nixon would have done a beautiful job singing for her (with most of the emotion intact). But I agree that then Vanessa would have been a target for the critics just as Audrey Hepburn was for My Fair Lady. What I think is funny most critics of the film label Harris as the most promising singer of the film, while I think it is Vanessa.
And to be honest, I don't think either the play or the film are that well remembered today-at least not the way My Fair Lady is remembered. The Camelot play got mixed reviews when it got out, it sold many of its seats due to advanced booking, and it was bypassed for many of the awards that My Fair Lady got. The film version got an even more mixed reception. And I agree that the film would not stand well for a remake as most (young) audiences would think it dated and quaint.
And it's usually Broadway people who bark about a film, not nearly as much the other way around.
I agree 100%
shareall the dickering about who sang better aside.........the movie people originally wanted richard burton
if you go to richard harris' profile here on imdb.com and go into the biographical information it states that he got the role of arthur after richard burton turned it down
I knew that. It's also in the DVD.
shareThe OBC album was #1 on the Billboard charts for 6 weeks in 1961. The movie version only made it to #11 (it stayed on the charts for 23 weeks, while the OBC lasted 151 weeks--SOURCE: "The Billboard Book of Top 40 Albums", 1995 edition).
I grew up with the OBC recording. I don't remember a time when it wasn't around. It wasn't until years later that I saw the film version and nothing about it sounded or felt right. Redgrave (much as I like her in general) struck me as a pre-tarnished Gwen, ripe for cheatin', Franco Nero was a nightmare (at least he didn't get to destroy my beloved "C'est Moi, but where were "The Seven Deadly Virtues" and "Before I Gaze At You Again"?). It was like returning to the family table to find complete strangers cast as your parents.
I simply prefer the original stage versions. Like "Brigadoon" (in which the character of lusty Meg Brockie was all but destroyed--her two songs, some of the show's best--were removed), there's too much editing done and too many changes.
People feel pretty strongly about this musical (in my case, because I've always known it). In my opinion, the singing has to be strong (not folksy--isn't that what "Godspell" was for?). If the director takes the attitude that, "Well, I'm going to do "Camelot", but I'm not going to focus on the music," then he should simply shoot a non-musical Arthur/Guinevere/Lancelot film.
"Alas, how terrible is wisdom when it brings no profit to the man that’s wise!" (Sophocles)
Some of the songs were cut out of the film, but in my opinion, I thought they cut out only the bad ones. The Seven Deadly Virtues and Before I Gaze at You Again are forgettable. To me, Fie on Goodness was awful. Bad, bombastic, and ridiculous. I was glad I didn't have to hear it in the film. C'est Moi to me was so-so, but it was another song they could have easily cut out.
Film actors replacing Broadway actors in film musicals is nothing new. It's been done all the time. I'm not saying it's necessarily better, but that's the way it is. Even Julie Andrews replaced Mary Martin in the Sound of Music.
I think some the songs are cut simply for time (for the record, I am not a fan of "Fie On Goodness"). But I suspect the sad "Before I Gaze At You Again" was dumped to lessen the number of songs sung by Redgrave. I have nothing against a her folk-y style--Julie O'Hara was charming in "Promises, Promises" and she must certainly did not have a traditional voice (check Amazon for soundbites--you'll need the remastered version. I suggest choosing "I'll Never Fall In Love Again"). I just did not care for it on "Camelot".
http://www.amazon.com/Promises-1968-Original-Broadway-Cast/dp/B00080EU7G/sr=1-1/qid=1157210785/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-0562229-9566256?ie=UTF8&s=music
How could you cut "C'est Moi"? It was witty in its arrogance (you do listen to the lyrics, right?), and completely summed up the initial utter lack of humility in Lancelot. As it sounds in the film, without the playful tweak Goulet was able to give it, I can see why film fans may not like it. That fault lies with Logan, not the song.
"Alas, how terrible is wisdom when it brings no profit to the man that’s wise!" (Sophocles)
Also the story was changed so Before I gaze at you again was cut because Lance never left therefore Jenny wouldn't have sung it to him. I love Redgraves' voice, and Andrews, but I feel Redgrave did better. Also, I like Before I gaze at you again.
shareToo bad the film version made more money than the OBC and the film version stayed on the charts for 87 weeks! Source Top 100 albums of the 60's (2003)
shareSometimes, a song that works onstage just doesn't work in cinema. When I saw the revival on video, it seemed that Before I Gaze at You Again was sung to express Guenevere's attraction to Lance. In the film, it wasn't needed because it was written all over the face of Guenevere and as we all know, Vanessa didn't have to act it. She was in love with Nero and no song could have expressed the way she gazed at him. Having to sing it out would have been overkill. That brief scene of her getting ready for bed right after the joust -she was lighting the candle, we know she was thinking about Lance.
And yes,others might say Vanessa couldn't have sung the song as well anyway but she's such a great actress all Logan had to do was shoot a close-up (yes, those long long close-ups!)of her and you can see what Guenevere is feeling! As Norma Desmond would say, she doesn't need words. She can say anything with my eyes!
Billboard says you are wrong.
11 weeks for film. That was the longest it stayed on the Top 40.
151 for OBC. Six of these were at #1. Because of this, it is on the 1995 edition's "Albums of Longevity" list ("albums charted 60 weeks or more in the Top 40"). OBC "Camelot" was #8 in that edition.
Source: "The Billboard Book of Top 40 Albums" (1995 edition) (Joel Whitburn, editor)
151 still trumps 87 (and that is 151 in the Top 40, no less). I don't make up the numbers. Blame the record-buying public and Billboard.
"Alas, how terrible is wisdom when it brings no profit to the man that’s wise!" (Sophocles)
I just don't get it. I think Burton was a great actor. But people... remember... by the mid 60's he was over 40 years old. His screen persona was already stamped as brooding, dark, moody, dramatic and serious. Who really, and I mean Really... would consider him in 1967, the year AFTER Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?.... as the youthful, good-natured, positive, athletic, idealistic and handsome King Arthur? I can barely think of Burton laughing and smiling, outside of the rare moments in The Taming of the Shrew. I maintain, by the time the movie was made, he would have been a disaster as Arthur.
Harris is the only one who plays arthur as someone with the position of king forced upon him, burton does it as someone born to greatness. I personaly prefer harris' angle on the role, and well, he just is king arthur for me. His presence, his voice, his highly under-rated acting skills and that undefinible sensitvity/vunrability just make him absolutly perfect for it. And the solioqui at the end of the first half...that was made for harris!! Im sure Burton did Arthur good, but harris was him, the light heartes sensitivity and brooding intensity we see throughout are just magnificent.
Pefection in darkness
Wow. I bought the DVD and watched Camelot for the first time in 7 years and I have to contradict myself... Richard Harris is a better Arthur, IMO. I'vbe watched it like, 10 times since I bought the DVD. Richard Harris is just so... I don't know. He's very very sexy and emotional and he makes me cry out of sadness for Arthur. I love him as Arthur (though I still love Richard Burton =))
The more he bleeds, the more her lives
He never forgets and he never forgives
I like Harris Arthur better too, but a few comments....
Probably the reason 7 deadly virtues was cut is because Roddy Mcdowall (who played mordred in the play) wasnt in the film...he was considered at the time to be one of the highlights of the show...but although he could pull off playing Burtons son on stage, he wasnt going to pull off playing Harris' son on film. I dont think David Hemmings is a singer (good actor though and a good match for Harris)
A chief reason for the negative reviews of Camelot on stage was that people still werent used to musicals with downbeat endings, and that a cuckold wasnt considered to be a heroic charecter. People thought the first act was strong and the second act weak...until nov 22, 1963. As Alan Lerner pointed out his autobiography, history had unfortunately become his collaberator
It is not our abilities that make us who we are...it is our choices
i thought of a few more items since the last time I posted
When I first watched this movie on tv, I only had a black and white tv so i never realized how dreadful the make up is.....when i saw it in color finally in the 90's i realized it, realizing at the same time that the closeups truly are awful in this...musical numbers and dance numbers should never be done in close up....
When I first compared the movie to the broadway soundtrack I thought Burton is better in the ceremonial I am the king parts...the downside is that he isnt as effective in songs like "what the king is doing tonight" which require some vulnerability and uncertainty. I thought Harris was better in precisly those parts. But when I saw Harris play it on stage later...I thought he'd gotten more of the mature Arthur down (he was after all nearly 20 years older) while still capturing the young arthur quite effectively.
Also ref the speaksinging and who did or didnt do it...Its actually inherent in the part because Alan Lerner, by his own admision wrote everything he did after My Fair Lady with REx Harrison in mind.....He would hear his voice as he wrote....so the songs lend themselves to speak singing and its no reflection on either performer that they did it at times
also though I believe the broadway album will endure longer among soundtracks....even though the movie will always remain popular....The reason is not so much richard burton as it is Julie Andrews and Robert Goulet. I can almost make it thru Vanessa redgrave although I believe she was miscast...but what was done to If ever I would leave you and C'est Moi in impossible
It is not our abilities that make us who we are...it is our choices
Richard Harris rocks really hard, both in this version and the Broadway version that was filmed for HBO. He's got a strong voice (not the best in the world, but still really good and very strong).
Red, blue, and green are all real colors. Yellow is a mystical experience shared by everyone.
I just wish they had given less eye makeup to Richard Harris. Good Lord, he has more blue eyeshadow and mascara than Guenevere! It was very distracting, especially during the more dramatic parts. It came off as very "hammy."
share