CAMELOT Returns to Broadway - Reviews Thread- Page 22

[tinmanic]

Posted: 3/30/23 at 10:13am

pethian said: "Rakesh Natarajan said: "Sorkin talked about how he wanted this production to take place in England during the late 15th century. ."

Which is strange, because I saw it last night and it mentions Voltaire several times (18th century).

 

[MCfan2]

Posted: 3/30/23 at 11:00am

For a show without magic, there's an awful lot of time traveling. 

[Sutton Ross]

Posted: 3/30/23 at 11:04am

his character appears just out of nowhere at the top of Act II and isn’t really doing camp, but more like is Dear Evan Hansen had a different kind of mood disorder.

That's absolutely hilarious, thank you for the laugh  

[pethian]

Posted: 3/30/23 at 12:32pm

tinmanic said: "pethian said: "Rakesh Natarajan said: "Sorkin talked about how he wanted this production to take place in England during the late 15th century. ."

Which is strange, because I saw it last night and it mentions Voltaire several times (18th century)."

Now I'm truly confused. Is it otherwise set in the 15th century-ish as Sorkin proclaimed in the article? We see it in two weeks so I'll try to contain my puzzlement until then.

 

[poisonivy2]

Posted: 3/30/23 at 12:58pm

I thought Taylor Trensch's Mordred looked like a shameless Ramsay Bolton ripoff.

[JasonC3]

Posted: 3/30/23 at 1:20pm

Might have just been my group of fiends, but I don't think we talked about the eras represented in the show. We just went with the flow.

[quizking101]

Posted: 3/30/23 at 3:54pm

Having not read the whole thread, does it not bother anyone else that Trensch is a year OLDER than Burnap and is somehow playing his teenaged son?

[artsygal]

Posted: 3/30/23 at 6:12pm

Does anyone know the promo code for this? I got a mailer and of course accidentally threw it away! Also, LincTix don’t seem to be available anymore. 

 

[JasonC3]

Posted: 3/30/23 at 6:27pm

https://www.broadwaybox.com/shows/camelot/

CAMBB23

Tickets just $89 - $119

Valid for performances now - June 25, 2023

[ren598]

Posted: 3/30/23 at 6:32pm

JasonC3 said: "https://www.broadwaybox.com/shows/camelot/

CAMBB23

Tickets just $89 - $119

Valid for performances now - June 25, 2023"

You use the code at the box office and save on $16.50 service charge per ticket.

[sm33]

Posted: 3/30/23 at 7:10pm

quizking101 said: "Having not read the whole thread, does it not bother anyone else that Trensch is a year OLDER than Burnap and is somehow playing his teenaged son?"

I was not familiar with either actor before this show, but he definitely doesn't read that old.

[BroadwayNYC2]

Posted: 3/30/23 at 9:23pm

“Having not read the whole thread, does it not bother anyone else that Trensch is a year OLDER than Burnap and is somehow playing his teenaged son?”


Trensch has made a career of playing younger (and doing it well), why would this bother you…

[Owen22]

Posted: 3/31/23 at 5:00am

quizking101 said: "Having not read the whole thread, does it not bother anyone else that Trensch is a year OLDER than Burnap and is somehow playing his teenaged son?"

Well if Sorkin's book follows the trajectory of the original, the story takes place over a number of years so the Arthur, by the time Mordred shows up, is easily old enough to have a teenage son.

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 3/31/23 at 8:04am

quizking101 said: "Having not read the whole thread, does it not bother anyone else that Trensch is a year OLDER than Burnap and is somehow playing his teenaged son?"

No - this didn't bother me in the slightest. As others have mentioned, Trensch reads and plays very young and the show takes place over many years.

[Valentina3]

Posted: 3/31/23 at 8:54am

I saw it last night. Well, I saw the Act 1 last night. Found last minute LincTix. The production value and performances were all good but the story itself is just so thin! Act 1 was nearly over 100 minutes and literally nothing substantial happened. Didn't really care for it much and decided to skip Act 2 despite knowing there was a lot more action. The pacing really ruined it for me. I haven't seen Camelot before but know the plot, so not sure if the pacing was a product of Sorkin's work or something that falls on Sher (probably both?).

Speaking of Sorkin, the recontextualization did not work for me at all. It was all very disjointed. A 15th Century English King who was incredibly kind and sensitive and feminist is just bizarre. Queen doing a horny dance in the woods where they staged random gay pairings was like whut? G flirting her way around the Secret Service (Sirs? Knights? Don't know what to call them) was very interesting but again didn't seem like anything I'd see in English royalty drama unless the intent was to be subversive or anachronistic like Six / Bridgerton, which is not what Camelot is. The rambling plot made it very easy for me to get distracted by the incredibly attractive leads. Sorkin always builds these weird homoerotic vibes in characters. I kept expecting Lance and Arthur to kiss (G: "Right in front of my kerchief!". I fully expected Arthur's monologue about "be smart, Genny" to turn into a "I can't tell who I'm jealous of here" thing. Would really have made me want to stay for Act 2...

[Dollypop]

Posted: 3/31/23 at 9:49pm

Valentina3 said: "I saw it last night. Well, I saw the Act 1 last night. Found last minute LincTix. The production value and performances were all good but the story itself is just so thin! Act 1 was nearly over 100 minutes and literally nothing substantial happened. Didn't really care for it much and decided to skip Act 2 despite knowing there was a lot more action. The pacing really ruined it for me. I haven't seen Camelot before but know the plot, so not sure if the pacing was a product of Sorkin's work or something that falls on Sher (probably both?).

Speaking of Sorkin, the recontextualization did not work for me at all. It was all very disjointed. A 15th Century English King who was incredibly kind and sensitive and feminist is just bizarre. Queen doing a horny dance in the woods where they staged random gay pairings was like whut? G flirting her way around the Secret Service (Sirs? Knights? Don't know what to call them) was very interesting but again didn't seem like anything I'd see in English royalty drama unless the intent was to be subversive or anachronistic like Six / Bridgerton, which is not what Camelot is. The rambling plot made it very easy for me to get distracted by the incredibly attractive leads. Sorkin always builds these weird homoerotic vibes in characters. I kept expecting Lance and Arthur to kiss (G: "Right in front of my kerchief!". I fully expected Arthur's monologue about "be smart, Genny" to turn into a "I can't tell who I'm jealous of here" thing. Would really have made me want to stay for Act 2..."

The story goes that when the original production was in rehearsal, Goulet and Burton did kiss (quite passionately I'm told) in front of the whole cast in the "Lusty Month of May" scene. Supposedly it was a joke.

[dwirth]

Posted: 3/31/23 at 11:51pm

My wife and I saw Camelot on Tuesday - here are some thoughts:

First off, even the cheap, upper, side seats at the Vivian Beaumont are excellent seats for this show - with great sightlines and sound throughout - which I think is the norm at this venue from other productions seen there. 

As for the show itself, this was definitely not my/my grandfather's Camelot - which I didn't mind.. Having previously seen Camelot on stage with Arthurs played by both Richard Harris (80s..memorable... followed by the nicest and longest stage door conversation I've ever had) and Robert Goulet (90s.. with a one-note, wooden performance oh-so-memorable in a totally different way...)

Anyway, Soo and Donica are full-voiced, good looking, and excellent, as expected - but Burnap, new to me, was the surprise. Written as an very modest and extra self-deprecating Arthur, like a guy you're drinking a beer with - not one who's ruling a country -  he puts on none of the airs of Harris or the arrogance of Goulet.. He's subtle, funny, sings just fine... and is overall - great. 

(Related to the above, I bought Taylor Trensch as a teen.. though he really does just show up from nowhere and do his snarky thing...)

The songs almost take a back seat in this production - with an added Morgan Le Fay scene in Act 2 a strong and beautiful one = and the subsequent and extended Fie On Goodness number - with intertwining lines/scenes between Arthur/Morgan, the (singing) Knights/Mordred, and Guinevere/Lancelot - is masterfully staged and lit to separate the scenes - backed by a wall of vocal sound.  Thrilling. 

Little in the way of set pieces... Some nice lighting and a few effects and stage pictures that were noteworthy.

Overall - a nice evening out... though wouldn't call it a "Run to See It" kind of show for all patrons like some past LIncoln Center revivals might have been. Maybe a 7.5 out of 10 if rating it on my scale;

[UWS10023]

Posted: 4/1/23 at 12:53am

dwirth said: "My wife and I saw Camelot on Tuesday - here are some thoughts:

First off, even the cheap, upper, side seats at the Vivian Beaumont are excellent seats for this show - with great sightlines and sound throughout - which I think is the norm at this venue from other productions seen there.

As for the show itself, this was definitely not my/my grandfather's Camelot - which I didn't mind.. Having previously seen Camelot on stage with Arthurs played by both Richard Harris (80s..memorable... followed by the nicest and longest stage door conversation I've ever had) and Robert Goulet (90s.. with a one-note, wooden performance oh-so-memorable in a totally different way...)

Anyway, Soo and Donica are full-voiced, good looking, and excellent, as expected - but Burnap, new to me, was the surprise. Written as an very modest and extra self-deprecating Arthur, like a guy you're drinking a beer with - not one who's ruling a country - he puts on none of the airs of Harris or the arrogance of Goulet.. He's subtle, funny, sings just fine... and is overall - great.

(Related to the above, I bought Taylor Trensch as a teen.. though he really does just show up from nowhere and do his snarky thing...)

The songs almost take a back seat in this production - with anadded Morgan Le Fay scene in Act 2 a strong and beautiful one = and the subsequent and extended Fie On Goodness number - with intertwining lines/scenes between Arthur/Morgan, the (singing) Knights/Mordred, and Guinevere/Lancelot - is masterfully staged and lit to separate the scenes - backed by a wall of vocal sound. Thrilling.

Little in the way of set pieces... Some nice lighting and a few effects and stage pictures that were noteworthy.

Overall - a nice evening out... though wouldn't call it a "Run to See It" kind of show for all patrons like some past LIncoln Center revivals might have been. Maybe a 7.5 out of 10 if rating it on my scale;"

Kind of what I said. Andrew was the surprise of the evening. Such a smart actor! He has had some good teachers along the way.

I feel like the 2nd Act would work better if the stakes were higher. That the characters and we as the audience understood the consequences of their actions before they happen. And the characters have struggled more with their feelings and impulses. That way when things come crashing down it would feel less melodramatic.

I never picked up any sort of bisexual vibes in the production although they seem be there in production photos. It seemed to me that Two men were like bros; loyal to one another.

I think the rating the poster gave is a fair one. A pleasant evening in the theatre but not a run out and see production. Especially with so many high quality productions that are currently playing. It will be interesting to see how long it runs.

 

[bwayphreak234]

Posted: 4/1/23 at 7:15am

UWS10023 said: "I feel like the 2nd Act would work better if the stakes were higher. That the characters and we as the audience understood the consequences of their actions before they happen. And the characters have struggled more with their feelings and impulses. That way when things come crashing down it would feel less melodramatic."

Have you seen this production yet? Act 2 is very strong, and stakes are extremely high and crystal clear. The audience knows the consequences of their actions - if Guenevere and Lancelot's forbidden love is discovered, the consequences will inevitably be disastrous. I thought that the characters struggled a lot with their feelings and impulses throughout the entire evening in this production, and when things came crashing down, it was anything but melodramatic. The crashing down of everything during "Fie On Goodness" followed by the play out of the consequences in "Guenevere" was thrilling and chilling.

 

[bettyco]

Posted: 4/1/23 at 10:46am

Saw this last night. Loved it. Was expecting it to feel very long based on what I'd read here, but I didn't have any issues with the pacing. And they've definitely tightened things - the first act ended at 9:35 and we were walking out at 10:56.

[goldenboy]

Posted: 4/1/23 at 12:28pm

I caught this two weeks ago at the suggestion of a casting director friend. I was hesitant as I found the movie a bore in spite of those gorgeous songs.

Not only did I find the movie a bore but I saw Camelot with Michael York on Tour and Richard Harris on Broadway. Both colossal bores in spite of gorgeous music. 

This production blew me away. The direction, the staging, the singing, the casting, the scenery and the actors: sheer perfection And the rewrite while not perfect it is much improved.

I highly recommend you see this musical. It is stunning.. well sung.. well acted.. and very interestingly cast.

 

 

 

[ABitOnTheSide]

Posted: 4/2/23 at 1:06am

I have been anticipating a full scale Broadway revival of Camelot since I played Mordred decades ago. I'm very passionate and have a lot of feelings about how to present the show and make it actually work. 

It doesn't sound, in my opinion, Sher or Sorkin fixed any of the show's flaws.

When you cut all the magic out and take the show literally, you're left with a hollow 3 1/2 hour love triangle.

And where is the pageantry? The set pics look more depressing than my community theatre's weak, low-budget set.

At any rate, I love Camelot with all my heart, but I got my ticket before reading reviews and word of mouth.

So since there is a 60/40% chance I'm going to loathe this production, I'm selling my Right Side Orchestra | Row F | Seat 506 on April 15 at 2pm for $99 on StubHub, which is $30 less than what I paid. If anyone wants it, I hope you have a great experience.

 

[UWS10023]

Posted: 4/2/23 at 1:20am

Yes Of course I saw it. It was in the beginning. I would have imagined it has tightened somewhat.

[jimmycurry01]

Posted: 4/2/23 at 9:54am

ABitOnTheSide said: "I have been anticipating a full scale Broadway revival of Camelot since I played Mordred decades ago. I'm very passionate and have a lot of feelings about how to present the show and make it actually work.

It doesn't sound, in my opinion, Sher or Sorkin fixed any of the show's flaws.

When you cut all the magic out and take the show literally, you're left with a hollow 3 1/2 hour love triangle.

And where is the pageantry? The set pics look more depressing than my community theatre's weak, low-budget set.

At any rate, I love Camelot with all my heart, but I got my ticket before reading reviews and word of mouth.

So since there is a 60/40% chance I'm going to loathe this production, I'm selling myRight Side Orchestra | Row F | Seat 506 on April 15 at 2pm for $99 on StubHub, which is $30 less than what I paid. If anyone wants it, I hope you have a great experience.

"

If you already have the ticket, just see the show and decide for yourself.

[Damiensta]

Posted: 4/2/23 at 11:54am

The pictures don’t do the stage justice. Yes, it’s bare minimum but the way lighting , shadows and projections  are used makes it feel gorgeous. 
I have never heard or seen previous productions before. The leading trio are great. If this year wasn’t so competitive, I would say Burnap had the Tony in the bag.

Surprised about comment on Soo here. I thought she was perfect in Into The Woods and she was even better here . 
very good night at the theatre even if it was 3 hours. The theatre was pretty full.

also, most of the show is played center stage