CAMELOT: Is It Boring?

[Dollypop]

Posted: 5/29/05 at 8:01pm

I have to know.

Updated On: 5/29/05 at 08:01 PM

[harris007]

Posted: 5/29/05 at 8:09pm

nope it's a wonderful show

[Dollypop]

Posted: 5/29/05 at 8:10pm

But is it amazing?

[wildcat]

Posted: 5/29/05 at 8:23pm

I thought it was interminable back in 1960.

[hannahshule]

Posted: 5/29/05 at 9:03pm

I love Camelot. But I'm talking about the original production. i don't know how it would hold up now.

[stonewall2]

Posted: 5/29/05 at 9:15pm

Camelot is a typical "old Broadway" show; no special effects, flying, smoke and mirrors- just music and a reliable storyline."Amazing" is in the eye-or ear- of the beholder, but Camelot has held up well over the years. HAven't you heard the OCR? (Warning- DO NOT watch the movie!! It was horrible and a complete waste of time!)

[Akbar-n-Jeff]

Posted: 5/29/05 at 9:30pm

Despite the score, it's pretty turgid. The recent Papermill revival was notable only for Barrett Foas' slitheringly evil, Scots-accented Mordred, who wore black leather tights and sang "Fie On Goodness" while shirtless and sweaty.

[filmgirl325]

Posted: 5/29/05 at 9:37pm

I did it in when I was in high school. I enjoyed the music, but overall it just doesn't do much for me.

Posted: 5/29/05 at 9:40pm

I think Camelot is one of the greats: Wonderful score (What do the simple folk do?, If ever I would leave you, and Camelot to name but three) and one of the best plots ever: King Arthur attempts to create a society based on the rule of law, not might. His Best Friend sleeps with his Wife. They have broken the law and therefore should be executed-- but Arthur loves his friend and his wife and doesn't want to see them executed-- What can he do? Either the rule of law is brought down or the two people he loves most are killed.

Pretty spectacular show. And actually I have seen it with some pretty wonderful special effects as Merlin and Nimue work their magic.

[joeybiltmore1]

Posted: 5/29/05 at 9:47pm

Good pacing and a few dialogue trims keep "Camelot" in fine form, I think. The leading roles are huge, so if they are cast well with fine singing actors who understand the benefits of pacing and avoid indulgence (particularly Arthur) you should be in good shape. Plus if the director/choreographer leaves in the lengthy dance music, the often cut forest scene in Act Two plus Fie On Goodness (which is surprisingly not in some versions) it gives the show a needed boost.
But otherwise, it is too often a yawn-fest. It's just that it doesn't HAVE to be.

[James C]

Posted: 5/29/05 at 9:47pm

Camelot is a fantastic musical, "Golden Age" or not, with a magnificent score and a beautiful story. That's all you need to make a great show, even today. Special effects are just icing on the cake.

[Broadway_freak]

Posted: 5/29/05 at 9:56pm

If done correctly it is astonishing!

[Unmasked05]

Posted: 5/29/05 at 10:31pm

Yes it is a WONDERFUL show.......but even back then it was panned for having to big of a "book"(no music) scenes, that stretched Camelot out to more than 3 hours and even back then it left many of the audience bored.

I think its a good show but today I don't think many people would sit through it mostly your average teenagers.

[roquat]

Posted: 5/29/05 at 11:22pm

"Camelot" is unbearably pompous, stilted, and talky. The score is lovely, but you can feel the flowers growing out of your ears in between songs. I accompanied a three-weekend run of it a few years ago, and I managed to finish reading two 500-page novels in the pit before it closed. I rank it right up there with "Brigadon't" and "Sound of Mucus" (my terms) for musicals I least want to do again.

[Elizabeth_DeBris]

Posted: 5/29/05 at 11:24pm

This thread is too funny...

[tkts]

Posted: 5/29/05 at 11:39pm

It's soooooooooooooooooo amazing. I've seen it soooooooooooooooooooo many times. You have to go you will be sooooooooooooooooooooooooo happy you did.

[Luke0827]

Posted: 5/30/05 at 9:22am

Camelot is certainly not, in my estimation, one of the "greats," and I'd venture to guess that had JFK not used it as a political metaphor for his Presidency, the show would not be nearly as famous as it has become.

Camelot is a flawed show, and I feel as if the owners of the rights to show acknowledge that by including in the show "optional scenes." Some versions feature the character Morgan LeFey, others don't. Some feature "Fie on Goodness" and "Take me to the Fair" and others omit it. I feel that when there isn't one definitive version of a show -- when the script is structured as a "choose your own adventure" affair, there must be an inherent problem with the work. Amazingly, the show was originally supposed to be a lot longer than it is. The song "Guenivere," which offers a "Reader's Digest" version of what happens to Guenivere and Lancelot after Mordred catches them being intimate was originally going to played out in multiple scenes! Fortunately, someone had the good sense to wrap things up without an Act III.

All criticism aside, Camelot has a beautiful score with some very witty lyrics. If for no other reason, the show is worth seeing and performing for the music alone.

Question about the Papermill version: in what context was Barrett Foa's Mordred performing "Fie on Goodness" shirtless and sweaty? That character has always struck me as a wimpy and quasi-asexual; a complete contrast the mesomorphic Lancelot.

[trpguyy]

Posted: 5/30/05 at 9:28am

You couldn't pay me to sit through the 700 verses of "What Do the Simple Folk Do?" again. The show is not strong enough to make up for that song.

[MasterLcZ]

Posted: 5/30/05 at 9:45am

I saw the Pepermill CAMELOT too, and that was the genius of Foas' Mordred - he was anything BUT asexual. You got the uncomfortable feeling he was going to attempt to rape Guenevere at any moment. He exuded danger and was a vibrantly smarmy, smirking menace.
Foa was also the only memorable thing about the show - Arthur was Brent Barrett who sung the role like an angel but who was pretty wooden otherwise...I forget who played Lancelot. Guenevere was the wife or girlfriend of one of the Papermill directors, I believe. She wasn't awful, but wasn't wonderful either.

Updated On: 5/30/05 at 09:45 AM

[CostumeMistress]

Posted: 5/30/05 at 11:35am

Updated On: 2/7/06 at 11:35 AM

[grizzabella]

Posted: 5/30/05 at 11:45am

So many of you made thoughtful points about how this show works - or doesn't. I love the score, personally, and when it's sung well, with convincing singing-actors, it's a treat; literate and witty. It's what happens between numbers that can make or break it. It is very long, and you can trim a bit without killing it. Frankly, without a strong Mordred, I think the show's a bit of a wash. I didn't see the PaperMill version, but it sounds like their Mordred had the right idea. I know Roddy Mcdowell's Mordred (about 50 years ago on Broadway) was the smarmy, asexual one that was the norm for awhile. Also, it was a different world, culturally. Still, the story is mythic and timeless, and as someone said, the contest between the rule of law, and a more personal mercy and morality. There are a lot of creative folks around. There should be a way to make a Golden-Ager like this palateable to a new audience.

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 5/30/05 at 12:00pm

Watch the movie and fast forward through the boring parts...

[Rentaholic2]

Posted: 5/30/05 at 12:20pm

I saw a tour of it in Ft. Worth and thought it entirely uninteresting and the music mediocre at best.

[Elphaba]

Posted: 5/30/05 at 1:23pm

Camelot has my favorite song of all time.......in that it is so touching and sad......'Before I gaze at you again"

It is an "old-school" Broadway musical, and WONDERFUL

However I did NOT like Robert Goulet as Arthur when it came to, and I lived in Detroit.

Updated On: 5/30/05 at 01:23 PM

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 5/30/05 at 2:36pm

Camelot is one of the greats in Musical Theatre, but done wrong, it can be mind-numbingly boring.