When you watch the HBO telecast of the 1980 Broadway revival, you wonder why the 1967 film version of Camelot was ever made. Why didn't Hollywood wait fifteen years and just release this taped live performance instead? Meg Bussert had a far superior soprano voice than Vanessa Redgrave, the tempos of the songs and dialogue were perfectly up to speed, and Richard Harris has never been better. It's a case of "Plato's cave"; now that I've seen this excellent version, I'll never watch anything else when I crave Lerner and Loewe's classic musical.
If you've never seen it performed live, you might be surprised by how comedic the first half tries to be. It's a dramatic story, but there are endless jokes. Don't get used to them; the second half is just as tragic as you're expecting it to be. I don't know if the performance taped was closing night, or if Richard Harris was thinking of something particularly sorrowful, but his finale was so full of emotion, I was almost embarrassed to be watching. He was practically weeping, and great kudos must be given to his waterproof makeup. In fact, his curtain call was given with a somber face, as if his emotions ran so deep, he couldn't snap out of it to take a well-deserved bow.
I highly recommend watching this live performance. Sometimes the movie version adds extra quality to the story, but in this case, it's better to see it on the stage. Sure, the jousting competition is a little corny, echoing the horserace scene in My Fair Lady, but the Guinevere number is just as exciting as the celluloid version. The Sound of Music beautifully transported the audience with film cameras, but in Camelot, no cameras are needed. Richard Harris does the transporting. He loved playing King Arthur, and he's extremely good at it. With his transformation from young, insecure bridegroom to mature, well-intentioned king makes you feel you've spent far more than three hours with him. In 1967, most audiences felt he was just giving an excellent Richard Burton impression in the film, but by 1982 (although you can still see the other Richard in there), he owned the role as his own. Adorable during "I Wonder What the King is Doing Tonight", passionate in "Camelot", and showstoppingly tender with "How to Handle a Woman". Many thanks to HBO for taping this show!
If you've never seen it performed live, you might be surprised by how comedic the first half tries to be. It's a dramatic story, but there are endless jokes. Don't get used to them; the second half is just as tragic as you're expecting it to be. I don't know if the performance taped was closing night, or if Richard Harris was thinking of something particularly sorrowful, but his finale was so full of emotion, I was almost embarrassed to be watching. He was practically weeping, and great kudos must be given to his waterproof makeup. In fact, his curtain call was given with a somber face, as if his emotions ran so deep, he couldn't snap out of it to take a well-deserved bow.
I highly recommend watching this live performance. Sometimes the movie version adds extra quality to the story, but in this case, it's better to see it on the stage. Sure, the jousting competition is a little corny, echoing the horserace scene in My Fair Lady, but the Guinevere number is just as exciting as the celluloid version. The Sound of Music beautifully transported the audience with film cameras, but in Camelot, no cameras are needed. Richard Harris does the transporting. He loved playing King Arthur, and he's extremely good at it. With his transformation from young, insecure bridegroom to mature, well-intentioned king makes you feel you've spent far more than three hours with him. In 1967, most audiences felt he was just giving an excellent Richard Burton impression in the film, but by 1982 (although you can still see the other Richard in there), he owned the role as his own. Adorable during "I Wonder What the King is Doing Tonight", passionate in "Camelot", and showstoppingly tender with "How to Handle a Woman". Many thanks to HBO for taping this show!