Camelot (1967)
The big question behind the film adaptation of Camelot was, why wasn’t it Richard Burton and Julie Andrews? It turns out, they were both asked to reprise their Broadway roles. Julie was eager to play Guinevere in front of the camera, but director Joshua Logan insisted on Vanessa Redgrave. Logan wanted to “improve” the highly successful stage production and change the characterizations of the roles. King Arthur shouldn’t be so clueless, and Guinevere would be a “femme fatale”. But if he found that much fault with it, why would he want to make the film at all?
Richard, who won a Tony Award for his role, asked too large a fee than the studio was willing to pay. He also had the idea of casting his wife, Elizabeth Taylor, and best pal, Peter O’Toole, in the other lead roles. Combined, their salaries would have blown the production budget. But how cute would that have been? Instead, a different Richard was cast as King Arthur: Richard Harris.
There was nothing wrong with Harris’s performance, and he was such a cutie, you wonder why Guinevere would cheat on him. (The same question followed the stage play; why cheat on Richard Burton?) The problem with the film was its pace. Vanessa Redgrave’s white lipstick and runny nose during her crying scenes didn’t add to the audience’s enjoyment, but when you think that other contenders for the role were Liza Minnelli and Cher, those are comparatively small problems. Again, the problem was the timing. The pauses in between lines and slow tempos of songs could have been remedied. The running time could have been easily shortened by half an hour without losing a single word. I found myself snapping my fingers several times, willing the actors to pick up the pace. If you’ve heard the songs either on a soundtrack or live on the stage, you’ll be shocked by how slow the tempos are in the film.
Only die-hard musical fans will sit through this very long movie, clocking in at over three hours. Vanessa Redgrave’s “soprano” songs are really hard to listen to, but at least you’ll get the best Richard Burton impersonator in the business: Richard Harris. All jokes aside, he looks like him, he sounds like him; it’s almost as if the two friends conspired to try and fool the audience. You’ll get to see royal looking sets and costumes, and a real-life couple fall in love (Vanessa and Franco Nero), but you’re far better off watching Richard Harris’s 1982 revival. It’s as good as it gets.
Want to watch it? Click here to see it on ok.ru and thanks "ASA Movie Craze" for posting!
More Richard Harris movies here!
Be sure to check out Hot Toasty Rag's review of 1982's Camelot here!
Richard, who won a Tony Award for his role, asked too large a fee than the studio was willing to pay. He also had the idea of casting his wife, Elizabeth Taylor, and best pal, Peter O’Toole, in the other lead roles. Combined, their salaries would have blown the production budget. But how cute would that have been? Instead, a different Richard was cast as King Arthur: Richard Harris.
There was nothing wrong with Harris’s performance, and he was such a cutie, you wonder why Guinevere would cheat on him. (The same question followed the stage play; why cheat on Richard Burton?) The problem with the film was its pace. Vanessa Redgrave’s white lipstick and runny nose during her crying scenes didn’t add to the audience’s enjoyment, but when you think that other contenders for the role were Liza Minnelli and Cher, those are comparatively small problems. Again, the problem was the timing. The pauses in between lines and slow tempos of songs could have been remedied. The running time could have been easily shortened by half an hour without losing a single word. I found myself snapping my fingers several times, willing the actors to pick up the pace. If you’ve heard the songs either on a soundtrack or live on the stage, you’ll be shocked by how slow the tempos are in the film.
Only die-hard musical fans will sit through this very long movie, clocking in at over three hours. Vanessa Redgrave’s “soprano” songs are really hard to listen to, but at least you’ll get the best Richard Burton impersonator in the business: Richard Harris. All jokes aside, he looks like him, he sounds like him; it’s almost as if the two friends conspired to try and fool the audience. You’ll get to see royal looking sets and costumes, and a real-life couple fall in love (Vanessa and Franco Nero), but you’re far better off watching Richard Harris’s 1982 revival. It’s as good as it gets.
Want to watch it? Click here to see it on ok.ru and thanks "ASA Movie Craze" for posting!
More Richard Harris movies here!
Be sure to check out Hot Toasty Rag's review of 1982's Camelot here!