Zeus

"CAMELOT" (1967): AN AGONIZING ABSURDITY ON SCREEN

Posted by DEWEY MEE on Apr 18th 2024

Did you ever wonder how and why big budget film adaptations of popular Broadway musicals fell out of fashion by the late 1960's? Director Joshua Logan's lumbering and lugubrious 1967 film version of "Camelot" provides a definitive answer-- that is, if you can sit through the entirety of this deadly, nearly three hours long slog. Early on, a beleaguered King Arthur (Richard Harris) wonders, "How did I stumble into this agonizing absurdity?" The audience is certainly wondering the same thing throughout this extremely long and slow film.
The trials and tribulations "Camelot" endured during its bumpy journey to Broadway in 1960 have been well documented. The main problem was the uneven and unconvincing script. The Broadway production, at least, had the mesmerizing, charismatic Richard Burton and the beguiling Julie Andrews to carry the audience beyond numerous weak spots. The 1967 film version is not so blessed. Richard Harris and Vanessa Redgrave mumble their way through Lerner & Loewe's beautiful score.
The camera (or perhaps more accurately, several men behind the camera) loves the luminous and versatile Vanessa Redgrave. But she is woefully miscast in a musical. Redgrave can not sing and she does not. Instead, Redgrave merely recites the lyrics as if the songs were slow poems. "The Lusty Month Of May", for example, is drained of its vitality and fun. What little effort Redgrave puts into "singing" obviously strains her. On a more positive note, Redgrave and her equally miscast co-star Franco Nero took Guenevere and Lancelot's "love affair" into their real life and had a son, Carlo Nero. After a long on-again/off-again/on-again relationship, they eventually married in 2006. This, of course, has nothing to do with the movie itself, but it is the only positive thing I can say about the movie itself.
The musical score is "Camelot's" greatest asset. The musical performances in the film are uninspired, to say the least. Without inspiring music, a light touch of fantasy, or a believable "love triangle" we are left with the dramatic, dull aftermath of the adulterous affair between Guenevere and Lancelot.
Richard Harris continued his association with "Camelot" for years; taking over the 1982 Broadway revival from Richard Burton; in which Harris proved he is definitely not the equal of Richard Burton. The HBO DVD of the 1982 production shows the much older, but not any wiser, Harris haggard, seemingly drunk and ready to collapse. The 1967 film, by contrast, finds Harris in the full bloom of youth--and wearing way too much blue eyeliner! Harris plays King Arthur as a child-like, (childish?) idealistic dolt, too stupid or too intentionally blind to notice his alleged "best friend" Lancelot and adored wife Guenevere are having an affair. This is all that his vengeful, illegitimate son Mordred (David Hemmings) needs to destroy Arthur and his peaceful dream of Camelot. Why are Arthur and Lancelot best friends? Why do Guenevere and Lancelot have an affair-- especially since she finds him insufferably arrogant at their first meeting? The muddled and meandering script never makes these things clear, so it is impossible to care about the characters or what happens to them. This expensive, misguided film eventually collapses under its own overproduced weight.