A Few Words About A few words about...™ Camelot -- in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[RolandL]

That is the roadshow one-sheet on the left.

 

[NY2LA]

There has been a discussion on Roadshow One-Sheets vs. General Release One-Sheets on the TODD-AO thread in this Forum.  I pulled these two out from CAMELOT.  While I remember seeing the left poster at our local theatre, it did not play reserved seats and did run continuous performances, so it might not be the actual Roadshow One-Sheet.   I got the one sheet on the right from a sub-run house a few months later.  No mater how they were used, the left one-sheet from Bob Peck is outstanding and I wish Warner would have used some of the art work for the Blu-ray cover. 

Now I don't remember how, but I had a huge pressbook for this movie as a kid, (though I never saw it nor tried to) and it used the artwork on second poster, that's obviously for the general release. The first one was the roadshow. (BTW, It's Bob Peak, not Peck) Actual conventional pressbooks I noticed were rare for a roadshow run. It's not unusual of course for the general release engagements to mix and match publicity components. And for the record, some roadshow engagements quietly disposed of the ushers on undersold shows, letting the audience sit anywhere like general admission, and even on a hit like Millie, the studio sent out something like the "popular price" version of the artwork for print ads to be used in the same engagements that began with reserved seats... so the roadshow experience could blur the lines quite often. And I fully agree with your preference for the first poster. It just seemed the roadshows used more "arty" material while general release was more like a kid's picturebook...
There is a somewhat contemporary parallel you have all seen. Think back to the first three Disney Ashman/Menken(&Rice) animated movies. Disney prepared two different campaigns. One, far more "arty" for the adults, (often the advance art prior to opening) and the second, all "cartoony" for the kids. The latter usually ended up on the video of course.

 

[NY2LA]

I want this book for sure. I see Barnes & Noble have a pre-order up for it also stating a May release, but hoping Amazon will carry it also. Since I have prime. Should be an awesome book.

The book was delayed for an expansion, (about a third bigger) finished only recently and is now at the printers. The movie section, at 150 pages, is the largest.

 

[WilliamMcK]

I have a question for you CAMELOT mavens out there. I first saw the movie at Christmas time in 1968 (a month shy of my 8th birthday), and my principal memory of that first screening was of my mother being so convinced we were seeing a cut print that she sought out the manager after the showing to ask him about it. I next saw it about 5 years later during its 1973 re-release (but I even saw the re-release in second run). By then, I was very familiar with the show (having absorbed both the original cast album and the movie sound track... as well as having seen an under-powered dinner theater production of the play), and I was shocked at how the songs were hacked to bits in the film and knew instantly why my mother thought the movie had been cut by the theater manager back in 1968. Cut to three years later (just before the movie's broadcast premier) and a 70mm house brought the film back for another showing... and there to my surprise was a complete performance of the score (at least as adapted for the film) in a print that seemed MUCH longer than the movie I had seen twice before.
So my question is: did I imagine this much shorter version of the movie? And if not, was this "the" general release version--or was this only shown during the general release second run? There is a reference to a shorter version on IMDb, but it doesn't sound very authoritative. Does anyone know the history behind this short version?

 

[GMpasqua]

Originally Posted by WilliamMcK /t/319939/a-few-words-about-camelot-in-blu-ray/30#post_3918059
I have a question for you CAMELOT mavens out there. I first saw the movie at Christmas time in 1968 (a month shy of my 8th birthday), and my principal memory of that first screening was of my mother being so convinced we were seeing a cut print that she sought out the manager after the showing to ask him about it. I next saw it about 5 years later during its 1973 re-release (but I even saw the re-release in second run). By then, I was very familiar with the show (having absorbed both the original cast album and the movie sound track... as well as having seen an under-powered dinner theater production of the play), and I was shocked at how the songs were hacked to bits in the film and knew instantly why my mother thought the movie had been cut by the theater manager back in 1968. Cut to three years later (just before the movie's broadcast premier) and a 70mm house brought the film back for another showing... and there to my surprise was a complete performance of the score (at least as adapted for the film) in a print that seemed MUCH longer than the movie I had seen twice before.
So my question is: did I imagine this much shorter version of the movie? And if not, was this "the" general release version--or was this only shown during the general release second run? There is a reference to a shorter version on IMDb, but it doesn't sound very authoritative. Does anyone know the history behind this short version?

William,

The Roadshow version of "Camelot" clocked in at 3 hours (add to this an intermission of 15 minutes)
The Roadshow version opened in New York City in late October 1967 and soon after in other major cities. "Camelot" played through out 1967 and into the summer of 1968 (depending on the city - some may have had longer or shorter runs)

In November 1968 "Camelot" went into general release - this would have been the version you saw. The general release prints may have been shorter (depending on the city) the 1973 re-release may have also been the shorter version. Many Roadshow films were also cut for general release (although not "West Side Story", "My Fair Lady", "The Sound of Music" "Funny Girl" or "Oliver")

In Feb/Mar of 1978 (if you lived in New York) you could have seen the complete Roadshow version of "Camelot" in 70mm at the Warner RKO theater where it opened their Broadway on Broadway festival and played for a full week. They screened a beautiful print complete with intermission.

 

[Joe Caps]

In one of my gazillion times seeing Camelot in a film theater, I saw the shortened version.
It was very strange, middle sections of songs were cut, half of Cest Moi.
All of the scene in the forest where merlin returns to Arthur. All in mono.
there were also general release prints that were uncut stereo at the same time.

 

[jseabough]

I have a copy of a CAMELOT pressbook and it's for the shorter version that was for general release. The cover is a photo of Redgrave, Harris and Nero in costume for Lancelot's knighthood. The ads have the Peak illustration showing Richard Harris and Vanessa Redgrave profile that was the center of the original Peak illustration but that is the only image from the Peak images.There are photographs and the wording is Now for the first time at Popular Prices-- direct from roadshow engagements.

 

[jseabough]

Saw this in roadshow although it was 35MM at the Landers Theater in Springfield, Mo. A year or so later caught the general release print.Hated watching the general release. In the late 70's , I did see a complete roadshow 70MM blow up print that was part of a 70MM revival at the Midland Theatre in Kansas City. It was a bit of a shock, although a welcomed shoct after seeing a CAMELOT that had been edited with cut song verses and scenes.

 

[Jim*Tod]

My first screening of the film was a mono print in the 1973 re-release and it was heavily cut, pretty much as described with bits and pieces of songs abruptly cut out. As I was familiar with the soundtrack album, it was apparent what had been cut. Later I saw a newly struck complete 35mm print with four track stereo at the Naro in Norfolk, Va. somewhere around 1980.
Mr. Caps--- still hope you will give us your take on the blu ray.
Also----looking for a couple of CAMELOT experts to answer these questions:
In the footage they show of the CAMELOT premiere on the old dvd, either Logan or Warner refers to having started to do the CAMELOT film and then stopping and starting again with the cast and crew of the film as we know it. I know lots of different casting choices were floated for this film. Do you know what they were referring to when they talk about the previous attempt at this production?
At least one story indicates that Logan shot very slowly and that after a long period of shooting, Warner essentially pulled the plug before the shoot was really over. At this point they were told to put the film together with the footage they had. I do like many things about the film, but the editing choices (and I am talking about the full, not cut version of the film) often seem to be arbitrary and choppy. Could this have been the result of the abrupt end of shooting or is this indeed was what happened?
Thanks.

 

[jseabough]

The 1973 re-release (at least the one I saw) was also the shorter version.

 

[jseabough]

From Camelot entry on wikipedia
While the official running time was 179 minutes plus overture, entre'acte and exit music, only the 70mm blow up prints and 35mm magnetic stereo prints contained that running time. The general release version ran 150 minutes. Cuts were made in dialogue throughout the film and a number of songs including "C'est Moi" and "What do the Simple Folk Do". Omitted scenes include Arthur explaining what he means when he says that Merlin lives backwards, and the entire flashback of Arthur in the forest recalling Merlin's schoolhouse.[citation needed]
Television broadcasts and home video versions contain the complete, uncut copy of the movie. The severely (and some would say sloppily) cut general release version has not been seen since the late 1960's.

 

[GMpasqua]

In the footage they show of the CAMELOT premiere on the old dvd, either Logan or Warner refers to having started to do the CAMELOT film and then stopping and starting again with the cast and crew of the film as we know it. I know lots of different casting choices were floated for this film. Do you know what they were referring to when they talk about the previous attempt at this production?
At least one story indicates that Logan shot very slowly and that after a long period of shooting, Warner essentially pulled the plug before the shoot was really over. At this point they were told to put the film together with the footage they had. I do like many things about the film, but the editing choices (and I am talking about the full, not cut version of the film) often seem to be arbitrary and choppy. Could this have been the result of the abrupt end of shooting or is this indeed was what happened?
Thanks.

Warner did not want to go on location but when "Camelot" started production Vanessa Redgrave was not available due to other comittments, so Logan convinced Warner to allow him to take Harris and Nero over to Spain to shoot the opening, their first meeting and some battle scenes (including one cut from the film) After that they returned to the studio to complete the film.

In his book Logan mentions Warner gave him a deadline at which point he would pull the plug and what was shot was shot. This lead Logan to quickly film Arthur's round table monoluge in one afternoon and also a few other things. All was done on time.

At one point Redgrave wanted to sing "Take my to the Fair" in french and Logan told her she needed Alan J Learner's permission so she called him all afternoon (she already recorded the playback) but couldn't get a hold of him

When later asked what he would of done if Learner was home Logan replied - I gave her my phone number and I knew I wouldn't be home

Both Richard Burton and Julie Andrews were offered the film, both turned it down

 

[rsmithjr]

This is an interesting thread, I can see there is a lot of passion about this film.
It is one of the rare films presented in 70mm that I did not see in original release, probably because I was in graduate school and focused on that; also it was not filmed in 70mm and I looked down on blow-ups (still do). I think I spent about 10 years of my life waiting for 70mm photography and roadshows to reappear, during which time many of the theatres were torn down.
I have only seen the film of Camelot on LD (just once) and had a lot of reservations about the film. Loved the original score and the concept, felt that the original play was not up to the score in many respects. I felt that many scenes in the film were shot too close, and that the cutting and timing were awkward. HBO had a special with Richard Harris in the early 1980's that I did like.
I will however give it another look on Blu-ray and give it a fair shake since so many of you feel strongly about it.

 

[NY2LA]

Both Richard Burton and Julie Andrews were offered the film, both turned it down

I hadn't heard that before. I remember was Warner explaining his choice being based on sex appeal, snidely asking "Can you imagine two armies going to war over Julie Andrews?"
Funny by now no one has mentioned the Castle set being on Warner's backlot, having been adapted and used by another musical, then a TV series. Each time I've been on the Warner lot, I've wondered exactly where it was. I'm pretty sure there's an office building there now but which one...

 

[Jim*Tod]

I think maybe another director than Logan might have made a more visually dynamic film. I know Stanley Donen mentions in his book that he wished he could re-shoot it and do it right. The endless full face close ups are more distracting in the theatre than on home video. I can only imagine how it looked on the huge screens in the theatres where it was road shown. I think it was Judith Crist who commented that she became familiar with the dental work of the stars during the course of the film. It does appear to be somewhat slammed together and there are lots of fairly ugly zooms. Given the often spectacular set design, the camera never seems to be in quite the right place. Still... the score is amazing and Alfred Newman's arrangements are gorgeous. If Nero was not much more than a pretty face, I think ultimately Harris and most certainly Redgrave gave it the depth it needed. I am not sure the problems of the book of the musical though were ever quite resolved.
As a fan of the big budget road show musicals, I have to admit that the huge productions did not always best serve the material. HELLO DOLLY, as much as I enjoy it, has a light farce plot which is weighed down with the massive sets and crowds... the scale just overwhelms the material. Onstage, where I saw it with Channing in 1967, it was a stylized delight. I am not sure that Kelly figured out how to use the city Fox built for the production. Streisand, though miscast, is now pretty much what justifies this film, though it tends to die when she is offscreen. SOUTH PACIFIC, another Logan directed epic musical, tends to get lost in the scenery and its flat stagy blocking. Seeing it in its recent Lincoln Center revival, it was amazing how powerful it can be. I think by and large THE KING AND I, OKLAHOMA!, and SOUND OF MUSIC did work, even if the first two tended to be heavily rooted their stage versions.
But---whatever reservations I have about the final qualities of the films themselves, I do love those big musicals shot in large format processes and only hope over time all of them will show up on blu ray in great transfers.

 

[ahollis]

Originally Posted by GMpasqua /t/319939/a-few-words-about-camelot-in-blu-ray/30#post_3918208


.

In his book Logan mentions Warner gave him a deadline at which point he would pull the plug and what was shot was shot. This lead Logan to quickly film Arthur's round table monoluge in one afternoon and also a few other things. All was done on time.

At one point Redgrave wanted to sing "Take my to the Fair" in french and Logan told her she needed Alan J Learner's permission so she called him all afternoon (she already recorded the playback) but couldn't get a hold of him

When later asked what he would of done if Learner was home Logan replied - I gave her my phone number and I knew I wouldn't be home

Mr. Logan's book is a hoot to read, not sure if all of his memories were correct, but after meeting him shortly after I read the book, if the are not true, he certainly made then true. I was very interested in his take on Mr. Learner's "interferance" in both CAMELOT and PAINT YOUR WAGON. He said many times that he does not know why he took on Wagon after all the problems he had with Learner on CAMELOT.

I have posted this before and got my head handed back, but I am not sure Mr. Logan was as good a film director as he was a stage director. And yes I have seen PICNIC and SOUTH PACIFIC.

 

[Will Krupp]

Originally Posted by NY2LA /t/319939/a-few-words-about-camelot-in-blu-ray/30#post_3918263
I hadn't heard that before. I remember was Warner explaining his choice being based on sex appeal, snidely asking "Can you imagine two armies going to war over Julie Andrews?"

I THINK that was just a nasty sour grapes story Warner told to soothe his bruised ego after he was turned down. She was the biggest musical star in America when WB made CAMELOT. I guarantee you that she was asked and could have played it had she wanted .

 

[NY2LA]

I THINK that was just a nasty sour grapes story Warner told to soothe his bruised ego after he was turned down.  She was the biggest musical star in America when WB made CAMELOT.  I guarantee you that she was asked and could have played it had she wanted .

Maybe so, but Zanuck sure didn't want her for Dolly! - And she was the first to hear about it! (that funny story from Ernie Lehman).

 

[Jim*Tod]

I must admit I like PICNIC which has some smart use of Cinemascope. Arguably Monroe gave her best performance in his BUS STOP. And I have a soft spot for FANNY, his musical with the songs removed, though admittedly the rich underscore and Jack Cardiff's color lensing plus the great cast would have been hard to mess up. Still... SOUTH PACIFIC, PAINT YOUR WAGON, and CAMELOT.... not stellar work. I would tend to agree that he was more a stage director than a film director.

 

[Matt Hough]

Originally Posted by NY2LA /t/319939/a-few-words-about-camelot-in-blu-ray/30#post_3918293
Maybe so, but Zanuck sure didn't want her for Dolly! - And she was the first to hear about it! (that funny story from Ernie Lehman).

But she would have been just as wrong for Dolly! as Streisand was (but for different reasons). Camelot was written for her, so obviously a lot of people on the original team thought plenty would fight a war over her.