"Camelot" Successful In Spite Of The Critics

Press, Volume C, Issue 29427, 1 February 1961, Page 18

" Camelot " Successful In Spite Of The Critics

[From JOHN MALONE in New York] Broadway’s seven most powerful men, the drama critics of New York’s daily newspapers, turned their thumbs down on the new mammoth musical “Camelot." While two of the critics praised the show, the other five reviews were damming even when they were being kind to its authors, Alan Jay Lerner and Frederick Loewe, the creators of “My Fair Lady.”

Led by Walter Kerr, of the “Herald-Tribune,” and Howard Taubman, of the “Times,” they sprinkled their columns with acid comments—“ponderous,” "strange and awkward,” "wayward gestures”—and even accused it of leaning “dangerously in the direction of oldhat operetta.” The verdict of the critics was clear: failure. On Broadway, where the box-office success of productions hinges on favourable reviews, the result should be equally clear. "Camelot” would have to close and Messrs Lerner and Loewe would have to try again to .repeat the fabulous success of “My Fair Lady.” In spite of all this, Lerner and Loewe were able this week, in the classic words of Liberace, to "cry all the way to the bank.” For Broadway’s critics had met their match in “Camelot.” The 500,000-dollar successor to "My Fair Lady” is a smash hit and is assured of a long run. Easing any pangs of artistic frustration which Lerner and Loewe may have felt from reading the reviews in the knowledge that even before “Camelot” opened at Broadway’s Majestic Theatre the advance sale at the box-office was already about three million dollars. And not since the palmy days after the overnight success of “My Fair Lady” has Broadway seen such a scramble for tickets. Even though it isn’t another “Fair Lady” it is the show to see on Broadway this year. Run of Bad Luck Before its opening on Broadway, the musical had run into

e so much bad luck and so many i d difficulties that the production i seemed to be jinxed. " After “My Fair Lady’s" sue- 1 h cess, Lerner and Loewe spent 1 ,’’ years looking for a suitable subject for another show. , Finally they decided on a " novel by British author, T. H. ’ '• White called “The Once and 1 I- Future King,” a long, saga of ’ the days of King Arthur and 1 . g his knights. With Lerner handling the 1 e book and lyrics and Loewe .. composing the score, they set ' j. out to compress into one musi- 1 e cal the Arthurian legend. < But shortly after work on I 0 the show started its costume 1 d designer, Adrian, of film fame, y died. s The complex sets for the ! spectacular production started 1 r to cause trouble and took i s months to straighten out. ' if Late in September, the > y "Camelot” caravan, amounting 1 to eight train waggons of I d scenery and 200 persons, in- 1 eluding 46 stagehands. 41 r musicians and 56 actors, headh ded for a trial run in Tor--0 onto, Canada. On the first night the show c ran three hours and 40 mind utes, too long by more than n an hour. e Feverishly, Lerner and Moss e Hart set to work to cut the l_ show to Broadway length. e They postponed the New York e opening to give them a chance. L„ Then Lerner collapsed and ( was rushed to a Toronto hos- , y pital with a bleeding ulcer. . ’’ Hart Withdraws * a The whole burden of paring 1 “Camelot” fell on Hart, who i ; r is an outstanding playwright o as well as director. The effort of working almost around the clock was too much for Hart. He collapsed with a I- heart attack and took over ;o the hospital room from Ler-

ner. The doctors declared Hart completely out of show. Lerner staggered back to the task of rewriting the production from start to finish. Unanimity Ironically, it is Alan Lerner, without whose effort in the last six weeks “Camelot" would never have reached Broadway, who is the culprit for the show's failure to please the critics. With convincing unanimity, they describe Lerner’s book for the show as failure to master adequately the classic triangle of Arthur Guinevere and Lancelot. The bible of show business. “Variety,” says: "Camelot is far short of a triumph, with a heavy, humourless book in a sort of operetta treatment of the King Arthur Legend and, in spite of the much ballyhooed cutting, overlong to the point of tedium.”—(Associated Newspapers Feature Services.)