Camelot.

In "Camelot" at Lincoln Center we get a modern rendition of a classic musical. Once it starred Robert Goulie, Julie Andrews and Venessa Redgrave; it is considered a powerful musical by historical standards. When people talk about great musicals from yesteryear, they talk "South Pacific", "Brigadoon", "My Fair Lady" and it goes on and on. "Camelot" too is in many of those conversations.

Confusing as to why Aaron Sorkin would change this classic to make it more modern, less beliveable and less likeable. But this is what he did. Like Ibsen's "A Doll's House" earlier this season, the Queen is more poweful it appears than king Arthur. So too is Lancelot, he is the alpha male in this production. In a "Doll's House", the wife holds all the cards as well. Both recent shows never even attempt to incorporate that when these plays were written, woman took a back seat to men.

Alan Jay Lerner and Frederick Loewe had a masterpiece, and four Tony Awards to boot. The big question is why are modern writers trying to change the dynamics of these great classics so much? Traditionalists do not want to see it for the most part and the younger, more modern crowd usually don't show up. Why tickets sell for this "Camelot" is because of the Lincoln Center subscriber base.

This musical is almost unrecognizable from its original format... the king is meant to be a buffon, his wife talks down to him and Lancelot rules this show. Under director Bartlett Sher, the two never mesh as a married couple; they seem more like teenage friends instead. Even Lancelot and the queen who become entangled have no chemistry whats-so-ever.

The choreography by Byron Easley never takes the dancing deep enough to get excited about. "The Lusty Month of May" was plain awful as well as stupid. "Fie on Goodness" wasn't any better, it was to slapsticky and over reached for laughs. While most of the songs sung were good, as was the costumes and the sets, the choreography really took the starch out of the show.

If Broadway is to bring back the classics and make them modern like they have been as of late, they will continue to get a rude awakening at the box office. Even with big name stars in lead roles, the box office has been teetering as of late for a reason, and that reason is that many of the shows are to preachy, too woke and the mainstream public does not want to see it.

If writers want to take the classics and bend them how they see fit, maybe they should just write new plays and musicals and leave the classics alone. Why try to rewrite history and change the past. In "Camelot" the English just won a war against France. The story is the story, you can't write in what you think should be right and try to illiminate past history.

The other noteworthy problem to this modern version is that Arthur has a illegitimate child with Morgan Le Fey. When Arthur visits her, she too is an independent woman, a scientist, actually. She is written in this production to also be more confident and smarter than the king. The two woman in Arthur's life in this modern version are smarter, stronger and more insightful than Arthur. Sorkin makes the king into a modern day "dude" and it comes of as pathetic.

Broadway will always need the great revivals, but not if they are going to make them unrecognizable to the traditionalists.

www.swmnimbus.org, Mann About Town, Metropolitan Magazine, My Life Publications, Tony Awards, Robert Goulie, Julie Andrews, Vanessa Redgrave, Some Like It Hot, Beautiful Noise, MJ The Musical, Harry Potter, Six, &Juliette, Peter Pan Goes Wrong, Summer 1976.