MovieChat Forums > Camelot (1967) Discussion > Julie andrews and Camelot

Julie andrews and Camelot

posted 18 years ago by Louisville88
27 replies | jump to latest

There has been a puzzlement with board members who do not know why Julie Andrews was not in Camelot when she created the role on Broadway. I found an old article that came out when Julie didn't get the part. Here's the quick read through.

Jack Warner learned his lesson when he didn't cast her in My Fair Lady so he offered her the role. Josh Logan didn't want her because she didn't look the part and he didn't think she could successfully act the new script which called for drama instead of comedy. Since Warner held the strings, he wanted Julie. Julie didn't want to do it stating she was booked for the next five years. Warner lost and Logan was left to cast. He chose Vanessa Redgrave and she ended up receiving rave reviews (including she was the best change over the the Broadway show) and many nominations and awards (except the Oscar. It was 1967 for PETE'S SAKE!)

That's the true reason.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] justoldbill 18 years ago

Josh Logan always credited his son Tom's enthusiasm of Redgrave's performance in MORGAN! as the basis of his choice.

[–] rorysa 18 years ago

Uh, let's see... the Best Actress Academy Award nominees for 1967: Katherine Hepburn ("Guess Who's Coming to Dinner"--winner), Anne Bancroft ("The Graduate"), Faye Dunaway ("Bonnie and Clyde"), Dame Edith Evans ("The Whisperers"), and Audrey Hepburn ("Wait Until Dark"). Redgrave's omission couldn't and shouldn't even have shocked Redgrave.

[–] Louisville88 18 years ago

If Redgrave were nominated, and I feel, singing included, she should have been, but that's me, she could have switched places with Edith Evans who didn't really shine for me like the others did.

By the Oscar I meant that 1967 was stiff competition.

[–] Mikurtis 18 years ago

I'm going to get burned for this comment... but, great as Katharine Hepburn was, I don't really think her performance in "Guess Who's Coming For Dinner" was that Oscar-worthy---Redgrave's perfromance in "Camelot" was better

wow

I can't believe I said that

[–] rorysa 18 years ago

Me either.

[–] Mikurtis 18 years ago

Just that Katahrine Hepburn delivered so many great performances in so many great movies... and, in "Guess Who's Coming Home For Dinner" (though a good----though somewhat dated movie), she just seemed like... well, Katharine Hepburn

[–] LeiaKat 18 years ago

It would not have been dated, as the Oscar is the same year. The movie also bacame an interest study into race relations at the time, something people today might not understand as well.

Julie Andrews would have been wonderful in the movie, but after playing a long run of a role on the stage, some actors choose to move on and not join the movie cast.

Stop Genocide NOW

[–] chris-inobsession 18 years ago

She wasnt asked, warner and logan decided there was no way itd be convincing having two people giving their lives for julie andrews. Although i would have loved to see her in it and to see what effect it would have had on the films popularity, I think redgrave was pritty perfect

Perfection in darkness

[–] LeiaKat 18 years ago

Actually she and Richard Burton were both considered for the movie, but each hearing the other wasn't very interested passed.

Stop Genocide NOW

[–] chris-inobsession 18 years ago

Andrews was never contacted

Perfection in darkness

[–] LeiaKat 18 years ago

While possibly not officially, she was up for early consideration. She was working on 'Modern Millie', among other projects, at the time, and not very interested.

Stop Genocide NOW

[–] Louisville88 18 years ago

She was asked, but said no. Warner wanted her, he learned from My Fair Lady, but Andrews said no.

[–] chris-inobsession 18 years ago

Really? This may be true, my info is only comming froma Richard Harris Biog, but there it was said that Logan and Warner, against feelings from everyone else, said that they would never ask her because they could never see her convincing as a mistress nor as someone whom could send two powerul men mad with needs for her.

Perfection in darkness

[–] Louisville88 18 years ago

Your right about that, but it was Logan who felt that way the most. Warner might have had those feelings, but he learned from My Fair Lady.

[–] TANSD76 12 years ago

That's funny because that was my thought watching Vanessa Redgrave. She wasn't a convincing mistress and I didn't see her as someone who could send two powerful mad with desire. She was waifish and almost boyish. She struck me more as a girl than a woman, the flighty girl who sang "The Simple Joys of Maidenhood" without irony who never really grew up, and almost fairy-like, was idealized by these two men. I think she was believable in the way a traditional vampy actress might not have been but I actually found her performance quite flat through much of the movie and I did not see why she was so alluring.

[–] FloatingOpera7 18 years ago

Hello everyone! I love this movie as much as everyone eventhough I'm only 25. I have seen it twice now. Recently through Netflix and my first time years and years ago as a girl. Being young, I never saw Julie Andrews in anything other than "Mary Poppins" on VHS and "Sound of Music" on VHS. Her great singing voice is never in question. She was born for Broadway and is in fact a Broadway icon, and one that is still living and doing great. But a movie is not the same as the stage musical. For Camelot, Guenevere should appear more seductive, more sensual and more mature. In '67, Julie Andrews looked awfully young and had only begun to get famous through "Mary Poppins" and "Sound of Music". I have no idea how she was a convincing Guenevere on stage. Vanessa acts and sings wonderfully but more than anythin she acts the hell out of the part. She convinces me as an adulterous, passionate and melancholy seductress. She is not as sugary and sweet and "Disney Princess" -ish as Julie Andrews is. I can't see Julie "cheating" on the King. One can see Vanessa Redgrave, who in the film even appears semi-nude with long, "Eve of the Bible" type hair as a woman who can commit adultery. So in my opinion, the casting of Redgrave as Guenevere was perfect and right on the spot.

[–] markedjuan 18 years ago

I agree too. Redgrave ought to have taken Hepburn's slot (Kate's, not Audrey's).

[–] Louisville88 18 years ago

Kate was great in it. True, not her best, I still think Edith Evans should have been repleaced with Redgrave.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Ripshin 18 years ago

I always found Redgrave to be the weak link. She speaks half the melodies in a musical. Plus, Logan was not a strong musical director, as "South Pacific" testifies. In the mid-80s, while in film school, I viewed the film with Logan in attendance. It didn't work for me then, and it still doesn't today.

[–] Louisville88 18 years ago

Angela Lansbury called Logan, "A great musical director."

[–] Ripshin 18 years ago

The results speak for themselves.

[–] Louisville88 18 years ago

I think she meant for stage because he directed her in Mame. I will say, however, that I love Camelot but cannot stand South Pacific. Odd.

[–] DryToast 16 years ago

<<I think she meant for stage because he directed her in Mame.>>

I think you are right, she must have meant Logan directing for the stage, but Gene Saks directed Lansbury in Mame.

"Oh so we know French in Balham but not Latin?"

[–] shulma2002 15 years ago

Your story makes sense but at the time I recall hearing rumors that Miss Andrews held a grudge against Jack Warner for giving her Eliza Doolittle role to Audrey Hepburn so when offered her role in Camelot, she refused. If Miss Andrews writes her biography, maybe we'll learn the truth. There are 2 sides to every story.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]