Backstage Book Club: Edition #5 - "From Camelot to Spamalot"

For as long as there have been human beings, there have been stories. Stories of kings and queens, knights and knaves, peasants and mages, and everything in between have haunted the majority of Western culture since the twelfth century, capturing the imagination of listeners across time and space. One of these legends looms above them all - that of King Arthur, and his round table.

Although his historical veracity is questionable, Arthur’s impact as a folklore hero cannot be denied, appearing as the lynchpin in legends that date back nearly a millennium. No King, living or dead, has had such a long-lasting legacy in the public eye. For the month of September, I had the honor of speaking with Megan Woller, a professor at Gannon University, about her new book, From Camelot to Spamalot, which examines numerous retellings of Arthurian Legend on stage and screen.

What first drew you to the Arthurian Legends?

Megan Woller: Lerner and Loewe’s Camelot initially attracted me to this topic. I had worked on the musical and film before from a different (but related!) perspective, analyzing the changes from the original Broadway production to the 1967 Hollywood film. After several years, I actually picked up T.H. White’s The Once and Future King to read for pleasure, and that novel is what sent me down the rabbit hole of Arthurian legend.

What value do you think Arthurian Legends have in the 21st century?

MW: In part, I think that this legend has proved so adaptable that its potential value changes and grows with nearly every generation. In the 21st century (especially post-Spamalot, which is where my book ends), you have versions that may stray from so-called traditional Arthurian legend. For instance, the popular BBC series Merlin from 2008-2012 made the title character a young man and significantly, had more of a focus on women and included people of color. Or a more recent example would be the new film The Green Knight starring Dev Patel. I haven’t seen it yet but am looking forward to seeing how it interprets the legend. The stories are so complex and have rich, complicated characters that people come back to again and again. It has always been the practice to update Arthurian legend to fit a particular place and time, and this century is no different.

You speak of the opaque intentions behind Mark Twain’s Connecticut Yankee, which was the initial text inspiration behind both a Rodgers and Hart musical, and a Bing Crosby film. Do you think those initial intentions matter when it comes to interpretation?

MW: Absolutely not! The appeal of Twain’s story has often been the “high-concept” of fantasy and/or time travel, coupled with the ability to make the “Yankee” nearly anyone from any time period. I do think it’s interesting to take into account the author’s intentions when looking at interpretations, but ultimately, a good adaptation can have its own goals. At times, there may be missed opportunities in many versions – but of course, not all audience members may be familiar with the source material in the first place.

The concept of fidelity is a throughline throughout From Camelot to Spamalot. How do the stories we tell change over time, and what can we learn from examining those differences?

MW: I don’t think fidelity should ever be a judgement of “how good” a version is but looking at what changes are made offers a lot of information. Why do some things remain the same but other things change? The answers vary, of course. At the same time, we can learn not only about the creators but their time and place. Differences in media plus aspects of identity and cultural expectations can play a major role in how stories are told as well as how they resonate with audiences. The sheer longevity and vastness of Arthurian legend attests to the fact that stories morph based on lots of societal factors.

Take the addition of the Grail, for instance – as Christianity spread/solidified throughout Europe, the search for Jesus’s cup from the Last Supper becomes a mainstay in the stories. New creators find new angles, which similarly have the potential to draw new audiences. In fact, this goes along with the second question in a lot of ways.

Lerner and Lowe’s Camelot streamlined the Arthurian legends in favor of emphasizing the love triangle between Arthur, Lancelot, and Guinevere. What made these depictions unique?

MW: In my opinion, the combination of White’s original characterization and the use of musical theater conventions/character types PLUS the idiosyncratic portrayal from Alan Jay Lerner and Frederick Loewe all work together to make the depictions unique – but also super influential. Love triangles are nothing new, but Lerner and Loewe tend towards a very particular type in which every member in the “triangle” loves the others in some way; part of what makes Arthur, Lancelot, and Guenevere’s situation particularly tragic is that they all love one another. As I’ve written elsewhere, Lerner takes particular interest in this kind of relationship, and it culminates in the film version of Paint Your Wagon from 1969, which has a polyamorous marriage between a woman and two men. Couple that with the songs, the use of conventions from operetta and American musical theater, and you have the musical’s basic version of the legend’s infamous love triangle. The single-minded focus of that relationship really highlights the depiction as well.

The Sword in the Stone is rarely listed amongst the pantheon of Disney Classics, although it came out squarely in the time frame - why, and what made the film unique amongst Arthurian adaptations?

MW: The Sword in the Stone came out during an interesting time in Disney history. In part, Walt Disney himself was focusing on other aspects of the company (planning the theme parks, for instance), and the company had diversified into live-action film and television. The success of Mary Poppins soon after Sword illustrates this change in focus as a mostly live-action movie (with some animated sequences, of course). Sword in the Stone comes at a very transitional time, and Disney won’t really get back into the swing of extremely successful and critically-acclaimed animated films until the “Disney Renaissance,” starting with The Little Mermaid (1989).

In terms of Arthurian adaptations, the focus on Arthur’s childhood is pretty rare. This time in the legendary monarch’s life was basically a T.H. White creation so while the particulars of Arthur’s conception and birth are older stories, his actual childhood is a 20th century addition. The Disney movie really takes White’s story and makes it for young children.

The term Camelot came to mean something very specific in the United States following the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. How did this affect Arthurian adaptations following the assassination?

MW: Since Camelot came to be associated with political idealism – and especially in reference to Kennedy’s life and administration being cut short – I think several adaptations play on a sense of nostalgia for a “better time.” The musical Camelot, of course, already had a lot of idealism threaded throughout, which is what made the show such a successful metaphor at the time. Moving forward, you definitely see how this association shaped the 1967 film version of the musical as well as later revivals and touring versions of the stage production.

Notably, the majority of the adaptations you discuss are produced by American creatives. What draws American artists to these deeply British legends?

MW: This is something that I’ve thought about a lot, and our cultural history with England obviously plays a pretty big role. Arthurian legend is only one example of the very deep cultural ties between the U.S. and the U.K. We could even point to the British Invasion and the prevalence of British musicals by creators such as Andrew Lloyd Webber as other indicators in the past several decades. Another factor involves the adoption of a historically white mythological tradition, and the difference in treatment between the legends and myths of indigenous people, for example, shows the problematic aspects of this history. Although a complicated, multi-faceted issue, it boils down to a lengthy history of American fascination with Britishness.

At what point does satire become tribute, in reference to the Monty Python film The Holy Grail?

MW: From the outset! Monty Python’s satire is so incredibly layered and smart that I definitely see tribute within it. Yes, they are absolutely pointing out many aspects that they find ridiculous in the legends (and especially cinematic Arthuriana). At the same time, The Holy Grail is so meticulous in its detail that there is a very clear sense of familiarity as well, which points to some level of if not fondness, kinship perhaps. To me, that has a lot to do with its devoted following.

The popularity of the Monty Python films, and the later musical Spamalot, is undeniable. Why do audiences flock to reimaginings of familiar material, such as the beloved-for-centuries tales of King Arthur and his court?

MW: I find this whole concept fascinating, and I believe there are several things going on with adaptations/reimaginings. Stories work in lots of ways. They allow us to share beliefs and values with others, learn about a time and place, and communicate with people across perceived boundaries. Stories with long traditions do all of these things (and more). There is also the fact that many people love the combination of familiarity plus novelty. Related is the idea of cover songs or sequels…. The familiarity of a reimagining can be comfortable and/or nostalgic.

However, there is also a pleasure in finding the differences.  Even more than that, a good adaptation hits 2 audiences: insiders and outsiders. It’s hard to please both people familiar with source material and those who aren’t, but when it happens, it’s incredible. A new version needs to strike the right chords with fans while also standing on its own. And it’s clear that works like Holy Grail/Spamalot drew on Arthurian legends in a way that found new audiences.

You can purchase a copy of From Camelot to Spamalot at this link

Make sure to check back with Backstage Book Club next month, when we will be covering Smile by Sarah Ruhl.

If you are interested in submitting a book for consideration, please contact Margaret at www.margaret-hall.com