Submitted by Irene, Mar 8, 2008 20:05

I Just saw King Arthur at NYCO. GORGEOUS music and exquisite word setting. Well, it is Purcell after all. I could not in any way fault the singing of the soloists or of the wonderful NYCO chorus or the dancing or the playing of the orchestra. BUT...what really was the point exactly? It was all so diffuse. For me it just did not hang together.. Tossing out the Dryden text might at first glance seem to be a brilliant humanitarian gesture, but then there needs to be some other thread that holds together and propels a theatre piece, musical or otherwise, for 2 hours other than whimsy. Mr. Morris says that thread is love. Well, yes, I guess that could be it, but then why was this so devoid of any real emotional core? Words spoke of love, to be sure, and much of the music was redolent of it, but where were any "characters" for us to invest in or care whether thy did or didn't find love? For me it was about loads of admirable talent put in service of a cleverly contructed surface without any resonance. An anti-Platée: so many of the same wonderful talents and instincts coming to bear, but without the one thing that would make it resonate---caring about anyone on stage.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.