Director Joel Schumaker should be heralded or shot depending on the
scene you're watching in this film that bounced between dazzling and
infuriating to this long-time PTO fan.
The opening scenes are simply astounding--artfully shot replicating
the look of ancient black and white film stock for the "future" scenes
of the elderly Raoul and Giri in 1905. The "a little illumination"
transformation of the theater back to its former glory 1861 is jaw
dropping.
It's moments of cinematic genius like this that make the countless
ham-fisted elements of the film so ungodly infuriating. With a little
more effort and a couple different casting choices we'd have a
wonderful film to enjoy. But alas, it's just not to be. What Chicago
managed to do on screen to improve and go beyond its stage production
was not duplicated here by any stretch.
Emmy Rossum as Christine is enchanting. Her look and voice have all
the elements you need for Christine, but sadly, Hollywood had to sex
up the role and anytime she's near the Phantom, a strap falls down, or
we have a see through dress, or a revealed garter--all elements that
undermine the innocence that define the character theatre goers know
and appreciate. And in her "debut" scene filling in for
Carlotta...was it just me or did anyone else wonder if her arms were
strangely welded to her side conjuring Seinfeldian thoughts? A
convincing opera performance isn't just about singing--a little
direction there and you'd have a great scene.
I'm happy to say that I vastly preferred the film version of Raoul as
played by Patrick Wilson to the intolerable cheeseball we endure in
the stage version. I was thrilled to hear spoken dialog in the
"Little Lotti" dressing room scene versus the campy through-sung
rendition of the original cast recording. There were other liberties
taken in the writing, however that sent this character a little out
into the "WTF?" category. For instance, why on earth would a
swashbuckling Raoul--in a death's duel with the suddenly vulnerable
Phantom--pass on the opportunity to kill the bloodthirsty Phantom in
the graveyard scene? Are we to believe a few words from Christine
were enough to pull a man with a bleeding shoulder back from running
him through? Join me in my head-shaking "WTF?" at this abortion of a
rewrite. What happened to the invincibility and the mania of the
Phantom that is so necessary to get an audience to hate him before we
can be swayed to pity him at the story's conclusion? Oh, or is that
little point on which the entire story really turns just too complex
for moviegoers? I digress. :-)
Minnie Driver plays an interesting Carlotta. The Diva bit is way over
the top, and it's hard to buy a thin hottie in that role after seeing
so many more stereotypically opera-plump Carlottas in many stage
versions. But somehow, it was kind of fun.
The theater owners Firmin and Andre were capably played. I've seen
stage versions however, where they were extremely likeable, hilarious
bumblers and schmoozers. These guys did okay in the film though.
And now we get to the character on which the whole film hinges, and
whose performance sadly makes us long to be in Buquet's shoes.
Is Gerard Butler really the best a film of this budget could do?
The Phantom is complex character who is many things, but being defined
by chiseled good looks, superhero swagger, and "wimpy voice" really
aren't among them. Nearly no scene with this guy really worked
because he was so wrong for this part. First of all, he's a hell of a
lot better looking than Raoul. Second, when we finally get to see his
face long after enduring the entire mask removal scene with his hand
in front of his face, we come to find that he's far from horribly
disfigured. With Hollywood makeup and setup times, is this really as
horrible as we could make this guy look? And what happened to the
left side of his face? Magically once the mask is removed, the
radiant chiseled bright eyed left side of his face mystically falls to
crap with the revelation of his disfigured side. What did some sort
of virus jump across and immediately infect him with the removal of
his mask? It just doesn't work.
It also doesn't work that the Phantom looks fit, thin, and somewhere
in his 20's or early 30's. When an also-underaged and far too
attractive Madame Giri recounts the Phantom's past as a boy, I'm left
wondering if she must be talking about last summer versus a distant
past.
It doesn't work that the high long notes of his signature tunes are so
clearly the work of ProTools and not Gerard Butler. "He canna sing
it. 'e doesna have the voice." It's a hugely unconvincing totally
synthetic note he hits and holds in Music of the Night. Michael
Crawford where are you when we need you?
The script rewrites on the Phantom's backstory are also infuriatingly
unbelievable. Somehow, the film would have us believe that he went
from tortured sideshow freak to having Giri rescue him into the opera
house from which he never left again. But, magically he became an
inventor and architect of genius proportions with no other resources
than what he could find in the Opera house? Again, WTF? The musical
tells a far more plausible tale that I think a movie going audience
could certainly accept. Why rewrite this part of the story only to
replace it with something that lends itself to film no better, and
moreover... makes no friggin sense?
Finally, at the story's climax, where Christine kisses him, the
Phantom is stupefied, sobbing, leading to the reprise line of
"Masquerade..." it just doesn't work to have a fit, young,
bare-chested Phantom doing this scene. Hell the kiss doesn't even
work as a point of contrast because Christine looked like she was
ready to make out with this young handsome bloke the first time they
went down into the lair. Auuuughhh!!!
Where'd the older, Darth-Vader like, creepy father figure, omniscient,
omnipresent, and seemingly all powerful horribly disfigured
genius/magician/murderer who is -- in just one kiss -- transformed and
revealed to be a sensitive, tortured romantic who turned to evil as a
byproduct of his horribly abused and tortured youth -- where'd that
guy go? Who signed off on replacing him with a kinky Batman-like
figure with a few scars and a hair or two out of place on half of his
face?
Other random WTF? moments:
Giri you little hottie, tell us, when did you have that
daughter of yours anyway? When you were like 8?
Do we really need some unconvincing computer generated fire
erupting out of the opera house windows after the chandelier
disaster? Take some of that FX budget and make me a good
magical lasso would ya?
How can a movie with its special FX capabilities choose to
eliminate all the "magical" elements of the Phantom's
repertoire of demonic tricks?
Why are people running into the basement of an opera house
that's burning to the ground in explosions?
Why does Meg look like she's wearing a patent leather cat suit
when she comes out of the water at the end, and then is
completely dry in the next shot?
Why didn't Raoul use his unbound legs to kick the phantom's
ass at the end when it seemed he was barely even tied up by
the arms to begin with? Where'd the magical lasso go? I
mean, a crudely cantilevered rope the Phantom has to pull is
the best we can do here?
How can the gondola look more real as a pole-propelled water
craft on stage than they made it look on screen when they
actually had the benefit of water and a larger set budget?
How'd Raoul figure out that an underwater water valve would
magically activate a reversal of chain-driven gears on a
grating in France in the late 1800's? Boy it's sure good that
he did. I mean, without it, we wouldn't have a Hunt for Red
October moment in Phantom of the Opera.
Boy--how far _is_ Christine's father's grave into that damned
cemetery? Baby, you'd be a bit less cold if most of your
clothing weren't dragging through snow there. Cover up,
you'll catch your death.
Gee, I guess no one would possibly notice the difference
between the Phantom and Piangi when the Phantom replace him in
the debut of Don Juan Triumphant. Or was this too
intentionally dumbed down for the movie going masses? Part of
what makes that scene work well on stage is the slow
revelation of the Phantom's plan for this opening.
Brilliant moments in the film, however include:
Cinematography. This is an extraordinarily well-shot
film. The 1905 scenes look fabulous. The opening is jaw
dropping. I'd love to know how they got that old look. The
backstage at the Opera is amazing. The tunneling shots down
through cracks as we first see the Labyrinth are very
effective.
The rooftop scene punches through very well with the lurking
Phantom in a way the stage version never really got quite
right. The discarded Rose is well used as a symbol there.
Buquet's hanging is terrifying. You know what's coming, but
wow is that a thrilling and fabulous sequence on the catwalks.
Now, I'm not sure how he fell that far though without his head
popping off, but holy crap, what a great conflict scene
leading up to it.
The cemetery scene looks great. The constantly walking bit is
the only distraction to very moving take on "wishing you were
somehow here again." And of course it all falls to poo with
the obligatory swashbuckling scene that makes no sens.
Music direction. Wow. Trumpets in Masquerade encircling the
audience in the surround channels -- just wonderful. The
music throughout improved nicely on the well-recorded 1987
cast recording, and presentation on stage. Thank god the
horrible disco synth has been updated to something more subtle
in the Phantom of the Opera tune.
Clearly I got my money's worth from the film, as obviously it stirred
a lot of emotion. I just wish it could be more enthusiastic urging
everyone to see it because of its storytelling prowess.
That ALW was actually involved in the making of this film shocked me,
because the film managed to leave the moviegoing audience out of what
makes this not only an interesting story, but one that (properly
executed) can also be extremely moving.
--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/
|
