OT: Phantom of the Opera movie review [long]
Todd H.
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/
tbar...@yahoo.com
Todd H. wrote:
> 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.
>
There is NOTHING that ALW has written that could be remotely
moving...unless you refer to people leaving the theatre in droves to
get away from the repetitive emotionless music he has written.
Penny
>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.
And, in the play, the Phantom gave Christine HIS own ring, not the one he
pulled off her neck that Raoul had given her. That totally didn't make any
sense. Why would she give the Phantom back Raoul's ring at the end. Dumb,
dumb.
Penny
John W. Kennedy
> The "a little illumination"
> transformation of the theater back to its former glory 1861 is jaw
> dropping.
I believe the subtitle plainly says "1870". It certainly isn't 1861;
other evidence in the film would make Christine seven years old in 1861.
Still, the date of 1870 is a queer one. An impossible one, in fact, to
anyone who knows even the basics of French history.
> Minnie Driver plays an interesting Carlotta. The Diva bit is way over
> the top,
I've got a couple of decades of professional opera under my belt; it
wasn't /much/ over the top. (I noticed that my wife and I were laughing
a lot more than the rest of the people in the theater.)
> Is Gerard Butler really the best a film of this budget could do?
Judging from certain remarks by Lloyd Webber, I /think/ they got the
performance they wanted. I don't think the Phantom should sound, when
singing, like a boxer from New York with a broken nose, but Lloyd Webber
has said that Butler's voice was what he wanted all along.
> Other random WTF? moments:
> Giri you little hottie, tell us, when did you have that
> daughter of yours anyway? When you were like 8?
Miranda Richardson is 46, y'know.
One curious mistake I noticed is that no-one involved with the film
seems to have been aware that conductor's scores for operas come in
several volumes -- one per act -- each one about the size of a Sunday
newspaper. The "scores" we see would just about contain one overture.
---
John W. Kennedy
"...if you had to fall in love with someone who was evil, I can see why
it was her."
-- "Alias"
Todd H.
Good point. Yeah, that all left me wondering "huh?" as well. I
couldn't remember the scene in the stage show well enough to contrast
it though...thanks for the reminder!
Todd H.
> Todd H. wrote:
> > The "a little illumination"
> > transformation of the theater back to its former glory 1861 is jaw
> > dropping.
>
> I believe the subtitle plainly says "1870".
Yer probably right. I didn't take notes during the movie. 8-) I got
1861 of of the original cast recording track list, which is when it
says Act 1 is set.
> > Minnie Driver plays an interesting Carlotta. The Diva bit is way over
> > the top,
>
> I've got a couple of decades of professional opera under my belt; it
> wasn't /much/ over the top. (I noticed that my wife and I were
> laughing a lot more than the rest of the people in the theater.)
Interesting!
> > Is Gerard Butler really the best a film of this budget could do?
>
> Judging from certain remarks by Lloyd Webber, I /think/ they got the
> performance they wanted. I don't think the Phantom should sound, when
> singing, like a boxer from New York with a broken nose, but Lloyd
> Webber has said that Butler's voice was what he wanted all along.
Oy. May I just say I'm thrilled he didn't get what he wanted all
along any sooner then!
> > Other random WTF? moments:
> > Giri you little hottie, tell us, when did you have that
> > daughter of yours anyway? When you were like 8?
>
> Miranda Richardson is 46, y'know.
No kiddin? [cheers and applause for whatever she's got goin for her then]
> One curious mistake I noticed is that no-one involved with the film
> seems to have been aware that conductor's scores for operas come in
> several volumes -- one per act -- each one about the size of a
> Sunday newspaper. The "scores" we see would just about contain one
> overture.
Yeah, as a musician that did strike me, but no as glaringly as the
other things. So much wrong with this film that could've been fixed
with a little more care without spending another dollar. Ah well.
I suspect it'll drop off the charts quickly and rightfully so.
Best Regards,
Stephen Farrow
quite moving, though that was partly down to Maria Friedman's astonishing
performance in the lead (and also to Angela Christian and Jill Paice, both of
whom were very, very good indeed). I wasn't moved for a second by "Phantom of
the Opera", "Aspects of Love" or "Whistle Down the Wind", true, and "Sunset
Boulevard" wasn't anything like as good as it shouldn't have been, but I
certainly wouldn't write off his entire body of work.
--
Stephen
BUFFY: How've you been?
AMY: Rat. You?
BUFFY: Dead.
Todd H.
I agree with you Stephen. But, the post was flame bait, so I didn't
bother. Years ago, maybe I'd have wasted time convincing someone who
"didn't get it" to "get it" but if tbarry22 hasn't been moved by
anything ALW has done, then it's just his loss I suppose.
If one isn't moved by the end of a stage production of PTO, then
either the production wasn't very good, or they've missed what (for
me) makes the whole thing work beyond the eye and ear candy aspects of
the show. I know I did the first time I saw it even though I thought
I "knew" all the songs.
Steve Newport
jwk...@attglobal.net (John W. Kennedy) <<<The Diva bit is way over
the top>>>
----------------------------
wasn't /much/ over the top.
And nothing compared to being backstage at AIN'T MISBEHAVIN'
dflo...@qnet.com
Thank you!
Todd H.
> That was FANTASTIC. A pleasure to read.
>
> Thank you!
Thanks for the kind words.
Boy was I fired up that day! LOL.
Best Regards,
MIZS...@pistolpackinmama.com
times. That being said, I have my own WTF moments:
1. In the beginning of the film, the aged Raoul is still referred to as
a Viscompte (vice count). However, by the time he finally makes it to
the grave at the end of the film, it appears his wife was a full blown
countess and not a vice-countess. Or is there no such thing in French
aristocracy? Presumably, Raoul's parents have long since passed or they
were older than Clint Eastwood's mom at the Oscars (nothing against
Mrs. Eastwood, more power to her). Should not Raoul, as an old man,
been the Count de Chagny (sp).
2. Where the hell were Christine's stockings after she awoke from the
lair? She passed out with them on and awoke with them nowhere to be
seen.
3. It still bothers me that Christine and Raoul were "childhood
sweethearts" when he was supposedly 14 at the house by the sea and she
must have been no older than 7 because that is when her father died and
she came to live in the opera dormitories. Now, that is all well and
good but no 14 year boy, no matter HOW immature, is going to spend
countless hours in an attic with a 7 year old girl. Unless, perhaps, he
was in training for a Michael Jackson role...
4. carrying the sweethearts thing ever onward, in the film, they are in
love before they have ever gone out together and kiss on the roof???? I
think the sequence of events was a little different in the play.
5. Oh yea, Bouquet's hanging - shouldn't his eyes have bulged out if he
was truly strangled???
6. More on the rooftop - did anybody besides me think the Phantom
looked a little like Batman in Gotham when he screams "You will curse
the day you did not do all that the Phantom asks of you..." and the
camera pans away to show crusader-like cape billowing on top of a
gothic building.
With all of that, Patrick Wilson was a hell of a Raoul - far better
than the wimps I saw onstage in San Francisco. Of course, he was given
an expanded part to work with, which I am sure didn't hurt. But anyone
who has been on RATM since 1996 knows how I feel about the wonderful
Mr. Wilson.
Tim Gowen
> I enjoy this film, I must say, and have seen it multiple upon multiple
> times. That being said, I have my own WTF moments:
WTF am I watching this again for? :-) Only kidding, I quite liked it
but wouldn't want to watch it in the cinema in one sitting again for a
while.
The IMDB trivia section has a lot of info about the film, including the
rather frightening "Charlotte Church and Anne Hathaway were considered
for the role of Christine Daaé."
You may want to add some goofs here:
http://uk.imdb.com/title/tt0293508/goofs
Tim
--
Tim Gowen
Steve Newport
for 12 years as one of the opera managers-- while putting his other kids
through college. I remember him from the tour of THE FANTASTICKS and NOW
IS THE TIME FOR ALL GOOD MEN. He was also the Peron I saw in EVITA. He
did that for 3 years.
Stephen Farrow
> <MIZS...@PISTOLPACKINMAMA.COM> wrote:
>
>
>>I enjoy this film, I must say, and have seen it multiple upon multiple
>>times. That being said, I have my own WTF moments:
>
>
> WTF am I watching this again for? :-) Only kidding, I quite liked it
> but wouldn't want to watch it in the cinema in one sitting again for a
> while.
>
> The IMDB trivia section has a lot of info about the film, including the
> rather frightening "Charlotte Church and Anne Hathaway were considered
> for the role of Christine Daaé."
Anne Hathaway's name was also being bandied about for Laura Fairlie in "The
Woman in White" at one point.
--
Stephen
Nothing bonds two businessmen together more than one of them finding the
other hungover with a hooker in their bed the next morning.
Tim Gowen
> Anne Hathaway's name was also being bandied about for Laura Fairlie in
> "The Woman in White" at one point.
She really needs to change her image by making a film that does that and
can get wide release. (I know there's one out there but it's not coming
to the UK it seems). She can at least sing very well and is quite
funny.
I was surprised that the Katie Holmes idea got out. I'd have thought
the conversation would be:
"Katie Holmes?"
"No."
Although she's OK as an actress I don't see her carrying off any role in
Phantom.
Tim
--
Tim Gowen
Jazz
as
a Viscompte (vice count). However, by the time he finally makes it to
the grave at the end of the film, it appears his wife was a full blown
countess and not a vice-countess. Or is there no such thing in French
aristocracy? Presumably, Raoul's parents have long since passed or they
were older than Clint Eastwood's mom at the Oscars (nothing against
Mrs. Eastwood, more power to her). Should not Raoul, as an old man,
been the Count de Chagny (sp). <<<
Actually according to the original novel by Gaston Leroux, Raoul has an
older brother who is the Comte de Chagne (count) making Raoul the
Viscount.
John W. Kennedy
WHAT?! (Goes to Gutenberg to check.) OK, that makes no sense, but it is
what the book says. Either the rules of the French peerage are very
different from those of the British, or Leroux committed a significant
howler.
A viscount was a deputy count back in the middle ages, but for a very
long time now it has been only another title granted by the Crown,
higher than baron and lower than count (or earl).
---
John W. Kennedy
"Compact is becoming contract,
Man only earns and pays."
-- Charles Williams. "Bors to Elayne: On the King's Coins"
Cornhuskeress
However, also in the novel, Phillipe, the Comte de Chagny is killed, putting
Raoul in that position.
~~Geri~~
(Sanctimonious Cornhusker Beeyotch)
"But clearly ... genius has turned to madness."