*** Official PHANTOM OF THE OPERA Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[Jordan_E]

What always cracked me up, in both the stage and the movie, was that after the Phantom let them go at the end, they go ahead and sing that song again as they leave, as if rubbing it in while leaving the brokenhearted Phantom! I always thought: "What a pair of assholes!"

 

[Haggai]

Sure, none of it is very realistic, but I thought the story worked well enough on its own terms for most of the way through. Like when the stage-hand gets hanged on-stage during the performance where Carlotta gets the lead instead of Christine, I wasn't thinking, "well, whatever, that would never happen," since it made sense within the terms of the story. But, a swordfight, followed by "no, not this way!" and the two of them riding off? Uh, what did they think was going to happen to him?

I thought that maybe the resolution of the graveyard scene could have focused on her conflicted feelings for the Phantom in a different way--maybe have Raoul whisk her away at the last moment, and she's thankful on the one hand for being saved, but angry on the other hand for being taken away from her father figure. Finishing with a swordfight seemed pretty silly to me. And, if the Masquerade number had the Phantom off-stage issuing his demands about producing Don Juan, with his singing voice booming out over the whole ballroom, the climax in the opera house would have made a lot more sense. Make it so that Christine is the only one in the opera house who knows that her mysterious new duet partner is the Phantom; everyone else in the company would just be suspicious, worried but unsure (until he's unmasked), since they still wouldn't be positive that the Phantom is even for real. The Phantom's power over the opera company is mostly due to his shadowy presence, literally behind the scenes, with most of them not even believing in his existence, so why have him show up halfway through at a party where they're all gathered?

 

[Michael Reuben]

That's how it's supposed to be, and all I can tell you is that it works in the theater. This may be just another example of the film being too faithful to the stage show.

M.

 

[Haggai]

I didn't not care about the Phantom, but I definitely cared more about Christine. It might have been the performances for me--I thought Butler was fine, but Rossum really had me transfixed. Another story-related point here is perhaps that I was expecting some sort of tragic resolution for both of them--certainly the Phantom loses everything, but then we see that Christine lived a long life with Raoul, so where's the dramatic resolution with her? It would be better if the breaking of the link between her and the Phantom took a central role: he loses her, but she loses the desire/ability/etc. to sing and perform, without his inspirational presence in her life. Or something like that. It'd be tough to get that across, either on stage or on screen, but I think something along those lines would definitely make for a better resolution.

In the stage play, do they also all see the Phantom standing in front of them at the Masquerade? I'll take your word for that it works in a good stage production, when he joins her on-stage at the end without anyone else realizing who he is. But I couldn't help thinking, "wait a minute, don't they know it's him?" during that climactic scene. I don't think my suggestion, or something like it, would have been too hard to incorporate. You can get nice and cinematic with reaction shots to an off-screen presence, that could have worked pretty well.

Also, during the Masquerade number, when one guy does a solo dance bit at the top of the stairs, I thought, "hmm, is he vogueing?" The play is from around 1990, so I guess that might explain it. Strike a pose!

 

[Michael Reuben]

Yes. He appears and delivers the score of Don Juan Triumphant. But everyone's in costume, and it's not like anyone gets a good look at him. Christine is the only member of the company who's seen him up close.

M.

 

[Haggai]

I should amend what I said earlier about the movie feeling like it was more about Christine--Michael is of course correct that it's about both of them, a variation on Beauty and the Beast. What I think I was trying to say is that while the Phantom is obviously a tragic figure, the resolution of the story doesn't also put Christine in that role, which is what I was expecting, in some form or another. For him to bear the entire brunt of the tragic developments in the end throws the balance between the two of them out of whack.

 

[Simon Massey]

This was my main problem with the film. The sets and design of the film were great yet I still felt this sense that a large part of the film was visually unimaginative, especially with the title song. I was expecting so much more really, especially with this being our introduction to the Phantom. The film should be an opportunity to visually expand from the limitations of the theatre and Schumacher seemed content to limit himself to a theatrical production. I am more tempted to lay the blame at the director's feet than Lloyd Webber as Evita didnt have these problems.

The other problem was the black and white segments. Apart from the opening and closing moments, there were pretty pointless scene transitions and added nothing. In fact the closing sequence doesn't really add much to the film either.

Gerard Butler took a little getting used to as I was expecting someone a little older but once we got to the Music of the Night I thought he was great, especially in the final act of the film. Emma Rossum was amazing.

A good film but could have been better. Still I have been waiting a long time for a Phantom film so I am pleased that so much of it worked.

 

[Ernest Rister]

I think ALW's take on the Phantom in his musical was something akin to parental love, not red-blooded-you're-so-hot-I-want-to-make-babies love. The Phantom wanted to own Christine, and for her to serve him. He wanted to live vicariously through her, and he attacked her rivals like a parent looking to remove child's competition. He reminds me of that Texas Cheerleader mom who put a hit on a fellow cheerleader, or that guy who smacked Nancy Kerrigan in the knee to make things easier for Tanya Harding. That's who the Phantom is in the stage version. There was something almost asexual about his relationship with Christine, maybe even homosexual, in that the Phantom really wants to BE Christine, but is trapped in the shadows in his deformity and his gender. Hence, his obssession with her and his parental dominating force over her life.

For this reason, I was really not surprised that ALW chose Schumacher to helm the film adaptation of Phantom, nor have I been surprised by the succession of "pretty boys" who have played the Phantom since Michael Crawford. The Phantom's true ugliness is his own self-loathing, and wish to control Christine, to live his life through the success of Christine, to elevate himself by elevating her. Like Gaston in Disney's own Beauty and the Beast, the villain is the prettiest member of the cast, while on the inside, he is uglier than the foulest fairy tale villain.

I'm going to see POTO tonight at 8:15, but I'm not getting hung up on the fact that the Phantom is a good looking hunka hunka in this version. If he's still the asexual controlling obssessive dominating violent vicarious parental freak that he is in the play, then all will be well.

 

[Stephen Brooks]

He IS a pretty good looking guy in this production, which I do think hurts it somewhat. Are we honestly supposed to believe this guy's never been laid in his life? Even without the mask he just looks like he has a bad case of adult acne and needs some cream. With the mask on, I'm secure enough to admit he's damn sexy. Most women would probably say leave the mask on, it's kinky that way.

 

[Chris]

As someone who has enjoyed various productions of this, I hoped to be taken in by the movie..

In fact, the movie seemed to lack a lot of the audience connection and heart that the theater settings had - something I expected - but often came off as cold and not very interesting. I found myself looking at my watch thinking "eh"

Sometimes, if you're going to redo something, you might as well do something right or not at all. I have the feeling after seeing Phantom maybe they should have just passed.

 

[Ernest Rister]

"He IS a pretty good looking guy in this production, which I do think hurts it somewhat."

I disagree and I posit this suggestion...the Phantom thinks he is far far uglier than he really is. That's the tragedy of his character in the ALW version of the tale...he has been taught that he is ugly, taught that he is hideous, and he has never received contrary information. This is a discussion thread so, spoilers ahoy! The single kiss of love and compassion he receives from Christine is enough to shatter years of animosity and hatred and for that one single moment, he truly loves her, not as a child, a possession, but as a person -- and because he loves her, he lets her and Raoul go. That's the drama of the piece right there, and so it really makes more sense to have the Phantom THINK he is more hideous than he is, as opposed to him being a skeletal ghoul as in the Lon Chaney silent version (which is a fantastic film).

So the casting worked for me, it's the script and the editing and the orchestration that didn't. With all apologies to Joel Schumacher, they should have just taped a live performance of the play and released that -- the man brought nothing to the material other than an astonishing misjudgement on when to cut and when to stay still, when to give us an establishing shot, and when to cut in close for emphaiss. This is a movie of close ups and desperate editing during the "spoken word" moments -- if you've seen the Lost Boys scenes in Spielberg's Hook, you'll have a good idea what awaits you here. When people begin to deliver the signature tunes, the staging of this piece becomes a terrific failure of the imagination -- a creaking assemblage of ideas we have seen before in movies and music videos stretching back to the early days of MTV. This is the best movie of 1983. It is not, however, a film that can hold sway in the new century. We even have synthetic drum-machine hand claps during the title number! I can see the credits now -- The Phantom of the Opera: as recorded by the London Philharmonic and the 1986 Casio "Beat Machine".

The great film version of this material has yet to be made. Maybe when ALW slips off his mortal coil and some artists can get their hands on it, we'll see some interesting takes on this stage classic. This version is a bloodless, living-room-table Hallmark Card version of the musical, and it deserves much better.

 

[Carlo_M]

For those of us who love Michael Crawford and Davis Gaines in the role of the Phantom, how are we going to like/dislike the Phantom's singing voice in this movie?

 

[Ernest Rister]

See the post right above yours. I think the casting works...the performer's voice takes some getting used to if you're a fan of Crawford, but it worked for me in the long run.

 

[Sean Laughter]

I haven't actually seen the movie, so maybe I'm focusing on the voices too much by going merely by the soundtrack to the film (which I own), but the Phantom really does urk me vocally. His voice is all slurred (clear intonation and wording like Crawford, which I appreciate as characterization for someone who apparently is obsessive about creating a world class soprano, is absent here), it sounds like he's just heaving air into his lungs, and for some reason I get the impression of a fish sucking water when I hear him (it's just the mental picture I get listening to how the vocals sound). On the next-to-last track during the Phantoms closing lyric ("It's over now . . .") it's just painful to me, basically heaving for breathe, no strength there at all. Surprisingly, "Music of the Night" isn't really that bad though because they were wise to keep the song in a lower register than I believe it is usually sung and he doesn't really attempt any of the vocal acrobatics of Crawford, and the few high notes he does - the key ones that everyone recognizes in the song - come across well (though I'm willing to bet money those are the moments they had to ADR after the on-set singing was finished).

I'm going to actually see the film this Thursday or Friday, so I can comment more after that. However, judging by Ernest's comments I'm not holding out much hope. I never saw Evita, but if this is just an unimaginative transposition from the stage they really miss the point of moving something like this to film. I'm glad the Kander & Ebb musicals have apparently made the migration to film better as a whole - "Cabaret" in particular, though radically different from the stage show, really is a good example of how to make that kind of material amazingly thrilling on the movie screen.

 

[Hank_P]

I wanted to speak to some of the comments on the third act, where you see Raoul visiting the grave. From what my wife told me, it's like they wrapped up the second novel about the Phantom. Supposedily, the Phantom travels to New York, follows Christine around and continues to love her/teach her. If you look on the Christines tombstome, it says "Wife and Mother". In the second book, Raoul couldn't have children, and the child's father is the Phantom. It that one scene, it wraps up the whole story. Probably so there wouldn't be a second movie that would follow the book.

For me, this was better than the play, as the play kind of left me hanging to "what happened next". Now I know. If you want specifics, I'll have to ask my wife (i.e Phantom of the Opera freak)

 

[Kenneth_C]

ITA, Sean! I just saw Phantom yesterday, and found Butler's voice to be woefully inadequate. I, too, felt like he was "just heaving air into his lungs" (to use your incredibly apt description) and found the experience of listening to him to be unpleasant. There are times when his need for extra breath is so apparent -- usually right before he struggles out one of his "high" notes -- that he disrupts the flow of the lyric and gulps in the middle of a line. UGH.

His non-singing performance was OK (but nothing more) and he's a hunk (though I'm not sure that's necessary). I honestly do not understand why they cast him.

And, yes, Haggai. There was definite "vogueing" going on in the "Masquerade" number. What were they thinking???

 

[ChuckSolo]

Wow, so many opinions on this. Excellent to read. I think that Michael Ruben is correct on all counts though. I have seen the stage play 3 times, once in Los Angeles and twice in San Diego played by two different companies and the movie does the play justice. Whenever I go see a MUSICAL film, especially after I have seen the stage production, I basically go see how it stacks up against the stage play AND to listen to the MUSIC and how it is presented. Stage plays, in case you guys haven't noticed are usually noted for overacting by the actors; at least more so than in a film. BTW, ALWs "Phantom of the Opera" takes liberal license with the story line at almost every turn. That's OK though because in a film/stage production such as this, its the MUSIC that should be the focus. My only gripe with the movie was that although I really like Gerard Butler, he ain't no Michael Crawford and has an unremarkable singing voice. Emmy Rossum however was excellent. Finally, comparing the stage play to this film with the stage play getting 5 stars, I would give the film 4 stars.

 

[Larry Sutliff]

I've seen the show several times as well, including Michael Crawford and Sarah Brightman on Broadway, and I agree with Chuck that the film definitely does the musical justice. I can't wait to see it again!

 

[Julian Lalor]

This is a Joel Schumacher film, after all. Ugly people aren't allowed in lead roles, and certainly no one over 30. God knows why this hack was chosen to direct the film. It was, simply put, terrible.

 

[Michael Reuben]

It's more pertinent to say that it's an Andrew Lloyd Weber production. And it's well-known why Schumacher was chosen to direct -- he was Lloyd Weber's personal choice.

M.