A review, of sorts
Just so everyone can see for themselves how bizarre I've become... I posted this to the phantomfans community.
I've seen the Phantom of the Opera movie three times since it came out on the 10th, so please excuse any incoherence on my part. :D Spoilers ABOUND.
The film is a visual feast - costuming, sets, staging, the whole nine yards. The Phantom especially stands out, in my opinion - the man is dressed to the nines. Favorite scenes include the Phantom taking Christine from her dressing room, the Phantom sparring with Joseph Bouquet (spelling? ), the Phantom's appearance at the Masquerade (the way his footsteps are perfectly in time with the music), and the final scenes starting with the performance with Don Juan.
I found Gerard Butler's interpretation of the Phantom character to be extremely fascinating - the Phantom is very much a mere man, not some magical thing. He is far more seductive than Raoul, but Christine has power over him in her own right. With Christine, the Phantom is just a desperate lover, waiting on her every glance and touch.
I also very much liked Emmy Rossum's Christine. I always found Sarah Brightman's voice to be far too mature for a 16-year-old chorus girl. Rossum's singing is beautiful, perfectly suited to a young singer with a great teacher. Unfortumately, Rossum seems capable of only a few facial expressions, which can be really off-putting at times.
Raoul has the character of a water cracker throughout, but I believe this is a fault of the story rather than of the actor. Musical!Raoul and Movie!Raoul are not very interesting, but Patrick Wilson tries his best, and I appreciate his effort in fleshing out a rather 2-D character.
The script does not spare the Phantom's character. He is not a romantic lover - several characters point out that he's an obsessed killer. However, I'm not sure that Raoul's assessment that the Phantom is "mad" is really correct. The Phantom seems to be perfectly aware of what he's doing.
The one major shortcoming of the movie was the Phantom's singing. Michael Crawford's voice sometimes annoys me for being higher than I imagine the Phantom's voice to be, so Butler's deep voice fits the bill perfectly. However, I don't think he had enough vocal training. He's said himself that he's never sung before this movie, and it shows - he's not able to sing the very low pitches or hold notes long enough. But Butler redeems himself with his extremely sensitive, emotional acting - in that aspect I feel he beats Crawford hands-down. There is no cop-out manical laughter - you can clearly tell when he is upset, feeling spurned, or enraged. He is really the character to watch during the movie.
I personally had a problem with the way the graveyard fight scene was filmed. The camerawork is confusing.
I suspect that ALW is selling the movie to an audience who does not attend musicals or opera and does not like Gothic-Romantic works of fiction. Plot, which I feel is often sacrificed to singing in the musical genre, is strongly emphasized. The musical plot has been slightly changed, and I find the resulting story more pleasing and coherent.
The movie itself focuses a lot on "realism." His backstory has been changed - the Phantom is now a gypsy boy touted as a freak, and the young Madame Giry hides him in the opera house after he kills his tormentor. This is a good deal more realistic than the fanciful account given in the novel. The Phantom also has no magical powers of any sort - he's simply a physically fit genius who knows the opera house like the back of his hand.
The Phantom has no name in the movie. The name "Erik" does not appear at any part of the movie.
I'll probably continue to edit this post as more thoughts occur to me. Comments, anyone?
I've seen the Phantom of the Opera movie three times since it came out on the 10th, so please excuse any incoherence on my part. :D Spoilers ABOUND.
The film is a visual feast - costuming, sets, staging, the whole nine yards. The Phantom especially stands out, in my opinion - the man is dressed to the nines. Favorite scenes include the Phantom taking Christine from her dressing room, the Phantom sparring with Joseph Bouquet (spelling? ), the Phantom's appearance at the Masquerade (the way his footsteps are perfectly in time with the music), and the final scenes starting with the performance with Don Juan.
I found Gerard Butler's interpretation of the Phantom character to be extremely fascinating - the Phantom is very much a mere man, not some magical thing. He is far more seductive than Raoul, but Christine has power over him in her own right. With Christine, the Phantom is just a desperate lover, waiting on her every glance and touch.
I also very much liked Emmy Rossum's Christine. I always found Sarah Brightman's voice to be far too mature for a 16-year-old chorus girl. Rossum's singing is beautiful, perfectly suited to a young singer with a great teacher. Unfortumately, Rossum seems capable of only a few facial expressions, which can be really off-putting at times.
Raoul has the character of a water cracker throughout, but I believe this is a fault of the story rather than of the actor. Musical!Raoul and Movie!Raoul are not very interesting, but Patrick Wilson tries his best, and I appreciate his effort in fleshing out a rather 2-D character.
The script does not spare the Phantom's character. He is not a romantic lover - several characters point out that he's an obsessed killer. However, I'm not sure that Raoul's assessment that the Phantom is "mad" is really correct. The Phantom seems to be perfectly aware of what he's doing.
The one major shortcoming of the movie was the Phantom's singing. Michael Crawford's voice sometimes annoys me for being higher than I imagine the Phantom's voice to be, so Butler's deep voice fits the bill perfectly. However, I don't think he had enough vocal training. He's said himself that he's never sung before this movie, and it shows - he's not able to sing the very low pitches or hold notes long enough. But Butler redeems himself with his extremely sensitive, emotional acting - in that aspect I feel he beats Crawford hands-down. There is no cop-out manical laughter - you can clearly tell when he is upset, feeling spurned, or enraged. He is really the character to watch during the movie.
I personally had a problem with the way the graveyard fight scene was filmed. The camerawork is confusing.
I suspect that ALW is selling the movie to an audience who does not attend musicals or opera and does not like Gothic-Romantic works of fiction. Plot, which I feel is often sacrificed to singing in the musical genre, is strongly emphasized. The musical plot has been slightly changed, and I find the resulting story more pleasing and coherent.
The movie itself focuses a lot on "realism." His backstory has been changed - the Phantom is now a gypsy boy touted as a freak, and the young Madame Giry hides him in the opera house after he kills his tormentor. This is a good deal more realistic than the fanciful account given in the novel. The Phantom also has no magical powers of any sort - he's simply a physically fit genius who knows the opera house like the back of his hand.
The Phantom has no name in the movie. The name "Erik" does not appear at any part of the movie.
I'll probably continue to edit this post as more thoughts occur to me. Comments, anyone?