Why Fans of The Phantom of the Opera Hated the Movie
79
Because he was our Phantom first!
If you're one of those people who has been on to the musical sensation that is The Phantom of the Opera since the 80's or 90's, then you, like me, resent the movie and the fangirls it has produced. You know, the kind who think that the Phantom was a buff Scottish man who would risk serious vocal damage to growl his lines instead of sing them. They didn't fall in love with a tortured soul who is completely unlovable but entirely worthy of love in a fashion that completely captures the heart! They just saw a polished, sex-ed up version of the man and the story we've loved for years- they just don't see what we see in the story. And, for the musicians in the crowd, they certainly don't hear what we hear! So I present to you a list of grievances against the Joel Schumacher version of Phantom (feel free to remind me of any I might have missed). Mr. Schumacher, to these things we object:
-The casting of non-singers in a musical. Come on. Forget casting younger, hotter people to draw crowds. It's not about age- let's face it, women still find Sean Connery sexy. It's not even about looks; Erik is going to be covered in prosthetics anyway! You should have hired people who sing (Emmy Rossum does not count- her vocals are atrocious and she only has one facial expression). Or, if you had to have your sexy, out-of-character actors, couldn't you have let them lip-sync the way Minnie Driver did? Really, Joel, it's inconsistent. (I must say that I exempt Patrick Wilson from this rant. I'm a huge fan of his work, and his Raoul is probably the best performance in the film...and I don't even like Raoul!)
-The non-classical singing. I know, you were trying to appeal to a new generation of movie-goers who aren't all that into opera. Here's the thing- it's not even operatic music. You just needed people who were classically trained (or in Ms. Rossum's case, talented). I mean, really, this is taking place in the 1800's underneath an opera house. The guy is training an operatic soprano for crying out loud. You'd think he'd follow his own teachings and sing like a singer, not like a chain-smoking rock star (was that a bit below the belt?). I mean, the music is anachronistic in some sections (like the title song) and that works fine...it's artistic and interesting because of the classical vocals that go with it. Making the orchestrations in some parts and the vocals more modern was a huge mistake and a crime against the fans. It kills the spirit of the piece.
-The character of the Phantom. One- his deformity. It's supposed to be "hardly a face." Butler's Phantom, through no fault of his own I realize, looks like a BAD SUNBURN! Ahem. Two- Erik is portrayed as angry/crazy. Not depressed, not completely crazy, not musical genius crazy (which we diehard fans relate to, right), but a guy who doesn't get the girl and is therefore pissed off. Anger is a part of Erik's character; in his anger and his growing insanity, he destroys the chandelier and he kills Buquet and Piangi. It isn't pure anger. These actions are warnings. In his logic, he is trying to remind the management and Christine and Raoul who he is and how much power is at his command. Gerard Butler's Phantom is angry whenever he isn't seductive or sad. He has no middle ground, and he certainly bypasses crazy and confused and taunting and goes straight into rage. Please, Mr. Butler, Erik is a complex and sophisticated character. He requires a bit of finesse. Erik would never growl- he's a voice teacher. He would know the irreparable damage that would cause. He would never breathe in the middle of a phrase- heaven forbid! Erik would always be as sophisticated and polished as his tuxedo implies (except during "The Music of the Night," but then it's seduction and we encourage him to take some liberties). He does use deception and violence, but in a beautiful and graceful way- not in a growling scream. He's supposed to have the voice of an angel- beautiful, pure, and haunting to us mere mortals.
-Christine. I usually find Christine weak-willed but sympathetic. Who wouldn't be a bit indecisive when faced with the choice between the man who is a beautiful and dear friend and the man who is a god inside but a monster outside? Emmy Rossum's Christine just pissed me off. Once Raoul was seriously in the picture and she'd discovered the truth of Erik's face, she displayed no indecision at all. Unless, of course, she was mystically enthralled by Erik's spell (as in "Why So Silent" and "Wandering Child"), but you really can't count that, can you? Even in the finale, she doesn't seem to be having any issues with choice- it becomes self-preservation. She's all about saving Raoul, not about being torn between a friend and a mentor. I want to physically shake her and tell her that the depth of the story comes from her loving Erik as well as loving Raoul. Raoul is easy to love and deserving in an obvious sort of way. Erik is difficult on multiple levels (he's scarred, he's done bad things, he's dangerous and socially unacceptable), but he has also given her the gift of her voice and all of his love and his fragile trust...what does she want from him?!?! Rossum's Christine is cruel to me, playing Erik in the final part of the movie just to save Raoul and herself. Not to mention the fact that she spends most of the movie with a vacant look on her face with her mouth hanging open like a dying fish.
-The dramatic speaking of some of the lines. Let's face it- they're written for the rhythms of music. They sound ridiculous when spoken in a half-whisper while music is playing to accompany them.
-The changes in choreography. Masquerade is absolutely stunning on stage. The vast array of colors and the various different costumes make it a feast for the eyes and an unforgettable spectacle. The almost monochromatic theme of the film's "Masquerade" reduces the visual spectacle, but the repetitive out-dated dance movements make it less interesting and something of a let down. The new choreography also left out the darker overtones of the song and the part where Christine dances with a Phantom double, forshadowing the coming events. But this is nothing compared to the travasty that is the film's "Point of No Return." This is one of the most amazing scenes on stage- and the music alone makes it stunning even in the movie. However, the new choreography makes absolutely no sense. For one thing, Christine should not know that Erik is playing opposite her on stage. The dynamic totally changes if she is aware that it's him. Also, for the most sensual and suggestive part of the song, they should not be on the opposite sides of the stage apart from each other. Ascending the stair cases and facing off against each other on the catwalk may be very Freudian, but it's contrary to the nature of the song. She's singing about buds bursting into bloom, and yet there's 50 feet separating them. Not logical!
-Additions and cuts. I like Andrew Lloyd Webber's new orchestrations. They're beautiful, if a little out of place. However, the added scenes just take up time. What's with watching old Raoul watching some deer run along the road? Maybe it's symbolism, but maybe it's just a waste of time. Why do we watch Raoul fall into and then escape one of Erik's traps in the finale? Again- waste of time. Why did we cut most of the scenes and elements of scenes that make Erik seem like a mystical force and less like a man? If they were going to do that, they needed to change "Wandering Child" as well. If we see how Erik crashes the chandelier and how he makes Carlotta croak and how he raises the portcullis barring entrance to his lair, then why are we going to believe that he's got Christine under some sort of hypnosis? On that note, I feel that his character is weaker for all the cuts made in the second half of the film...we see no evidence that he's on to their plans. He doesn't taunt them as he does in the show. He doesn't bespell the entire cast or taunt the police and Raoul- those scenes would have been even more effective on screen than on stage, but they did not take advantage of them. Sigh.
-The opening scene. Is that supposed to be Madame Giry or Meg? Really. If it's Meg, then she's an old maid. If it's Madame Giry, then she's really old.
I could rant about this all day, but I feel that these are the most important grievances. It's a shame that Lord Lloyd Webber waited so long to make this movie to have it turn out this way, but c'est la vie.
The music of the night through the eyes and ears of an insomniac
The Phantom of the Opera has been my favorite musical since I was 8 years old. Pretty crazy, huh? My mom bought me the highlights of the original cast recording, and I was immediately enthralled. True, some of the slower songs didn't keep me completely captivated, but I was all about the story. A deformed musical genius hiding out under the opera house who falls in love with the beautiful soprano who may or may not return his affections because of some other guy who's apparently pretty hot?!?! Wow! Yeah, I got behind that all the way; I made my friends listen to it at my house and I made my mom play it in the car as she drove me to school. Here's the catch though- my mom never told me the ending. I wasn't too great at picking out voices as a child, and I always thought that Christine and the Phantom lived happily ever after. Only when I was 16 and I heard the complete recording for the first time did I realize the true state of affairs!
After I heard the whole soundtrack and I cried for about a week because of it, Phantom became a sort of obsession with me (not the unhealthy kidnap-a-soprano kind, but the normal teenage girl kind). I read the novel by Gaston Leroux, and I finally got a hold of the out-of-print version called Phantom by Susan Kay (which I highly recommend to anyone who wants more from the story; she really really understands the character of Erik and she fleshes out the mysteries of his life). I finally got to see the stage show when I was 17, and I told my friends and family that I could then die happy. Then I saw it again when I was 18. And again when I was 18. And when I was 20. The film even came out on my 18th birthday- even though I wasn't impressed by it, it was still really cool.
All this to say, I've got a long history with the story and the show.
CommentsLoading...
You certainly know your Phantom. Remember that movie goers and Broadway fans are usually two distinct groups. Not entirely, many overlap, but in some ways both crowds will fail to get it and will be disappointed. Film has its merits; live has it's, and if you've done both, all things being equal, live is the best.
It's not so much the form of film that I object to; it's the interpretation of the story. If a plot device or character trait can come across on stage, it stands to reason that it could come across on film too. The medium has nothing to do with that.
And thanks. I agree that live is best, even for all that film can do.
I've seen it a few times at Her Majesty's Theatre in London and it is truly amazing, no matter how many times I'd already seen it. Andrew is a king of the musical profession.
I agree. It never gets old for me. About once a year I reread the book (which I am doing now) and I listen to the music whenever I can't sleep at night. It still affects me greatly. Andrew really captured the essence of the story.
I am regularly watching him on TV and I immensely respect him, now. I simply haven't known before, that he is such a positive person, even though, he is a very successful businessman.
Yeah, I love listening to him talk in documentaries and such (that's all I really get to watch here in America...sigh). He seems like he has such a lot to say, but he also comes across as very shy and reserved. I just want to give him a hug!
I think the movie was good, but the singing definitely left something to desire... Emmy Rossum is good, but maybe not the best choice?
Glassvisage, she definitely wasn't the best choice. Even ignoring all the talented young stage actresses that could have been cast, there are a few in Hollywood who could sing better. Or who had multiple facial expressions in her repertoire.
Emmy Rossum was like totally cool,but Gerard Butler was the best Phantom ther could ever be.but yes I would love to just give him a hug,too...
Well, I totally disagree...I could give you some links to better performers singing the roles if you'd like.
I think you're off base on some of your assumptions about Erik's character. The whole idea is that he's not mystical. The book makes this clear and the movie is being true to the book in a way that the stage show can't be. If you don't have an appreciation for the real original story you can't possibly appreciate the movie. Unfortunately, it seems like the limitations of the stage show have left you with some incomplete ideas of what the story is really about.
Did we read the same book?
I assure you that I'm not just basing my ideas on the stage show. I've read Leroux's The Phantom of the Opera in two different translations and I've read Susan Kay's Phantom a number of times. Christine in the original novel thinks that Erik is doing mystical things...she describes the hellish yet fascinating journey to his lair as if it's some sort of opium delusion. Of course, we the reader know he's just using stage tricks and throwing his voice and playing with shadows, but that's part of what defines his character- he plays on the imagination to make himself more than a mere deformed guy living in a sewer.
The movie was not true to the original novel. Leroux's Erik is INSANE. Not angry/aggressive. His power doesn't come from a commanding physique and presence but from his pseudo-supernatural appeal to the senses.
But this is all truly irrelevant, as this film was an adaptation of the stage show. Not Leroux's Phantom, but Andrew Lloyd Webber's Phantom. And in that respect it certainly missed the mark, regardless of how you feel they tried to channel the original novel. That wasn't the intention of the film.
oh lord the movie sucked more balls then.. well i bet you all can guess the rest. the movie was an absolute butcher of the beautiful play that i fell so deeply in love with and still love to this day. my mother which was once such a die hard fan of the play fell in love with that no tallent actor they cast as the phantom.. and frankly it makes me sick! the only cool part from the phantom of the opera (the movie) was the opeining scene! that i will admit was cool watching the theater come back to life as the main theame blared :D so cool. but other then that ...ick and whats sad is we just watched the play on sept 11, 2008 yeah i know nice date huh :P it was cheap leave us alone. in Seattle granted i have never seen a funnier version of the phantom (thank all that to Piangi, he was funny as hell) but they put in an extra scene that was in the movie but never in the play before.. at least that i can remember.
As with all adaptations to screen, it will be different. And will almost always disappoint those true to the original.
I've seen both versions several times and while I agree that, yes, the beauty and talent of the stage far exceeds the movie, the movie itself is entertaining and brought in alot of people who normally wouldn't even look at productions such as this. I know that my teenage niece and nephew became interested in seeing the stage production after watching the movie. And I found that quite encouraging.
Still...you are right...this phantom is incredibly sexy. Much more than he's supposed to be. But you know...If I want accuracy and grandeur...I'll pay the money to watch the professionals do it on stage. If I want just to be entertained...I'll watch the movie.
Thank you for that rational viewpoint!
Channeling the original novel was clearly the intention of the film. If you didn't pick that up, then you were probably one of the people that went in wanting and expecting to hate it.
Yes, Christine thinks he's mystical. He is, however, not really mystical which is what your article implied. A point made in the musical, which carries over wonderfully to the film, is that Erik's true ugliness is inside of him. If he's insane, this point is lost entirely and he just becomes a maniac with no control over his actions.
Again, did we read the same novel? Schumacher may have wanted to capture the feel of the primary source (despite the historical inaccuracies he added), but it is still an adaptation of Andrew Lloyd Webber's Phantom, not Leroux's Fantome. I was only 18 when the film came out, and not terribly critical, so I didn't go in intending to hate it. I saw it 10 times in the crummy theatre in town that shows independent films.
Yes, Christine makes the point that his distortion is in his soul, but she definitely turns to Raoul because of the face- making a case for the superficiality of normal people rather than his spiritual condition. And he lets them go in the end, which points to temporary insanity, not evil. Temporary insanity, mind you. No one could argue that his actions toward the end are rational.
I don't want to argue pointlessly here. My point in the article is that Schumacher's treatment of the title character makes him less appealing, less sympathetic, and less complex.
I agree! I expected Christine to be classically trained. I got shocked by her pop-like performance.
What do you think of the idea of the sequel? I'm really keen to see it. Ramin is a great Phantom.
In the sequel, Love Never Dies I think it's going to turn out that she did get bored with Raoul after a few years.
http://hubpages.com/hub/Love-Never-Dies
Although it could be said that ten years later, these are all different characters.
I have heard chatter about the sequel on and off for years, and the idea really makes me cringe. The story has been so important to me that I am really afraid of it going terribly amiss. And honestly, the idea of Erik in New York as a Coney Island clown hurts my soul.
Having said that, I really liked "Til I Hear You Sing Once More." I don't think it's on par with the original lyrically, but it was beautiful. I like the cast pretty well. They aren't as refined as I like, but I can get over that if they can emote well (which Ramin is definitely emotive).
In short, I've gone from being "Oh God please no" to "this might be ok." I will definitely get the soundtrack, because how could I not? I just hope they get a happy ending- not too cheesy, and universally satisfying.
Having never seen the Broadway show (or even read the book, which drove me crazy because I prefer to read the book first), the movie was the first time I got to see the Phantom of the Opera. And it was awesome. Okay, so as I watched it more, I noticed those annoying unsynchronisations and over-sexualising of the characters and little incongruities (and the 'sunburn' really annoyed me, too), and when I finally bought and read the book, I realised how different the two were.
But honestly, with all its flaws, I still think the movie's fantastic. I can't say that I'm one of the fans who've loved it since the beginning of time, but I do love the movie for what it is. Maybe it's simply because I watched it without any previous expectations, so my hopes didn't get dashed.
Anyway, everybody reckons the stage version is better (hey, it was the original!), so I can't wait to see THAT. I don't think I can consider myself a fan until I've seen the stage version.
And for the record, I really hope Raoul and Christine stay together. I'm probably alone in that.
Stefania- You are alone in that. A sequel musical is coming out next year taking place ten years later. Webber has been working on it for a very long time because the ending of the original, while poetic, is emotionally unsatisfying.
I hope you get to see the stage version someday! I think it would rock your world. :-)
Gee, thanks for that :P! I was actually an Erik fan in the very beginning (for about a day after I watched the film), so I can sympathise with the Erik lovers out there. I'm actually a little worried about seeing the stage version, if only because I think they're going to make Raoul seem like a really big wimp rather than a nice guy. And I really don't want to be converted back to Phantom love on the mere basis of Raoul-suckiness.
(What I meant to say in that last paragraph was basically "I heard about the sequel. I hope Raoul and Christine stay together." So that probably read a little weird.)
I think that the idea of taking the cast of Phantom out of Europe and sticking them in America is going to be a bit disorientating. But then, who am I to judge?
I still don't think that Lloyd Webber will let Erik and Christine be together, though. The whole point of the story, in a way, is that they never do become a couple. What I'm betting on is that that Erik either dies in the end, or makes his peace with Christine.
Either way, I still can't wait to see both stage musicals. And I really should go read the book again. I kind of skipped through it, which is unusual for me.
You should reread the novel. I think you'll find that Raoul isn't as nice of a guy. He's kind of a whiney brat. Although I have seen exactly 2 very excellent portrayals of Raoul on the stage that made him a lot less hateable (and I love Patrick Wilson's Raoul in the movie...cannot say that enough).
I agree- these characters outside of the French opera is going to be WEIRD. I'm not sure how this musical will turn out, but I'm hoping for the best.
So... maybe I should just be a Patrick-Wilson-as-Raoul fan. I can live with that. He's awesome. I have actually heard (read) someone say that watching the 2004 movie was the first time they understood why Christine chose Raoul.
I think part of the reason I skipped through the novel was because Christine seemed more of a tease, whereas in the movie she was more confused and I liked her more.
Couple of questions-- is the swordfight still in the stage version? And who were the Raouls you liked?
No, there is no swordfight on stage. I strongly object to the swordfight because A- there is no way Raoul would have won. Erik fights dirty. and B- it serves no purpose in the narrative. On stage, Erik shoots taunting fireballs at him and they yell insults at each other. Christine drags Raoul away, since he's obviously about to get hurt.
Raouls I liked- I love the original Raoul, Steve Barton. His voice is like velvet and he was a phenomenal actor (he died in 2001, I cried a lot). My favorite Raoul I've seen in person was John Cudia, who is currently playing the Phantom on Broadway. I've seen him play Raoul and Erik and he was great at both.
Well, technically the swordfight does serve a purpose in the narrative because it makes Raoul the hero dude who gets to save Christine, and therefore he's more likeable. (I actually kind of laughed when I saw him ride bareback on a white horse to go save her. It was so stereotypical.)
But despite my decrying of the drama, I really loved that part. I do agree with you about Erik fighting dirty--I mean, they were so close to him and he didn't do anything! He just sat there and watched them leave the cemetary! It seems like I keep finding more and more things wrong with the 2004 movie, but for some reason I still love it to bits.
Lol, fireballs and insults? This I have gotta see. But after reading that, no wonder everybody hates Raoul.
Here's "Wandering Child" with the fireballs. This is Gary Mauer and Beth Southard (I saw them in these roles, and they're married in real life. How cool is that?) and John Cudia as Raoul, who I saw play Raoul, only opposite Hugh Panaro. This filmer mostly just shot Gary, but you can tell what's happening. The fireballs grow a bit with distance, making them more threatening.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxUTNkWUSt0
You'll notice Christine sees Erik the whole time, knows it's him, and is not in a trance. Just saying. It's a big difference.
So I'm halfway though the book again, enjoying it immensely. Raoul is a bit of a wimp, but I'm still siding with him... I guess there are some things you just can't cure. I'm on a really old computer with no way to get to youtube, so I'm afraid I can't watch the clip. :( It's a shame, cause it sounded really good, too.
But even just based on what you've said, yeah! Talk about a big difference!
That is a shame! I actually got to meet Gary Mauer this weekend at a concert, and I gushed about how I loved him in Phantom...haha. I'm such a nerd. You'll get to see when you eventually see the show, right? :-)
I'm glad to hear you're rereading and enjoying! I might have to read it again myself...
Yes! It's like everybody's seen it but me and I'm so jealous!
How did you get to meet Gary Mauer? (And don't worry. I think we all get a little starstruck at times.)
I was singing in the chorus of a concert he was singing at. I approached him in the lobby, and he autographed his solo cd for me. He misspelled my name and I was like "no, no, it's ok! it'll be funny!" ...yeah.
Sweet.
So, to change the subject just slightly, is there a filmed version of the original cast of Phantom? I'd love to see it.
There is not. There is some good footage on the various Phantom/Andrew Lloyd Webber documentaries however, and there are always bootlegs. Honestly, the original cast SOUNDS good, but the acting isn't good across the board. Sarah Brightman looks high whenever she tries to portray any emotion.
Dang. I'm not totally into bootlegs. I have seen some footage of Brightman and she looked... well, you know. But I was wondering about the rest of the cast.
...oh, hey, new userpic! I'm going to guess and say that you're the one on the left.
Sarah Brightman was the weak link in that cast (acting, not vocally). Michael Crawford is a love him or hate him guy. A LOT of people find him ridiculous, and he does border on the melodramatic, but he did some great things with the character as well. I love Steve Barton (Raoul). He was amazing vocally and physically on stage. He's the Raoul I don't want to stab...mostly. I mean some of that is just in the script. Carlotta was very good in the original. She won a Tony I do believe for the role.
I am indeed the one on the left. I was getting some negative feedback (entirely from my friends) about my dark and gloomy bake-you-into-a-pie picture.
Poor Michael Crawford. Some mothers do 'ave em, I guess...
HA!! Excellent reference, my friend.
I have seen Phantom 9 times when I was over in UK/London/ I am a musical lover, I have to admitt that I never seen better musical then Phantom. I have seen many musicals but Phantom is a king among them.
The Phantom film was horrendous. I try and pretend it doesn't exist. I'll have to do the same with the sequel.
Raj, I'm trying to be optimistic about the sequel, but I can acknowledge that it's based on irrational hope :-) But like you, I typically try to ignore the fact that a movie was ever made of the musical.
i actually liked the movie!!! i thought it was good, though it could have been better in some aspects. i've always been a huge fan of the phantom's story ever since i read the novel. it's so tragic, but i love it! and i'm seeing the stage play this summer, i'm so excited! i also want to see the sequel, though i plan on thinking of it as unrelated to the original. the way i see it, anything by webber can't be bad! :)
After you see the stage show, let me know what you think :-)
I think the movie was really good. The Phantom and Christine arent horrible actors or singers. I mean, geez, I never saw the play (planning to) but really, you shouldn't really complain about the movie so much.
This isn't complaining. This is using critical thinking. Anything artistic is going to be judged- often harshly. That's why it is the job of the director to make it as good as it can possibly be. The director here fell short. You can still enjoy the movie, that's fine. That doesn't make it a good movie.
I base my statement that they aren't talented singers/actors on the fact that I HAVE seen talented singers/actors portray those roles. Believe me, when you've seen the real deal, nothing else compares.
I totally agree with you!! Emmy Rossum as Christine??? The role of Christine is one of the most beautifully sung parts ever and they cast it with someone with very little singing talent and changed up the song to make it fit her small range!! I have seen Phantom on stage 6 times and will continue to do so because watching it on film is just painful
I am sending lots of warm fuzzy feelings into the cosmos for you, Glimmer. Thank you!!
Glad I'm not the only one!! I recently saw Phantom for the 5th time on stage. It blew me away; it was like seeing it again for the first time. The Christine I saw was the alternate on Broadway (Marni Raab), and she was the best I've ever seen. She emoted, and her voice was so pure. It was wonderfully refreshing.
I agree! Its so amazing everytime I see it, I live in Vegas so they have it playing at Venetian Hotel and I am lucky enough to have gotten a few free tickets. People who say they loved the movie have never seen it live! Its just incredible!
Looking at the date on this, I feel a bit behind, so sorry, but I still wanted to comment:
When I read this I almost laughed out loud... just because it's EXACTLY what I think of the film, so much so I could have written it myself, haha. You even have almost the exact same background story as me. My mom was a fan of the musical and gave me her tape of it when I was about 7 or so, which I immediately fell in love with. I also made my friends listen to it (they thought I was nuts) and listened to it in the car.
I've read the original book as well as Susan Kay's and I completely agree with you on the fact that she completely captures Erik's personality.
My mom took me to see the show in Toronto when I was 10 and I was blown away. I've seen it 5 times since then, most recently a few weeks ago with Trista Moldovan as Christine (she blew me away, definitely my favorite so far) and Andrew Varela as the Phantom (he was substituting for Tim Martin Gleason) and he was phenomenal as well. Sean MacLaughlin was also my favorite Raoul to date.
I saw it on Broadway twice with Hugh Panaro as the Phantom and he was great as well. I really want to see John Cudia as the Phantom, I just adore his voice.
I get frustrated with people that fall in love with the movie alone, although everyone is entitled to their own opinion I guess. I got the privilege of showing a friend in high school the way of the original musical when she swore by the movie. That was kind of cool.
I can't believe Emmy Rossum got nominated for an Academy Award for that performance!!!! Makes me want to puke, haha.
I was wondering who your favorite portrayal of all of the characters were from the performances that you've seen.
Sorry if this post was kind of convoluted and erratic, but I was beside myself on how perfectly your thoughts matched mine. Glad to see another sensible phan. =)
CarpeNoctem- It does me good to hear your story. I'm glad I'm not the only one!!! I'm still as bad as ever...I was in New York this past March and I dragged a few friends with me to see Phantom again. I've now seen it 5 times, 3 on Broadway.
I want to comfort you on one fact: Emmy Rossum did not get an Oscar nomination for her role. She won a lesser award, like Theatre World or something like that. I believe the film was nominated for art direction, cinematography, and original song. I might be wrong though.
As to my favorites...Hugh Panaro was the first Phantom I ever saw, so he gets sentimental points. As does Gary Mauer, who I saw perform the role on the national tour. I actually got to sing with him in concert this past year, which was SUCH a big deal. He has the most gorgeous, resonant voice I've ever heard, and he's a super nice guy. He joked around with us backstage, making us roll with laughter, then went onstage to sing "Music of the Night" and completely brought us to tears...I love actors who can turn on a dime like that. Anyways. I've seen John Cudia play the Phantom twice now, once on tour and once on Broadway, and if you get the chance to see him, go!!! He may have my favorite physical interpretation of the role. He's such a fine actor. So vocally, probably Gary Mauer, physically John Cudia.
Random questions: Are you as horrified by the sequel musical as I am?? And, by some random chance, is your screen name a reference to the musical Tanz der Vampire?
Oh, my mistake, Emmy Rossum was nominated for a Golden Globe for best female performance in a film - musical or comedy, not an Academy Award. Still makes me sick. =)
I saw Gary Mauer in Phantom when he was on tour in Detroit and he was really good. That's so awesome that you got to sing with him. If I ever got to sing with or hang out with anyone that played the Phantom I'd probably just die of happiness hahaha. It's always good to hear that actors are really cool in person, especially ones who play such commanding parts and ones you have sentimental attachment to, it's like icing on the cake.
I've watched some videos of John Cudia playing the part and I really like his interpretation. I've been itching to get back to New York, so maybe I can get over there to see him finally.
About the sequel: At first I was like "how can Andrew Lloyd Webber further try and decimate his own masterpiece" (I say 'further' of course because of the movie). Then I read the plot and I was even more blown away by how much he's trying to change everything. I still don't know what to think of it, really, but the only reason I'm not pulling my hair out is because I've begun to think of it as a completely separate thing from the original... even kind of like a fanfiction that someone adapted for the stage. This obviously doesn't make it ok still, but it's easier to look at the music objectively.
I have to say, there are some songs I really like. They're not necessarily Phantom-esque, but here and there a little Phantom manages to get through. I'll probably go see it if it comes to Broadway, just as a curiosity for the staging and whatnot, but like I said, it will definitely be cut off in my mind completely from the original.
One thing in the sequel's defense, if not completely tongue-in-cheek: at least they cast someone who could sing as the Phantom and not Gerard Butler. I seriously can't believe how many delusional people there are out there that think he has "an amazing voice". My boyfriend is pretty much tone deaf and doesn't know much about musicals or singing and when I showed him the movie (after I'd made him see the stage show, mind you) even he was like "oh wow.. he's bad".
As for my screen name, it's not a reference to Tanz der Vampire, although I'm completely amused by that musical, haha. I really wished I'd been able to see it just to say I had. I also wish there was a recording of Michael Crawford singing the lead role. The screen name is just something I've used since I was younger (I'm 22 now, just thought I should throw that in there because the way I said that made me seem old, haha) and the fact that I love nighttime, probably inspired by Phantom of the Opera.
Funny story: I was in Berlin when they were doing the 10th anniversary of Tanz der Vampire with Thomas Borchert, and I was supposed to go see the show, and there was a massive wreck on the road between Nourenburg (where I was) and Berlin, and since we were driving, I missed it. To say I was sad doesn't begin to cover it.
I was very hesitant when I heard about the sequel, but I decided to listen with an open mind. I liked a few of the songs, and while I don't think Ramin Karimloo is terribly Phantom-y, he's good. I HATED the ending and I thought that largely the lyrics were terrible. I'm anxious to see what kind of overhauls the show will have before it debuts on Broadway. I'm hopeful, because I think there are tiny seeds of goodness spread throughout the show.
I loved the movie, and I'm about to see the traveling show, and I've read the book. So far I've liked the book the best. The movie was very good, but I felt that Gerard Butler couldn't quite capture the madness and depressing yet passionate emotion behind the Phantom. I thought Emmy Rossum was a TERRIBLE choice for Christine. She can sing, but I think someone else was better suited for the part.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But, mine is that the movie was better than the play. Great article, though. I have to agree, some of the movie was a bit off. But, overall, it was excellent.
Seriously. Why did you say these mean things about the 2004 Phantom of the Opera movie. It hurt me so much, it was like stabbing me in the gut. I'm not saying your a bad person, but, the Phantom of the Opera is my LIFE. It's really the only thing I can look forward to.
I support freedom of speech, but, I disagree with all of the mean things you said about PTO.
And yes, no need to remind me that I am a total nut case because I practically live for the movie. It's the one movie that I've been looking for-romance, sadness, loss, jealousy, hate, all wrapped up in one.
Please don't take any of this the wrong way.
Mean? I said "mean things"? It's a movie. It doesn't have feelings, and it isn't mean to critically analyze a creative work.
And disliking a movie really isn't a freedom of speech issue, sweetie.
I don't think you're a nutcase at all. We agree that the story is amazing. I was talking about the movie as a piece of film, and how it detracted from that story with its flaws. But you're right in saying that it has all the elements of a good romance, and that's what makes it a story worth telling; and if it's that good, I believe it deserves being told WELL.
As to the quality of the movie, age a few years, go see the show, then we'll talk.
You know what? I'm sorry. I let my anger get the better of me. Sorry I was so rude. I apologize.
I am a full out PHANgirlBut there's one little problem. i loathe Christine's character. Think really now did the Phantom really love a woman he did not truely know? Did he know her favorite color, what made her laugh, or just little things that she liked or disliked? Christine was so easily frightened and i believe that she did not truely see the phantom for the genious he is. Unlike chistine Meg Giry I believe would love erik with all of her heart for she is bold brave and still compasionate Always a meg/erik shipper Think about it !
I don't see an Erik/Meg connection, but I like what you said about Christine not necessarily being a good match for him. In the Susan Kay novel, Christine admits this herself. She writes in her journal:
"Oh, Erik, why did it have to be me? You chose a timorous, shrinking mouse on which to lavish your passionate devotion when, if God was loving, you should by rights have had a splendid young lioness!"
But I think that's one of the big themes of the story; love is blind. Erik isn't physically beautiful enough for Christine, and she isn't mature enough to deal with him and the emotions he brings out in her. But there's still a connection there, because they just can't help it.
Well maybe the phantom could have found someone else, someone who could deal with the passion and the emotion. Thats why I adore Erik?Oc fanfictions they allow a fan to explore a universe by making it their own. Always a dreamer of things that could have been... Little Dancer
I've never been a fan of taking stories too far from their origins...it's the student of literature in me. Thus my strong feelings on the Phantom movie- it kind of ruined the story for me by the changes made to the characters.
I think the beauty of the tragic love story is that it didn't work out, but it couldn't have happened any other way. A phantom would always fall for a Christine, etc.
Now, I'm all for writers exploring the possibilities on their own...but those are most fulfilling when it kind of evolves into a different story, and the characters become unique, earning their own names, their own actions, their own stories.
I own the DVD and I think it is simply amazing. I think is was well done. I have also seen it live on Broadway and I loved it there, too!
I LOVE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA!!!!!!! i dont hate the movie, but i dont like it either. I think Gerard Butler actually does a pretty decent job as the phantom. however, the problem is with EMMY ROSSUM. her voice SUCKS. She can never match up to Sarah Brightman...
awesome hub!! i find it realli informative. thanks for sharing!! please visit my hub too!!
I'm sorry ( maybe I'm supid or inexperienced saying this but)I have the soundtrack to the play(25th anniversary one) and the phantom DOES scream, like, every time his mask comes off and, personally I don't think he would do that. At least not in that shrill way he does. And I've read the book and I think he would growl(he'd regret it later)Also I (not trying to offend) don't exactly like sara brightman's voice. Don't get me wrong, I know she's talented but I just don't like her voice I would have prefered a voice like Haylie Westenra(you can't say she isn't good because she is) And I don't think Emmy Rossum is that bad, but I've only heard fuzzy versions on youtube so maybe I'm wrong on that one.
Again, I may be inexperienced because I'm 14 so, please no nasty replies.
One- The 25th Anniversary DVD doesn't come out here in the states for another 2 weeks, so I can't comment on that. I've liked Karimloo in other roles, so I'm assuming I'll like his portrayal, but you never know. It's perfectly ok to criticize an aspect of an actor's portrayal (like screaming instead of growling) by saying it's out of character :-)
Two- Believe me, your tastes will change drastically by the time you reach adulthood if you continue to listen to this kind of material (please, please do). You also have to keep in mind that voices like Hayley Westenra's weren't popular when this came out in the 80's. And plenty of people dislike Sarah Brightman, so there's no cause for shame there. :-)
However, there's no excusing Emmy Rossum. She couldn't sing or act the part. She was just bad.
I really enjoyed reading this you point out some big problems with the film. I unfortunately saw the movie first when it came out on DVD when I was 10 and fell in love with the phantom and it wasn't till I watched the extras and borrowed the original broadway cd from the library (I kept it for years) that I fell more in love with the actual story I then read a couple of shortened copies of the book in school. But having seen the stage show last September in London watching all the different films and reading both leroux and Kays books I can now fully justify being in love with this tormented soul. I used to think Emmy rossum was lovely but now I think she is just a step of that kristen Stewart one. And I think it is awful that they never used real singers the 25th anniversary DVD has kicked the 2004 one off the shelf and into the bin.
You guys are really getting me excited about the 25th anniversary DVD!! Can't wait until it comes out.
To the author: As a former film student and lover of the stage version of Phantom, I must say the movie came off a bit "cheesy" for lack of a better term. Odd for me to say since film actors typically mute the "cheese" factor versus theater or tv actors for obvious reasons. I also must say my biggest issue with the film version was the surprising amount of lips that were not in sync with the sound track during musical numbers. Huge miss in this film. I know these actors lip sync and, as you stated, were chosen specifically, but still fundamentals of film state the visual/audio MUST sync. Thus the use of the "marker". It distracts even the most amateur of film lovers even if they can't determine why they are so distracted during the scene.
I love the play, and saw it in a traveling (British) group 20 years ago at age 12. Webber is a master, and this is one of the most dynamic and touching pieces of art, yes art, I have ever witnessed. I certainly hope to see it many more times, but only on stage.
Write On! 3 years ago
I have seen them both. Love Phantom. Enjoyed both presentations, although very different.
Very passionate and well-done hub.
Write On!