Saw the POTO movie...

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 12/22/04 at 12:55am

Ah. I LOVED it. Granted, I don't know how qualified I am to judge it, seeing as I really see very few movies, and given the fact that I haven't seen Phantom on Broadway in almost 11 years, but I'll post a few things, since some of you asked...
It was interesting, because I really don't remember many details from when I saw Phantom, so this was almost as if it were all new to me. It was kind of nice to have that perspective.

I need to put in a word for the orchestra, first and foremost.... that one word being orgasmic. The band dork in me had fun tonight; the sound is huge, and just incredible. Props to the musicians.

I thought the film was beautifully done. The visuals are bright and vibrant, and really keep your eyes stimulated. The costumes are stunning, too.

Emmy - God, this girl is so gorgeous, it's not even fair. She was good, but a lot of times she sort of had this blank stare about her; I couldn't tell if she was trying to look possessed because Christine sort of is, or if she was just doing that without reason. Oh, well. I liked her.

Minnie Driver - even though she didn't sing, she was wonderful. I liked her interpretation of Carlotta a lot... bit of comic relief.

Gerard - I haven't listened to the CD much yet, but Michael Crawford he is not. His voice isn't awful, but he sounded like he was yelling and/or had a cold half the time. Really good actor, though. I can see why they picked him... he really captured the mysterious, lustful sexual tension that I always saw the Phantom embodying.

Patrick - "Impossibly perfect" in EVERY way. He has the voice of an angel. I remember seeing him in Oklahoma! and being blown away, knowing this guy was special. And... Patrick Wilson + white horse = VERY HAPPY Emcee.

One quick question, that may have some spoilage...

I feel like I remember the Phantom's deformity being due to a fire in the opera house... and him being a relative of someone? Am I totally crazy? In the movie, he was rescued from the circus as a child by Madame Giry, and allowed to live in the opera house. He says his deformity is due to a disease, I think. If it's different, what's that about?

Alright, I'm burnt out. I'll write more when my brain isn't on end-of-semester overload. I'm definitely going to see it again.

[insomniak]

Posted: 12/22/04 at 12:59am

Another lovely review. I hope to see it tommorrow and I've never seen the stage version, so it should be interesting.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 12/22/04 at 1:01am

Go go go! You'll like it. And, if nothing else, my Patrick is.... perfection. Patrick, Broadway misses your bright smile and beautiful voice. Come home!

Oh, on the Patrick note. I couldn't take that hair seriously. I'm sorry, but couldn't they have come up with something slightly less weird?

[BSoBW2]

Posted: 12/22/04 at 1:01am

eh, I hated the show on Bway - but I am curious about the movie. The only person I know is Patrick Wilson - from Oklahoma and, well, The Full Monty (<---avatar)

I think he was distorted in a fire or something?

Did it start like the musical? With the auction and the chandalier? Updated On: 12/22/04 at 01:01 AM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 12/22/04 at 1:02am

Yep, it starts with the auction.
The chandelier's actual fall is moved to a bit of a later point, but it works just fine.

[BSoBW2]

Posted: 12/22/04 at 1:07am

Well, the chand scene sux in the show (in the middle when he "swings" on it)

[amasis]

Posted: 12/22/04 at 1:10am

"I feel like I remember the Phantom's deformity being due to a fire in the opera house... and him being a relative of someone? Am I totally crazy?"

I actually don't remember the backstory being explained at all; then again, I saw it so long ago and was never particularly in love with it, so perhaps that's why I can't remember. Good review, though, Emcee. Thanks!

[LA Guy]

Posted: 12/22/04 at 1:33am

Okay, I just saw an advance screening in Los Angeles, and I have to say I thought it was pretty awful!

I pretty much disagree (respectfully) with everything luvthemcee has to say... the show lacks any kind of emotion, and any original idea that would have made for an interesting adaptation to the screen.

It was perhaps one of the most "faithful" adaptation from stage to screen, which means that there seems to have been a lack of imagination on the part of Joel Schumacher (and Andrew Lloyd Webber who co-wrote the 'screenplay' with Mr Schumacher). If I were Hal Prince, I would be demanding royalties, because it is as if ALW and Schumacher took the stage directions for the musical, and simply placed a camera on a sound stage and tried to recreate the staging (down to even the two guys drinking wine inside the elephant in the "Hannibal" sequence).

What has made for successful adaptations is some new take on the material to justify making it for the screen. What made "Chicago" so successful (and interesting) was the notion that all the musical sequences took place in Roxy's mind/imagination, which (1) makes musical transiitons less awkward, but (2) also makes for an added story layer, giving you added insight into Roxy's character.

In "Evita," Alan Parker successfully got over the awkward singing transitions by starting off with a shot of the radio playing musical, then tracking to show Banderas singing. It's a bit of a cheat, but clever - and seemless, to get over that natural inclination to think people bringing into song is strange.

In this version of POTO, there is nothing of the sort to give complexity, nuance or even a reason for the story to be on the screen. While the authors could have explored deeper interpretations (like the Phantom being a figment of Christine's imagination, or the Phantom represeting Christine's sexual awakening), they do nothing of the sort, leaving the movie lacking any sort of core to hold onto. And these are not my ideas I am expressing, but established literary interpretations of the material.

Ok - so what, you say - it's still a good story.

But, the direction of the movie is so poor, the story is lacking, and if anything shows the holes that the musical glosses over. It is sad to say, but the stage version is MUCH MORE cinematic than this screen version. Half the time I felt as though I was watching some new Clavin Klein perfume commercial, with the amount of slow tracking shots with cross dissolves and soft focus! Ug.

Next, the casting, acting and singing. I don't think they got one part right, though Minnie Driver brings some energy to the screen. As for the singing, it is light, listless and doesn't wow you in any way. To make matters worse, the actors lip-synching is so bad at times, Ashlee Simpson's SNL debacle looks tame by comparison (and I am not just talking about Driver's overdubbed singing voice). Wilson and Rossum especially seem to lip synch their songs as if they were speaking the words, not singing them. This brings a sort of disconnect to the audience, because you hear the singing, which requires effort on the part of the body, yet their mouths and body's appear almost motionless, as if they were just mouthing the words, not emoting them.

Worse, the characters switch from song to speaking with seemingly little reason, making all those transitions awkward. And then when it would seem natural from them to shift from song to speaking, they do just the opposite, and go from speaking to song (for instance, when the Phantom yells, "Go now - Go now and leave me..." In the movie, for some reason, he sort of sings it and not with any sense of urgency, but more out of some sense of defeat (which goes against what really should be the emotional underpinnings in this scene).

As for the acting and direction, I re-iterate a point I made earlier. There is NO emotion in this adaptation. The musical pulls you in so many ways - it's scary at times, humorous, romantic, touching, sad, etc. But this filmed version has none of that. You don't feel for the phantom, nor care much for Christine or Raoul.

Speaking of the phantom, can I also say that the make-up and masks seem to keep changing size and shape. Not that you would ever know he was disfugured, since Schumacher never really shows you what is wrong with him until the very end. And even then, the size of his mask was smaller than before, which would seem to suggest his "disfigurement" was not as bad as one would think with his white madk. but then, when he is revealed, all of a sudden the disfigurement takes up not just half his face, but half his skull as well... and sort of answers what happened to Chunk from the "Goonies" movies, since that is sort of what he looks like.

I think this movie fails on every level - as I was driving home from the screening, I had more fun sitting in traffic than I did for the 2.5 hours sitting in the dark.

And don't even get me started on the changes they DID make to the script. SPOILER ALERT -

If you are expecting the chandelier to fall where Act One would normally end, you're sorely disappointed. However, you wouldn't be disappointed, were there a better payoff to where they do finally crash the chandelier. In fact, I see NO creative reason for doing it where they did, and if anything, it undercuts the emotional moment which COULD have been, had they just left well enough alone.

Another strange thing is that half the time, you sort of get the feelings as though they don't want you to think this is a musical. Lots of long shots, obscured mouths, sort of voice-over singing, but then, when you get to "Masquerade" when they could have had a great "Masquerade Ball" sequence, with real dancing, instead they give you one of the most staged sequences, with musical theatre choreography and people singing directly to camera. Really odd and out of place with the rest of the movie.

But then again, it isn't that out of step, because the movie is a series of mis-steps. I can not think of one thing I liked, nor can I think of any reason why one should see this.

I feel bad for anyone who thinks they will get the stage experience in this movie version, because they will get anything but. Nothing inventive, nothing imaginative, nothing that will make them understand why this show was so ground-breaking when it premiered.

Which raises another issue: part of what made the show so special was the "special effects" that happen in a theatre right in front of you... a falling chandelier, a "lake" on stage, rising candelabras coming out of nowhere. Those happenings on stage, the first time I saw the show, were truly magical and awe-inspiring. On screen, when we can have fully realized CGI characters and/or see the Titanic sink, what's so special about a chandelier falling? The answer - nothing. And I still can't seem to understand why they candelabras in this film version rise from the lake for seemingly no reason (I mean, why wouldn't they just be free standing all the time?)

So, if you are expecting to get the same emotional feelings you had upon seeing the stage show, I am afraid you'll be sorely disappointed.

This "Phantom" phails. Updated On: 12/22/04 at 01:33 AM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 12/22/04 at 1:35am

It's okay. What you saw probably comes from being more familiar with the show, which I'm not.

[LA Guy]

Posted: 12/22/04 at 1:36am

I am very familiar with the show, but I am mostly judging it as a movie. And as a movie, I really think it is lacking.

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 12/22/04 at 1:41am

In the show he was simply born that way. and Mdm. Giry rescues him from the circus just like in the movie... it's some of the other stage versions of phantom that say he was burned in a fire (david spencer's for one...) I'm not sure that was the explination in the novel, but I'm too tired to check....

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 12/22/04 at 1:43am

That's what I was thinking, CATS. Somewhere, I saw a production where he was burned... regional one, I think.

[BSoBW2]

Posted: 12/22/04 at 1:44am

well, to me, the movie couldn't be worse than the show

[LA Guy]

Posted: 12/22/04 at 1:52am

I also believe that there is a myth based on some historical fact, that had to do with the architect of the Paris Opera house. That upon completion, he wanted to live there... and the existance of the lake is a fact.

[Rose_MacShane]

Posted: 12/22/04 at 1:56am

I'll admit, I'm not the biggest POTO fan, but I really liked the movie. I'm sure my review is still on this site somewhere...
I'm a notorious purist when it comes to adaptations, but I was fine with the chandelier drop being moved. I think it worked better there, to be honest. But like I said, I'm not a die-hard POTO fan. If this was Harry Potter we were talking about, you'd be seeing a very different side of me (don't even get me started on PoA...).
And Emcee: Patrick Wilson + half-open pirate shirt + swordfight = very happy Rose.

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 12/22/04 at 1:58am

Patrick Willson + angles in america + the beach scene + nakedness + zoom on the dvd player = very happy me.... Updated On: 12/22/04 at 01:58 AM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 12/22/04 at 1:59am

"And Emcee: Patrick Wilson + half-open pirate shirt + swordfight = very happy Rose."

When he was running down the steps, removing his multitude of shirts, I kept wondering when there would just be no more!!!

/end fangirlish comments.

[TheatreRatinBlue]

Posted: 12/22/04 at 2:05am

"I feel like I remember the Phantom's deformity being due to a fire in the opera house... and him being a relative of someone? Am I totally crazy? In the movie, he was rescued from the circus as a child by Madame Giry, and allowed to live in the opera house. He says his deformity is due to a disease, I think. If it's different, what's that about?"

In the book The Phantom of the Opera i seem to remember his face was deformed because of getting splashed with a chemical or something like that but maybe i'm just stoned?!

I'm going to see the movie next week sometime...maybe...i hope.

[etoile]

Posted: 12/22/04 at 2:30am

"Like yellow parchment is his skin... a great black hole served as the nose that never grew..."

[elvenprincess971]

Posted: 12/22/04 at 2:42am

its interesting how so many of the reviewers like the movie overall, but do not like most of the leads, or the plot, etc. After reading roger ebert's review, and others, i found that type of trend. Has anyone else who has seen the movie feel that way about it?

[Bal]

Posted: 12/22/04 at 2:42am

Haven't seen it yet, just wanted to add - Raoul's movie hair isn't period at all. He would have had it tied back.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 12/22/04 at 3:11am

He had it tied back for a few scenes. Looked a lot better tied back. I don't know what they were thinking with that hair, though.

Side note - about a year from now, we'll be talking about Rent. *head spins*

[elvenprincess971]

Posted: 12/22/04 at 3:19am

just curious, did it bother anyone of the small changes in the lyrics that they seemed to have made for the movie? I dont know for sure, but i just saw a clip of Andre and Firmin singing about their Notes, and they had changed some of the words. That, for me, would throw me off, because being a big fan of the show, i know the libretto frontwards and back. Im just curious if they made quite a few of those small changes, and if it threw anyone else off (maybe thats just me).

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 12/22/04 at 3:22am

This has nothing to do with Phantom, but I'm tired, so... I ADORE your icon.

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 12/22/04 at 3:35am

just curious, did it bother any one of the small changes in the lyrics that they seemed to have made for the movie? I don't know for sure, but i just saw a clip of Andre and Firmin singing about their Notes, and they had changed some of the words. That, for me, would throw me off, because being a big fan of the show, i know the libretto frontwards and back. Im just curious if they made quite a few of those small changes, and if it threw anyone else off (maybe thats just me).

Which changes are you talking about? because honestly there was a post on this before and if you're talking changes from the OLCR vs. the movie, a lot of lyrics have been subject to changes over the years that are reflected on the Canadian cast recording and other more recent recordings of the stage show...

one line in peticular is different on all three:

OLCR: "I trust her midnight oil is well and truly burned."

OCCR: "In which case I think our meeting is adjourned."

Film: "I hope no worse for where as far as we're concerned."

see?