I am a huge musical theatre fan. Therefore, by definition, I absolutely adore Andrew Lloyd Webber’s The Phantom of the Opera. After seeing the show live in London’s West End a couple of years ago, I have become completely captivated by the Phantom, the music, the drama and the story. It was unlike anything I have seen before, and I still haven’t seen a musical similar to it yet.
When I finally came back to the States, I immediately searched for the DVD of the 2004 Phantom of the Opera movie and ordered it online, without knowing hardly anything about it. As soon as I received it, I put it in my TV/DVD combo and began watching it, because I couldn’t wait a second longer to immerse myself into the Music of the Night again. As they rolled, I couldn’t help but notice two things within the opening credits.
“A Really Useful Films Production”
That’s when I thought: Hey, that’s Lloyd Webber’s production company! He must have had an important role in the development of the script, the casting, the set design, and everyone else. That’s good to know that this movie was in the good hands of its composer. How could this movie possibly suck?
“Directed by Joel Schumacher”
Oh crap.
That’s right. Joel “Bat Credit Card” Schumacher. To be fair, Schumacher has had a great career before…”the Incident that Shall Not be Named”. He directed such underrated classics as The Lost Boys, Falling Down, and A Time to Kill. He was approached by Lloyd Webber way back in 1989 to make a film adaptation of Phantom, which would use the original stage cast. However, due to various scheduling conflicts, the script sat in development hell for over a decade. Obviously, the film was eventually made, but with a whole new cast playing the now iconic roles.
So, to answer the question I know is on your mind right now, no, the movie does not suck. But that is about all does. Schumacher doesn’t really take chances with this movie as he has in his previous films, and what we are left with is an overabundance of adequacy. The costumes are adequate, the acting is adequate, the cinematography is adequate, and the effects are adequate. But Phantom should not adequate! Phantom should be a jaw-dropping experience, as I’ve had in the West End! Maybe the amazing stage show spoiled this movie for me, but I felt that the film didn’t live up to the show it was based on.
But maybe there is a silver lining within this thick cloud of “meh”. For one thing, the musical score is virtually untouched from the original show, which is great. If you do call yourself a “phan”, you’ll be happy to know that all of your favorite songs appear in this movie, albeit in a somewhat different order to match the adaptation on the screen. Better yet, the score has been revived by a 105-piece orchestra in this film, compared to the 27-piece orchestra of the original soundtrack. The score sounds great and familiar to those like me who can sing along to the entire song list, although there are numerous annoying lines which were sung by the characters in the stage show that are now spoken here in the film version.
While we are on the subject of music, let’s talk about the cast and their voices. First up is Gerard Butler as the titular character. Purists would call out that Butler was nowhere near as good in the role of the Phantom as the originator, Michael Crawford. But I don’t personally like comparing performers to other performers; I like to judge performances on their own merit. With this in mind, I actually enjoyed Butler in this film. Sure, his singing was very shaky at times, but he absolutely nailed “The Music of the Night”, which was important for myself. Overall, I was surprised as to how well this buff action-movie type with no real singing experience was able to perform the arguably most difficult role in musical theatre history. To add to that, he brought such a raw, primal energy to the Phantom character that I haven’t thought about before.
My complaints for the Phantom have more to do with the direction than with the acting. First, the horrible, devastating deformation of the Phantom’s face “tis but a flesh wound” in my eyes. I just couldn’t see how this large, birthmark-ish feature on the right side of his face could have subjected him to a life of exclusion and freak-show confinement. And speaking of which, the Phantom’s quick 5-minute back story just seemed too contrived and uninsightful, though I suspect was pulled right from the 1909 novel. And finally, the Phantom in this movie has lost all of the magical powers he had in the stage show. While this creates a more realistic story, it ultimately makes the Phantom more human and not as threatening as he was on stage. It completely changes the story from being a horror/drama hybrid to just being a drama.
There isn’t much to say about the rest of the cast. Emmy Rossum as Christine has a very good voice, but I didn’t really appreciate the “sad little girl” look glued onto her face throughout the film. Patrick Wilson as Raoul was also a good singer, but not memorable after that. The rest of the cast just wasn’t developed enough to call interesting, but served their purpose. However, the less I say about Minnie Driver as the prima donna Carlotta, the better. Driver thought that the best way to represent the arrogant Italian opera singer was through her best Rosie Perez-impersonation.
As for the story, what can I say? The film was based on the 1986 musical, which was based on a 1976 musical by Ken Hill, which was based on the 1925 film starring Lon Chaney, which was based on the novel by Gaston Leroux. This movie is a fifth-generation adaptation of the original story. But there is a good reason why there are so many versions of this story: it is a damn good story. It is a classic “Beauty and the Beast” tale that completely embraces its romantic yet dark atmosphere. It was only natural that the story would become an opera, and it was only natural that the opera would become a movie.
Phantom has some very silly moments, but I am still recommending it solely because it is the only film adaptation of the Lloyd Webber musical, which is an excellent piece of work (by the way, Les Miserables better follow suit pretty damn quick!). I would recommend buying the original London soundtrack to everyone, but not before seeing the story played out at least once, either through this film or through the actual stage show, so that you can understand the context of the music. You might not be completely blown away by the movie, but I guarantee that the music will astound you.
Rating: 3 Stars
Distributed by Warner Bros. Films
Produced by Really Useful Films
Running time: 143 minutes
No comments:
Post a Comment