Phantom movie, take two
Mom and I went to see the Phantom of the Opera movie this evening for the second time.
The first time I saw it, I deliberately avoided reading up on the film because I just wanted to experience it cold and judge it before being contaminated by other phans' opinions. I had very mixed feelings. There was a heavy dose of "SQUEE!!! POTO on the big screen! OMG!", tempered with "Eh, not crazy about some of the changes. And that Butler guy? Just not Erik."
Since then I've re-read Leroux and Kay, read Siciliano and (alas, as I will never get those hours of my life back) a certain Mr. Forsythe. >_< I've also listened to the Crawford/Brightman soundtrack twice, surfed LJ and elsewhere on the net to get a feel for what other phans think. In my browsing I found notmyphantom, a community for people who were disappointed with Butler as the Phantom. It's not a "OMG GERRY SUXX0RZ!!!1" fest, but rather some fairly rational, mature conversation about why he's unsatisfactroy, and why the movie in general left some phans displeased.
In a nutshell, I liked a whole lot of things about the movie, but my perception of Gerard Butler as a sub-par Phantom tainted my enjoyment of the whole production.
In something-much-longer-than-a-nutshell, here's the review/article/thingie I wrote for the Not My Phantom community as my introductory post...
I wanted to love the movie. I wanted it to be spot-on perfect. I wanted to be left breathless and teary. I wanted to feel the urge to see it every week until it left the theater. I wanted it to be everything I had ever dreamed it would be.
I had scoured newspapers and magazines in the pre-Internet years, looking for any mention of a movie version in the works. I sweated through rumors of John Travolta and Antonio Banderas being cast as the title character. I despaired as each year passed, Crawford and Brightman getting older and older, and still no movie. I saw the movie of Evita and adored it both for its own sake and because if the Phantom movie would be as good as that, I was in for a treat.
Then, finally the Phantom movie was coming! I had no idea who any of the actors were (except Minnie Driver) but I trusted Sir Andrew to uphold a high standard of production and casting.
Oh, what woe. What betrayal. What disappointment! :(
Don't get me wrong...I enjoyed the movie. I actually thought Christine and Raoul were good, and although I could have done without the thick accent on the elder of the two, the Giry ladies were excellent. Minnie Driver stole every scene she was in as Carlotta. The managers were fine. Seeing the opera house spring to life in the opening scene literally gave me shivers down my spine, as did hearing the score in Dolby surround sound. The sets were gorgeous. Most of the costumes were excellent. Overall, there were lots of things I really liked.
But what good is all that when the title character is so...bleh? I guess Mr. Butler really was doing the best he could, but he should never have been cast in the first place. No experience or training as a singer? What were they THINKING? Rossum works, for me, in part because she has background as an opera singer. [EDIT: Appears I was mistaken in that she's not trained in opera, but she does have prior singing experience. Mea culpa.] But for the Phantom himself it's even more critical that his voice have power. Some cheap echo-effects here and there from the sound booth are NOT enough to make Butler sound impressive. Erik IS his voice. He hypnotizes people, reels them in and captures their souls, all with the power of his voice. He makes Christine enthralled, enamored, ready to follow him into Hell itself, all with the power of his voice. He makes otherwise national people believe in ghosts and angels with his voice. There is no more crucial part of the story than Erik's voice. To cast someone with a subpar, inexperienced voice in that role is positively criminal.
Also, Butler's just too damn good-looking. I find the character alluring, certainly, and Crawford's smooth, sensual motions make me weak-kneed. But the Phantom is not supposed to be pretty. Mr. Butler is pretty. In another movie that would be a treat, but he's the bloody Phantom of the Opera, for crying out loud. Yet somehow, paradoxically, he's not attractive enough. I think you all know what I mean.
There's Butler, who's got gorgeous eyes, perfect lips, a noble chin, a nice body...yet he's just sort of...there.
Then there's Crawford who's really rather average-looking even without makeup...more cute than handsome. (Have you seen him in the movie of "Hello, Dolly!"? He's adorable! You want to scoop him up and take him home in your pocket. But I digress.) You've got Crawford, who's no centerfold, yet who has such stage presence, such a captivating voice, and who moves with such regal, feline grace, that he leaves the women in the audience squirming in their seats and reminding themselves to breathe.
That's the essence of the Phantom; what he lacks in good looks he more than makes up for with the power of his spirit, his voice, his presence, and his movements.
I liked so much about this movie. I wanted so badly to love the entire thing. And because of the power of the story and the beauty of the music it was still watchable...even enjoyable. But lordy, it could have been SO much better if only there had been a better Erik. I'm truly mystified at why they would cast a pretty-boy actor with no prior training as a singer in the most important role in the production.
Other, miscellaneous notes...
That sword duel? No. Just...no. I'm as big a fan of sword fights as the next woman, and I loved that stuff in Pirates of the Caribbean. But the "real" Erik could have whupped Raoul's blue-blooded heiney any day of the week. Erik's defended his life for decades, including in hostile Persia. Raoul's probably had fencing lessons. No contest. Not to mention the fact that Erik doesn't have any qualms about not playing fair when the situation warrants it. I can see Raoul whipping out a sabre and shouting "En guarde!" while Erik looks at him in disgust for a moment, then lashes out with his Punjab lasso, and boom--dead viscount. Heh. ;)
I cringe a little, but I can understand why they moved the chandelier's demise to the end of the movie. Without an intermission I can see where it makes some dramatic, cinematic sense. It's still jarring, though. :\
There is no way on God's green earth that Erik would forget to shut and secure the mirror portal behind him. I don't care how excited he was to finally be able to touch Christine. I don't care how nice her boobies were. Erik is a master of stealth, secrecy and privacy. He would never make a stupid mistake like leaving the mirror ajar. And why did the filmmakers give him this out-of-character lapse of judgment? To insert a completely pointless scene of Meg poking her nose into the secret passageway. o_0 It makes no sense at all.
Carlotta's doggies crack me up.
The Red Death costume was rather simplistic compared to the stage version, and not in a good way. I miss the big poofy feathers on the hat. :( I know the stage actors couldn't see or walk much in that getup, but this is a movie--there's more freedom, and they really could have done something special with that.
I'm sure I had more stuff to say but my brain just decided to be uncooperative.
EDIT: Oh yeah, the other major point I wanted to mention was the Phantom's makeup.
Complaint #1: It's not extreme enough. It's less deformed than in the stage play, when logic actually dictates the opposite. On the stage small details aren't as visible as they are blown up 200 times larger than life on a movie screen. It's also difficult to put on a complicated makeup job night after night for Broadway. Doing it just to shoot the movie is a much smaller committment. Go all out! This is Hollywood, the town that spawned the Westmores, ILM and Lon Chaney...push the envelope! Heck, with CGI they could even have removed the Phantom's nose! But no. Instead we get something that looks like he got into a motorcycle accident and got asphalt burn on one side of his face. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever! >_<
Complaint #2: Unmasked, Erik's right eye (our left) is surrounded by red welts, and his lower lid is pulled askew. The rash goes all the way over to encompass his ear. When he's got his mask on, however, his ear is exposed and looks totally normal. We can see his eye and some skin surrounding it, and it's also completely unmarred. How hard could it possibly be to stick some extra makeup around his eye before you put the mask on? Come on, people! It's like they weren't even trying. I can understand not wanting to waste money and time to do the full makeup job when they scenes they were shooting that day didn't call for him to be unmasked. So leave the unexposed part of his head normal, but at least smear some red coloring around his eye. SOMETHING to indicate that the half of his face behind the mask isn't a symmetric match to the visible half.
The first time I saw it, I deliberately avoided reading up on the film because I just wanted to experience it cold and judge it before being contaminated by other phans' opinions. I had very mixed feelings. There was a heavy dose of "SQUEE!!! POTO on the big screen! OMG!", tempered with "Eh, not crazy about some of the changes. And that Butler guy? Just not Erik."
Since then I've re-read Leroux and Kay, read Siciliano and (alas, as I will never get those hours of my life back) a certain Mr. Forsythe. >_< I've also listened to the Crawford/Brightman soundtrack twice, surfed LJ and elsewhere on the net to get a feel for what other phans think. In my browsing I found notmyphantom, a community for people who were disappointed with Butler as the Phantom. It's not a "OMG GERRY SUXX0RZ!!!1" fest, but rather some fairly rational, mature conversation about why he's unsatisfactroy, and why the movie in general left some phans displeased.
In a nutshell, I liked a whole lot of things about the movie, but my perception of Gerard Butler as a sub-par Phantom tainted my enjoyment of the whole production.
In something-much-longer-than-a-nutshell, here's the review/article/thingie I wrote for the Not My Phantom community as my introductory post...
I wanted to love the movie. I wanted it to be spot-on perfect. I wanted to be left breathless and teary. I wanted to feel the urge to see it every week until it left the theater. I wanted it to be everything I had ever dreamed it would be.
I had scoured newspapers and magazines in the pre-Internet years, looking for any mention of a movie version in the works. I sweated through rumors of John Travolta and Antonio Banderas being cast as the title character. I despaired as each year passed, Crawford and Brightman getting older and older, and still no movie. I saw the movie of Evita and adored it both for its own sake and because if the Phantom movie would be as good as that, I was in for a treat.
Then, finally the Phantom movie was coming! I had no idea who any of the actors were (except Minnie Driver) but I trusted Sir Andrew to uphold a high standard of production and casting.
Oh, what woe. What betrayal. What disappointment! :(
Don't get me wrong...I enjoyed the movie. I actually thought Christine and Raoul were good, and although I could have done without the thick accent on the elder of the two, the Giry ladies were excellent. Minnie Driver stole every scene she was in as Carlotta. The managers were fine. Seeing the opera house spring to life in the opening scene literally gave me shivers down my spine, as did hearing the score in Dolby surround sound. The sets were gorgeous. Most of the costumes were excellent. Overall, there were lots of things I really liked.
But what good is all that when the title character is so...bleh? I guess Mr. Butler really was doing the best he could, but he should never have been cast in the first place. No experience or training as a singer? What were they THINKING? Rossum works, for me, in part because she has background as an opera singer. [EDIT: Appears I was mistaken in that she's not trained in opera, but she does have prior singing experience. Mea culpa.] But for the Phantom himself it's even more critical that his voice have power. Some cheap echo-effects here and there from the sound booth are NOT enough to make Butler sound impressive. Erik IS his voice. He hypnotizes people, reels them in and captures their souls, all with the power of his voice. He makes Christine enthralled, enamored, ready to follow him into Hell itself, all with the power of his voice. He makes otherwise national people believe in ghosts and angels with his voice. There is no more crucial part of the story than Erik's voice. To cast someone with a subpar, inexperienced voice in that role is positively criminal.
Also, Butler's just too damn good-looking. I find the character alluring, certainly, and Crawford's smooth, sensual motions make me weak-kneed. But the Phantom is not supposed to be pretty. Mr. Butler is pretty. In another movie that would be a treat, but he's the bloody Phantom of the Opera, for crying out loud. Yet somehow, paradoxically, he's not attractive enough. I think you all know what I mean.
There's Butler, who's got gorgeous eyes, perfect lips, a noble chin, a nice body...yet he's just sort of...there.
Then there's Crawford who's really rather average-looking even without makeup...more cute than handsome. (Have you seen him in the movie of "Hello, Dolly!"? He's adorable! You want to scoop him up and take him home in your pocket. But I digress.) You've got Crawford, who's no centerfold, yet who has such stage presence, such a captivating voice, and who moves with such regal, feline grace, that he leaves the women in the audience squirming in their seats and reminding themselves to breathe.
That's the essence of the Phantom; what he lacks in good looks he more than makes up for with the power of his spirit, his voice, his presence, and his movements.
I liked so much about this movie. I wanted so badly to love the entire thing. And because of the power of the story and the beauty of the music it was still watchable...even enjoyable. But lordy, it could have been SO much better if only there had been a better Erik. I'm truly mystified at why they would cast a pretty-boy actor with no prior training as a singer in the most important role in the production.
Other, miscellaneous notes...
That sword duel? No. Just...no. I'm as big a fan of sword fights as the next woman, and I loved that stuff in Pirates of the Caribbean. But the "real" Erik could have whupped Raoul's blue-blooded heiney any day of the week. Erik's defended his life for decades, including in hostile Persia. Raoul's probably had fencing lessons. No contest. Not to mention the fact that Erik doesn't have any qualms about not playing fair when the situation warrants it. I can see Raoul whipping out a sabre and shouting "En guarde!" while Erik looks at him in disgust for a moment, then lashes out with his Punjab lasso, and boom--dead viscount. Heh. ;)
I cringe a little, but I can understand why they moved the chandelier's demise to the end of the movie. Without an intermission I can see where it makes some dramatic, cinematic sense. It's still jarring, though. :\
There is no way on God's green earth that Erik would forget to shut and secure the mirror portal behind him. I don't care how excited he was to finally be able to touch Christine. I don't care how nice her boobies were. Erik is a master of stealth, secrecy and privacy. He would never make a stupid mistake like leaving the mirror ajar. And why did the filmmakers give him this out-of-character lapse of judgment? To insert a completely pointless scene of Meg poking her nose into the secret passageway. o_0 It makes no sense at all.
Carlotta's doggies crack me up.
The Red Death costume was rather simplistic compared to the stage version, and not in a good way. I miss the big poofy feathers on the hat. :( I know the stage actors couldn't see or walk much in that getup, but this is a movie--there's more freedom, and they really could have done something special with that.
I'm sure I had more stuff to say but my brain just decided to be uncooperative.
EDIT: Oh yeah, the other major point I wanted to mention was the Phantom's makeup.
Complaint #1: It's not extreme enough. It's less deformed than in the stage play, when logic actually dictates the opposite. On the stage small details aren't as visible as they are blown up 200 times larger than life on a movie screen. It's also difficult to put on a complicated makeup job night after night for Broadway. Doing it just to shoot the movie is a much smaller committment. Go all out! This is Hollywood, the town that spawned the Westmores, ILM and Lon Chaney...push the envelope! Heck, with CGI they could even have removed the Phantom's nose! But no. Instead we get something that looks like he got into a motorcycle accident and got asphalt burn on one side of his face. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever! >_<
Complaint #2: Unmasked, Erik's right eye (our left) is surrounded by red welts, and his lower lid is pulled askew. The rash goes all the way over to encompass his ear. When he's got his mask on, however, his ear is exposed and looks totally normal. We can see his eye and some skin surrounding it, and it's also completely unmarred. How hard could it possibly be to stick some extra makeup around his eye before you put the mask on? Come on, people! It's like they weren't even trying. I can understand not wanting to waste money and time to do the full makeup job when they scenes they were shooting that day didn't call for him to be unmasked. So leave the unexposed part of his head normal, but at least smear some red coloring around his eye. SOMETHING to indicate that the half of his face behind the mask isn't a symmetric match to the visible half.