"Keep your hand at the level of your eye!"
Today, to celebrate its recent re-release on Netflix, my discourse will cover Joel Schumacher's 2004 film adaptation of Andrew Lloyd Webber's musical, Phantom of the Opera (which, in turn, was based on Gaston Leroux's 1910 novel of the same name). I'm very torn writing this, because I both love this movie and think it's kind of a dumpster fire. But I'll get into that.
For those that don't know, The Phantom of the Opera tells the story of young orphan Christine Daae, who is taken under the wing of ballet instructor Madame Giry and lives at the Opera Populaire in Paris, France. After the former owner of the opera house retires, it falls into the hands of two rather foolish businessmen and their patron, the Viscount de Chagny (who was Christine's childhood sweetheart, incidentally). Madame Giry informs the two businessmen, Andre and Firmin, that a phantom resides in the opera house, composing music and requiring a very high fee. Ignoring Madame Giry's warnings not to defy the phantom, the phantom wreaks havoc on the opera house, killing people and kidnapping Christine, with whom he has fallen in love. The rest of the plot devolves into a love triangle between Raoul (the Viscount), Christine, and the phantom (Erik...although I'm not sure he's even ever named in the film).
It's a familiar and very popular story- if a mite overrated. However, I'm not sure that Schumacher or his cast do the story justice. For instance, Erik (played by Gerard Butler) is highly glamorized in the film. The phantom is supposed to be hideously disfigured- so disfigured that not even his mother could love him. However, Gerard Butler's chiseled features and jet-black coif in the film make it really hard to believe that anyone could NOT love him, despite his murderous tendencies. The way that Butler plays the phantom makes you completely look past the fact that he's doing some seriously fucked up things, and even to me makes him more preferable than Raoul (played by Patrick Wilson), who's supposed to be the reasonable choice for Christine's affections. The way Raoul is characterized, in contrast to the phantom, is slightly chauvinistic, entitled, and flat. Actually, I could argue that most of the characters in the movie are flat. Christine seems to develop in her understanding of the phantom's intentions and cruelties, but it's really hard for the viewer to make out what is going on in Christine's head, why she makes the choices for or against either Raoul or the phantom. That, for me, is really unsatisfying. Additionally, Madame Giry seems to serve no purpose but to deliver exposition, and her daughter Meg, though apparently good friends with Christine, barely shows up in the plot. However, the problem with the writing for this movie is hard to pin down, as the original source material has been adapted and re-adapted so many times over the years. The static characterizations could be the fault of Webber, Leroux, Schumacher, the actors in the film, or any combination of these.
Then there's the music of the film. People have a wild variety of feelings about Webber's musical. Roger Ebert, for example, apparently hated the musical, describing the music as little more than trite sludge (I'm paraphrasing, but that's the gist). I think the music for Phantom is catchy and interesting, the way it pairs creepy organ music with 80s drum machines. I have to agree with Ebert, though, about some of Webber's lyrics being banal, but I'm not here to drag Webber. I'm here to talk about the movie. I have a small confession to make. I honestly prefer the 2004 film recording to the original Broadway cast recording of Phantom, but that's because I can't stand the way Michael Crawford and Sarah Brightman (the original Erik and Christine) sing. The singing in the movie is actually very good, and I know that Emmy Rossum, who played Christine, really sang all the music herself. She was 18 at the time. That's younger than me, and I'm a little jealous. I have annoyed many people since my sophomore year of high school trying to belt out Christine's high notes from the musical's titular song. So props to Emmy Rossum, the other actors (for even if they didn't sing their parts, they did a bang-up job lip-syncing), and the orchestra behind the recordings.
The design of the movie is also stellar. I will give Schumacher and his designers credit for making the sights and sounds of the Opera Populaire jump off the screen, from the rich jewel tones of the sets and costumes of the performers onstage to the dark, dampness of the phantom's layer below the theatre. You can almost literally smell the dank underbelly that lies below all the splendor above. Perhaps one of my favorite parts of the movie is that when the phantom leads Christine through a hallway behind her dressing room mirror, the walls are golden and illuminated by disembodied arms holding glowing torches; however, when her friend Meg later steps behind the mirror, she finds nothing but a black, ghostly tunnel infested with rats and covered in grime. It's just a great juxtaposition.
To wrap it up, I think this movie is beautiful to look at and pleasing to listen to, but there are some holes in the characterization that, to me, hold it back. I feel that the beauty of this film is truly in the eye of the beholder, and how you feel about Andrew Lloyd Webber himself might persuade your feelings one way or the other before the first scene is over.
Rating: B
Today, to celebrate its recent re-release on Netflix, my discourse will cover Joel Schumacher's 2004 film adaptation of Andrew Lloyd Webber's musical, Phantom of the Opera (which, in turn, was based on Gaston Leroux's 1910 novel of the same name). I'm very torn writing this, because I both love this movie and think it's kind of a dumpster fire. But I'll get into that.
For those that don't know, The Phantom of the Opera tells the story of young orphan Christine Daae, who is taken under the wing of ballet instructor Madame Giry and lives at the Opera Populaire in Paris, France. After the former owner of the opera house retires, it falls into the hands of two rather foolish businessmen and their patron, the Viscount de Chagny (who was Christine's childhood sweetheart, incidentally). Madame Giry informs the two businessmen, Andre and Firmin, that a phantom resides in the opera house, composing music and requiring a very high fee. Ignoring Madame Giry's warnings not to defy the phantom, the phantom wreaks havoc on the opera house, killing people and kidnapping Christine, with whom he has fallen in love. The rest of the plot devolves into a love triangle between Raoul (the Viscount), Christine, and the phantom (Erik...although I'm not sure he's even ever named in the film).
It's a familiar and very popular story- if a mite overrated. However, I'm not sure that Schumacher or his cast do the story justice. For instance, Erik (played by Gerard Butler) is highly glamorized in the film. The phantom is supposed to be hideously disfigured- so disfigured that not even his mother could love him. However, Gerard Butler's chiseled features and jet-black coif in the film make it really hard to believe that anyone could NOT love him, despite his murderous tendencies. The way that Butler plays the phantom makes you completely look past the fact that he's doing some seriously fucked up things, and even to me makes him more preferable than Raoul (played by Patrick Wilson), who's supposed to be the reasonable choice for Christine's affections. The way Raoul is characterized, in contrast to the phantom, is slightly chauvinistic, entitled, and flat. Actually, I could argue that most of the characters in the movie are flat. Christine seems to develop in her understanding of the phantom's intentions and cruelties, but it's really hard for the viewer to make out what is going on in Christine's head, why she makes the choices for or against either Raoul or the phantom. That, for me, is really unsatisfying. Additionally, Madame Giry seems to serve no purpose but to deliver exposition, and her daughter Meg, though apparently good friends with Christine, barely shows up in the plot. However, the problem with the writing for this movie is hard to pin down, as the original source material has been adapted and re-adapted so many times over the years. The static characterizations could be the fault of Webber, Leroux, Schumacher, the actors in the film, or any combination of these.
Then there's the music of the film. People have a wild variety of feelings about Webber's musical. Roger Ebert, for example, apparently hated the musical, describing the music as little more than trite sludge (I'm paraphrasing, but that's the gist). I think the music for Phantom is catchy and interesting, the way it pairs creepy organ music with 80s drum machines. I have to agree with Ebert, though, about some of Webber's lyrics being banal, but I'm not here to drag Webber. I'm here to talk about the movie. I have a small confession to make. I honestly prefer the 2004 film recording to the original Broadway cast recording of Phantom, but that's because I can't stand the way Michael Crawford and Sarah Brightman (the original Erik and Christine) sing. The singing in the movie is actually very good, and I know that Emmy Rossum, who played Christine, really sang all the music herself. She was 18 at the time. That's younger than me, and I'm a little jealous. I have annoyed many people since my sophomore year of high school trying to belt out Christine's high notes from the musical's titular song. So props to Emmy Rossum, the other actors (for even if they didn't sing their parts, they did a bang-up job lip-syncing), and the orchestra behind the recordings.
The design of the movie is also stellar. I will give Schumacher and his designers credit for making the sights and sounds of the Opera Populaire jump off the screen, from the rich jewel tones of the sets and costumes of the performers onstage to the dark, dampness of the phantom's layer below the theatre. You can almost literally smell the dank underbelly that lies below all the splendor above. Perhaps one of my favorite parts of the movie is that when the phantom leads Christine through a hallway behind her dressing room mirror, the walls are golden and illuminated by disembodied arms holding glowing torches; however, when her friend Meg later steps behind the mirror, she finds nothing but a black, ghostly tunnel infested with rats and covered in grime. It's just a great juxtaposition.
To wrap it up, I think this movie is beautiful to look at and pleasing to listen to, but there are some holes in the characterization that, to me, hold it back. I feel that the beauty of this film is truly in the eye of the beholder, and how you feel about Andrew Lloyd Webber himself might persuade your feelings one way or the other before the first scene is over.
Rating: B
Comments
Post a Comment