The Music of the Night - A Phantom of the Opera Discussion/Debate

Hi all. Excellent thread. I am looking so forward to seeing this movie probably as soon as the new year arrives.

I am very fond of Colm Wilkinson's rendition of the Phantom. I never got to see him though.

This movie is a must-have for me.

 

The Phantom as circus freak isn't a story change per se, but rather a fleshing out. It's been included in many a telling of the tale.

And Schumacher had a bad run of films in the late '90s (Batman Forever <meh>, A Time to Kill <meh>, Batman & Robin <atrocious>, 8MM <muddled>). He ruined the Batman franchise and, yeah, I was a little wary of him handling such a big commercial piece again. There were still a few, let's say "flourishes," in this film that I could have done without, but overall he did a good job and I am relieved.

Too bad most critics don't seem to agree. It's faring a lot worse than Chicago did.

L8r

 

There were still a few, let's say "flourishes," in this film that I could have done without. . . .

Such as what?

 

...hmm..

Whether you liked'em or not, both Batman Forever <meh> and A Time to Kill <meh> were pretty substantial commercial successes at the time (so a fairly large number of people at least thought enough of them to fork over the cash to see'em)..

And i'd never seen the circus freak bit used in any renditions of the Andrew Lloyd Webber-penned story before this..

 

Regarding my "flourishes" comment, let's just say I think Schumacher has a thing for nipples and cod pieces. It took me out of the movie a couple of times, but thankfully they were brief.

And i'd never seen the circus freak bit used in any renditions of the Andrew Lloyd Webber-penned story before this..

I never said they were in any previous Webber versions, but he didn't originate the story now did he?

L8r

 

I never said they were in any previous Webber versions, but he didn't originate the story now did he?

No, but this is a theatrical treatment of Webber's play, thus, well, it was just a bit strange to see the story go that route.

For a play, i think the opera-fire works better. It's just a bit more grandiose and romantic, ya know?

 

Also, I forgot to mention the voguing during "Masquerade." Maybe if I never knew what that dance was it would have worked okay, but as it is, it pulled me out of the movie. I highly doubt people were voguing back in the late 19th century.

As for the Phantom's backstory, it should have been in the play. Even after watching the play originally, I thought it weird that we never really knew who this guy was or why he was haunting the opera house. The movie did a good job of showing Giry's complicity in the goings on at the opera house, which I think the play failed to capitalize on as well. The movie added a couple of touches from the novel (Giry's complicity, Phantom's history, the use of clever traps, etc.) which I thought were great.

L8r

 

It's faring a lot worse than Chicago did.

The New York Times blasted this in their review. And they're pretty good reviewers...

Of course, I've never liked Andrew Loyd Webber.

 

Even after watching the play originally, I thought it weird that we never really knew who this guy was or why he was haunting the opera house.

We didn't? At least in the version of the play i saw, it was made quite clear that the Phantom was a former actor who's face was burnt in a fire that occurred in the Opera house. Some said he was dead (hence why he was 'the Phantom of the Opera') but really he had gone to live in the catacombs under the city..

You're right about it being interesting to see how Giry figured into things from the original nove. It offers up something fresh for fans of the play.


And does anyone else find it bizarre how most negative reviews of this film are written by people who didn't like the play (or Andrew Lloyd Webber) in the first place? If you read thru the negative reviews, there are alot of them out there that basically say "i hated the play, so of course i'm gonna hate this"...

This bothers me, for some reason.. It's like the reviewers aren't remaining objective on this issue going into it, ya know?

Not that reviewing a film is something that's easy to be objective about, but still.. It seems like this flick has the cards stacked against it before people even watch it!

 

We didn't? At least in the version of the play i saw, it was made quite clear that the Phantom was a former actor who's face was burnt in a fire that occurred in the Opera house. Some said he was dead (hence why he was 'the Phantom of the Opera') but really he had gone to live in the catacombs under the city..

If that was mentioned in the Lloyd Webber play, I missed it. Which wouldn't be hard to do at the rate they drop some info and then move on.

Still, that origin doesn't quite mesh with the novel, but the movie origin does. I liked that scene.

L8r

 

The idea of the Phantom having a history as circus freak is actually quite close to what is included in the musical. It's in scene two, right after Masquerade. Now this scene is cut from the original soundtrack but it's in the libretto.

Basically Raoul runs after Madame Giry and they have the following conversation:

Raoul: Madame Giry, madame Giry...
Giry: Monseiur, don't ask me - I know no more than anyone else.
Raoul: That's not true. You've seen something, haven't you?
Giry: I've don't know what I've seen...Please don't ask me Monsieur...
Raoul: Madame, for all our sakes...
Giry: Very well. It was years ago. There was a travelling fair in the city. Tumblers, conjurors, human oddities...
Raoul: Go on...
Giry: And there was..I shall never forget him: a man..looked in a cage..
Raoul: In a cage?
Giry: A prodigy, Monsieur! Scholar, architect, musician..
Raoul: A composer..
Giry: And an inventor too, Monsieur. They boasted he had once built for the Shah of Persia, a maze of mirrors..
Raoul: Who was this man...?
Giry: A freak of nature..more monster than man..
Raoul: Deformed...?
Giry: From birth it seemed...
Raoul: My God...
Giry: And then...he went missing. He escaped.
Raoul: Go on.
Giry: They never found him - it was said he had died.
Raoul: But he didn't, did he?
Giry: The world forgot him but I never can..for in this darkness I have seen him again...
Raoul: And so our Phantom's this man..
Giry: I have said too much Monsieur. And there have been too many accidents.
Raoul: Accidents?
Giry: Too many...
Raoul: Madame Giry...!

 

Joel Schumauker (So strange, after the Batman destruction, I've only referred to him as Joel Schmuck, but hey) did a WONDERFUL job with this one. My ONLY complaint is that Masquerrade (sp?) was not colourful enough, but I see what he attempted to do, it just didn't translate like he hoped. I would normally say that sitting in the second row in a movie theater bugs me, but I LOVED the experiance, it reminded me SO much of the live show with the chandelier (sp?) flying over my head, probably the only way it could have.

Emmy Rossum, Girard Butler, hell, the whole cast was superb. While I won't ever find anyone as good as Crawford and Brightman (come on, they practically CREATED the roles as we know them) I LOVED their performances.

At first I was upset to hear that the phantom was supposed to be HOT, but I liked how they handled this, along with all of the additions and changes, ALW translated the stage show to film superbly, so if you haven't seen it you should, and need I mention I drove 45 minutes in the pouring rain to catch this one?

 

I thought that the movie had the potential to be better. I thought that visually and storywise it was interesting, but that the two of the lead performances and transitions hurt the overall fillm. Gerard Butler was very good, but the actress portraying Christine was weak in her acting. I realize that it is a musical and that she did her own singing, but most of Christine's scenes are intense- she feels lonlieness, abandonement, trapped, excited to be starring in an opera, in love with Raul, ect.. and I did not think that those feelings came across from the actress (I don't remember her name). The actor who portrayed Raul (I don't remember his name either) was also poor. I didn't really get the sense that he was deeply in love with Christine. Apparently, onstage, the Phantom disappeared into a puff of smoke- this is a much more dramatic and interesting way for him to make his exit. The transitions between 1917 and the 1800's were awkward at times for me. Minnie Driver was good, Miranda Richardson was also good. I thought that the rose on Christine's crypt at the end was a nice way to end the picture.

 

A few people have mentioned the lack of color in Masquerade. One reason that I've heard is that it makes the Phantom stand out that much more when he shows up as Red Death. I think it's a pretty cool concept.

As for the transitions, I wasn't that big of a fan of the flashbacks, except for the beginning (obviously) and the end. The one interrupting the action weren't necessary in my opinion.

 

The reason Masquerade should be colorful is so the Phantom could blend in, again, that's for stage purposes though, so I suppose for film it worked. Like I said, I could see what Schumauker was trying to do, but I just didn't like it.

 

First message! I found POTO through Sarah Brightman's music, so I was not happy when I found out the movie was being made. I still prefer the stage version. BUT..I got the soundtrack a few weeks ago, to get used to the different voices. Patrick Wilson sold me on it. I wasn't sure about the others.

The movie was released early here, and I have to admit, it is wonderful. Emmy does much better than I could have hoped. I still prefer Michael as the phantom, and he could have done it. I saw him this fall in Woman In White, and his voice is still perfect. I also saw POTO while in London, and I've never seen a stage version where the main actors are not some of the best.

I had to go not comparing Emmy to Sarah. I just saw her weeks before, and no one will ever sing Wishing You Were Somehow Here Again like Sarah. POTO was written for her voice, and she alone can hit all the notes.

All of that aside, the movie version really is good. I am glad so many people will get to see this because of the wide release (when that happens). It has good and bad points (Masquerade is perfect on stage, why didn't they leave that alone). I've seen the movie twice, the stage version so many I lost count. I am glad to have both still availale.

 

I get to see the movie tomorrow! I'm so excited! I'm dying to be able to share my thoughts on it. I might even give it a total review and post it in here, so prepare yourselves.

And by the way,

I still prefer Michael as the phantom, and he could have done it. I saw him this fall in Woman In White, and his voice is still perfect.

The fact that he isn't in the Phantom movie has nothing to do with his voice. It's his age. He's too old.

 

I'm just gonna throw in my 2 cents here and go out on a limb and say I enjoy Butler's preformance more than Crowfords, especially in the finale(or "Track down this murderer" which I believe is the correct name of the sequence). I enjoy Butlers lower, rougher, growling voice and actually find it more powerful then Crawfords. Butler's preformance gives the Phantom a more ruthless feel which I enjoy very much.

 

A few people have mentioned the lack of color in Masquerade. One reason that I've heard is that it makes the Phantom stand out that much more when he shows up as Red Death. I think it's a pretty cool concept.

Not only that, but Christine's wearing pink, to symbolize her being tainted by the Phantom. Everyone else is wearing black, white, or gold. Once I realized that, I was sold on the sequence.

 

Well, I finally saw the movie! And while I'm not going to go ahead and post a full review here, I will just say that this movie is awesome! I love Gerry and Emmy's voices as the Phantom and Christine, and Patrick is the only Raoul I have ever liked. GO SEE THIS MOVIE NOW! You will NOT be dissapointed.

 

I am completely speechless. Edith and I just got back from the movie, and ye gods, there are absolutely NO WORDS TO DESCRIBE THIS FILM!!! Joel Schumacher, you've FINALLY shown some genius.

That's right. Joel "Let's put nipples on the Bat-suit" Schumacher did something beyond what can be described as amazing.

 

I just came from seeing the Phantom movie and I was confused about who the man in the wheelchair was at the end. I thought it was the original owner of the opera house who was at the beginning. My friends thought it was Raoul. Could you give me your opinion?

 

It's definitely Raoul. When he sings in his head at the beginning (after buying the music box), Patrick Wilson is the voice. And unless I'm mistaken, it's actually Patrick Wilson underneath all that makeup, too.

Why else would he be daydreaming of him and Christine kissing, and going to all that effort just to visit her grave?

 

It's Patrick Wilson under the makeup too.

It's been three weeks and I still haven't gotten a chance to see the movie again! I'm looking forward to picking up on more of intracacies of the film production next time.

 

Ah, this thread was created for me! I love Phantom of the Opera...the book, the musical, and I'm sure the movie too even though I haven't seen it yet.

The Phantom WAS a circus freak for a time. AIRC, the author of POTO included this in the end of the book. The Phantom also was in a palace in Persia for awhile, devising wierd ways of torturing people to amuse a Persian princess. I wish I could remember all this more clearly. I'll have to reread those parts.