Phantom of the Opera Review
I wanted to write a review for the film version of Phantom, but since I had to put off our viewing, the review was also put off. But I recieved an email from my dear friend Drew Hunter. He wrote a reveiw so much better than I could. Here it it.....
Charles and I saw the film version of Andrew Lloyd Webber's "Phantom" this evening. We'd been anticipating it ever since we saw the first previews last summer. I've seen the stage version four times and Chuck's seen it three times, and we love it (who wouldn't?!). But how would it translate to film?
Would they totally screw it up, as has been done in so many cases of taking wonderful shows which were fantastic on stage and hammering them to death on the big screen? For example, witness the film version of "The Fantastiks", which is a worse-case scenario, or "Man of La Mancha", which is pretty dreadful on its own account. And lest we forget the film version of "A Chorus Line" -- oh, go ahead, forget it. Or the old chestnut "Brigadoon" -- ever try to sit through that movie? (Theater folks tend to refer to ANY version of that opus as "Brigadoom", with good reason.)
Or --- would they actually improve on the stage show? It's been done, albeit rarely. How can anyone sit through a live theater-bound production of "The Sound of Music" with painted backdrops of the Alps and NOT wish you were soaring over Julie singing her heart out and spinning around in a mountain meadow? And take "Cabaret" -- they rewrote the play pretty much, switching the lead characters' nationalities in the process, and made the film a much tighter, more significant, more hard-hitting and more enduring work.
And then there are the few movies that are basically straight film versions of the stage versions. "The King and I" is a good example. Sure they "opened it up" a bit here and there, but really it's a classier film record of the Broadway show (and a magnificent record for all time of the role Yul was born to play).
Well, I'm happy to report that "Phantom" is a winner! It's true enough to its stage origins, yet has plenty of embellishments, surprise twists, new background info on some of the characters, and cinematic magic to take on a dazzling life of its own. If you know the score of the stage version almost word by word and note by note as we do, yes, there are differences. There are deletions, lyric changes, event timing changes, and more. Do these things hurt the overall impact of the show? We didn't think so.
In fact, the entire product becomes much richer. The prologue auction scene in the stage version is intact, but the way it's handled in the film, plus further developments on it and the character (Raoul) it focuses on are fabulous moments which broaden the range of the film and enhance the sentiment. The very end of the film -- a scene after the final scene of the stage version -- is remarkable, poignant and rather chilling.
Back to the auction scene at the very beginning ---- if you know the show, Raoul buys the little monkey music box. Why? Well, the film answers that question. How did the Phantom come to lurk in the opera house? We learn that as well. Plus a lot more!
And if you've heard that the film is "over the top" -- you've heard right. The scenery and costumes are incredibly breathtaking. No expense was spared, it seems.
Now -- what about the performances? Without going into any details, they are fine. I will say that if I hear one more person whine that the Phantom in the film isn't exactly like Michael Crawford's phantom, I'm gonna hurl my own crystal chandelier down on their heads! It's a rougher interpretation, more sensual, and more angry.
I have a few gripes about the movie, sure. But go see it for yourself. For example, if you want perfect voices and perfect singing, you won't find it in this "Phantom". What you will find is an all-round entertaining movie, a magnificent, emotional and insightful version of Gaston Leroux's timeless Phantom and Andrew Lloyd Webber's immortal musical.
See it on the big screen!
Can't wait to hear your thoughts on it!
Happy Holidays!
Drew
Charles and I saw the film version of Andrew Lloyd Webber's "Phantom" this evening. We'd been anticipating it ever since we saw the first previews last summer. I've seen the stage version four times and Chuck's seen it three times, and we love it (who wouldn't?!). But how would it translate to film?
Would they totally screw it up, as has been done in so many cases of taking wonderful shows which were fantastic on stage and hammering them to death on the big screen? For example, witness the film version of "The Fantastiks", which is a worse-case scenario, or "Man of La Mancha", which is pretty dreadful on its own account. And lest we forget the film version of "A Chorus Line" -- oh, go ahead, forget it. Or the old chestnut "Brigadoon" -- ever try to sit through that movie? (Theater folks tend to refer to ANY version of that opus as "Brigadoom", with good reason.)
Or --- would they actually improve on the stage show? It's been done, albeit rarely. How can anyone sit through a live theater-bound production of "The Sound of Music" with painted backdrops of the Alps and NOT wish you were soaring over Julie singing her heart out and spinning around in a mountain meadow? And take "Cabaret" -- they rewrote the play pretty much, switching the lead characters' nationalities in the process, and made the film a much tighter, more significant, more hard-hitting and more enduring work.
And then there are the few movies that are basically straight film versions of the stage versions. "The King and I" is a good example. Sure they "opened it up" a bit here and there, but really it's a classier film record of the Broadway show (and a magnificent record for all time of the role Yul was born to play).
Well, I'm happy to report that "Phantom" is a winner! It's true enough to its stage origins, yet has plenty of embellishments, surprise twists, new background info on some of the characters, and cinematic magic to take on a dazzling life of its own. If you know the score of the stage version almost word by word and note by note as we do, yes, there are differences. There are deletions, lyric changes, event timing changes, and more. Do these things hurt the overall impact of the show? We didn't think so.
In fact, the entire product becomes much richer. The prologue auction scene in the stage version is intact, but the way it's handled in the film, plus further developments on it and the character (Raoul) it focuses on are fabulous moments which broaden the range of the film and enhance the sentiment. The very end of the film -- a scene after the final scene of the stage version -- is remarkable, poignant and rather chilling.
Back to the auction scene at the very beginning ---- if you know the show, Raoul buys the little monkey music box. Why? Well, the film answers that question. How did the Phantom come to lurk in the opera house? We learn that as well. Plus a lot more!
And if you've heard that the film is "over the top" -- you've heard right. The scenery and costumes are incredibly breathtaking. No expense was spared, it seems.
Now -- what about the performances? Without going into any details, they are fine. I will say that if I hear one more person whine that the Phantom in the film isn't exactly like Michael Crawford's phantom, I'm gonna hurl my own crystal chandelier down on their heads! It's a rougher interpretation, more sensual, and more angry.
I have a few gripes about the movie, sure. But go see it for yourself. For example, if you want perfect voices and perfect singing, you won't find it in this "Phantom". What you will find is an all-round entertaining movie, a magnificent, emotional and insightful version of Gaston Leroux's timeless Phantom and Andrew Lloyd Webber's immortal musical.
See it on the big screen!
Can't wait to hear your thoughts on it!
Happy Holidays!
Drew
posted by Renee nickname Reyna | 10:38 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home