The Phantom of the opera

[frualeydis]

I have now been to see The phantom of the Opera movie. I must first say that I'm not a phantom-fan, not even moderately, so while I had an idea about the plot I didn't know how it was going to end and I also hadn't heard all the music before. This must be a good thing for watching the movie because I thought it was wonderful. Unlike pinkdiamond and operafantomet I had no preconception of how the different characters should sound or look, which made it possible just to enjoy it. Except that I wasn't too happy with the Phantom's phrasing. Apparently he put expression before singin well. After a while I didn't notice so much.
Having read above-mentioned ladies' entries on the costumes I was more attentive to those than I might otherwise have been. Probably influenced by them I also think it might have been more beautiful with bustle dresses than the 1860s style, but it didn't bother me much, except if you say something is set at a certain time then you should have clothes from tha time too, and not a decade earlier. I didn't like that she copied the portrait of Elizabeth of Austria for Christine's first performance and shouldn't she really be wearing a costume from Hannibal since she's replacing Carlotta in that opera? But the only things that bugged me were:
Christine is wearing stay-ups!! Hello??!!
Christine's decolletage during the cemetery scene. And Raoul's very thin shirt. I kept thinking "Isn't anybody wearing clothes when it snows in this film?" Raoul can be excused, he was in a hurry, although it seems odd that he runs around in his shirt outside his own bedroom. But Christine's costume in this scene seems to only be an excuse to show her bosom.
In general there was a lot of unjustified running around in underwear, but I have gathered that it's like that in the musical too. So I only add that it was rather funny to see Christine in a corset sometimes. She is so slender that apparently they didn't think they needed to lace her corset tightly, which leads to that while her corset seems to fit perfectly at the waist it is rather loose over the bust and hips. Especially the latter and it looks a little funny to see those thin legs sticking out of a corset which hangs 3-5 centimetres outside where her hips are, if you judge by the position of her legs.
But those are just minor things. I said I am not a phantom-fan. More correctly I would say I was not a phantom fan. yesterday I bought a CD with the London cast so that I can listen to it all the time and I also think I need to go and see the movie soon again.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

I find it strange that the commercials is saying something like 'now on the big screen for the first time', since the first version was filmed in 1916 - as a silent movie! Perhaps they mean that it's the first time that the _musical_ has been filmed.

And yes, the music is fantastic though I'd go for an version with an opera cast.

// Björn - hasn't seen this version but a previous one

[pinque.livejournal.com]

1925:)

And reworked in.. 1930 I htink to add a little sound and colour.

The advertising was very weird. Of course it's the first time the musical's been brought to film!

What.. are they going to do it again???

I think it was because of the various other versions that have been filmed they wanted people to realise this was the musical version.


There isn't much running around in underwear at all in the musical.

Just Christine in her dressing gown and bodice from Hannibal. She doesn't flash her leg either;)

No underwear, no corsets on the outside.... no men in shirts...

Let's just be thankful Gerard managed to get Joel to stop wanting the Phantom to be shirtless at points....

[frualeydis.livejournal.com]

Eek! That would have been just too much. Although even the amount of male decolleté was a little too much.

Eva

[frualeydis.livejournal.com]

Since the musical was written in the 80s (70s?) it can hardly have been filmed in 1916. The musical is not the same as the film from 1916 although it is built on the same basic story, it would be like saying that "First knight" is the same as "La chevalier de la charette". Some elements are the same but it is not the same story, the same work of art.
And since the casting for the film was done with singing ability as one of the main criteria I don't think you will find anything to complain about. Unless you really want an opera cast which would be interesting since it have never been done. I mean it's a musical, not Wagner. And i actully prefer the voice of the woman who plays Christine in the movie to Sarah Brightman, who did it in the original London cast.
I think you're being a little elitist here ;)

eva

[(Anonymous)]

Well, I'm hardly an expert on the subject - I've read the book (in English, not French since I'm not quite _that_ elitist :P ) and I've seen the 1990 TV movie, which is entertaining but tells a slightly different story.

If you think it's that good I might just go see it this time; the last one (1998) didn't seem encouraging.

// Björn

[frualeydis.livejournal.com]

We could go together maybe?

eva