The Phantom of the Opera: comparing the movie to the stage- Page 2
The Phantom of the Opera: comparing the movie to the stage
#25re: The Phantom of the Opera: comparing the movie to the stage
Posted: 5/13/05 at 11:13amrobbiej, love your Geddy lee remark. :)
TheatreDiva90016
Broadway Legend Joined: 4/10/04
#26re: The Phantom of the Opera: comparing the movie to the stage
Posted: 5/13/05 at 11:14amActually Vouging was in style in that time period. Madonna just bastarized it.
"TheatreDiva90016 - another good reason to frequent these boards less."<<>>
“I hesitate to give this line of discussion the validation it so desperately craves by perpetuating it, but the light from logic is getting further and further away with your every successive post.” <<>>
-whatever2
Broadway Legend Joined: 12/31/69
#27re: The Phantom of the Opera: comparing the movie to the stage
Posted: 5/13/05 at 8:14pm
I think both the stage and the movie versions are great. However, I think I have a preference for the stage show. There's just something about the live production that's more captivating than seeing it on the screen. Besides, having a Phantom with an awesome voice *hint, hint* doesn't hurt either. LOL! :)
~Rosalynn
NightLaughs
Leading Actor Joined: 6/26/04
#28re: The Phantom of the Opera: comparing the movie to the stage
Posted: 5/13/05 at 9:54pm
I feel like a horrible theater fan for admitting this but...
I liked the movie more than the stage production. I saw the Broadway production this week for the first time and was a bit dissapointed. All I heard, my entire life, was how amazing Phantom was, and "What an experince! What a spectacle!"... I found it to be neither. While Hugh as Phantom was phenomenal, and surpassed the movie Phantom by miles, the rest of the show let me down. I'm not a huge fan of the score so I was hoping the effects would distract me but I wasn't awed, wowed, moved. I was nearly bored and found the set to be cheesy if anything. My favorite number, Masquerade, seemed to be missing the energy I was expecting. My friend, who adored Phantom, teased me for liking Little Women. But I found it to be a much more satisfying experience than Phantom. Call me crazy, but I wasn't a fan.
If you limit your choices to what seems possible or reasonable, you disconnect yourself from what you truly want, and all that is left is a compromise."- Robert Fritz
#29re: The Phantom of the Opera: comparing the movie to the stage
Posted: 5/13/05 at 10:15pm
Yeah i thats supposed to be Meg
Not Madame Giry!!
"No two shows are alike in the making. Each show is a living
piece of your life in a small unreal world with its own character
and integrity; its own new set of memorable experiences and
incredible happenings. You begin to love and adapt to its strangeness.
Dreams harden into substance. Values come into focus. You wish
it would never end. The dream world vanishes like mist before a
rising sun; part of you vanishes with it. And back you land in the
real world with a thud- fogged, uneasy, jittery, difficult to get
along with. There is only one cure. A new show. A new, small
unreal world; new visions, experiences, incredible happenings.
Again you love it, adapt to it, wish it would never end.
But end it does. Another part of you vanishes.
That's show business."-Anonymous
Leading Actor Joined: 12/31/69
#30re: The Phantom of the Opera: comparing the movie to the stage
Posted: 5/13/05 at 10:26pm
I went to my first screening with no expectations. I knew very little of the cast and the film.
I always found that that the original stage leads lacked all sexuality, and sexual attraction to one another.
I found the film oozing sexuality--The Phantom & Christine; Christine & Raoul; Mdme Giry & The Phantom. Without the sexual attractions the show is simply a costume show. Butler is terric in voice and in demeanor, Rossom brimming over with youthful sex; Wilson is a masculine romantic lead.
For me, the film version is a great success and worthy of repreat viewing. Schumacher has done a brilliant, but terribly underappreciated, job of directing this film.
Updated On: 5/13/05 at 10:26 PM
#31re: The Phantom of the Opera: comparing the movie to the stage
Posted: 5/13/05 at 10:46pm
The whole movie is underappreciated
There's not one mention of the dvd in this week or last week's entertainment weeklys.
the movie is great in my opinion; i've seen it on bway and thought it translated very well onto screen
i definitely preferred the stage version for some of the scenes, like hugh panaro's "all i ask of you" (reprise), but other scenes in the movie such as "Masquerade" "Madame Giry's Tale" and all the Raoul flashbacks were just excellent.
"No two shows are alike in the making. Each show is a living
piece of your life in a small unreal world with its own character
and integrity; its own new set of memorable experiences and
incredible happenings. You begin to love and adapt to its strangeness.
Dreams harden into substance. Values come into focus. You wish
it would never end. The dream world vanishes like mist before a
rising sun; part of you vanishes with it. And back you land in the
real world with a thud- fogged, uneasy, jittery, difficult to get
along with. There is only one cure. A new show. A new, small
unreal world; new visions, experiences, incredible happenings.
Again you love it, adapt to it, wish it would never end.
But end it does. Another part of you vanishes.
That's show business."-Anonymous
#32re: The Phantom of the Opera: comparing the movie to the stage
Posted: 5/13/05 at 11:17pmi passed out during both....!!!
"People have their opinions and that doesn't mean that their opinions are wrong or right. I just take it with a grain of salt because opinions are like as*holes, everyone has one".
-Felicia Finley-
#33re: The Phantom of the Opera: comparing the movie to the stage
Posted: 5/14/05 at 12:00amPersonally, I think both the movie and the show are overdone and cheesy, but i just burst out laughing about five minutes into the movie. I think that Butler really ruined it for me, because the Phantom has always been my favorite character, but honestly, was it that hard to find a real singer? There are so many talented singers in the world, and unfortunately, that man is not one of them. Although Wilson was not the best, he was the only bearable person in the movie for me, but it was also ridiculous that Raul completely outsang the Phantom, because that should never ever happen, in my opinion.
#34re: The Phantom of the Opera: comparing the movie to the stage
Posted: 5/14/05 at 10:43pmLove the movie, Love the show but I would say the show is better because it's live and you can go at any time.
"Life will be frozen peaches and cream.
Baby, dream Your Dream" ~ SC
MrMidwest
Broadway Legend Joined: 2/8/05
#35re: The Phantom of the Opera: comparing the movie to the stage
Posted: 5/25/05 at 12:36am
Okay, here's my take on the movie:
I just didn't think the movie worked very well on the whole. It wasn't horrible, it just didn't "come alive" for me. It was just a bunch of stuff tediously unfolding in front of some beautiful sets with a few bright spots of interest here and there. The acting wasn't necessarily that bad, but the actors didn't really make the most of the situations or show as much depth as they could've to make you involved in the relationships. Emmy Rossum is a lovely girl, but I'm sorry, I just didn't feel any layers or depth in her performance. She's an adequate singer (they could've done much worse), but her performance on the whole is pretty anemic. I'm not sure if Schumacher (who has made other movies I've enjoyed like The Client) was to blame for her poor performance or it was her own shortcomings. As for Patrick Wilson, I felt that he was rather bland on the whole as well, but decent enough I suppose. Then there's Mr. Butler. Now, he's undeniably sexy and interesting, but I'm just not sure if he was right for this role. His singing isn't horrible, but he's obviously not really a singer. What's odd is that even though he's probably the most miscast actor, he gives the most emotional performance, which doesn't help things much because it makes him look overwrought compared to the mellow performances of Rossum and Wilson.
The movie really felt like a really long music video with dialogue every once in a while. The structure of the story is so locked in that it's hard to get excited because of the way you know things are going to play out. I really don't know if making the phantom less magical was the best decision either. There were some nice visual touches, but at the same time everything sort of looked like a set. It doesn't help that the repetitive nature of the music (I know, I know, it's a cliche criticism) adds to the tediousness of it all. Schumacher should've added a little more of his own vision to it all and made it more cinematic. I wanted to feel the romance, the eroticism, the mystery, the excitement, and the tragedy, but I can't say that I did.
When you're adapting a musical to the screen it just usually isn't going to work unless you change some things (especially if it's an almost totally sung-through musical). When it's basically all songs on screen there's no build up to the emotion (like when characters become so emotional in musicals that they just have to express things through song). I'm not necessarily saying that you have to cut a lot of the songs, but something has to change through editing, story structure, etc. If you're going to have things remain mostly sung-through there has to be some way to retain emotional peaks and valleys through direction and use of the music rather than letting everything blot into a big mess. It's like adapting a book.
There also wasn't a lot of variation in shots in the film. Besides some fancy camera work it basically just alternates between shooting the people straight-on singing and overhead shots where you can't really see lip movement (maybe they were too lazy to match the singing sometimes, apparently even when the camera could see the lips). I'm also not particularly fond of having characters speak lines that were originally lyrics. If you want to have dialogue, write dialogue that actually sounds like dialogue.
On the other hand though Evita is basically all sung-through and sort of also feels like one big music video, I was never bored by it because the direction kept things moving along and the characters were fascinating even as they were singing.
Rob Marshall understood how you have to adapt things when he made Chicago. Roxie, Velma, and Billy may not have been extremely deep characters, but they felt more real than anyone in Phantom because they were allowed to breath and have room to become known to the audience. The Phantom characters spend so much time singing the upfront, not especially deep lyrics that they become cardboard.
As unoffensive as Phantom is, I'd have to say that some of the worst movie versions of musicals (like Man of La Mancha, Mame, The Wiz, & A Chorus Line) probably have more interesting moments than it does.
"The gods who nurse this universe think little of mortals' cares. They sit in crowds on exclusive clouds and laugh at our love affairs. I might have had a real romance if they'd given me a chance. I loved him, but he didn't love me. I wanted him, but he didn't want me. Then the gods had a spree and indulged in another whim. Now he loves me, but I don't love him." - Cole Porter
Broadway Legend Joined: 12/31/69
#36re: The Phantom of the Opera: comparing the movie to the stage
Posted: 5/25/05 at 12:49amRobbie, my love - THANK YOU for posting the link to your previous review. That was truly one of the highlights of this board's history!
#37re: The Phantom of the Opera: comparing the movie to the stage
Posted: 5/25/05 at 1:00am
"Why take someone who is so marvelously handsome and put him in a Rhoda Morgenstern wig? "
::snorts::
I want to write music. I want to sit down right now at my piano and write a song that people will listen to and remember and do the same thing every morning...for the rest of my life. - Jonathan Larson. Tick, Tick...BOOM!
#38re: The Phantom of the Opera: comparing the movie to the stage
Posted: 5/25/05 at 3:50am
"Yeah i thats supposed to be Meg Not Madame Giry!!"
Not according to the Film Companion Book or most other people who have seen the film. It is Meg's MOTHER, not Meg. Madame Giry would have only been in her late 80's at the time of the auction. She aged well because of her years as a dancer and as the ballet mistress.
I loved the film as much as I love the stage production.
Updated On: 5/25/05 at 03:50 AM
Practically Perfect
Leading Actor Joined: 3/10/05
#39re: The Phantom of the Opera: comparing the movie to the stage
Posted: 5/25/05 at 5:15am
I really enjoyed the film, but there's something about seeing musicals LIVE that gives them the edge. I thought the performances from the supporting roles were far superior to those in the leading roles - Minnie Driver, Miranda Richardson and Simon Callow, for example.
Emmy has a beautiful voice, in my opinion, but it wasn't the typical Christine sound i.e. it wasn't particularly operatic. Raoul, Patrick Wilson, looked bored throughout, I feel. Not even his amazing singing could cover up the fact that he didn't act that role at all.
Gerard Butler, I thought, was great. He gave the Phantom a much sexier, darker edge than any performances I've seen on stage, and I felt that his voice suited that interpretation much better than the stereo-type broadway voice.
Point of no Return was so much better in the film, apart from the awful backing dancers - they didn't add anything to the scene, and they just looked stupid!
Sets and costumes were stunning.
8/10. I really did enjoy it, much more than a lot of people on this board seemed to. I can understand why they didn't enjoy it - there are flaws.
Mary P x
Norbert Leo's Butt
Understudy Joined: 3/10/05
#40re: The Phantom of the Opera: comparing the movie to the stage
Posted: 5/25/05 at 6:17amEmmy's voice is absolutely incredible. she deserves all sorts of awards for it. so young and pure - absolutely stunning. compare her to maria friedman......!!!
'They re-made my belly with skin from my butt'
Understudy Joined: 12/31/69
#41re: The Phantom of the Opera: comparing the movie to the stage
Posted: 5/25/05 at 9:13amIt may not be perfect, but Minnie Driver is the funniest thing I've seen in ages - she really stole the show.
Sant
Broadway Legend Joined: 9/12/04
#42re: The Phantom of the Opera: comparing the movie to the stage
Posted: 5/25/05 at 11:38am
"Yeah i thats supposed to be Meg Not Madame Giry!! "
No, it is supposed to be Mme Giry - NOT Meg. She is referred by the auctioneer as 'Madame Giry'. If Meg would be called Madame, it would be Madame-Something-Else-Than-Giry, because she would be married, Madame = Mrs. If she were Meg GIRY, she would have been called Mademoiselle Giry, inspite of her age.
And Raoul didn't have practically anything to do with Meg, so how would he recocnize her after all those years?
AND the old lady was played by Miranda Richardson, who played Mme Giry, not Meg. Had the character been Meg, they most likely would have used Jennifer Ellison, who played Meg.
mikewood
Broadway Star Joined: 4/7/05
#43re: The Phantom of the Opera: comparing the movie to the stage
Posted: 5/25/05 at 11:57am
I never think comparing stage to film is fair. It is just two different mediums. And of course in film, you get unlimited "do-overs."
I think the greatest gift the movie version and Patrick Wilson will give to live theater will be the fact that going forward Rauol will always be age appropriate for Christine. I was always sickened to forty year old Raouls playing opposite 20ish Christine. The age difference doesn't bother me so much as the fact Rauol and Christine froliced together in childhood. Having Rauol be fifteen years older adds a definite "ick" factor.
BLAH BLAH BLAH
#44re: The Phantom of the Opera: comparing the movie to the stage
Posted: 5/25/05 at 12:15pmthough i enjoyed both, i definitely prefer the stage version as opposed to the film. i thought parts of the film were very beautiful. but other parts were just too much; they were overdone. i love the broadway show because of its confidence to be simplistic at the right times.
jsg03jd
Broadway Star Joined: 11/24/04
#45re: The Phantom of the Opera: comparing the movie to the stage
Posted: 5/25/05 at 1:30pm
"On the other hand though Evita is basically all sung-through and sort of also feels like one big music video, I was never bored by it because the direction kept things moving along and the characters were fascinating even as they were singing."
I thought the EVITA film was absolutely horrendous. Madonna's acting (if you could even call it that) was consistently atrociously flat (how she won the Golden Globe for the film is bewildering) and I despised the fact that the keys to ALL of Eva's songs were lowered to accommodate Madonna's extremely limited vocal range. Just as some people can't get over Michael Crawford vis-a-vis Gerard Butler, I couldn't bear listening to Madonna after listening to Patti LuPone's piercing vocals (and at least, for almost all of Erik's songs, the PHANTOM film retained the stage score's original keys). EVITA is a fantastic stage show, and its score, in my opinion, is superior to PHANTOM. But as for the movie version, EVITA fell way below all my expectations.
MrMidwest
Broadway Legend Joined: 2/8/05
#46re: The Phantom of the Opera: comparing the movie to the stage
Posted: 5/25/05 at 1:55pm
I respect your opinion, but I have to disagree. While I do think that Michelle Pfeiffer or Meryl Streep would have acted the role more powerfully, I don't think that Madonna did badly. She really understood the character of Evita and I feel that she did her best. I thought her singing was much more emotional than Patti Lupone. I think Lupone has a strong voice, but she's never moved me with her interpretation of a song. If someone can point me to a song of hers that might change my mind, please tell me.
I don't think the key changes really made much of a difference and I think to say that Madonna's vocals are "extremely limited" is a bit harsh. She's not a fantastic singer, but her talent has certainly grown over the years. She's far better than Mr. Butler as far as flat out singing ability goes.
"The gods who nurse this universe think little of mortals' cares. They sit in crowds on exclusive clouds and laugh at our love affairs. I might have had a real romance if they'd given me a chance. I loved him, but he didn't love me. I wanted him, but he didn't want me. Then the gods had a spree and indulged in another whim. Now he loves me, but I don't love him." - Cole Porter
Videos