Movie Review: The Phantom of the Opera
Topic: Film & TV
Posted: Wed, Jan 19, 2005 ![]()
Over the weekend, I saw The Phantom of the Opera, the movie based on the Andrew Lloyd Webber musical, itself based on a book by Gaston Leroux.
This famous story is both romantic and grotesque. Set in fin-de-siècle Paris, this is the story of Christine Daaé, a young soprano in the Opera Populaire and the childhood love of the opera's new patron, Raoul, the Vicomte de Chagny. Christine was orphaned when her beloved father died, and grew up living in the opera house. She now finds herself under the tutelage of an unseen master, who helps train her voice and positions her to take over as the lead soprano. But the master is the Phantom, not really a ghost but a man tortured by a life without love or acceptance due to his scarred face. Also known as the Opera Ghost, he sees the opera house as his own, and makes harsh demands musically and monetarily on the entire company. The Phantom wants to control more than Christine's voice; he kidnaps her and takes her to his lair in the catacombs beneath the opera house, and professes his love to her. He returns her to the surface so she can sing, but sees that Christine is really in love with Raoul. Through music and threats, the Phantom tries to force Christine to love him, but Raoul isn't willing to let her go.
I could find a few minor issues to complain about, with regard to this movie, but it really commits only one mortal sin: the Phantom is miscast. And what a sin! Gerard Butler is not a good singer!! He sounds like Meatloaf when he tries to hit his high register or sing loudly he's very screamy, very "rock opera". I think that type of voice is completely inappropriate for this role. If this were Andrew Lloyd Webber's Jesus Christ Superstar, maybe it wouldn't be so bad but this is Phantom! Surprisingly, the one song where Butler was mostly OK was the famous "Music of the Night," which starts softly and in the lower register; listening to him sing the title track was just painful. I literally cringed in my seat.
Emmy Rossum (Mystic River) plays Christine, and is both beautiful and a wonderful singer, perfect for this role. Patrick Wilson (Angels in America) is Raoul, and has a boyish, open-faced innocence along with a nice smooth alto/tenor voice. Yes, Raoul is a bit of a dweeb, but Wilson plays him well Raoul's weakness is that of the part, not the actor. Both of these actors have Broadway-type voices clear and pure, without falter or strain. I think they were well cast. Also good in a small role is Miranda Richardson as ballet mistress Madame Giry. Minnie Driver is miscast as diva soprano Carlotta (and her singing is dubbed!), but that hardly matters when compared to the travesty that is Gerard Butler.
Visually, this movie is pretty spectacular. Sure, the props seem a little too prop-like at times, but I don't think it was striving for photorealism; those elements seemed like little homages to the original staged musical. The opera house was appropriately opulent, and the dank catacombs hinted at Jean Cocteau's Beauty and the Beast.
This movie is mostly faithful to the musical, but some changes to the timeline of events affect the pacing of the story. The famous chandelier crash comes at the end of Act I in the musical, but is moved toward the end of the movie, and used as the start of the climactic chase beneath the opera house. This may not seem like much of a difference, but it changes the events to fit the standard three-act movie structure rather than the two-act structure of the stageplay, and has an effect on the arc of tension in the story. And the differences between the movie and the book are too numerous to mention.
It's a shame that the failures of Butler taint this movie so completely, because filming this was a chance to capture a definitive version of this entertaining and popular musical, and archive a work that's important to the history of Broadway theatre. I can't imagine that this movie will be remembered fondly in the future, which is unfortunate, because the very good performances of Rossum and Wilson are worth remembering.
The Phantom of the Opera may be up for some technical awards at the Oscars maybe for cinematography, art direction, or sound. There's a reasonable chance that Rossum or Wilson could snag an acting nomination. But any nomination for Best Picture or Best Director will be undeserved, in my opinion. I can't imagine what in Joel Schumacher's résumé made anyone think he would be the right person to direct this movie, but whatever.
I give this 2.5 stars out of 4.0. I hope that somebody remakes this movie 30 years from now, and fills it with the talent it needs to become the truly definitive filmed version of Andrew Lloyd Webber's musical.
TrackBacks
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.indyscribe.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/75
Categories
- About Us
- Board and Video Games
- Books
- Day Trips
- Events & Festivals
- Film & TV
- Geek Bling
- History
- Hoosier Oddities
- Indianapolis In the News
- Indianapolis Living
- Kids' Stuff
- Local Attractions
- Local Celebrities
- Museums and Visual Arts
- Music
- Night Life
- Photos
- Restaurants
- Shopping
- Sports
- Theater
- Transportation
- Weather
Archives
IndyScribe Authors
- Jennifer Bortel
- Brad Koch
- Brent Mundy

Comments
1. Oct 13, 05 04:23 AM | kriszia said:
The movie was very fantastic...
2. Jan 21, 06 11:01 PM | Tom Crichton said:
I agree that Butler was miscast as was Minnie Driver. I also think Possum's voice quality was not consistant. I liked 1/3 of what the director did, disliked the next 1/2 and cringed at the remaining 6th. Raoul bests Erik, then lets him go, then plots to capture him, then sits (along with the police) staring at him when he reappears on stage not looking a think like the just killed opera singer while the rest of the cast blithely dances about on the stage. What?! I am glad the movie was made but I am very disappointed at what might have been. The fact that Webber signed off on the plot changes and the cast is bewildering. The second DVD of the deluxe (or did they call it 'special edition') Phantom DVD has a great documentary on the genisis of the musical, thus affording us a chance to see Crawford in the role. In the end I think making the cast younger to appeal to a younger audience was a big mistake.
3. Jan 23, 06 02:17 PM | Rachel Wolfe said:
If I were to rent the DVD of this version, it would only be to see that documentary! If they had just cast Crawford as the Phantom, I think the other changes could be much more easily forgiven.
I think it's a bit of a slap in the face when the people who originated roles like this on Broadway aren't given a decent chance to compete for the film version. Other examples include the fact that Julie Andrews was snubbed for the movie of "My Fair Lady" -- that role was given to Audrey Hepburn, who had to have her singing dubbed by Marni Nixon, who also dubbed for Natalie Wood in West Side Story. (Although the opening in Julie's schedule allowed her to make "Mary Poppins" for which she won a Best Actress Oscar; Hepburn wasn't even nominated for MFL.) And recently, the Tony-winning performance of Mary-Louise Parker in the stageplay "Proof" was ignored as the same role in the film version was given to Gwyneth Paltrow, gag. I haven't seen Proof yet, but surely Crawford and Andrews would have been vast improvements over who was actually cast.