When a movie comes out that there has been an earlier edition of.....

[Lamarquise]

Oh, it wasn't that the girl who played Christine couldn't sing...it was that she wasn't fully up to this role at this time. Which is understandable, seeing as it's got to be one of the most difficult roles (in terms of voice and acting and being able to dance and all the other requirements of the part) a singer can take on. It's an incredibly difficult part. And her acting was just fine to my eyes, so overall any complaints there are minor. I also think there's a tradition--where Webber is concerned--of using a Christine who isn't totally believable as a truly gifted singer because he wants a kind of sound a truly trained and mature singer would avoid, a sound that would come from undeveloped and even bad technique. And inferior technique makes singing the passages even more impossible. (Carlotta is a parody, but unfortunately her techique is far closer to what's necessary--at least vocally--to sing Christine's part than anything else.)

Gerard Butler is more of a problem. He doesn't have the voice for the part. And he doesn't have the acting ability. It's too easy to compare him to a sound recording of (for instance) Michael Crawford in the part. They could (doubtless) have found a number of better candidates for the part on Broadway. But that's just me. And the director was probably focused on the acting instead of the singing, even though Phantom and Christine both need to be plausible as excellent singers for the plot to make sense.

But I liked the show overall. So, I'm happy to like it.

[bluesalamanders]

young reader said:
um...one question? if he turned away that fast, how in the world do you know the mask was to small? no offense or anything. Just wondering.

He turned away from Christine. That doesn't mean it wasn't visible on camera.

And it would be "too small".

Lamarquise said:
even though Phantom and Christine both need to be plausible as excellent singers for the plot to make sense.

It's nice to actually have someone agree with me. I've had the unfortunate luck of getting into this discussion with die-hard fans of the movie who don't know anything else and therefore don't realize that the Phantom should be a really good singer.

[Kathy Li]

Well, I think a lot of the split between those who liked the movie and those who didn't basically comes from how familiar you are with the source material (the Andrew-Lloyd Webber stage show, not the Gaston Leroux novel ).

Those of us who are nitpicking the hell out of the film are mostly folks who remember being entranced by the theatrical version of it, and we're really just complaining that it isn't the Way It Was. Which may or may not be a fair way to judge the film.

But I can completely understand being entranced by the film as first exposure to the show. I mean, I grew up watching the films of Camelot and My Fair Lady and Guys and Dolls I never got all the grumping by oldtimers as to why both of those films were just SOOOO badly cast, and the performers had no singing voices, and it was not at all the Way It Was. [grin].

The nice thing is it's on film. It's been captured somewhere. There's no video of the stage production (other than bootlegs of tourists with camcorders who dodged the ushers). Nothing's left except production photos and Tony Award show clips. It's good to have it recorded, even if it's not the Way It Was. At least it's down somewhere.

Would I have preferred seeing a video of the original production of Chicago with Chita Rivera and Gwen Verdon? You bet. But I'm also very glad that we've got the Renee Zellweger/Catherine Zeta-Jones version.

[bluesalamanders]

Kli,

While I agree with you for the most part, many of my issues with the movie do not, in fact, have only to do with how it is Not Like It Was On Stage.

I've seen other movies (some, in fact, much much worse than the one we're discussing!). I've read books (although not Leroux, I admit). Many of my main issues with the Phantom movie have to do with things that don't make sense in context of the movie, not Just Because It's Different.

Blue

[wildflower]

Cassi:
So when a movie comes out that there has been an earlier edition of, eg. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory or The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, does your picture of the characters change too??

Definitely. Well, for Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, I read it so many years ago that I barely remember having a book image; I can't remember the earlier movie very well, either. But I'd have to say that all current images of the characters in general are, unfortunately, based on what I've seen on commercials for the new movie (I haven't seen it yet).

As for the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, I have mixed original book images and images from the recent movie [commercials and the trailer]; I haven't seen the older movie or the new one.

I'm not going to bother ranting about the Harry Potter movies. (I believe they have cast Luna, though, and curiousity got the better of me, so I looked at the picture, and argh. Okay, shutting up now.)

I've only seen the Phantom of the Opera movie. I liked it, but I don't have anything to compare it to. I do agree with Blue, though.
[Also- I think almost everyone's seen this, but because it's just that awesome: Oh my god, he's slightly unattractive on one side! To arms! (Phantom of the Opera in 15 minutes)]

[bluesalamanders]

wildflower -

Woo! Yes, Cleo and her Moves in Fifteen Minutes are indeed just that awesome.

Everyone should also go and buy her M15M book, 10 or something all-new parodies, available I believe on amazon.co.uk under the pen name Cleolinda Jones. It is/was also available in some bookstores in the UK. Sadly, it won't be available in the US until around next Christmas. I might just order it sometime before then, or I might wait until the end of the year...haven't decided yet.

Blue

[Kathy Li]

Originally posted by bluesalamanders:
While I agree with you for the most part, many of my issues with the movie do not, in fact, have only to do with how it is Not Like It Was On Stage.

Well, I did say "a lot of the split" not "all." I do agree that some of the complaint comes from otherwheres that have nothing to do with how close it was to Hal Prince staging.

I've seen other movies (some, in fact, much much worse than the one we're discussing!). I've read books (although not Leroux, I admit). Many of my main issues with the Phantom movie have to do with things that don't make sense in context of the movie, not Just Because It's Different.

I agree. My critical taste is always formed by what I've seen. And I think that as I get older, I get harder to please partially because I've got a wider basis for comparison. Partially because I'm just a cantankerous old fart sometimes when it comes to movies and remakes, and I can take both sides of the argument.

I was completely disgusted with critics who were slagging off on Return to Oz and the Branagh Frankenstein for "not being enough like The Original." When their idea of The Original was the 1930's film version, and my idea of The Original was the book(s) that were used as the basis for the film.