Thank you for responding. I agree with much of what you say. I saw the movie first in 2004 and loved it. I did not see the stage musical until 2018 when we saw it on Broadway. The tragic tale in the movie touched my heart, but the stage musical did not move me nor enchant me. I have it on Blu Ray and have watched it several times this year alone.
The 2004 movie was the first time I ever saw Gerard Butler or even heard of him. (Yes, I was living under a rock). For me and my friend (who had seen the stage production multiple times), he was a truly tragic Phantom. He conveyed the Phantom’s pain, his longing for love, and his anger so well.
I know people criticize Butler’s singing and would have preferred a trained stage singer, but I thought for the film his voice worked perfectly. He acted through his singing which made his Phantom realistic in the film. Film by its very nature is a medium that projects. (I know you know this fact, but I am just stating my reasons ) Hence, for the film, a more subtle approach was needed. A rougher, more natural voice like Butler’s was required for the film IMHO.
The film was a feast for the eyes with the sets and the costumes I enjoyed Schumacher’s touches, such as the human arms holding the candelabras. Being a big French film fan, I immediately got the references to Cocteau’s Beauty and the Beast. As soon as Emmy Rossum was revealed performing Think of Me in front of an audience, I gasped to see her looking identical to Elizabeth of Austria as depicted in he famous Winterhalter portrait.
As for the music, I first fell in love with it when I saw the movie in 2004. Despite having the OCR since 1990, I was never touched by the music. I really tried to like it but no magic came through the OCR.
reply
share
PrimeMinisterX (8857)
6 months ago
I am quite surprised to hear that you were not impacted by the musical. My dad took me to New Orleans to see it for my birthday when I was 15 and I was mesmerized. He had the OCR on disc and I came home and listened to it several times. I later saw it again in Memphis and then a third time in Nashville. It's been several years now so I'd love to revisit it once more.
(I have also seen the Kopit and Yeston rendition but that is another matter.)
I had no issues with Butler's singing and thought that he sounded quite good. I was very surprised to learn that he even had the ability to sing like that. He should be proud of his performance in the film.
Joel Schumacher, who has been pretty uneven as a director in my opinion, also did well here. His vision for the film was solid and he created a work that is visually quite striking.
Sadly, I suspect the studio either lost money on the film or, at best, broke even. It only made $50 million in the US, which surprises me considering how popular the musical had been for years by the time the movie came out. It made $150 million worldwide, but as you likely know, the studio makes considerably less from international ticket sales than domestic. The budget, at least according to Wiki, was $70-$80 million and then you have advertising costs on top of that. Possibly with home video sales and TV rights they just barely managed to eek out a little profit. I hope so.
Frankly, and unfortunately, it really seems like the film is almost forgotten today. Just look at how little activity there is on this board.
reply
share
Gaylesyboo54 (63)
6 months ago
You know, I expected to be blown away by the stage production but I was not. Maybe it was just an off day for that particular Broadway production or maybe it was me. I would go see it again if a top flight touring production came to Houston or if it re-opened on Broadway. Most of my friends first saw it in New Orleans and were dazzled by it.
As to the movie, I think the critics were determined to hate it or at least not praise it which no doubt affected the box office. Roger Ebert’s review has some passages about how much he hates ALW’s music for not being full of tunes you walk out humming. Yes, he is correct, TPOTO is not Oklahoma or South Pacific, but therein lies the difference. The music doesn’t advance the plot; it is a part of the plot. If the Phantom didn’t feel the need to have Christine bring his music to life, he wouldn’t be so obsessed with her. So to sum up this paragraph, the movie didn’t get a fair critical assessment because there was pre-existing animosity toward the stage musical.
That leads me to say, the critics were unwilling to give the movie a fair shake and evaluate it on its own terms. Objectively, it is beautifully filmed, effectively creates a past era, and has wonderful performances. I also think the knives were really out for Joel Schumacher because of that disastrous Batman movie. I have read it is a disastrous movie but I have never seen it. You say Schumacher’s work as a director was uneven. While I haven’t seen all his movies, I have been impressed by what I have seen. (There are quite a few interviews with Schumacher on YT. It is amazing to see how he was lionized prior to the Batman movie. I can only conclude that some critical heavyweights and competitors were itching to take him down. That animosity may have permeated into TPOTO’s reception. )
As I said in my earlier post, I was living under a rock at that time so maybe my recollection of an insufficient push by the studio is wrong. I was then a reader of many newspapers and magazines and can’t recall any ads or contemporary reviews. I do know that it was a visiting friend who took me to see it because she felt sorry for me never having seen a stage production. I am eternally grateful to her because I fell in love with the movie.
reply
share
PrimeMinisterX (8857)
6 months ago
Looking at the RT scores, I see that it is only has a 33% critic's score but an 84% audience score. It also has a 7.2 on IMDB. So I suppose that while critics didn't like it, regular moviegoers overall were pleased.
I can say that, for me, initially the film was a disappointment. I think the reason was because the experience of seeing the musical was still fairly fresh in my mind and the film just wasn't able to deliver the same kind of experience. But upon revisiting it recently--the first time I had seen the movie since its 2004 release--I realized it's a pretty good adaptation.
In regard to Schumacher, he has certainly made many notable films. Just going chronologically through this filmography, other than the Phantom, Flatliners, Falling Down, The Client, A Time to Kill, 8mm, Tigerland and Phone Booth are all worth watching. You're right that his Batman movies sucked; he made two of them and they both are embarassing.
Now that I look at his films, I see that The Phantom really is the last good movie he ever made. The Number 23 was okay, but I expected more. After that, he made a few small movies that no one saw and that all have scores in the 5/10 range on IMDB. I'm not sure what happened to him as a filmmaker but The Phantom almost feels like his swan song.
Did you ever read the book by Gaston Leroux? It's quite different from the musical it gave birth to but it's a good story in its own right.
reply
share
Gaylesyboo54 (63)
6 months ago
Sorry to be late to respond. Friends were visiting from my hometown.
I will always read professional critics’ reviews but I don’t take their writings as gospel truth. Their reactions are the immediate takes. Sometimes they are right on the money; other times they may not get it. And, of course, they may have a personal axe to grind against a particular actor or director or screenwriter. Sometimes all three. In Ebert’s case, he seemed to hate ALW’s music.
So, in the case of this movie, I would say the audience’s reaction is more valid.
Regarding Schumacher, after Phantom was completed, he might have been a case of the well of creativity running dry. I once heard an art history professor say that some artists(painters primarily is what he was talking about) exhaust their creativity after 10 years. Schumacher had a good run, but perhaps he was just exhausted and couldn’t summon the strength. He may have also just not been able to get the financing for better movies.
I recently read Gaston Leroux’s novel. His version is more horrific than the musical. The Phantom/Erik is a pitiful creature in the novel, but he is also a sadist who built torture chambers. Of course, the reader is privy via the Persian to the Phantom’s interesting past so his accomplishments and abilities make more sense. The chapters set outside of Paris when Raoul follows Christine are very scary or should I say mysterious?
reply
share