![]() Raoul - or rather, not Raoul, bear with me for a moment - is also a very different character. This will become a recurring problem for more than just Christine as the film wears on. Unlike the Christine of Leroux's novel, this woman does not change too much over the course of the film she experiences little spiritual growth, seeing as she has already begun at what is basically a pinnacle of innocence and tolerant perfection (even more so than the original character did), and the changes to the plot don't require her to take the lead role in saving everyone's butts the way her forbear had to. The background plays up her innocence and the fact that she is uncomfortable in the alien, worldly atmosphere of the opera house, but also robs her of a lot of her initial power as a character, as she has no musical background beyond her father's playing and is highly timid and frightened by the prospect of performing. ![]() She is a sweet, innocent country waif, who after a chance encounter with the Count de Chagny (mixing of English and French terminology, I know, but they probably felt "count" was easier for English-speaking audiences to grasp) is sent to the Paris opera house to ask for singing lessons. Be warned: it's not going to be entirely the story that most of us know.Īll of the characters are basically, fundamentally changed, beginning with Christine. Seeing as Lloyd Webber's was becoming a sensation, the Kopit/Yeston musical was shelved until it was realized that it was different enough in plot and direction to be a stand-alone piece, and this film was subsequently adapted from it, making the film version actually come out before the musical it was based on. It is based on a musical by Arthur Kopit and Maury Yeston (which has its own review over here), which was written at almost the exact same time as Lloyd Webber's. It should be noted that this is a very different version of the Phantom story, plotwise, than pretty much all other retreads. Unsurprisingly, special attention is paid to filming the mask-like faces that line the tops of some eaves, and the broken angel statues that march along some walls. The wide shots, particularly those of the house from the stage, are stunning, and the gorgeous statuary and architecture are showcased well, especially during the credits. ![]() This is what I get for buying things I can't even read.įirst of all, the sets for this piece are absolutely gorgeous, primarily because they aren't sets at all this is the first film I've watched that was shot almost entirely on location at the Paris opera house, the Palais Garnier (there are a few exceptions, most notably the Phantom's underground lagoon and the boxes in the audience, but 95% of the filming is the opera house itself). And then, after all that misdirection and confusion, it turned out that the film on the disc really was the Richardson/Dance movie after all. With a heavy, sinking heart, I put it in the player to make sure, and what should greet me at the menu screen but the logos for the Andrew Lloyd Webber musical version. I was very upset, especially since I already shelled out for that show and I didn't need two copies. ![]() Of course, this means I can't read anything on the cover, but that's what IMDB is for, right? The cover certainly has the looming visage of Charles Dance on it, but when I opened it up to put it in the player, imagine my consternation to discover that the inside insert and disc art were actually those of the Rosen/Schierhorn musical DVD. I'm trying to do my best to penny-pinch in this project, since there's so very much material to find/buy/cover, so in this particular case I had bought the Korean import DVD because it was less expensive. My relationship with this film was off to a rocky start quite literally out of the box. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |