Should I see the Phantom of The Opera Musical?

For years I had wanted to see it....


that is until I saw the 2004 film.

The first time I saw it, I hated it! then after repeated viewings, it grew on me a little (and I mean VERY little). As a POTO fan, I love the book, and the various film versions, but in general I hate musicals (but as a fan of the films and book, I have always wanted to see the ALW version live.) I think ALW did a maginificent job with the score. As a film, I loved the basic story, and the tunes were catchy, but I just didn't think they worked so well as a movie. I'm sure as a unique on-stage play, seeing it is a spectacular experience, but as a movie, it just didn't talk to me.

My problems:

Most of the musical numbers terribly slowed down the pacing of the film.

Raoul looks like a b!tch, and I can't take his character seriously in this version of the story. We don't need a leading man who is just as pretty as his girlfriend.

This version of The Phantom comes off as a whiney baby, considering he looks like a GQ model with a rash and a small patch of missing hair. I really would not mind looking like this Erik. Someone should show him pictures of The Elephant Man, or any other film Phantom so he can appreciate what he looks like. This Phantom is in no way sympathetic, just a dick.

As the Red Death, he is obviously a man in a red uniform, not the frightening spectral figure of the novel, or Chaney's film, with their flowing crimson robes.

Why can't the Persian be featured in any film version since the Chaney version?

What I liked:

Andrew Lloyd Webber's musical score. (before lyrics were added)

The set designs and costumes, were, for the most part excellent, and would work great in any serious adaptation of the novel (except for the Phantom's baby half-mask and Red Death costume.)

The falling of the chandelier was simply spectacular.

I love the references to past film versions: The police ready to arrest the Phantom as they play one of his compositions, to lure him out of his hiding place (a nod to the 1943 version)
Raoul's costume at the Masked Ball was an obvious homage to Nelson Eddy's uniform in one of the musical number's in the 1943 version.
The angry stagehands with torches hunting down the Phantom to his lair. (happens in th1 1925 version.)

I loved the unmasking musical number towards the end: (I believe it was Past The Point of No Return?) A fantastic build up to a crappy unmasked make-up.
Plus it was the only musical scene that made sense, since they were performing an opera, rather than the characters spontaneously breaking out into song during a conversation.

Minnie Driver, Ciaran Hinds, and Simon Callow. Need I say more?
I will anyway, they were the best part of this movie.




In the end, most of my issues had to do with and a few of the musical numbers and screwing up the Phantom's character and turning him into a whiney GQ model.
The first time I saw the scene where Christine removes his mask for the first time in his lair, and he starts singing about how pissed he is, I just laughed and imagined Lon and Claude, looking down, in full Phantom make-up, nodding their heads, saying No. Just No...



Anyway, the ALW stage version is showing near me, and I don't know if I should see it. As a huge monster fan (with The Phantom being a very close favorite) I have always wanted to see this on stage. That is before I saw the film version. But since the musical was written for the stage, I'm sure the experience is different. I love the story, I love the tunes, but will I love the show?

GO!! Go Now!!!

Everything you didn't like about the film is from the mind of Joel Schumacher.

The Phantom is supposed to be much more romantic, in his late 40s, and horrifically deformed, all of which he is on stage.

The Red Death costume is much more flamboyant. It covers him entrirely. Much more reminiscent of the original Lon Chaney version. It is entirely conceivable that a spirit is simply inhabiting that costume.

And most importantly, the stage version is bound to feature an actor who can actually sing!!! The Phantom's voice is supposed to be beautiful to the point of hypnotic, which it most certainly wasn't in the film.

The movie is garbage, go go go to see the stage version.

And since you are a lover of all things Phantom, may I humbly suggest you pick up Phantom A Novel, by Susan Kay. Outstanding.

I have seen it twice, and couldn't agree more with Mike. Truly a memorable experiance, I would go again in a heartbeat.

I've never actually seen the musical. I was introduced to the music in grade school and fell in love with it through the music. I then became fascinated by the story. I've read the Leroux novel, as well as other novels based on it. I've seen some of the movies...I'd like to see the show one day. If I had the opportunity, I would definitely go.

If you love the story, and the music, there's no reason for you not to go. I'm certain you will enjoy it.

And I echo customikey - Read Susan Kay's Phantom. A fabulous book that I cannot praise enough. I prefer it to the original novel, and it might just be favorite version of Phantom, period.

I humbly offer this link, full of art and pics from the show.

https://www.public.iastate.edu/~garden/phantom.html

The London stage presentation was awesome -- I saw it twice there (not with the original cas).

Go -- you will enjoy it immensely. What have you got to lose?

On a slightly off-topic (or is more on-topic?) note, I'd love to see an SSC Phantom based on the Stage Version!

Go. And do the comparison yourself. You will find that Raoul does not have as much prominence as in the film, nor does Carlotta. If you thought the chandelier scene was great in the movie (and I also did), then see what they do with it in the stage version. Also, you will see what different costuming does to a number. As you mentioned, the Masque of the Red Death costume was changed, but also the entire ensemble for "Masquerade". Didn't dislike what they did in the movie, but I remember that the stage costuming for that number took my breath away when I first saw it.

I personally didn't find the film version all that bad. A slightly different take on Phantom's character and, I thought, more sympathetic than in the stage version. Gerard Butler did a credible enough job, not only vocally but in acting. I doubt very much that Weber (who co-produced the film and was embroiled in its production) would have allowed a complete non-singer to do his music and the critical character of the Phantom without finding some merit in Butler's singing. I thought that the very roughness of the voice (in contrast to all the other pretty trained voices) was a nice way to show his isolation (lacking others' opportunities to refine his social interaction skills) and his internal decay. As for the mask -- I just don't get the criticisms for it. I didn't think that the mask and makeup were that much more in the stage version. And in the stage versions, I haven't seen pictures of any of the stage Phantoms being unattractive. I've always believed that this was about what was INSIDE the Phantom (and how HIS overly sensitive perceptions of his disfigurement, coupled with the social stigma and reactions of that period to anything not "normal", created the internal monster).

Look at my link above to see a full-on pic of stage Phantom's deformity. I think his voice should be exquisite because he hypnotizes her with it, and he's been her voice teacher for the past few weeks before the start of film. Butler has a band, but no formal training.

The real problem I have with the Phantom's general lack of deformity in the film, is that it makes Christine a very shallow character. If he's got what amounts to a rash, and Christine says "..it was hardly a face," well she's a real b!tch. His deformity made him hide away all his life. He was put on display as a Circus freak. That's not just psycholigical scarring, although there is a good deal of that. He needs to be grotesque. The deformity needs to be a major hurtle for both The Phantom to overcome in order to woo Christine, and for Christine to overcome in order to save him.

This is just my opinion, of course.

Stage makeup is a bit overdone to ensure it's "read" by an audience who are much further away than a movie close-up on screen.
All that aside...I can see your point in having a bit more of the physical deformity for the film.
Not meaning to sound like I'm arguing with you since I'm always interested in hearing another person's thoughts on a film/play/book.

Go.

Joel Shumacher should have his artistic license revoked for this movie and what he did to Batman.

The stage version is kinda... Les Miz, Cats... all singing all the time. So there's that. And the chandelier lands on the stage instead of in the audience.

But comparing viewing the movie version to the power of seeing it -- hearing it, feeling it -- live is like comparing being at a fireworks display and seeing one on TV -- one that is shot by pretentious high school students.

I will echo many other people's sentiments and say GO!! It really is one of the better musicals out there IMO. The film has some interesting deviations from the stage version but the film version has some book additions left out of the stage version. Erik/The Phantom in the stage version is much more romantic in nature (though the movie tries to be a little big more like the book Erik/Phantom).

Oh and many people suggested Susan Kay's book "Phantom" as well...great, great book! One of the better phantom published fanfics IMO. Though there is one called "The Phantom of Manhattan" (yes a very cheesy title) that I quite liked as well that is someones published sequel fanfic I found quite interesting.

I will reiterate: Go!! I've seen "Phantom" three times on stage, and it was as haunting the 2nd and 3rd time as the first! There were no big "stage names" in the productions I saw, but the shows were 'travelling Broadway' productions, so the singers were destined to be terrific, and they were indeed!

I cannot speak for the differences between the movie and an actual live Broadway production because I have not seen the movie (having seen such wonderful stage productions, I feared comparisons would not favor the movie), but cannot stress enough that if you liked the movie even a little bit, I can't imagine you would be the least bit disappointed in a stage version. I envy you your first viewing of this fantastic production. I can still remember how moved I was the first time I saw it.

And I cried EVERY time I saw it!

gdb said:

Go.

Joel Shumacher should have his artistic license revoked for this movie

Click to expand...

Truer words were never spoken!!!!......See the musical...love it or hate it you wont regret it!

I might be in the minority, but I didn't that many problems with the movie. I do believe his deformity could have looked more severe, but I still enjoyed the film for the most part. I wish they had gotten a different director who had given it a more "haunting" feeling (I guess that's the best way to describe how I felt the atmosphere should be).