![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rivendellroseSpent the day with Dad, yesterday, as planned - we went to the Conservatory to ogle the pretty plants, and then to the mall for lunch and me trying to return something. Still failed to return said thing, because neither that store nor the one in U Village had my size in what I want. *Sighs* Oh well. I've got store credit, and I can just keep trying.
After that,![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
theladyfeylene and I finally got out to see "The Phantom of the Opera" in movie form! It was visually spectacular, musically quite good, and from an acting stand-point, a hell of a lot more impressive than I would ever have expected.
Minnie Driver is a lovely Carlotta, with just the right kind of crazy, over-done diva-ness that the character requires, and that accent of hers was totally hilarious. Christine was very good - I loved her voice, and she was honestly a good actress from what I could tell (meaning, when she wasn't just doing gigantic doe eyes and looking innocent/confused). Raoul was a delight - much better than any Raoul I've seen on stage, with a lovely singing voice and damn good acting to go with it. And he's pretty, which certainly doesn't hurt. Meg and Madame Giry were perfect for their parts - the backstory with Madame Giry was very well-handled, and I loved the creepy sense that they gave that she knew exactly what was happening the whole time, even from the beginning. That's so understated in most theatrical productions. Andre and Firmin were fabulous. The baritone made me think of a fat version of the Argentinian from Moulin Rouge, but that was mostly an appearance thing.
By now, you've probably noticed just who I haven't gushed over. I'll give Gerard Butler credit - he was better than I'd feared, and he was an acceptable Phantom, on most levels.
However.
I'd like to know what the hell was going through that director's head when he decided "no, it's okay if we cast a pretty-boy heart-throb as the guy who's supposed to be horrifically ugly"...... and then only cover a teeeeeensy little fraction of his face with the mask because, hey, we can't just cover his whole face, that'd be a waste! Umm, dude? That's the POINT. If you're trying to keep your Phantom handsome, you've missed the whole fucking point of the play. The sexual tension in this play comes not from his looks but from his voice.
The classic half-mask is suddenly a three-quarters-mask in this production, which might have been okay except for two things: first, when he takes off his mask, the makeup extends further down his face than the mask did. That's just continuity stupidity, something that I hate in a movie, but can sort of understand. You can NOT, however, tell me that what looks like a fucking burn over about a third of his face would be enough to get this guy turned into a pariah. Especially not in the 19th century. We're talking about the age of the Elephant Man, people - and this guy looks like he just laid out in the sun on his side for too long. If you're not going to make him grotesque, don't do the Phantom. That's just the rule, okay? He's supposed to be horrifically twisted and messed up - he's supposed to be missing huge pieces of his face, and the rest ought to look like a nightmare. Not "oh dear... redness and dry skin and some scarring that pulls at his lower eyelid a bit. Ack."
Also, I felt like they kind of fucked up the revelation, anyway. Wouldn't it have been more dramatic if the audience had seen his face at the same time Christine did, rather than waiting to show us until the climax of the movie? I don't know - that just kind of tweaked me.
And his singing? Okay. It wasn't bad. It was even kind of good. But he blew "The Phantom of the Opera," his first song with too much emotion and not enough actual singing quality. Any good actor knows that you can't spend all your anger at once! It should build, slowly, over the course of the production, especially with a subtle character like the Phantom. In that scene, he should be first commanding, and then gentle, forgiving, seductive once Christine has begged his pardon. He's still trying to win her over at this point, he can't risk showing the full depths of his fury and pain at that moment - and the full depths shouldn't even be there! Wasting so much so early ruins the power of his anger later on in the play - it wastes the moment, and it ruins the audience's only real chance to see the Phantom first as someone who Christine might really be tempted to spend her life with. That seductive quality, that power, really needed to be played up, and Butler failed on that account in that scene.
He also should have had that cloak taken away from him in a few scenes - the man can't resist doing the big dramatic flippy-things with it, and it got really distracting a few times. This is not Dracula, Gerard. It's the Phantom. Turn the melodrama down a few notches. ...I never thought I would say that about Phantom, but in a movie production, it's necessary. In a stage production, maybe all that would have come through better, but it's over-kill on the big screen. Especially knowing his background. There were a few points where all I could do was think "PLEASE quit being Dracula for an instant, you overly-prettified moron!"
All that aside, the movie was very good. Appropriately creepy, appropriately mysterious, appropriately stunning from a visual standpoint. Some of those visual shots were more than worth the price of admission, as was actually being able to watch the faces of the actors, and see some things that no stage production could actually do. The sword-fight in the cemetary was a lovely added touch, and went a long way toward making Raoul less of a useless fop and more an interesting and honestly appealing character, and his performance in the catacombs was nothing short of beautiful. The singing was great, although I had a few moments where I wanted to strangle the director for making very good singing lines spoken (often with no rhyme or reason that I could tell, although some were obviously because Butler couldn't handle the required technicality - Michael Crawford he is most definitely not), and, in one horribly memorable instance at the end of the play, one very important spoken line that they chose to sing. That pissed me off. They also mucked with the lyrics in a few places, which is a bad choice for a musical that thousands of people know literally by heart. It was jarring each time, and only once could I actually understand why they did it. Very strange. On the whole, though, I loved it.
I also remembered, yesterday, just how much it changes one's impressions of someone to actually draw them. The attention that must be payed to properly recreate a person's features brings out things you've never consciously noticed before - I think it should be a required activity for all actors, because it makes you notice exactly what a person is doing with their face that gives off the impressions it does. How I went twelve years (TWELVE! More than half my life!) without fully noticing that Andrew Robison (as Garak, at least, but I think in most of his performances, as well) has the peculiar habit of always holding his eyes more open than most people on a daily basis, I will never know. It totally changed the picture I was working on to realize that and then, when I explained this to my roommates, I demonstrated... and immediately realized why. There's a sudden feeling of greater attention, greater awareness, and a sort of... constant vigilance and curiosity, like he's trying to take in everything around him, all the time.
And now I'm very glad I'm alone in my room, because I'm sitting here pulling my backbone straight, opening my eyes rather wide, and generally putting on my best impression of his physicality for that role. Damn, I miss this stuff. I love how the physicality bleeds almost immediately into emotional changes, how quickly you can alter what your body thinks by how you hold it.
The cat is crying. I'd better figure out what he wants, and then get going with reading.
After that,
theladyfeylene and I finally got out to see "The Phantom of the Opera" in movie form! It was visually spectacular, musically quite good, and from an acting stand-point, a hell of a lot more impressive than I would ever have expected. Minnie Driver is a lovely Carlotta, with just the right kind of crazy, over-done diva-ness that the character requires, and that accent of hers was totally hilarious. Christine was very good - I loved her voice, and she was honestly a good actress from what I could tell (meaning, when she wasn't just doing gigantic doe eyes and looking innocent/confused). Raoul was a delight - much better than any Raoul I've seen on stage, with a lovely singing voice and damn good acting to go with it. And he's pretty, which certainly doesn't hurt. Meg and Madame Giry were perfect for their parts - the backstory with Madame Giry was very well-handled, and I loved the creepy sense that they gave that she knew exactly what was happening the whole time, even from the beginning. That's so understated in most theatrical productions. Andre and Firmin were fabulous. The baritone made me think of a fat version of the Argentinian from Moulin Rouge, but that was mostly an appearance thing.
By now, you've probably noticed just who I haven't gushed over. I'll give Gerard Butler credit - he was better than I'd feared, and he was an acceptable Phantom, on most levels.
However.
I'd like to know what the hell was going through that director's head when he decided "no, it's okay if we cast a pretty-boy heart-throb as the guy who's supposed to be horrifically ugly"...... and then only cover a teeeeeensy little fraction of his face with the mask because, hey, we can't just cover his whole face, that'd be a waste! Umm, dude? That's the POINT. If you're trying to keep your Phantom handsome, you've missed the whole fucking point of the play. The sexual tension in this play comes not from his looks but from his voice.
The classic half-mask is suddenly a three-quarters-mask in this production, which might have been okay except for two things: first, when he takes off his mask, the makeup extends further down his face than the mask did. That's just continuity stupidity, something that I hate in a movie, but can sort of understand. You can NOT, however, tell me that what looks like a fucking burn over about a third of his face would be enough to get this guy turned into a pariah. Especially not in the 19th century. We're talking about the age of the Elephant Man, people - and this guy looks like he just laid out in the sun on his side for too long. If you're not going to make him grotesque, don't do the Phantom. That's just the rule, okay? He's supposed to be horrifically twisted and messed up - he's supposed to be missing huge pieces of his face, and the rest ought to look like a nightmare. Not "oh dear... redness and dry skin and some scarring that pulls at his lower eyelid a bit. Ack."
Also, I felt like they kind of fucked up the revelation, anyway. Wouldn't it have been more dramatic if the audience had seen his face at the same time Christine did, rather than waiting to show us until the climax of the movie? I don't know - that just kind of tweaked me.
And his singing? Okay. It wasn't bad. It was even kind of good. But he blew "The Phantom of the Opera," his first song with too much emotion and not enough actual singing quality. Any good actor knows that you can't spend all your anger at once! It should build, slowly, over the course of the production, especially with a subtle character like the Phantom. In that scene, he should be first commanding, and then gentle, forgiving, seductive once Christine has begged his pardon. He's still trying to win her over at this point, he can't risk showing the full depths of his fury and pain at that moment - and the full depths shouldn't even be there! Wasting so much so early ruins the power of his anger later on in the play - it wastes the moment, and it ruins the audience's only real chance to see the Phantom first as someone who Christine might really be tempted to spend her life with. That seductive quality, that power, really needed to be played up, and Butler failed on that account in that scene.
He also should have had that cloak taken away from him in a few scenes - the man can't resist doing the big dramatic flippy-things with it, and it got really distracting a few times. This is not Dracula, Gerard. It's the Phantom. Turn the melodrama down a few notches. ...I never thought I would say that about Phantom, but in a movie production, it's necessary. In a stage production, maybe all that would have come through better, but it's over-kill on the big screen. Especially knowing his background. There were a few points where all I could do was think "PLEASE quit being Dracula for an instant, you overly-prettified moron!"
All that aside, the movie was very good. Appropriately creepy, appropriately mysterious, appropriately stunning from a visual standpoint. Some of those visual shots were more than worth the price of admission, as was actually being able to watch the faces of the actors, and see some things that no stage production could actually do. The sword-fight in the cemetary was a lovely added touch, and went a long way toward making Raoul less of a useless fop and more an interesting and honestly appealing character, and his performance in the catacombs was nothing short of beautiful. The singing was great, although I had a few moments where I wanted to strangle the director for making very good singing lines spoken (often with no rhyme or reason that I could tell, although some were obviously because Butler couldn't handle the required technicality - Michael Crawford he is most definitely not), and, in one horribly memorable instance at the end of the play, one very important spoken line that they chose to sing. That pissed me off. They also mucked with the lyrics in a few places, which is a bad choice for a musical that thousands of people know literally by heart. It was jarring each time, and only once could I actually understand why they did it. Very strange. On the whole, though, I loved it.
I also remembered, yesterday, just how much it changes one's impressions of someone to actually draw them. The attention that must be payed to properly recreate a person's features brings out things you've never consciously noticed before - I think it should be a required activity for all actors, because it makes you notice exactly what a person is doing with their face that gives off the impressions it does. How I went twelve years (TWELVE! More than half my life!) without fully noticing that Andrew Robison (as Garak, at least, but I think in most of his performances, as well) has the peculiar habit of always holding his eyes more open than most people on a daily basis, I will never know. It totally changed the picture I was working on to realize that and then, when I explained this to my roommates, I demonstrated... and immediately realized why. There's a sudden feeling of greater attention, greater awareness, and a sort of... constant vigilance and curiosity, like he's trying to take in everything around him, all the time.
And now I'm very glad I'm alone in my room, because I'm sitting here pulling my backbone straight, opening my eyes rather wide, and generally putting on my best impression of his physicality for that role. Damn, I miss this stuff. I love how the physicality bleeds almost immediately into emotional changes, how quickly you can alter what your body thinks by how you hold it.
The cat is crying. I'd better figure out what he wants, and then get going with reading.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-01-23 08:16 pm (UTC)Glad you had fun with your Dad yesterday. Did the jeans fit?
Are you going to be seeing Katherine today as you thought you would be, if so, tell her "Hi" from me.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-23 08:37 pm (UTC)I'll definitely post the pic when I'm satisfied with it. There's still something bothering me that doesn't seem quite right, but I'm not sure what it is, yet. So I'll let it stew for another day or so, I guess, finish detailing with the hair and all, and hope I figure it out. Innocence might very well be part of the idea, too, although considering how often he does it in moments of anger or defiance, I'm not sure. It's definitely part of the charm, though.
Yup, they fit, thank you! They're a teensy bit shorter than I usually wear, but that'll be good for keeping the cuffs out of the rain. Most of my pants are a bit too long, so this is a nice change. ;) Sorry I missed you yesterday!
no subject
Date: 2005-01-24 01:58 am (UTC)Christine - WONDERFUL! SHE'S NOT SARAH BRIGHTMAN! THANK GOD! I harbor much hatred in my heart for other reditions of Christine, but I thought that Rossum was just perfect.
Raoul - Excellent.
Carlotta - ::snorts:: Hysterical.
Phantom - . . . ::twitches:: I KEEEEEEEELLL HIIIIMMM!!! I was COVERING my EARS while he was singing. I know, I'm spoiled by Micheal Crawford and expected too much, but YUCK. I thought he was an awful singer, and awful actor, and you're right, he wasn't deformed enough.
I did like that they didn't show us first off what he looked like simply because it was an interesting mystery added. But that might just be me. The sets were great, the cinematography amazing, and all other aspects practically perfect - except Butler.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-24 03:13 am (UTC)I didn't think he was awful, but he definitely was not fabulous. I had to go home and listen to the Michael Crawford highlights to make myself feel better. And Sarah Brightman... I don't know. She's not my favorite singer ever, by a long stretch, but I don't hate her. *Shrugs* Rossum was quite good, though, and aside from a few technical aspects that she couldn't handle, I think I preferred her performance on the whole to Brightman's.
Nice new icon, by the way.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-24 07:07 am (UTC)::blushes:: Er - thanks. That icon's just an old picture of me. It's not really new, but I suppose I don't use it very much. *^^*
no subject
Date: 2005-01-24 05:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-25 05:22 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-24 02:29 pm (UTC)I like Sarah Brightman, I had better go and see this movie (maybe today if it's a slow day) I have to see this woman if she's really that good.
no subject
Date: 2005-01-24 05:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-24 09:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-01-25 12:37 am (UTC)