So....this is actually an essay I wrote for my music appreciation class. I was supposed to walk about the play and its historical value, but I wound up comparing the movie and the play instead. Ah, well. I do love both. But anyways, when I finished this, I liked it well enough to post it here. So here it is.
Historical Video: The 25th Anniversary Stage Production of The Phantom of the Opera
I was introduced to The Phantom of the Opera pretty early on in my childhood. Believe it or not, I actually discovered it through the book rather than the Andrew Lloyd Webber musical. After a fashion. My brother, who I believe was in 8th grade at the time, was reading the book for an English class. And he loved it. And when my brother loves something, he has to tell everyone about it - in this case, me, his easily impressed little sister. Although I don't really remember everything he told me, one conversation sticks in my mind: he was describing the "phantom" (whose name I knew long before any fans of the movie did: Erik) to me, saying that the skin of his face was stretched tightly over his bones, making him look like a living skeleton.
Yeah, you would not be wrong in assuming that that gave me nightmares as a kid. Fortunately, I was also a fan of the book-oriented TV show Wishbone, which happened to do a program focusing on Phantom of the Opera (yes....for a kid's show, they covered some some heavy stuff). They gave a somewhat more child-friendly play of the book, and it presented the Phantom as more sympathetic and pathetic figure, rather than simply the murderous, demonic monster I had originally envisioned.
I have always loved stories with anti-heroes and complex villains, and this story is a superb example. I think that this plot, combined with the ominous and epic sounds of Andrew Lloyd Webber's compositions, is what made the musical such a hit. It's so fascinating, and so suspensful, it's really difficult not to find something to like about this musical.
But I digress - I'm supposed to talking strictly about the musical.
Well, I suppose I better start off by saying that throughout the production, I couldn't help but draw comparisons between the 2004 movie and the play. As much as everyone else dislikes the movie, I actually think it's rather good, and watching it in 2004 was actually my first true encounter with the musical itself. My brother, of course, made sure that I also heard the soundtrack from the original Broadway play (with Michael Crawford and Sarah Brightman), and so I became well acquainted with both versions. And yes, I also saw the Lon Chaney film, and I have to say.....Lon Chaney was the only awesome thing about it.
But I digress again.
I have always wanted to see the original stage play, and so when I heard about the filmed stage production at Royal Albert Hall....well, if I hadn't been too poor, I would have gone out and bought the DVD right then. As it was, all I could do was rent it from Amazon, and watched it over the course of two days.
And...well, it was good. In fact, it was excellent. For the most part.
Yes. For the most part.
As I said, as I was watching, I couldn't help but compare certain things between the movie and the play. Take the orchestra, for instance - the orchestra is considerably larger than the one for the play, and so when you hear it blasting out the main theme in the beginning of the movie, it sounds mighty and impressive. It always gives me chills when I see that scene, where they light up the chandelier and the music suddenly starts.
That being said, the orchestra for the play was also very, very good. But it sounded considerably less impressive compared to the movie. Now, I know that it's a matter of limitations in stage as compared to those in movies, but still. I wasn't feeling that chill.
Then there is, of course, the main actors. It's absolutely impossible not to compare them. Gerard Butler's Phantom is more suave, handsome, and seductive; Ramin Karimloo's Phantom is more deformed, more passionate, and considerably more insane. Therein lies the Big Difference, and as far as acting goes....well, I have to go with Mr. Butler on this one. While he didn't look the part, he acted it extremely well. You can see why Christine feels compelled to follow him. Not to put down Karimloo's performance, but when I was watching him, I could not see that magnetic charisma the Phantom is meant to emanate. He's supposed to be genius, a person you can't help but feel drawn to, despite his frightening appearance. It's what makes him so compelling as a character. With Karimloo....he puts more emphasis on the insane part of his persona than the seductive part. And that just didn't sit well with me.
Of course, Michael Crawford comes out on top of both, since he combined the best parts of each performance (even if he wasn't the best singer), but as I have only listened to him as the Phantom rather than seen him, I have no real proof of this.
And then, there's Christine. And again....yes, I am going to go with the movie again on this one. My basis for this is the song Wishing You Were Somehow Here Again - in the play, Sierra Boggess's version of the song was a lot more...over the top. She was louder, and more passionate, and more, well, operatic. It wasn't bad, but I couldn't help but feel slightly uncomfortable as I was watching her. I mean, when I picture myself singing a sad song at my father's grave, I think I would be more morose, more quiet, and less inclined to cry to the heavens in anguish. I wouldn't be shouting to the air, declaring my sorrow to the world. That's just not the appropriate tone. Emmy Rossum's performance was more on par with my expectations - she was very quiet and slow, and obviously shaken from her ongoing ordeal. You can really feel her pain as she mourns her lost father. It's a quiet pain, something she's been dealing with for years. She's desperate for guidance, trying to make sense of the frightening situation she finds herself in. It's all in her face, and in her slow movements and soft voice.
Say what you will - Emmy Rossum portrayed it beautifully. I even prefer her over Sarah Brightman, who was certainly better than Sierra Boggess, but still a little too operatic and dramatic. I know that it's supposed to be operatic, but keep in mind that there are subtle moments in opera, too.
And now this essay has turned into a long-winded comparison between the movie and the play. I'll break away from that now and simply address the play from here on out. The play is currently one of the longest-running productions on Broadway. And when you see it, well, it's not hard to see why. The music is wonderfully composed (with certain "inspiration" taken from certain other songs but cough cough we won't mention that) and is well placed, capturing the suspensful atmosphere perfectly. The best of these, in my opinion, would have to be Past the Point of No Return. Yes, it's not exactly the, um, purest song of the bunch, but when I heard it for the first time (yes, at the movie) I was on the edge of my seat, absolutely rigid and staring at the screen. Somewhere at the back of my mind, I knew where it was going, but right then I might as well have been a newcomer. The play also executed this beautifully, and I still felt the same suspense. Which, considering my lack of chills earlier, is a grand accomplishment in my book.
My absolute favorite scene, however, has to be the one in the Phantom's lair towards the end, where Christine is pleading with the Phantom while he threatens to kill her lover Raoul (who I honestly could not bring myself to like, but whatever, he's the helpless love interest) if she refuses to stay with him. Here we come to the climax, and here we see some true suspense and emotion. This was where Karimloo shined (and Boggess as well, although she still manages to be a tad over the top), and where you could feel the heightened emotions running rampant.
And then.....it descends gracefully, slowly, as the heated music slows down and returns to a dark, rumbling tone. And then it rises again, magnificently, when Christine takes pity on the Phantom and gives him a strong, solid kiss. This completely disarms him, and touches that one remaining shred of humanity he still possesses.
Now, somewhere (most likely the book), it's better explained why he reacted the way he does to the kiss: throughout his entire life, no one, not even his mother, ever kissed him. In other words, no one has ever shown him any compassion or kindness. This one small act reminds him of his humanity, which in turn compels him to set Christine and Raoul free. Personally, I think it's this scene that makes the play, and the story in general, the most memorable for me. You sympathize with both the Phantom and with Christine (Raoul is pretty much a convenient plot device at this point), and see clearly the entire theme of the story. It's moments like this that are so very rare in modern stage as well as cinema. And it's why I, personally, adore this play, and this story.
Historical Video: The 25th Anniversary Stage Production of The Phantom of the Opera
I was introduced to The Phantom of the Opera pretty early on in my childhood. Believe it or not, I actually discovered it through the book rather than the Andrew Lloyd Webber musical. After a fashion. My brother, who I believe was in 8th grade at the time, was reading the book for an English class. And he loved it. And when my brother loves something, he has to tell everyone about it - in this case, me, his easily impressed little sister. Although I don't really remember everything he told me, one conversation sticks in my mind: he was describing the "phantom" (whose name I knew long before any fans of the movie did: Erik) to me, saying that the skin of his face was stretched tightly over his bones, making him look like a living skeleton.
Yeah, you would not be wrong in assuming that that gave me nightmares as a kid. Fortunately, I was also a fan of the book-oriented TV show Wishbone, which happened to do a program focusing on Phantom of the Opera (yes....for a kid's show, they covered some some heavy stuff). They gave a somewhat more child-friendly play of the book, and it presented the Phantom as more sympathetic and pathetic figure, rather than simply the murderous, demonic monster I had originally envisioned.
I have always loved stories with anti-heroes and complex villains, and this story is a superb example. I think that this plot, combined with the ominous and epic sounds of Andrew Lloyd Webber's compositions, is what made the musical such a hit. It's so fascinating, and so suspensful, it's really difficult not to find something to like about this musical.
But I digress - I'm supposed to talking strictly about the musical.
Well, I suppose I better start off by saying that throughout the production, I couldn't help but draw comparisons between the 2004 movie and the play. As much as everyone else dislikes the movie, I actually think it's rather good, and watching it in 2004 was actually my first true encounter with the musical itself. My brother, of course, made sure that I also heard the soundtrack from the original Broadway play (with Michael Crawford and Sarah Brightman), and so I became well acquainted with both versions. And yes, I also saw the Lon Chaney film, and I have to say.....Lon Chaney was the only awesome thing about it.
But I digress again.
I have always wanted to see the original stage play, and so when I heard about the filmed stage production at Royal Albert Hall....well, if I hadn't been too poor, I would have gone out and bought the DVD right then. As it was, all I could do was rent it from Amazon, and watched it over the course of two days.
And...well, it was good. In fact, it was excellent. For the most part.
Yes. For the most part.
As I said, as I was watching, I couldn't help but compare certain things between the movie and the play. Take the orchestra, for instance - the orchestra is considerably larger than the one for the play, and so when you hear it blasting out the main theme in the beginning of the movie, it sounds mighty and impressive. It always gives me chills when I see that scene, where they light up the chandelier and the music suddenly starts.
That being said, the orchestra for the play was also very, very good. But it sounded considerably less impressive compared to the movie. Now, I know that it's a matter of limitations in stage as compared to those in movies, but still. I wasn't feeling that chill.
Then there is, of course, the main actors. It's absolutely impossible not to compare them. Gerard Butler's Phantom is more suave, handsome, and seductive; Ramin Karimloo's Phantom is more deformed, more passionate, and considerably more insane. Therein lies the Big Difference, and as far as acting goes....well, I have to go with Mr. Butler on this one. While he didn't look the part, he acted it extremely well. You can see why Christine feels compelled to follow him. Not to put down Karimloo's performance, but when I was watching him, I could not see that magnetic charisma the Phantom is meant to emanate. He's supposed to be genius, a person you can't help but feel drawn to, despite his frightening appearance. It's what makes him so compelling as a character. With Karimloo....he puts more emphasis on the insane part of his persona than the seductive part. And that just didn't sit well with me.
Of course, Michael Crawford comes out on top of both, since he combined the best parts of each performance (even if he wasn't the best singer), but as I have only listened to him as the Phantom rather than seen him, I have no real proof of this.
And then, there's Christine. And again....yes, I am going to go with the movie again on this one. My basis for this is the song Wishing You Were Somehow Here Again - in the play, Sierra Boggess's version of the song was a lot more...over the top. She was louder, and more passionate, and more, well, operatic. It wasn't bad, but I couldn't help but feel slightly uncomfortable as I was watching her. I mean, when I picture myself singing a sad song at my father's grave, I think I would be more morose, more quiet, and less inclined to cry to the heavens in anguish. I wouldn't be shouting to the air, declaring my sorrow to the world. That's just not the appropriate tone. Emmy Rossum's performance was more on par with my expectations - she was very quiet and slow, and obviously shaken from her ongoing ordeal. You can really feel her pain as she mourns her lost father. It's a quiet pain, something she's been dealing with for years. She's desperate for guidance, trying to make sense of the frightening situation she finds herself in. It's all in her face, and in her slow movements and soft voice.
Say what you will - Emmy Rossum portrayed it beautifully. I even prefer her over Sarah Brightman, who was certainly better than Sierra Boggess, but still a little too operatic and dramatic. I know that it's supposed to be operatic, but keep in mind that there are subtle moments in opera, too.
And now this essay has turned into a long-winded comparison between the movie and the play. I'll break away from that now and simply address the play from here on out. The play is currently one of the longest-running productions on Broadway. And when you see it, well, it's not hard to see why. The music is wonderfully composed (with certain "inspiration" taken from certain other songs but cough cough we won't mention that) and is well placed, capturing the suspensful atmosphere perfectly. The best of these, in my opinion, would have to be Past the Point of No Return. Yes, it's not exactly the, um, purest song of the bunch, but when I heard it for the first time (yes, at the movie) I was on the edge of my seat, absolutely rigid and staring at the screen. Somewhere at the back of my mind, I knew where it was going, but right then I might as well have been a newcomer. The play also executed this beautifully, and I still felt the same suspense. Which, considering my lack of chills earlier, is a grand accomplishment in my book.
My absolute favorite scene, however, has to be the one in the Phantom's lair towards the end, where Christine is pleading with the Phantom while he threatens to kill her lover Raoul (who I honestly could not bring myself to like, but whatever, he's the helpless love interest) if she refuses to stay with him. Here we come to the climax, and here we see some true suspense and emotion. This was where Karimloo shined (and Boggess as well, although she still manages to be a tad over the top), and where you could feel the heightened emotions running rampant.
And then.....it descends gracefully, slowly, as the heated music slows down and returns to a dark, rumbling tone. And then it rises again, magnificently, when Christine takes pity on the Phantom and gives him a strong, solid kiss. This completely disarms him, and touches that one remaining shred of humanity he still possesses.
Now, somewhere (most likely the book), it's better explained why he reacted the way he does to the kiss: throughout his entire life, no one, not even his mother, ever kissed him. In other words, no one has ever shown him any compassion or kindness. This one small act reminds him of his humanity, which in turn compels him to set Christine and Raoul free. Personally, I think it's this scene that makes the play, and the story in general, the most memorable for me. You sympathize with both the Phantom and with Christine (Raoul is pretty much a convenient plot device at this point), and see clearly the entire theme of the story. It's moments like this that are so very rare in modern stage as well as cinema. And it's why I, personally, adore this play, and this story.
No comments:
Post a Comment