Phantom of the Opera - a thought on musicals scanty based on the novel

[narcasse]

I was going to write fic and then I dug out my copy of the original Phantom of the Opera cast recording and Michael Crawford happened and if I had any coherent thoughts in my head, they’ve fled. I love Michael Crawford’s voice. I’ve also noticed that I tend to get a little cross-eyed and gushy over any hint of a pipe-organ in just about anything.


Granted, Andrew Lloyd Webber wrote the musical version of the Phantom as a bit of a Stu. He’s the ugly kid who just wants to make music and gets the pretty soprano, who then leaves him for somebody more socially acceptable. Christine leaves Erik, that is… I’m not commenting on Sarah Brightman and Andrew Lloyd Webber at all.
Musical-Phantom is pretty much just misunderstood where as the actual novel version is wonderful. (Also, if you’re not talking about Gaston Leroux’s novel and some other one that I’ve heard passing mention of, then you’re talking about published fanfiction essentially.) He’s psychotic and sadistic and a great many hideous other things that have nothing whatsoever to do with his appearance but he’s also a genius and because of that alone you almost want him to win through. He’s the musician who’s shunned everything for the sake of his art, even his sanity and that makes him absolutely glorious.

It’s pretty much a music student’s dream really. That maybe at the time, you think is perfect. It’s not really and the Phantom while being a genius is also a psychopath. He hasn’t shunned the paltry world for the sake of his art, he’s been shunned by the world for his deformity, which he’s fostered in his heart. His physical disfigurement is nothing compared to the soul behind those eyes.
It’s a nice dream though, until you get to the rationale behind it and it’s easy to see how Lloyd Webber could pair it down and make the Phantom more loveable in a sense by knocking of a good portion of the details. Yet even then, some of the lyrics in the musical still hold a hint of the corruption of Erik’s soul.
Not that you’d know it from the new film of the musical.

Gerard Butler’s Phantom was… well… bland might be the best descriptor for him really. I’m sure he’s attractive on some level which was the point in casting him but his singing voice didn’t amaze me. It wasn’t bad but it didn’t leave me breathless like Michael Crawford’s did. And what was with the sunburn of disfigurement anyway?
You can probably argue that filming a musical would require concessions but then what about things like Chicago? I mean, Richard Gere seemed to want to look like Ian McKellen for his first number but he was rather good in the role anyway.
And while I’m making half-hearted complains about the filmed musical, Emmy Rossum’s Christine was… bizarrely cleavage-baring. There’s a scene in the graveyard where there isn’t even a half-hearted attempt to pretend that the camera is focused on her face. But at least, as a redeeming feature Minnie Driver’s Carlotta was utterly charming.

Of course I’m biased entirely. If the Phantom must sing then I’d like the role played by Michael Crawford and if it’s not a singing role, then Charles Dance does just as well. Though the film version did give the Phantom an amusing sense of humour, one which ended up driving Carlotta mad…
Gerard Butler was alright in the role but at the end of the day if it’s the man behind the mask who truly gives the character dimension then that man isn’t Gerard Butler, its Michael Crawford.

Comments

[nekonexus.livejournal.com]

I used to have great long arguments of very little content with my theatre-inclined best friend in high school, who insisted that Crawford was the One and Only Phantom. Of course, I heard Colm Wilkinson first, in Toronto, where she'd heard the British cast recording before going to see it, so I was rather inclined to side for Colm. ^_^ Didn't hurt that he plays an absolutely brilliant Jean Valjean either. All others are but pale imitations, except perhaps that film version with Gerard Depardieu, but of course he's Cyrano, so that's biasing things another way. Hmm... Well. ^_^;

But the book. The book is delightful, and so much more... One almost feels sorry for the Phantom, or rather, what he becomes in Lloyd Weber's hands, because the original, while certainly tragic and awe-inspiring, was not to be pitied.

[reichsfreiherr.livejournal.com]

I’m not heard the Colm Wilkinson version so perhaps it’s worth my tracking a copy of something down. The actual performance of Phantom of the Opera I saw in London wasn’t very good but then it wasn’t Michael Crawford so...
I think Michael Crawford will eternally have something of a squee from my direction simply because he did his own stunts in that TV comedy he was in and some of those things were stupidly dangerous.

I rather liked Charles Dance’s non-singing film Phantom but again, I’m biased because it’s Charles Dance. Though it was quite a good version anyway with a rather dramatic but still quite lovely ending.
Have you seen Gosford Park, btw? That’s got a wonderfully, somewhat older, domineering Charles Dance in it. *shivers delightfully*

I’m fairly taken with the Stu argument for Lloyd Webber’s Phantom. But yes, for all you get occasionally disturbing lyrics from his side of the bargain, the chap in the novel would have... probably roasted him alive...

[nekonexus.livejournal.com]

This calls for a ysi. ^_^

We have seen Gosford Park. Had to watch it with the subtitles on so that we could follow the dialogue though. o.O Can't say I recall the characters enough to know which one you mean. ^_^;

[reichsfreiherr.livejournal.com]

He played Lord Stockbridge, the tall, slightly angry chap who liked shooting. ^_^


And hurrah for e-mail. Why am I listening to Matchbox Twenty again though?