Masquerade! A look at Joel Schumacher’s Phantom of the Opera

Written by: Cyanna

You've heard the music. You've seen the play. You've read the book. Well...maybe not read the book. In all honesty I haven't either. And now you can see the movie.

Believe it or not, this was not the first Phantom movie to be made. Several film versions of Gaston Leroux's book, "Le Fantôme de L'Opéra", were previously made including a silent film and a TV movie. Several variations were made on the original book. One example portrays the Phantom as a disgruntled violinist in the orchestra. Another modernizes the setting and moves the story from the opera house to a Hollywood studio. But the most successful adaptation of the novel is the popular stage musical The Phantom of the Opera by Andrew Lloyd Webber, which is the version that we are the most familiar with and serves as the inspiration behind Schumacher's movie.

The plot of the story focuses on a young woman, Christine Daae (played by Emily Rossum), who rises from chorus girl to leading lady thanks to the vocal training and the acts of sabotage by a mysterious "Opera Ghost" (played by Gerard Butler). On the evening of Christine's debut, she captures the heart of her childhood friend Raoul de Chagny (played by Patrick Wilson). Although the Phantom is pleased with Christine's performance, he is concerned about this new man in her life and decides to take the next step in their relationship. He reveals himself to Christine and takes her down beneath the opera house to his domain. In the Phantom's lair, we learn many things about her Angel of Music. Among them is the fact that the Phantom, whose real name is Erik, has fallen in love with her. Another is that he has a disfigured face that he hides from the world behind his signature white mask.

Things become more complicated as the relationship between Raoul and Christine deepens into love. Erik, not realizing that the couple has had a history together, feels that Raoul's love for her is superficial. He loves her only because he heard her voice, a voice that was crafted by the efforts of Christine and him, thus making his own love for her far more genuine. He takes this as a betrayal of everything he has done for her and he takes revenge on those that are keeping her both out of the spotlight and out of his life.

That should do it as far as plot goes. To those who know the story, there are few surprises. To those who don't, don't worry. I've only brought you up to your knees in this water. Now I leave you to go the rest of the way and see it yourself.

Oh, and one more thing. I'm sure you may have heard of this "new song" created for the movie. Don't have a heart attack. It doesn't appear in the actual plot of the film. The song is entitled "Learn to be Lonely" and it is played during the credits.

Now for the yays and nays. :P

One of the most impressive parts about this film are the sets involved. The foyer of the opera house is very spacious and majestic, perfect for a grand Masquerade. The backstage is chaotic and claustrophobic. There are statues everywhere. There are exotic (and erotic) statues in the foyer, winged statues on the roof and ominous hooded statues in the graveyard (some look like they might even move).

The film brings up a controversy regarding the three primary actors involved. Sorry folks. Sarah Brightman and Micheal Crawford aren't playing these roles. I'm afraid they have very big shoes to fill since their stage interpretation of these roles have become so loved that for many, anything less would be intolerable. I have heard stories that a few die hard fans of the musical are boycotting this film because those two performers are not in it. Although I try to stay away from making assumptions based on my previous experiences, I did have a few comments about the actors.

Maybe I'm just too used to listening to Crawford's voice on the soundtrack. But in my opinion, Butler's performance had the potential to be a lot more scary and sinister. It could have been solved with more shouting and hissing of certain lines. I have to give the man some props though. He looks good in that costume. :P And for someone who really has had no previous experience in stage singing, I can't say he did a horrible job. If I had nothing to base him off of, I probably would have found him scary enough.

Wilson was good for what he had to do. I really have nothing good or bad to say about him. I was never a big Raoul fan. He's reckless and it's his own fault for not keeping his hand at the level of his eyes. Despite being a prominent character, the film doesn't focus on him as much. He is the love interest, but not much else. So in my eyes, the part required looking nice (since he is rich and all), sing sweet nothings to a girl, fence and hold his breath for a while. To me, he fits the part just fine.

I can't say I have any real complaints about Rossum either. Usually I really am not a fan of high soprano voices that go all over the place. So one would think I would have this natural aversion to Christine in general. But that is one area where I think the film is successful. After listening to Minnie Driver as Carlotta, Rossum is a breath of fresh air. It's not that Driver is BAD. It's just that her voice suits her character. It's loud, in your face, a little crazy and all over the place (hey, that rhymes), things that I dislike most when it comes to sopranos. Russom can handle the range but in contrast to Driver, I felt that her voice is more gentle, which I imagine to be perfect for Christine. A friend of mine commented that Russom's ability as an actress could not be judged by this film alone since it seemed she only played two emotions: being in wide-eyed awe of the Phantom or being all lovey-dovey with Raoul. But as far as I'm concerned, Christine as a character really spends most of the movie (and the play for the matter) being this way anyway. So for the film's purposes, I cannot say it's a bad thing.

On a small note, I have to nod my head towards Miranda Richardson and Jennifer Ellison who played Madame and Meg Giry. I liked watching those two...always a calm during the storm.

One advantage to seeing a film as opposed to the play is that you will always have the best seat in the house. You will see facial expressions that you would normally miss because of the distance between the stage and your seat. However some of the drama in this film is lost. The scenes in which Christine and Erik sing the title song as they travel by boat under the opera house was very disappointing as far as the cinematography was concerned. Too much attention was placed on the scenery and not enough on the characters and I felt it was so anticlimactic and dissatisfying. But the film attempts to make the story seem more real then the play. Erik is not a magical, ghostly being. He is a man. He is a very clever genius of a man but he is still a man. And the chandelier is not run by electricity so the famed "Chandelier Disaster" is a bit more...disastrous.

Even though the movie has its pros and cons I feel that in the end, it works. The story is not pretty. It's dark, sinister and people die. I also find the story to be very intense and fast moving. I think that at the end, if the first thing you do is breathe a sigh of relief and every part of your body relaxes, then the film has done its job.

The Phantom of the Opera opened on December 22nd in select cities across the US. It will released all over the US on January 21st.

For more information about the movie, visit http://phantomthemovie.warnerbros.com/