The Phantom of the Opera

There have been a slew of variations, but never before has the 1986 Andrew Lloyd Webber and Charles Hart musical been put to screen. The Phantom of the Opera, produced by Webber, hit theatres in 2004. Directed by Joel Schumacher, the screenplay was penned by Webber and the director and was a USA/UK co-production. It had various distributors worldwide, too, and did rather well at the box office despite rather limited release but scored moderately amongst critics.

Enough of the niceties, though, and on with the review. The Phantom of the Opera is quite a terrible film. With the always indulgent Schumacher at the helm, Phantom struggles out of the gate and never quite gets anything right. It is an over-directed hodgepodge of visuals that should have been stunning but weren’t. Everything is underwhelming, the performers are shot with little interest or precision, and almost every shot in the film is obstructed by something in the foreground. The cinematography is not unique; it is awful.

The original vision of the “phantom,” as envisioned long ago through the magic of Lon Chaney’s 1925 performance, was one of legitimate fright and horror. Times have changed, however, and Andrew Lloyd Webber’s infinite taste for schlock has transformed a disfigured masterwork of horror into a kinky babe magnet with a slight rash. The original idea, that of a hopeless love, was much more compelling. Instead, we have some muscled anti-hero traipsing through an opera house inflicting pseudo-terror on people and dropping gaudy chandeliers. Oh, the horror! Naturally, we can blame Webber for that all day long, but we’ve got a movie to review.

The film version takes the already neutered prospect of Webber’s imagination and drops it down a few more levels. While Webber didn’t write a very good musical (and probably never has), Schumacher and Webber didn’t write anything close to a good movie. The final product is a gaudy mess of a film, leaking from the outset with poor colours, awful direction, and messy sequences that lead nowhere and make no sense. One scene has Raoul (Patrick Wilson) run off to get his sword and come back to fall into the hole the “phantom” made. Instead of looking heroic, it looks like the guy ran off to take a piss and we catch him coming back to the scene doing up his trousers.

Emmy Rossum, who was a whopping 17 at the time of filming, stars as Christine. Originally there were several actresses in the running for the role, as the process to cast this beast was quite significant and probably more fun than the finished product. Charlotte Church, Katie Holmes, and Keira Knightley were all in the running for the role of Christine. Hottie Anne Hathaway was offered the part, as she was noted for her soprano, but she was tied down with Disney stuff and was unable to make it work. In the end, Christine went to Rossum and she did an admirable job with the less than admirable material. I liked her and found her enjoyable.

The coveted role of the “phantom” went to Gerard Butler. John Travolta was considered, but in a rare smart move he turned the role down thinking the film version wouldn’t work. Also considered was Hugh Jackman, who apparently had the right look (Wolverine with a half-mask?) for the role but was turned away after Schumacher heard him singing. Antonio Banderas was also considered, but he was eventually turned down for unknown reasons. In the end, it was Butler who won out.

Most of us know the basic plot of The Phantom of the Opera, but I’ll sum it up for those unaware of the magic. The plot centers on a musical genius who is disfigured (or in the case of Webber’s vision, has some mild skin affliction). The “phantom,” as he is known, inhabits a Paris opera house and commits several murders because he is tormented by his mild skin affliction. He obsesses for quite some time over the voice of Christine, who he hears deep in the catacombs of his secret lair. The “phantom” plots to put Christine center stage through threats to management and eventually a love triangle begins with Christine, the “phantom,” and her meddling childhood sweetheart Raoul. Naturally, because the “phantom” is a killer and has skin issues, Christine’s choice is much more complicated.

The Phantom of the Opera obviously takes some liberties with Webber’s musical, but this was all done under his watchful eye and his suggestion so it was probably intentional. The famed crashing of the chandelier, for instance, was moved to the end of the film and serves as a climax point. The grand unmasking of the “phantom” is also done differently and with greater attempted dramatic effect, although one wonders how he hid his growing skin affliction under the masquerade mask we saw him in a mere few scenes prior to the unveiling. No matter, perhaps he has cover-up crème.

Without Emmy Rossum, all would have been lost with this film. The Phantom of the Opera is a convoluted mess, the songs are essentially all riffs off of one basic foundation (I could go into more detail, but I won’t), most of the performances are hollow and uninteresting, and the direction is awful and crowded. Scenes that should flow simply don’t flow and obscured views of the actors are never good during key moments. All in all, The Phantom of the Opera is a terrible film.

Trailer: