The Phantom of the Opera

Andrew Lloyd Webber's music has given me much pleasure over the years. I live in Manhattan, and although I don't usually go to Broadway musicals unless I hear rave reviews, I saw "Phantom of the Opera," and loved it. Director Joel Schumacher's film production is simply terrific, although somewhat flawed! I admit it is a bit bombastic at times, but the music is spectacular, as are the sets, cast and acting. I don't want to compare screen versus stage versions.They are totally different mediums and each lends unique and special moments. I have heard some call the film vulgar, and I say "Boo" on their snobbishness! As most know, this is a bizarre beauty and the beast kind of love story. Set in 1870's Paris, a talented, mysterious genius with a terribly scarred face lives in secret beneath the opera house, haunting the building, and those who spend much time there, with his spectral presence. Frequently heard from but never seen, he composes brilliant music, writes operas, designs sets, etc.. His life of solitude and bitterness have driven him mad. Unbeknownst to any, he has been lovely, young soprano Christine Daae's mentor and voice teacher since her childhood. The young woman believes that he is her beloved deceased father's spirit and calls him her "angel of music." He has grown to love the innocent ingenue with the exquisite voice. When the two appear together the ambiance is shadowed and otherworldly, and Christine always seems hypnotized - which is quite credible given the Phantom's sheer force of personality. One night the Prima Donna walks out on a performance and Christine takes her place. When Raoul, a wealthy young nobleman, (Patrick Wilson), sees the extraordinary young singer, he falls in love. The Phantom does not take competition lightly. Schumacher's production is fantastically gothic, as is Gaston Leroux's novel, upon which all opera phantoms are based. Gerard Butler, as the deformed anti-hero, is the epitome of the dominant Gothic Hero. He would be superb as Mr. Rochester or Heathcliff.....but I digress. Let it suffice to say he makes a superior "Phantom of the Opera." Although I very much like his voice, some say it does not measure up to the rest of the casts'. Mr. Butler, however, more than makes-up for any lack of vocal power with his charisma, virility and powerful stage presence. He uses eroticism and sensuality to seduce, perfectly, especially when he brings Christine to his lair, deep in the watery depths beneath the opera house, and sings "Music of the Night." "Touch me, trust me / savour each sensation!" And, "Open up your mind / let your fantasies unwind / in this darkness which you know you cannot fight." He smolders in "Point of No Return," which is one very steamy number. There are times when I see Butler's Phantom as a vampire-like figure - a dark, deeply handsome, all powerful vampire - not a ghoulish one. With his slicked back dark wig, tux, sensual lips and mask, he looks a forceful figure from the underworld - (which he is) - beckoning Christine to leave the "garish light of day," and come, "Leave all thoughts of the world you knew before! / Let your soul take you where you long to be! / Only then can you belong to me." In the scene where he spies on Christine and Raoul on the opera roof, hiding amidst the gargoyles, he picks up the rose she has dropped in the snow and holds it to his lips. Almost everything in the shot is black and white except for the red rose at his mouth...like drops of blood. That's vampire-like!! (reminiscent of Frank Langella's 1970's Dracula, not Bela Lugosi's). Eighteen year-old Emmy Rossum is absolutely luminous as Christine. The sound of her spectacular, opera-trained voice is alone worth the price of the DVD. Ms. Rossum is a talented actress, and her innocent fresh look is a perfect compliment to Butler's dark, menacing specter, and Patrick Wilson's handsome swashbuckling viscount. Wilson's romantic handsomeness and fabulous tenor voice make him an exceptional choice for the hero part. The real taut passion, however, is between Butler and Rossum. This magnetic force between them is one aspect of the movie I prefer over the play. The phantom is cast as a much older man in the stage production, and when he is unmasked one feels totally repulsed, and not very sympathetic. He becomes merely one more aging man lusting after a young woman. Also, Christine knows him so well that perhaps she doesn't see him as quite the monster the audience does. There are qualities she has been drawn to, before she saw his whole face. Her empathy is not totally destroyed by the grotesque image. The younger, handsomer version of the Phantom permits a certain believable ambivalence in her feelings, which makes for more tension in the storyline. Andrew Lloyd Weber collaborated closely with Schumacher throughout the making of the movie. The supporting cast is excellent with Miranda Richardson as Mme. Giry, Ciaran Hinds as Fermin, Simon Callow as Andre, and Minnie Driver as Carlotta, the spoiled diva. Although Ms. Driver is hilarious in her role, she spends too much time, with too many lines, onstage. The campiness works well as comic relief. However, the effect is lost with an overabundance of this and becomes kitsch. Finally, buy the 2-Disc Special, when purchasing the DVD. The second disc, approximately 45 minutes, is entitled "Behind the Mask: The Story of The Phantom of the Opera," and documents the journey from Gaston Leroux's novel to the silent film, to Andrew Lloyd Webber's stage version, and finally to Joel Schumacher's feature film. Included in this documentary are interviews with the principals. There are also several wonderful clips from early performances that took place at Andrew Lloyd Webber's estate before the musical was completed. Also included is an excised scene which features Gerard Butler as the Phantom, singing his part in "No One Would Listen." JANA

This film is named Phantom of the Opera, and it was released in December 2004. This movie is available on Amazon Video,Microsoft store,Google play movies,Fandango,Spectrum and Apple TV to rent/buy. The movie runs for One hundred and forty-three minutes. This movie tells the story of the orphan Christine Daae who is raised in a Theatre and taken under the mysterious wing of the “Phantom” of the opera. Christine finally takes the spotlight after many years for her talent and is noticed by someone who knew from her childhood and falls in love with her again. The mysterious “Phantom” discovers her secret love and tries everything he can to steal her away. The Phantom releases Christine from his heart as she fulfills her future with her true love. A couple of performances that stood out to me in a very good way were Gerard Butler as the Phantom,Emmy Rossum as Christine and Patrick Wilson as Raoul. Gerard gave a very good and emotional performance as his character. Gerard Butler was not a classically trained singer but what caught the attention of the director was his performance in the 2000’s Dracula. This performance of a brooding vengeful monster made him a good option for the Phantom. Emmy Rossum has an interesting story for the movie. During the year of filming, she was only seventeen years old. The story of the movie must have been very awkward for her considering Gerard and Patrick were twice her age. Patrick Wilson was a good fit for the role of Raoul as he put on a stellar performance in The Full Monty in 2000-2001 and Oklahoma in 2002. Joel Schumacher the director did a phenomenal job at staging. Schumacher is known for directing movies such as both George Clooney Batman movies and had actually worked with Andrew Lloyd Webber who adapted the original novel of Phantom of the Opera to film/broadway. The set was very well thought out and creative. The visuals were quite lavish and gothic which fit the theme and time period. The masquerade and the phantom's lair are great examples of the staging. The masquerade was vibrant and very colorful. The ballroom and choreography were very well put together. All of the dancers knew their parts and emphasized themes of joy and freedom. Another great visual and staging scene was the Phantom’s lair. This particular scene embodied the gothic visual with a candlelit lake. The story and narrative were quite clear for me to follow considering this was my fourth viewing of the movie. The movie follows an almost chronological order with the whole film being a flashback from the beginning auction scene in the movie many years later. The characters also follow very consistent patterns and actions. The production design was absolutely stellar. The recreation of the Paris Opera House at Pinewood Studios in the UK was spot on. A great example of set design for this movie is the Phantom’s lair. I restate that this set radiated a gothic aura with vast amounts of candles,a gondola on a large lake and lots of mysterious mist. The centerpiece of this whole movie is the chandelier above the main stage of the opera house set. The movie choices suited the film since this was a film adaptation of the broadway masterpiece. This film takes all the main and most important songs such as Think of Me,The Phantom of the Opera,Music of the Night,The Point of no return and wishing you were somehow here again. These songs were all beautifully sung by the cast. Gerard giving his somber and very tender songs and Emmy giving her sorrowful and elegant songs. The time period the movie takes place in Paris 1870 but the flashforward in 1919 which is 50 years later. Joel Schumaker and Andrew Lloyd Webber, I have already mentioned, were big parts of this movie's design. Other people who were on the production team were John Mathieson the cinematographer who also worked on Gladiator and X men First Class. The Production designer Anthony Pratt is known for his work in The Man in the Iron Mask and Excalibur. The costume designer Alexandra Byrne is credited for her work in Elizabeth,Hamlet,Thor and Avengers: Endgame. Finally, the editor of this movie Terry Rawlings is known for working on Alien,Chariots of Fire and Blade Runner. I give this movie a big thumbs up because I love both the musical and theatrical versions of Phantom of the Opera. I love the music and all the elaborate and fun costumes this movie offers. This movie really resonates and sinks into lots of different emotions which makes you appreciate the creation and delivery of everything. This movie is about as long as its broadway counterpart and it’s just as good. I can understand this movie quite well as I know the entire story and songs by heart and have read the original novel "Le Fantôme de l'Opéra". Overall, I really enjoyed this watchthrough of this movie.

The Phantom of the Opera is a beautiful movie. From the beginning auction sequence that pulls you in to the last scene at Christine's grave, you don't want this movie to end. I have always been a fan of the music and when I saw the trailer for the movie on TV before Christmas, I was eagerly awaiting this version. I have to say I was a little disappointed in the lack of publicity for the movie. I believe the studio must have spent the advertising money on Million Dollar Baby, but that's another story. It is rare in a movie to find that all the characters click and are likable. For me that happened in Pirates of the Caribbean and it happened big time in POTO. I thought all the characters were great. Emmy Rossum has taken a lot of criticism for being sort of blank and having a deer in the headlights look. I think she was just reacting as most women would when in the presence of Gerard Butler as the Phantom. He seems to elicit a jaw dropping reaction in most women who have seen the movie. I think Christine and the Phantom had a tremendous amount of chemistry together and you can see why she was really torn and had such a hard time deciding between Raoul and Erik. Emmy Rossum's voice was just perfect for this role and she was very pleasant to listen to. (both in the movie and on the soundtrack). Gerard Butler is an actor who can sing and I think he did a great job. You could see every emotion the Phantom was feeling and really sympathised with him at the end. I wanted to stand up and say, "The End", after the kiss. I almost thought Christine was coming to her senses and staying with him when she came back to give him her ring. Silly girl. I think his Phantom will become the standard all future Phantoms are measured by. For me, he was a much more intense, passionate Phantom than others in that role. He was the object of everyone's attention, whether he was onscreen or not. Patrick Wilson did a great job as Raoul, which is pretty much a go-nowhere role. He has a lovely voice and "Say You Love Me" was one of the prettiest songs in the movie. I really didn't like his hair, though! The supporting actors were outstanding. Miranda Richardson and Jennifer Ellison looked alike and were believable as mother and daughter. Miranda R. really displayed anguish over the fate of the little boy she had rescued and the man she had protected. Ciaran Hinds and Simon Callow nearly stole the show as the "two fools" who ran the Phantom's theatre. I loved the maestro and his little "You're fired" and "Bravo". It was nice to see the woman who dubbed Minnie Driver's voice, especially in Il Muto. This brings me to Minnie Driver and what I feel was an outstanding job. She took an over-the-hill diva and embued her with likability even while she was a pain. She was a pleasure to watch. I especially liked her trying to hit Christine with her mask in "Masquerade". I am disappointed that Ms. Driver will not be singing "Learn to Be Lonely" at the Oscars. Do we really need Beyonce to sing another song??? This movie has generated a lot of fan reaction and will probably give several of the actors (particularly GB, who has Dear Frankie coming out shortly) a career boost. Most people who have liked it have seen it multiple times and non-music people are even listening to the soundtrack. It wasn't all the critic's cup of tea, but a lot of people have found real pleasure in this lovely movie. That DVD can't get here soon enough. I wish there were more than just 2 discs, though! How about 4 or 5?? I'm sure there were lots of deleted Phantom scenes!!!

Ordering through Amazon was great as usual; shipping was really fast - Amazon Prime; there is no other way! My first reaction to the movie was how visually spectacular it is. The scenery, the costumes, everything is so lush and they seemed to have every detail in order. It was a very well formed and skilled cast and a large one at that. I must confess, I bought the movie after I saw Gerard Butler was the phantom, and I was very impressed with his performance. I just couldn't pass up a chance to hear Leonidas singing. :) I must say it was a bit slow going for me at first, beautiful, but slow. But, in the end, I'm glad I made that journey with the characters. A few times during this film I remember saying to myself, "Alright already, I get it! Can we just move on please?" Some of the scenes were a bit long, like the cemetery scene; I wanted Christine to get to where she was going already! She had a very long song to sing! And they must have repeated the line "The Angel of Music", referring to the phantom, at least 100 times throughout the movie, that got a bit old. But, like I said, the long journey to the climax was worth every bit of patience. At first, I was routing for the phantom; he had gone out of his way to coach this girl and wanted to make her a star. So, when this rich boy comes along and only notices Christine after she has the lead role, the role the phantom helped her get, I was a bit skeptical of the boy. But, when the phantom kills one of the stage crew, for no real reason, that's when my opinion of him started to change. It broke my heart, though, when Christine was with the rich boy on the roof, telling him how ugly the phantom was and how she couldn't imagine a life with him. At that point, I didn't think much of Christine, felt sorry for the phantom, and continued to dislike the rich boy. It wasn't until the Masquerade scene that all those opinions changed. Christine and the rich boy were secretly engaged and attend the ball together. The scorned phantom makes an appearance and by that time, he was starting to appear as an obsessive stalker and I felt a little scared for Christine. And the way the rich boy chases after him to provide some relief for his fiancé, I thought that was noble of him. At one point, before Christine is about to star in the phantom's opera "Don Juan", I remember Christine telling her rich boy how frightened she was to lure the phantom into the trap they had set. It was then that I had the revelation ~ why don't they just leave that freaking opera house? There are other places and opera houses in the world without stalker phantoms in them... But I guess that wouldn't make much of a movie... Anyways... Oh, and the background story of how the phantom came to be in the opera house really helped me to understand the phantom so much more. The horrible cruelty one had to suffer from being different back in those times. It was truly sad. Then the young ballerina teacher hides him in the opera house after he attacks his abuser, and he grows up getting to know everything about the opera house. Um, and why didn't the ballerina teacher and the phantom ever hook up? The climax was a great one; Christine betrays the phantom by pulling off his mask. And let me just say wow at what was hidden under that mask. Wow! Before the big reveal, I never thought it could be that bad, I mean, the other half of his face was, well hot, and the mask seemed to cover so little! I kept asking myself what is wrong with that Christine girl earlier in the movie; this is Gerard Butler were talking about! But wow, when the mask is pulled off and all is revealed, it's hard to imagine the handsome face under that! Well done make-up artists! But I digress... The scene back in the phantom's lair, when the phantom is overcome with possessive jealousy, forcing poor Christine to be at his side when her heart clearly belongs to the rich boy, it was heartbreaking. The phantom's slip into madness was an understandable, but scary change. And when the phantom makes her choose a life with him or a world without her rich boy, it was tragic. Realizing what he had become in the eyes of the woman he loved, the phantom relents and lets them go. And when Christine goes to say her goodbye to the phantom, it makes for the saddest scene of the entire film for me. He had so much love for her and when he broke down and reveals his true self, she just leaves. She just leaves with her rich boy. My goodness it was sad. Great movie it is one I'm very happy to have as apart of my collection. Well done to all the people involved with this film; it is truly great.

Absolutely Spectacular. We've seen the New York Broadway twice and some off-Broadways in Florida, but this brings the whole story together. It's about 3 hours and it fills in the gaps that you can't see on a Broadway production because of timing. Thank you to Andrew Lloyd Webber for helping to put this production together.

I have seen "The Phantom of the Opera" on stage three times--in Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York, the latter being one of Michael Crawford's last performances. For some reason, I did not catch the film version when it was in theatres, but saw it a week ago via On Demand on HBO. To be honest, I had been aware of some of the negative reviews, but I must say, this film is utterly amazing! In my opinion, the only negative is Carlotta, the diva, whose part I felt was TOO over the top. I do not recall this part being so overblown in the stage versions. I do not necessarily blame Minnie Driver, as her performance is probably what the director wanted. All the rest of the roles were cast, acted, and sung to perfection. Emmy Rossum is perfect as Christine. She brings an appropriate aura of naivet? and vulnerability to her role, and her vocal quality is also appropriate: youthful, promising, but not yet fully operatic. We can really believe that she has the potential to blossom under the Phantom's tutelage. Patrick Wilson's lyric tenor is ideal for the romantic hero role of Raoul. But the movie truly belongs to Gerard Butler, who is an absolute revelation as the Phantom. Director Joel Schumacher's decision to make the lead actors young (to attract a more youthful audience, as he and composer Andrew Lloyd Webber admitted) works very well indeed on film. Butler's edgy, passionate, and emotional singing, as well as his strikingly masculine looks makes the contrast between him and Raoul clearer for both Christine and the audience. In every scene with Gerard Butler, he is the irresistible focal point, which is as it should be, since The Phantom is the titular character. Because Butler plays up the Phantom's magnetic sensuality, we can really believe that Christine is mesmerized by his seductive powers. The film looks fantastic. The device of opening and closing the story with the grainy, black and white sequences with the aged, wheelchair-bound Vicomte Chagny works well, and the dramatic change from B&W to color as the theme music plays and the chandelier rises at the beginning is thrilling, to say the least. The Phantom's lair and the tunnels and catacombs leading to it were wonderfully conceived and lit. The flickering candelabras emerging from the water were an impressive effect. The huge orchestral accompaniment sounds marvelous. Because I missed seeing the movie in a theater, I feel fortunate that I was able to watch it on our big plasma screen and hear the score on our surround speakers. Yes, it's true--after having seen the movie on HBO's On Demand, I ordered the 2-disc DVD set from Amazon. I recommend this version to anyone who has not bought the DVD yet, since the extras are quite interesting. Schumacher and Webber discuss the musical's original conception and the casting for the movie version. It had been a number of years since I last saw POTO onstage, and now as I watch clips from Michael Crawford and Sarah Brightman, I can really see why Schumacher insisted on casting younger actors for the lead roles. In fact, as the clips of Crawford/Brightman played, I could hear how different their voices were, and how differently they acted the lead roles and to be honest, Butler/Rossum bring a new flavor to the movie. Their chemistry simply sizzles, and when they light up the screen together, you can see why Webber and Schumacher chose them. I have owned and played the London cast recording of the stage POTO for many, many years, but now, I find it disconcerting to listen to the discs, as Butler, Rossum, and Wilson have truly put their mark on the well-loved music of the night. Kudos and Bravo to all!!

I really don't know where to begin with this review... Gerard Butler was an excellent Phantom. I know he wasn't the best singer, or the fact that his deformity merely looked like a sunburn gone wrong, but you all have to remember Gerry is not a trained singer; he's an actor. His acting was great! He was my first Phantom and I fell in love with him the minute he sang "The Music of the Night". Yes he's no Ramin Karimloo (My favourite Phantom), he's not a Michael Crawford, or a John Owen-Jones (My other fave Phantom) but Gerry posses his own unique style. Andrew Lloyd Webber said he wanted a Phantom with a more Rockish style to his voice, and Gerry fit the part well. Sure they sexified this deformed maniac, but I do believe it was also to appeal to us younger girls who love the dangerous, mysterious, yet sexy man. Emmy Rossum was a good Chrisine, she had that youthful voice and I think her acting was good too, not great, but good. Patrick Wilson was great as Raoul, he seemed to understand the character. His voice was lovely to listen too, it was soft, soothing, just like Raoul's voice should be. The only thing that bugged me about Raoul was that stupid wig! I think Raoul should have shorter hair, but that's merely my opinion. The music itself was astounding like it should be. The only con was that they didn't have "Notes II" or "A Rehearsal For Don Juan" in the movie. I think in "Notes II" they show that Christine does have a spine on her back. The way she sticks up for herself, shows that even she does have a breaking point. (Hints: Christine gets angry with Carlotta, and overwhelmed in "Notes II"). In "A Rehearsal For Don Juan"....well why even skip this song? It has humor in it. I don't know about you, but I get a giggle and a good laugh when I hear Piangi trying to sing "tangle"... Overall the sets and costumes were amazing, though I do question Christine's "Nightgown". I prefer the one on the show better. Anyways, having two copies of the single disk version, I thought that the third time was the charm and I needed an upgrade. I got the two disc edition because I wanted to see the behind the scenes and other footage from the movie. (Also to complete my Phantom movie collection with: Love Never Dies, Phantom 25th Anniversary, Phantom (Charles Dance 1990 version). I would suggest maybe renting before buying if your skeptical still. But if you're a die-hard Phantom "Phan" like me.....buy it and "Listen to the Music of the Night". (Review done by an 18 year old's perspective.)

--Spoilers follow-- I’ve had the good fortune to see _Phantom_ on Broadway many times over the years, beginning with Crawford and Brightman. While having only a little in the way of musical training, I do have more than a bit of knowledge of the Gothic as well as the Fin-de-siècle/Belle Époque eras in which Leroux’s novel is set and during which it was written (professional historian here). Additionally, for what it’s worth, I once worked for 15 years as a technician in a glorious turn-of-the-century theatre and as such attended many, many performances of everything from classical ballet to Broadway national tours to classic rock, so I have some insight into the world of the theatre and the entertainment business as a whole. (This explains, in part, my affinity for _Phantom_ and for the era in which it’s set.) Such is the background to this review. Overall, this cinematic version of POTO is a lush, lavish, sensuous, romantic (and Romantic), well-oiled, effortless, over-the-top (in a good way) spectacle. It’s highly faithful to the stage production in most of the important ways from libretto to orchestration, while at the same time achieving an extra richness and intimacy in ways that just can’t be done in a live theatre. Regrettably, the second act is somewhat truncated, with a few scenes being deleted and a few lines consequently being moved. Nevertheless, if you’re a fan of the Lloyd Webber stage production, this is as close as you’re ever going to come to seeing the Broadway version without catching it on B’way or in a good national tour. Some of the many highlights include: The Opera House itself, especially the interiors. The wonderful juxtaposition of the chapel (wonderful gothic touch) and the ornamentation of the auditorium are perfection. When the transition occurs, at the film’s beginning, from the old dilapidated black and white building to the lush orgiastic figures, as a wind blows away the cobwebs and the monochrome and restors the grandeur, it’s breathtaking. Before seeing this film, I would have said that the producers would have been hard-pressed to live up to the opening of the Broadway production, but they pulled it off in aces. Christine. Emmy Rossum gives a simply scrumptious performance on all counts, especially in light of her youth; she has a poise well beyond her years. Her voice utterly epitomizes what both Leroux and Lloyd Webber (and the Phantom himself) envision and describe it to be: young, but already extraordinary and having even greater yet-to-be-tapped potential (“if pride will let her return . . .”). She possesses a Pre-Raphaelite beauty and style (down to the facial expressions), as if she had just emerged from a Rossetti painting. I’m reminded of a review I read when the stage production first came out: the story, the music, and Christine’s voice combine to give the gothic, darkly sensuous impression of “a nightingale on LSD.” It’s a shame that she decided not to go into a classical music career following this film. Madame Giry also deserves special mention; she has the necessary severe and wonderfully imposing air. The other cast members are also, in general, great choices (with one massive exception: see below). Then of course there’s the choreography, the production values, the lighting . . . I could go on and on. (Just go watch it yourself rather than read my drivel.) Alas, I have stop my praise in time to leave room for my three major criticisms (and they truly are major). The first is Gerard Butler. He’s no singer, despite the fact that he did a crash singing course to prepare for the film. He’s also rather young for the Phantom: in my opinion the Phantom should be an older alpha male who puts young buck Raoul in his place until the dénouement, rather than a young competitor who’s part of a more conventional love triangle. Despite this, he does his best with the part. But the first-mentioned problem is nearly insurmountable. It’s an almost unbelievable gaffe in a musical to have a lead who cannot sing. Emmy Rossom’s vocal work is superb; Patrick Wilson’s (as Raoul) is quite good; but Butler as a singer is a disaster. His work in 2011’s _Coriolanus_ proves that his acting is up to the task, but his relative youth and his voice mean that he’s essentially miscast here. And that is a major, major flaw. I simply cannot see whatever it was that Lloyd Webber saw in him. The second problem is at least as bad. Leroux makes clear that the Phantom is a magician, and Lloyd Webber’s stage version extends this idea with the suggestion that the Phantom’s magic isn’t merely illusion but real. (Perhaps that decision was simply making a virtue of necessity since it simplifies the props and such on stage, but it enhances the Phantom’s cachet and character.) But in the film, the Phantom isn’t even an illusionist. All indications are that the glamour is entirely in the eye of the beholder (i.e., Christine). Indeed, director Schumacher takes great pains to make this point. The secret passage through which the Phantom leads Christine from her dressing room is filled with warm, glowing magic in Christine’s eyes, but when Meg Giry explores it later, it’s dank, dirty, cobwebby, and rat-infested. Carlotta’s croaking is explained not by ventriloquism (as in the novel) but by the Phantom doping her throat spray. The eerie light that Christine sees emanating from the Daaé mausoleum (one of the film’s most disturbing moments—what does a mausoleum need with a light?) . . . simply isn’t there when Raoul is in the frame. When raising the portcullis near the film’s end, the Phantom must resort to the pedestrian method of throwing a lever rather than simply using the magical gesture he employs on Broadway. The one thing approaching illusionist magic (i.e., illusionism, not real magic) is at the Masquerade, when the Phantom doesn’t simply disappear but instead very obviously dives down a trap door. (Schumacher even pointedly makes the smoke bomb he throws ineffective at concealing the “magic.”) He then uses a hall of mirrors to escape from Raoul. And that’s it. In pursuance of what is, frankly, a very major character revision, the producers have even rewritten the libretto in places to accommodate it (e.g., “He will burn you with the heat of his eyes” becomes “Keep your hand at the level of your eyes”). They’ve even omitted the _Don Juan Triumphant_ rehearsal scene, presumably in order to eliminate the magic of a piano that plays itself at the Phantom’s behest. Aw, c’mon, producers! The film could have accommodated magic, or at least illusion, way more easily than the stage version! What were you thinking? The problem with this is threefold. First, it takes away some of the gothic, escapist, otherworldliness of the story that allowed Lloyd Webber to make it more than the pulp fiction it essentially was as a book. As a result, the film is a more pedestrian story of a love triangle (or it would be absent the film’s great strengths). Second, it inevitably does some violence to the plot: At the Masquerade, for instance, not being possessed of magical powers that keep all in attendance in fear of him, the Phantom must resort to threatening them (all hundred of them or so) with a sword. (Really? Why not just rush him from behind and kick his derrière down the stairs in that case?) Third, and most important, it diminishes the character of the Phantom, essentially emasculating him to a degree. As I noted above, the Phantom is—or should be—an older, powerful, alpha male who cannot be either outwitted or vanquished through mere strength. He is always in complete control of the Opera, the plot, the action, and everything else except for Christine’s feelings toward Raoul, a fact that literally drives him mad(der). He maintains this control right up until the moment that Christine redeems him with a kiss, when he willingly relinquishes his whip hand for love of her (i.e., he isn’t ever beaten, except by Raoul’s and Christine’s love for each other; instead, he unilaterally gives up). Even thereafter he remains a magician, disappearing as mysteriously as he first appeared. At least that’s how it is in the theatrical version and mostly how it is in the book. By stripping the Phantom of his magic, Schumacher has greatly weakened him as a character and thus fundamentally changed the whole story, and not in any way for the better. My third criticism derives directly from my second—indeed, it’s merely an example of the second, but it’s so egregious that it comes perilously close to ruining the whole film all by itself. Since the Phantom isn’t a magician, he can’t hurl flaming bolts at Raoul in the cemetery, thus forcing him to flee with Christine. The producers therefore decided to resort to a conventional sword fight instead. If you have a sword fight, then you have to have a winner and a loser. So the producers had the Phantom lose. Raoul stands victorious with his sword pointing down at a disarmed Phantom lying on the ground. WTF? First, this utterly destroys the concept of the Phantom as unconquerable larger-than-life alpha male and further diminishes him. (At this point, to finish the job, we should ditch the title _The Phantom of the Opera_ and just rename it _Christine and Raoul Have a Run-In With a Weirdo at the Opera_.) Second, it also means that having won, Raoul must let the Phantom go (or else we can’t tell the climactic final part of the story), which is a plot hole the size of a nuclear crater. In the very next scene Raoul is discussing with Firmin and Andre how to catch the Phantom. You dolt, if you want to catch him then why did you let him go when you had him not thirty seconds ago? Just because Christine didn’t want you to kill him doesn’t mean you couldn’t have dragged his rear end off to the police. There’s no way around it: the cemetery scene all by itself makes this a totally different story (and one, moreover, that is not only inferior but makes no dramatic sense). If Lloyd Webber was the one who made this call, it’s a screw-up on the order of George Lucas having Greedo shoot first. Both of these retellings completely rewrites/retcons a character in such a way as to deprive him of one a fundamental defining characteristic. It’s a testament to how well done the film is in all other regards that I still think it a great production and worth four stars despite producers’ savaging of the performance and essential character of the Phantom in these three ways. Nevertheless, when I imagine how close they came to utter perfection and how much I wish I could give it that fifth star, all I feel is disappointment.