The musical based on the story of a histrionic girl and the antisocial masked guy who's crazy about her..........is now a big movie.

By the way, this is where I am coming from: I have read the book, I have the OST, and once in my life knew the whole OST start to finish, but never had the means to see the musical itself. Hence, I watch the movie version.

Let us talk about the main players first.

I really liked Emmy Rossum. She had Sarah Brightman's shoes to fill in the role of Christine, and she did an excellent job. She sang with a voice expected of an 18-year-old, but with a power seldom found in many singers of her age. Her acting was also very elegant and hearfelt. That she is really pretty is just a big plus factor. Best of luck with her future career.

Minnie Driver. As Carlotta, the nasty diva. She is the last actress you would think of to play this role, but she pulled it off incredibly well. She was a good nasty diva the whole time.

The guy who played Raoul (Patrick Wilson) was really great, too. His singing was appropriately rich in the right places. He looked pretty good as well. I just couldn't get used to the hair. ^_^

But the movie ultimately falls flat for me because of THE crucial element: the Phantom.

Sorry, but for me as with most other people, there could only be one. I did not exactly want that Gerard Butler become Michael Crawford (the first and the best Broadway Phantom, according to everybody), but I did expect him to give the role the same emotion, hypnotic power, and vocal control.

I expected to feel for the Phantom in the movie, the way I felt for the Phantom in the musical, from just hearing the OST. I did not, not one bit. SUCH a shame. To prove my point: I watched this movie with a friend who barely knows the Broadway version with Michael Crawford's voice. He could not understand why Christine was so blindly drawn to the Phantom. It's because my friend could not feel that psychological hold he should have on her.

Add to that the scratchy high notes, and my disappointment is complete. It is unforgivable that good looks took precedence to excellent acting and singing in the final choice for the Phantom.

Now for the rest of the stuff.

I really appreciated the fact that material from the book was mixed into the movie, especially about the Phantom's history, as well as the traps doors and tricks. This therefore makes the movie one of the closest adaptations of the book, which is really good. Some reviewers don't like it that the Phantom's tricks were shown, but I liked it a lot. It helps prove that the Phantom is just a really smart man, if rather twisted. I also quite liked the black-and-white sequences, reminiscent of the early films.

The adaptation itself is a mixed bag, though. In some places it's really great, in others it feels forced. The Masquerade sequence was the best. The final confrontation part was the worst, and was actually boring. The annoying part is the way they could not decide to stick with either using spoken lines for originally sung lines, or keeping sung lines. Mixing sung and unsung lines was great in the OG letters sequence, but it was awful in the "All I Ask of You" sequence.

The set designs were excellent, and were well planned and presented. All the opulence of the opera house was displayed, and the dreariness of the underground lair showed well. I also liked the cemetery part a lot, and the way Christine stood out admidst the white setting.

You can't say too much about the music, since it's based on the musical, but it can be said that the orchestrations is a lot nicer here than even in the Broadway OST. It's smoother, and not so blaring as the original, a welcome modification.

Cinematography was really nice on the whole. I like the introduction best, when the chandelier is first raised. I generally liked how the camera swept through the sets and gave the emotions of many people at once.

The special makeup is not too good, unfortunately, for a movie that is supposed to make a Phantom look hideous. The Phantom doesn't look hideous, he looks like a burn victim! And the burns are inconsistent in various points in the movie. Furthermore, there is that glaring mistake toward the end of the movie where his hair changes from black to wispy brown, when Christine takes off the mask.

Overall, The Phantom of the Opera movie has the same problem Pearl Harbor has, seeing that both come from Joel Schumacher. Sure, it was good, really good. But excellent and memorable -- it is not. That is because it tries to copy big hits before it. If Titanic was a big hit, why not Pearl Harbor? If Chicago was a big hit, why not the Phantom movie? You can feel the love of the big bucks permeating everything about the movie, not so much the love of the great musical. This business mindset somewhat ruins important decisions for the movie, which ultimately ruins important aspects that make or break the movie.

Therefore, I can say with truthfulness, that I liked the movie. But I cannot say I will rant and rave about it, the way I went crazy over the Broadway musical. I probably will not watch it again, for a while.

This is the first major example of how the modern movie musical should NOT be done. It did not meet the high standards already raised, ironically, by another Andrew Lloyd-Webber musical, Evita. Oh, well. After the great comes the mediocre. Let this be a lesson to future aspiring directors of a movie musical. It is no longer the 50's. The modern movie musical is not entered into lightly. PLAN WELL!!

Final verdict:

If you're familiar at any level with the musical (read the book, heard the Broadway OST, seen the musical), you should give this movie a watch, especially for the full rendering of the Paris Opera House and the underground lair. Just expect to keep ranting this for the whole movie: Michael Crawford is the one and the only!!

If you have friends who want to know what all the fuss about the musical is about, by all means, let them watch the movie version, and they might just like the musical for itself.

If you want to introduce anybody to musicals, do NOT start them with the Phantom movie. Use the Evita or Chicago movie instead. They are better examples of musical adaptations. Heck, Moulin Rouge was better than this.

If you are not the kind who likes musicals at all, I am sure you will hate this thoroughly. You will not forgive the many faults, and you might not see the strengths. I refer you back to Moulin Rouge.

So go watch it! Just don't say I didn't warn you. ^^

Link to hilarious parody:
http://www.livejournal.com/community/m15m/6231.html

I got this from Nekotsuki's blog (http://www.livejournal.com/users/whiteadelphi/) and she got it from someone else. I got hit. The crazy life I have makes me think crazy things.

Pass it on. Someone might just need it. 

Suicide: The Permanent Solution To A Temporary Problem

Ask the 25-year-old who tried to electrocute himself. He lived. But both his arms are gone.

What about jumping? Ask John. He used to be intelligent, with an engaging sense of humor. That was before he leapt from a building. Now, he's brain-damaged and will always need care. He staggers and has seizures. He lives in a fog. But, worst of all, he KNOWS he used to be normal.

What about pills? Ask the 12-year-old with extensive liver damage from an overdose. Have you ever seen anyone die of liver damage? You turn yellow. It's a hard way to go.

What about a gun? Ask the 24-year-old who shot himself in the head. Now he drags one leg, has a useless arm and has no vision or hearing on one side. He lived through his "foolproof" suicide. You might too.

But... Who will clean your blood off the carpet or scrape your brains from the ceiling? Commercial cleaning companies may refuse that job--but SOMEONE has to do it.

Who will have to cut you down from where you hung yourself or identify your bloated body after you've drowned? Your father? Your mother? Your wife? Your son?

The carefully worded "loving" suicide note is of no help. Those who loved you will NEVER completely recover. They'll feel regret and an unending pain.

Suicide is contagious. Look around your family. Look closely at the 4 year old playing with his cars on the rug. Kill yourself tonight, and he may do it ten years from now.

You DO have other choices. There are people who can help you through this crisis. Call a hotline. Call a friend. Call your minister or priest. Call a doctor or hospital. Call the police. They will tell you that there's hope. Maybe you'll find it in the mail tomorrow. Or in a phone call this weekend. But what you're seeking could be just a minute, a month, or a day away.

You say you don't want to be stopped? Still want to do it? -Well, then, I may see you in the psychiatric ward later. And we'll work with whatever you have left.

Remember: Suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem.

IF YOU’RE READING THIS, PLEASE STEAL IT AND PUT IT IN YOUR JOURNAL, TOO

I'm not sure if these reviews are of any use to anybody, but it helps keep me sane, so I'm still writing them. On to the review.

The novel is inspired by the Jan Vermeer painting of the same name, a mysterious piece with just a black background, unlike the other famous Vermeer paintings. Johannes Vermeer is one of the most important Dutch artists, EVER. He is also regarded as one of the most important Western painters in all of art history, famous for realistic renditions of 17th-century Holland and its people.

So Tracy Chevalier makes this novel about Griet, a 16-year-old servant of the Vermeer household, who slowly gets his attention, as she slowly falls for him, too.  But of course, there are many problems with the relationship: Vermeer's family, Griet's position in life, another suitor for Griet, and Vermeer's key patron causing trouble.  When she finally becomes the model for the unique piece, just up to what amount of trouble will poor Griet find herself in? 

It's short enough not to be intimidating, and long enough to suitably portray all the characters.  I like how Vermeer, for most of the novel, remains "he". It leaves him mysterious yet personal to the readers, reading the account from Griet's eyes. I also enjoyed visualizing what is only implied by a few choice words: the longing in both Griet and her master for each other, the deep and painful emotions running in Catharina, and the sadness of Griet's parents. 

The best part for me is how sexually charged this whole book is, without being explicit. It would have ruined it for me if it was any more specific about things, but it was just fantastic how it gave key elements then left the reader to add in the rest of the details. The book therefore turns out to be both easy to read, and hard to analyze.

Finally, I suddenly understood the importance of descriptions painting the scene for a story, and that big elaborate descriptions are not needed, but accurate and piercing ones are essential. I appreciated how quickly Chevalier immersed her readers into Griet's world of being poor and being a maid in 17th century Holland, without wasting too many words describing Delft, but giving enough.  

When I finished the book, it left me wondering what all the critics saw in it, because it was so deceptively simple, without epic proportions. But when I think about it more, I understood. That's the power it had. It was simple, but realistic, and moving. 

I could recommend Girl with a Pearl Earring to an older teenager without problems, but no teenager less than 16.  I would also recommend this to someone who wants to have another outlook about art, especially Vermeer's art. I don't know about the movie, because I haven't  seen it, but I would recommend reading the book first before seeing it.

So, if you do find this book in your local bookstore, give it a try. You'll never look at the painting Girl With a Pearl Earring the same way again. 

www.pearlearring.com

EK   8 )