Phantom of the Opera movie
Sun, 26 Dec 2004, 10:33 pmWalter Plinge82 posts in thread
Phantom of the Opera movie
Sun, 26 Dec 2004, 10:33 pmWhat I can say is that the movie is fairly directed. The music is marvellous but apparently its been casted with worst singers ever. Overall the phantom is the worst singer with the most unmusical voice i've ever heard in my life. There is nothing scary about his voice, except that he occasionally try to sound like a toad which isnt working for me. The christine role sounds like another version of sarah brightman, those who try to substitute acting and musicality with divaism. I dont see why the phantom accuse the diva carlotta for being bad in acting although she is moderately very good for me except the fact that she have to use that wagnerian slide up. There is nothing interesting about the vocal color of the singers. All of them sounds like puppies singing dead songs. It sounds more like karaoke rather than a good singing. I could tolerate christine and raoul but not the phantom; he is a crime.
It's very irritating to see how they abuse such musical masterpiece. I expect the movie to be at least comparable to normal local musicals but its far worse than that. I doubt if actually christine would actually be heard if she sang that aria in a real theater. It is total humiliation for opera singers that the movie uses such incompetent singer to compare with opera singers. I think even thought it is a musical; they should at least put at least a bit of operatic voice in christine because she is an opera singers in the story for goodness sake. Her voice is dead and lack of expression; its just beautiful and doesnt not resonate. The music is touching thanx to the composer of the music, but relying on the musicality of the composer is but showing the sign of a dead performer. THe least for human to be is to be a singing machine. 'such thing is the most cruel thing one can ever do' Felix Mendelssohn.
It's very irritating to see how they abuse such musical masterpiece. I expect the movie to be at least comparable to normal local musicals but its far worse than that. I doubt if actually christine would actually be heard if she sang that aria in a real theater. It is total humiliation for opera singers that the movie uses such incompetent singer to compare with opera singers. I think even thought it is a musical; they should at least put at least a bit of operatic voice in christine because she is an opera singers in the story for goodness sake. Her voice is dead and lack of expression; its just beautiful and doesnt not resonate. The music is touching thanx to the composer of the music, but relying on the musicality of the composer is but showing the sign of a dead performer. THe least for human to be is to be a singing machine. 'such thing is the most cruel thing one can ever do' Felix Mendelssohn.
Re: Phantom of the Opera movie
Wed, 22 Feb 2006, 09:42 amWalter Plinge
Ok, whilst I have not read each and every one of the earlier comments I have scanned them at random.
There are a few points I would like to make:
1. Rossum is hardly comparable to Brightman (or Prior for that matter) for a number of reasons (and before you get angry at me, read on, i don't mean it how it sounds).
Firstly, the role was written for Brightman, that is why it suits her voice so well, it was tailored to it. Yet even for her it was an extremely difficult role (in fact it was stipulated that in every city the stage show is performed in there must be two performers to play the role of Christine (so the main one can rest 2 days per week) because it is such a vocally demanding part.
Secondly, the main difference in their performances lies in the difference between mediums. Film is very different to stage, so the performances (and performers) must differ likewise. Although, I must admit that there was no need for the film role of Christine to differ quite so much.
2. This may be jsut my oppinion, but in my experience, stage shows tend to out do there film counterparts as far as the experience goes (perhaps this is the major difference between mass media and live performances - think about it, would you rather listen to the latest album by your favourite band/artist, or seem them in-person, in-concert? Would you rather look at the Mona Lisa whilst standing in the Louvre, or look at a photograph of it in an art book?). For me this can be explained as being because when you see a live performance you become a part of the show - and this is especially true for Phantom, where at some parts in the show you are actually sitting where the audience would sit in the fictional Paris Opera House.
So whilst it seems many people are disappointed with the film version of the Phantom, I think it may be a good idea to view the to media separately rather than compare them and judge them against each other.
There are a few points I would like to make:
1. Rossum is hardly comparable to Brightman (or Prior for that matter) for a number of reasons (and before you get angry at me, read on, i don't mean it how it sounds).
Firstly, the role was written for Brightman, that is why it suits her voice so well, it was tailored to it. Yet even for her it was an extremely difficult role (in fact it was stipulated that in every city the stage show is performed in there must be two performers to play the role of Christine (so the main one can rest 2 days per week) because it is such a vocally demanding part.
Secondly, the main difference in their performances lies in the difference between mediums. Film is very different to stage, so the performances (and performers) must differ likewise. Although, I must admit that there was no need for the film role of Christine to differ quite so much.
2. This may be jsut my oppinion, but in my experience, stage shows tend to out do there film counterparts as far as the experience goes (perhaps this is the major difference between mass media and live performances - think about it, would you rather listen to the latest album by your favourite band/artist, or seem them in-person, in-concert? Would you rather look at the Mona Lisa whilst standing in the Louvre, or look at a photograph of it in an art book?). For me this can be explained as being because when you see a live performance you become a part of the show - and this is especially true for Phantom, where at some parts in the show you are actually sitting where the audience would sit in the fictional Paris Opera House.
So whilst it seems many people are disappointed with the film version of the Phantom, I think it may be a good idea to view the to media separately rather than compare them and judge them against each other.
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···