| Comments: |
A while ago, there were posts regarding
Michael Crawford's age and they reminded me of some of the cluelessness Warner Bros. and
Lord Andrew Lloyd Webber have on who should play the Phantom in the film version of
Phantom of the Opera and anything regarding to the movie. Actually, I think the
cluelessness is much more on ALW, since he would have the most to lose if he miscasts
Antonio Banderas as the Phantom. Why AB? I mean I used to respect the guy until the April
11 Daily Express article that caused an uproar among fans. Doesn't ALW understand the
Phantom? Doesn't AB not only understand the character but what the public wants? The whole
show relies on who is playing the title character. Depending on who is playing the
Phantom, it has a huge effect on the show. If Lord Andrew dares to cast AB as the Phantom,
I will not forgive him and the movie would leave a bad taste in everybody's mouth. Not to
mention we the public would lose one of the greatest performances of a lifetime.
I've been telling some people about the movie ordeal and they agree with me. Even for
those who never got the chance to see Michael on stage do know he is what makes the role
and the movie. Unfortunately, some people just don't understand.
A few months ago, one of my teachers could not understand why casting Michael is such a
big deal. He had seen Phantom albeit without Michael. I tried telling him how important it
is but he just didn't get it at all. He said the performance is already preserved on the
recording, it will still be performed for years, his role will stay in the minds of the
audience, and the book the musical is based on will still be there. Well yeah but if the
actor playing the Phantom does not do a good job, audiences would think why we are raving
about this play. As for the recording, Michael's voice significantly changed between 1986
and now. He sounds better than ever!!
Speaking of Michael, even if his performance is in our heads, how will others who were
unable to see Michael as the Phantom find out about it? We all don't live long and when we
leave, we'll take our memories of his performance with us. Even if we pass it on to
others, it would not be the same because they never saw the actual performance or they saw
the movie but Michael was not in the movie. The best way to see it is having Michael cast
in the film and have all of his performance intact there. As for the novel still being
around, that's true but what about the musical itself? It's the best thing that occurred
in the late last century because of Michael. Everyone should deserve to see him in the
film and this performance should be preserved for future generations.
Also, my teacher said people would not want to sit through a 3-hour musical. Blame it on
short-attention spans but if AB takes up the role, his fans would expect the action and
such he is known for. I'm sure they will not put up with his role behind the mask since
his face is hidden. Hey even AB's fans have a clue on this!! And when he is unmasked, how
would they react to see a pretty-boy type of actor buried under horrific makeup for 3
hours? And has anyone noticed how most movies are running at 2-3 hours now? And that
people sit through 2-3 hours Broadway shows all the time? What difference would it make if
it were a stage musical or a movie musical?
I would also blame this on musicals that went wrong. No wonder why the musical genre goes
on and off these days: miscasting, poor script, lousy director, etc. Come to think of it,
those would explain why movies aren't that great that much these days.
With those in mind, here's something else to think about: Michael's performance is what
makes the movie but what about the script? If the script is very close to the original
stage play AND Michael is cast as the Phantom, the movie would kick butt at the box office
and we would have the definitive Phantom forever on record. But what would happen if the
script sucked and Michael was cast? If I were in Michael's shoes, I'd say until the script
is rewritten to be much more like the stage version, I would refuse to be in the movie.
Michael knows the character like the back of his hand. He's been playing the role not only
on stage but in his concerts when he sings POTO and Music of the Night. He IS the Phantom.
As for the 1990 abandoned script, which is available on the campaign site, I had mixed
feelings after reading the script. On the upside, all the libretto, characters, and story
were kept intact. There were some moments written for the film that I liked such as Meg's
discovery of the Phantom's route via Christine's dressing room mirror, Raoul falling into
a mirror labyrinth after the masquerade, and Mme. Giry's memory of the Phantom told in
flashback. I thought these moments gave other characters to shine, something of which
could not be done on stage. Especially Mme. Giry's flashback because it fleshes out the
Phantom more.
On the downside, some other moments were questionable. I was not happy with how MOTN and
Point of No Return would be filmed according to the 1990 screenplay. In the 1990
screenplay, the Phantom is dragging a boat around and lighting candles during MOTN. That
absolutely does not compare with the original stage version where it's very romantic and
sensuous with him walking cat-like, holding and enticing Christine and drapping on the
portcullis. As for PONR, this got me equally furious as to finding out how MOTN would have
been filmed in 1990. The infamous bench scene was left out completely!! The bench scene is
the most powerful, passionate, and intense moment that makes it very clear how the Phantom
feels and reacts when Christine is singing the song he wrote for her. Why these moments
were rewritten to an unrecognizable degree is way beyond me head. Whoever wrote the 1990
script has no clue on why moments like MOTN and PONR are really significant to the title
character.
Another moment I could not understand is at the conclusion of the graveyard scene
("Wandering Child / Bravo Monsieur..."), the 1990 script has the Phantom and
Raoul equally matched in a hand-to-hand combat. What gives?! Yes there has to be some sort
of conflict between the two but why a fight like that? And in adding insult to injury,
Christine is scripted to sing MOTN in its entirety and taking the melody further from the
Phantom.
ALW, why are you doing this? Haven't you learned the Phantom is the main focus since it's
in the title? Are you trying to shift the focus back to Christine because you think that's
what the show is all about? No wonder why ALW wants AB: he is a Hollywood star and to ALW,
it doesn't matter who plays the Phantom but who plays Christine.
Any answers? |