In regards to the age of the Phantom, I think having him in his 50s or older would not have been fitting considering we live in the time of “To Catch a Predator�. The audience would have been grossed out. He couldn’t make Christine older as that would take away from the fact that she was supposed to be innocent and naïve. Some assume the Phantom is the same age as Madame Giry but he could have been a couple of years younger than her. In the movie, she could be let’s say 40 and the Phantom maybe 38. Assuming that Meg is the same age of Christine (18) that would mean Madame Giry had her when she was 22 which obviously would not be unusual especially during that time. She could have even had her at 18. I think this works for the film.

I personally liked Gerard Butler in this movie. Not just for his “hotness� but for his acting. He is very good at acting with emotion. Considering part of the Phantom’s face is covered by a mask it makes it difficult for any actor playing the part to convey the emotions the Phantom is feeling. I think Butler did a great job at doing this. One scene in particular would be after he interrupts the Masquerade song and dance and walks toward Christine. The look in his eyes says it all. This is even with just the whites of his eyes showing since around the eyes is colored black. His singing, I agree is not the best but I don’t think it is so horrible that I would run away from it. Butler is not a trained vocalist and Andrew Lloyd Webber knew this. It has been noted in interviews that Webber always wanted the Phantom to sound rough and more like a rock singer. I’m sure Michael Crawford fans find that offensive.

I agree that Emmy Rossum was okay in the film. The “deer in the headlights� look got to me too.

As for all the other posters’ complaints about the timeline etc., let’s remember that this was a movie adaptation of Andrew Lloyd Webber’s stage version of the Phantom of the Opera. It is basically an adaptation of an adaptation – with a few extra tidbits thrown in.

Well that’s my opinion and I’m sticking to it. Thanks for reading. Have a wonderful day!

I have been an avid Phan since I was introduced to the book and musical in 7th grade (almost 12 years ago) — I have seen the play several times, read (and own) nearly every adaption of the story that has come to print, and know all sorts of (useless) trivia about the musical/history/opera house/etc. too.

… I absolutely loathed the movie Schumacher put out.

From a technical standpoint, the sets were pretty, most of the costumes were relatively true to the stage show from which the movie was based, but the singing (on most parts) was sub-par and the whole movie was entirely over-sexed.

The story is about a deformed man (who is supposed to be around the age of 50 or so, occasionally older in some adaptions) who lives underground. His deformity is supposed to be so hideous that he’s supposed to look like he’s dead. So, I ask you, why was the Phantom tan-looking and his “deformity” looking like he had a simple case of a bad sunburn? My husband had sun poisoning once that looked worse than that sorry excuse for a makeup job! It’s sad when the stage version of the make up exceeds the million dollar movie version. Schumacher said in an interview that he didn’t want to make the Phantom too ugly becuase then he’d be unlikeable.

Um.. What? Isn’t that the point?

The whole reason we’re supposed to sympathize with the character is that he’s been forced to run to ground to avoid society. He’s supposed to be that ugly. Granted, in older days they were a lot less understanding about deformities; a crooked nose was enough to land you a reputation for being a witch in some places, but the book is VERY specific when describing how sever his deformity is. They honored it in the stage show, why not the movie?

Secondly, while I do give Butler credit for his effort, his voice was not a good fit for the role. It certainly did not have the etherial quality that it was supposed to have. The Phantom is supposed to have a voice like an angel; hypnotic and unearthly. It’s why he’s refered to as the Angel of Music. It’s supposed to hypnotize Christine to the point that she’d follow it anywhere — If I heard Butler rasping and straining to hit notes like he was at me, I’d honestly run for cover. You can’t listen to that voice and tell me that it honestly sounds like something heavenly. Would you follow it blindly? I think not.

What I don’t understand about Butler’s singing is why they didn’t simply dub him over. They did that for Minnie Driver’s character because she didn’t have the voice for the role of her character, why didn’t they do that for Gerard when the Phantom’s voice is the backbone for the whole show? Butler didn’t have the range for the songs — a good chunk of the songs were transposed or he had to take an octave down because he couldn’t hit the actual note he was supposed to. Take ‘Music of The Night’ for example.. That was an absolute atrocity towards the middle and the end. Granted that is a very hard song, and I felt he did alright with it for having no real training (I have to give credit where it’s due), but they should have simply dubbed him over because he didn’t have the power to support the vocal demands of the role any more than Minnie did.

Emmy Rossum was passible as Christine, but far from fabulous. For more than half the movie she has this inexplicable ‘deer in the headlights’ expression. By the end of the book and the musical, Christine is supposed to have grown some sort of a spine; the experience of being torn between these two men, who both are asking more than she’s able to give, is supposed to make her transition from child to woman. I didn’t feel that transformation happen with Emmy. While her voice wasn’t entirely unpleasant to listen to, I wish they could have gotten someone with a wider range of acting skills for the role.

Patrick Wilson, who played Raoul (a character which I’ve never liked because, like any Phan, we ultimately fantasize about Christine and Erik (the Phantom) widing up together and Raoul messes that up. LOL.) was the only character out of the main three who I felt was justifiably cast. His singing was decent for the part, he fit the description of the character, and his acting was alright.. I can’t complain about him too much, honestly.

I suppose, over all, my biggest beef with the movie were the singing and Schumacher’s want to ’sex things up’. The Phantom was supposed to be pale, skeletal, and deformed.. Schumacher had him young, fit, handsome, and half-dressed for the entire end of the movie.

Give me a flippin’ break.

(.. But, again, we are talking about the man who put nipples on the Batman suit. I suppose that should have been a warning sign from the beginning. LOL.)

All in all, I’m glad that the movie at least introduced people to the story who were not familiar with it beforehand; it’s a great story when told correctly, but I do get irritated by some of the fan girls when all they can say for the movie is “OMG.. Erik (the Phantom) is soooooooooooooo hot!”

Honey, you’ve missed the entire point. And so did Joel Schumacher.

So sad.

In reference to this last post — The Paris Opera, like with many other houses, did use live animals in their performances on stage. There are animal stalls located on one of the lower levels of the house where they often kept horses or sheep that might be used in a production. (Not that they were kept in great quantities, but a few were used here and there.) The horse in the musical is actually a reference to the original novel by Leroux — The Phantom basically stole the horse and brought Christine down to his place on it. The horse’s name is Caesar. Random trivia.

As for Christine not having a choice — I partly agree with that statement, but I also disagree. I think she did have a choice, but the outcome of either choice had rammifications that I don’t think any of us would really like to have to deal with either.

To really address this question, we have to go to the novel.. Not the musical (which sort of simplified the matter to save for time, I think.) In the book, Christine was faced with, not only a choice between two men, but a choice of life and death. Not only was the Phantom going to kill Raoul if she didn’t choose him, but also a character called The Persian, and Erik was also intending to blow up the entire opera house. If she chose Erik, everyone was free to go, but she would be trapped underground with him forever. It wasn’t necessarily just a choice as simple as ‘who do I love more?’ Either way, it was her own death (even if it wasn’t necessiarly Erik’s intention to hurt her by keeping her with him forever). So, she thought by sacrificing herself and staying with Erik.. She would save everyone else. Such was her love for Raoul, she wanted him safe. But I think she agreed to stay with Erik in the end because, while she would be parted from Raoul, it wasn’t as if she didn’t feel something for Erik too. While it was a different sort of love than that she felt for Raoul, it was love nonetheless. So, it was definitely the lesser of two evils — her main squeeze goes free, everyone lives, and she’s stuck with Erik (whom she does love on some level) until she dies. Or he dies (which is far more likely given the age gap between them).

I think that Erik lets her go in the end because he realizes how unfair he’s being to her.. A little lightbulb goes off over his head and he figures out that, if he loves her, he can’t doom her to the same hell he’s created for himself.. Living below ground, being hounded like an animal (because, despite what we’d like to believe about society back then, she probably would have been shunned just as much as he was if she married him).. He didn’t want that for her and he releases her along with everyone else.

Anyway, enough of my tirade.

Quick summary for those who don’t want to read my entire post: Butler wasn’t a good Phantom, Joel Schumacher overlooked the aspects of the story he thought would turn off the millions of teenage girls he was trying to turn on so that he could make money off them, and the book is complicated and (obviously) a great souce to reference if you’re having trouble understanding elements in the musical.

My two cents. Heh.

B: Convenient Exposition It shouldn’t matter that we haven’t met Meg. In fact, Christine’s explanation of Raoul to Meg should be her way of telling the viewers that Meg is her closest friend. Christine has not seen Raoul in years. What else should she say? Their childhood relationship is explained in the song “Little Lotte.” Madame Giry’s explanation is a little misplaced, but it can be explained. Erik has just attacked. She is probably shocked by what has happened and is thinking about her attachment to him when Raoul starts asking questions. The story has been bottled up inside of her for years and years. She is trying to explain to Raoul the Phantom’s motives.

C:Let him go! Set a trap! I can only agree with you on the first portion of this. Maybe they didn’t want to kill the Phantom? Alright, I get how Erik could live in the opera house for so long. First of all, he is protected by Madame Giry, who seems to be the only other person who knows the way to his hideout. Second, he uses only hidden passages to get there. The thing that threw me off was the horse. How can you keep a horse alive in a basement. Better yet, how do you get it there in the first place?

Other comments Christine isn’t really supposed to have a choice. Her part is to try to escape Erik, save Raoul, and show normal human emotions and problems along the way.

A lengthy response I know, but I’m pretty much obsessed with The Phantom of the Opera. Anyone can email me about it if they want at strawberry_sunset520@yahoo.com

Hats off to all of you!