I just finished watching the movie version of The Phantom of the Opera. I've seen the stage version three times, and I'll admit I was a bit reluctant to see the movie. I just really wasn't sure that such a grand production with bold, sweeping music would translate to the screen. I mean, so much of the drama when you go to the theater is the live orchestra music bouncing off the walls and resonating through your bones. Plus, those big ensemble numbers with the dancers and the sets and costumes, where so many things are going on at once - I just didn't think it could all be captured on film. But I was very pleasantly surprised. While nothing will ever take the place of the live show, I did think the movie was very well done. It mostly stayed true to the plot, included all of the songs from the musical, and featured some very inspired casting. I loved Minnie Driver in the role of the spoiled Italian prima donna, and Emmy Rossum has a lovely voice and the perfect innocent face for Christine. The sets and costumes were gorgeous. And I was all choked up at the end, proving that the movie had in fact captured the heartbreaking essence of the original production. The ending to Andrew Lloyd Webber's story is beautiful and perfect, and my one complaint about the movie is the added ending scene with elderly Raoul visiting Christine's grave. Which brings me to the reason for my post's title. Just yesterday, I read a news article stating that Andrew Lloyd Webber has already written a stage sequel to The Phantom of the Opera. It's set to open at the end of the year. There are even rumors that Gerard Butler, who played the phantom in the movie, will star in this new musical. A sequel to one of the most iconic stories of the century? It just doesn't feel right.
No comments:
Post a Comment