Well, I'm fresh from the movies. Went and saw "Phantom of the Opera." Took myself to it, as my significant other does not enjoy musicals one iota, and neither do I when he views them with me. 
It was pretty good, I enjoyed it. But I did notice a few odd things when I was watching, but only because, for some reason, I always observe strange details while I am watching a movie.
1. I think the set designer based the opera house off of several of Gustav Klimt's opera paintings, I was vividly reminded of it when I first saw the inside of the set.
2. I was also vividly reminded of the work of Delacroix, Degas, and John Singer Seargent.
3. During the course of the movie they said the young ingenue heroin's name 500 times. I know, because her name is Christine, and that is my real name, so every time they said it I twitched as if someone was speaking to me.
4. Just after the scene on the rooftop where Raoul is making love to Christine (in the old terminology people, get your mind out of the gutters. ) the audience gets an arial view of the Phantom rushing forward after there departure and climbing up a statue. Why is this important? Because, if you look on the snow covered ground behind him, you can see the Phantom's footprints in the snow, but not Raoul's or Christines. Annoying.
5. Glitter was not around in the Victorian age. Yet every lady was sparkling with it at one point, and I found it distracting. Gold leaf on Carlotta's face I understand, but glitter?
6. The phantom was too handsome. In a debonair, dashing, Cary Grant sort of way. This, of course if used for dramatic effect, so the audience can be seduced like Christine was by his spellbinding magnetism. But, sorry, I have to say this, I would have prefered him to be uglier, then the contrast would have been more alluring.
7. I bet Raoul was pissed off in the end of the film when he realised that his phat (yes P H A T) bling-bling of a ring went into the Phantom's possessions.
8. The stained glass was not 3D, which meant it was not real. No soldering or foiling went into the craft. Probably painted glass.
9. Christine's cape looked like it was smoking in the graveyard when she went to see her father's crypt and knelt before it. I thought she was on fire for a second.
10. I bet the Phantom's mask was stuck on with the same glue/tape that japanese school girls used to keep their knee socks up. Made me giggle a few times thinking of it.
11. The only colour in the "Masquerade" scene, beside the gold, black, and white was a dark hunter green ribbon tied in Raoul's hair until the Phantom entered as the masque of red death.
12. There was a lovely homage to Jean Cocteau's "La Belle et la bete" (a.k.a. Beauty and the Beast) that was made in 1946. When Christine and the Phantom first descend to the under world they pass through a corridor lit with torches. Now, the torches are not regular wall sconces, but human hands and arms covered in gold leaf. This is a nifty surrealistic trick, however it was used nearly 60 years ago in the lovely french film aforementioned. Is this film paying homage to that other film coincidently centered around a young, attractive beauty and a horrid, disfigured, beast of a man? Or is it simply theft? Hmmmm....
What else, I could go on, you get the point. I'm a detail nut when it comes to films, because visual imagery is important to me. Now you have some measure of an idea of what it is like to see a film with me. I don't talk during it, much, but I will annoy you with "Did you notice this? Or that?" for a good few days afterwards, especially if I like the film.
I actually got choked up in the beginning of the film, when the chandelier was rising and the theatre was restoring itself back to it's original state. It reminded me of how much I loved this book as a child, and the time when I first read it. I was 6, and it was beautiful. I read it again when I was 13 or so, but not since. I should read it again, some of the details have become fuzzy, and I don't know if they were referencing the book completely or several other renditions of it that I have read. I have never seen the stage version, so I can't compare it to that. But I can compare it to every other film version I have seen, and there are many. I still think the 1943 version with Claude Rains is still my favourite, but only because I grew up on it. This comes close, and is certainly not the worst version I have seen.
*shudder* avoid Dario Argento's version and the one with Robert Englund playing the phantom. These are awful bad!
Anyone who wants to see it, go to the theatre. Better that way.
Questions:
1. Last movie you saw in the theatre?
2. Where do you like to sit in the movies? Any weird theatre going behaviours or quirks?
3. Did you know I now have a photo of myself in my folder? Huzzah!
It was pretty good, I enjoyed it. But I did notice a few odd things when I was watching, but only because, for some reason, I always observe strange details while I am watching a movie.
1. I think the set designer based the opera house off of several of Gustav Klimt's opera paintings, I was vividly reminded of it when I first saw the inside of the set.
2. I was also vividly reminded of the work of Delacroix, Degas, and John Singer Seargent.
3. During the course of the movie they said the young ingenue heroin's name 500 times. I know, because her name is Christine, and that is my real name, so every time they said it I twitched as if someone was speaking to me.
4. Just after the scene on the rooftop where Raoul is making love to Christine (in the old terminology people, get your mind out of the gutters.
) the audience gets an arial view of the Phantom rushing forward after there departure and climbing up a statue. Why is this important? Because, if you look on the snow covered ground behind him, you can see the Phantom's footprints in the snow, but not Raoul's or Christines. Annoying.
5. Glitter was not around in the Victorian age. Yet every lady was sparkling with it at one point, and I found it distracting. Gold leaf on Carlotta's face I understand, but glitter?
6. The phantom was too handsome. In a debonair, dashing, Cary Grant sort of way. This, of course if used for dramatic effect, so the audience can be seduced like Christine was by his spellbinding magnetism. But, sorry, I have to say this, I would have prefered him to be uglier, then the contrast would have been more alluring.
7. I bet Raoul was pissed off in the end of the film when he realised that his phat (yes P H A T) bling-bling of a ring went into the Phantom's possessions.
8. The stained glass was not 3D, which meant it was not real. No soldering or foiling went into the craft. Probably painted glass.
9. Christine's cape looked like it was smoking in the graveyard when she went to see her father's crypt and knelt before it. I thought she was on fire for a second.
10. I bet the Phantom's mask was stuck on with the same glue/tape that japanese school girls used to keep their knee socks up. Made me giggle a few times thinking of it.
11. The only colour in the "Masquerade" scene, beside the gold, black, and white was a dark hunter green ribbon tied in Raoul's hair until the Phantom entered as the masque of red death.
12. There was a lovely homage to Jean Cocteau's "La Belle et la bete" (a.k.a. Beauty and the Beast) that was made in 1946. When Christine and the Phantom first descend to the under world they pass through a corridor lit with torches. Now, the torches are not regular wall sconces, but human hands and arms covered in gold leaf. This is a nifty surrealistic trick, however it was used nearly 60 years ago in the lovely french film aforementioned. Is this film paying homage to that other film coincidently centered around a young, attractive beauty and a horrid, disfigured, beast of a man? Or is it simply theft? Hmmmm....
What else, I could go on, you get the point. I'm a detail nut when it comes to films, because visual imagery is important to me. Now you have some measure of an idea of what it is like to see a film with me. I don't talk during it, much, but I will annoy you with "Did you notice this? Or that?" for a good few days afterwards, especially if I like the film.
I actually got choked up in the beginning of the film, when the chandelier was rising and the theatre was restoring itself back to it's original state. It reminded me of how much I loved this book as a child, and the time when I first read it. I was 6, and it was beautiful. I read it again when I was 13 or so, but not since. I should read it again, some of the details have become fuzzy, and I don't know if they were referencing the book completely or several other renditions of it that I have read. I have never seen the stage version, so I can't compare it to that. But I can compare it to every other film version I have seen, and there are many. I still think the 1943 version with Claude Rains is still my favourite, but only because I grew up on it. This comes close, and is certainly not the worst version I have seen.
*shudder* avoid Dario Argento's version and the one with Robert Englund playing the phantom. These are awful bad!
Anyone who wants to see it, go to the theatre. Better that way.
Questions:
1. Last movie you saw in the theatre?
2. Where do you like to sit in the movies? Any weird theatre going behaviours or quirks?
3. Did you know I now have a photo of myself in my folder? Huzzah!
VIEW 7 of 7 COMMENTS
2. Back row, always... a little off to one side preferable and away from any lights that get left on during the film. No, I"m not at all picky!
3. I do now! I'm going to look....