And something every theatre audience should remember. I'm so tired of hearing people say "this doesn't make sense at all, and I don't want to interpret everything", while I always have to say "does everything in this world need to be interpreted for you to get emotionally invested in it?"
I felt like she completely took emotion, especially musical emotion, out of the thought process for 90+% of this, except a few still out of context parts that suited her diatribe. So it makes no sense that she added at the end that yeah maybe this movie isn't the worst and that she knows how it SHOULD/COULD be viewed and interpreted, but she still goes completely against that. It's like an admission that she's deliberately putting on blinders to help enforce her opinions- which are much more debatable if you don't take cinematic qualities as the ONLY defining context in a friggin MUSICAL. You cut back to Schumacher as a bad director so many times it's worse than your own comparison to him and the bomb. I'm not saying he's a GOOD director, I'm saying you're mildly missing the point and that he has artistic license to do things in a way that don't fit your objective ideas of what the standards and expectations on film should be. You whine that he slaps you in the face over and over with what the phantom is doing etc, but the show is ABOUT HIM. I'm not saying none of this needs improvement. I'm saying you're missing the thematic foundation under your cinematic foundation. Which still applies even though you're specifically coming after it in film format. Needing clearly defined diogenec interpretation after complaining he over explains to his audience just make you look childish for not being able to comprehend the irrelevance of it just because it doesn't fit into your box of I studied film and my books and teachers told me that this isn't conventional so my brain can't handle it, agggghhhhhhh! Gah. Geez. I appreciate your surgical dissection, but hate that's in narrow minded and directed at an art form that has more elements than the only one I see you qualified to speak on. Tl;Dr Lindsey you aren't wrong about most of the cinematography but goddamn you missed the point of the movie and the music and the emotion. The kicker is I can't tell if that was deliberately aimed to suit your content needs or if you honestly just are too critical to have seen what was there. The other kicker is I can't tell which one pisses me off more after you ranted for 40 minutes.
Grant Dixson the point I think was that schumacher’s bad directing choices and the score negatively affects the emotional experience because it either doesn’t allow you to feel (cuts are too fast paced and score so loud that it’s hard to feel for the characters/understand the scene) or wants you to feel so much that it hammers it in by a long take that doesn’t make sense.
sharpaycutie2 and thus, a musical that has songs that serve that end worse than dialogue would have are musicals that fail the very conceit of bothering to use the conventions & structure that musicals follow.
@@nicolesong6199 It did win a couple Academy Awards and get nominated for more. It seems like the issue was mostly that it cost a huge amount of money but wasn't directed or filmed like it was an expensive movie. Wikipedia says it cost almost as much as Cleopatra - which is like the prime example of a humongous budget epic film - but it didn't know what to do with the money, I guess? I haven't seen it in decades, but I remember enjoying it. It just kind of looks more like the ABC Wonderful World of Disney made-for-tv musicals in terms of budget (and those are all WONDERFUL but obviously did not cost as much as Cleopatra)
I have to say it... The Phantom actually IS a genius mechanical engineer. In the book, he makes automatons (referenced in some versions of the stage show by including the mannequin Christine). So the candles rising from water? I could totally buy the Phantom just being bored and thinking that would be a challenge and then just doing it for funsies.
Wouldn’t even be that complicated to do really, you’d just need something in the wick that reacted with enough heat when in contact with air. A little white phosphorus would work perfectly, once lit pretty much never goes out you can take away it’s oxygen the moment it comes back it will light up again.
@@faameexplains1192 shouldn’t matter, phosphorus will burn through water as long as it has a little bit of oxygen. Water would essentially roll off and once the smallest bit was exposed to air it would light up again, the heat would evaporate any more excess water increasing surface area in contact with air and boom u got u a candle burning
This is worse than Zuko's Scar, because that one didn't NEED to make him ugly - it was more a "mark of shame" than a disfigurement. Eric's whole backstory lives or dies with his disfigurement.
What are you talking about? There is no live-action The Last Airbender movie. Now, if you'll excuse me, the Earth King has invited me to Lake Laoghai, and I am honoured to accept his invitation.
According to TV Tropes, Schumacher wanted to down the scar to show that it really wasn't that bad (which was a case of him not doing the research- the novel compares the phantom to a walking corpse). Which might have worked if he was allowed to also change people's reactions to it, but ALW wasn't good with that, so we have people screaming in terror at what looks like a bad sunburn.
People before the Phantom of the Opera movie came out: "Antonio Banderas? A singer that can successfully be seductive?! NOOO!" People after the movie came out: "We have paid for our arrogance. What hubris possesed us? Why did we not see the value of casting people for their talents rather than their name before it was too late?"
@@ryanahr2267 I am mainly joking, but honestly, I can’t think of anything I’ve liked him in. Not calling you out, no offence or judgment intended here, but what would you say were good roles for him? The best I could manage from what I’ve saw was Leonidas, and mainly because Scottish and Greek accented English share some weird characteristics (which I only noticed after playing some Greek-set games, was a weird revelation!).
I remember my laughter when they unmasked the phantom in this film. They try to act like he's mutilated, but really it looks like he has a bad case of rosacea. What a monster.
At first it was surprising but I was 12 and it was glowing was the most of it. After that I was like... oh. Ok. That's it? Also I'd never seen any versions before so I didn't know what to expect
Mike Zilla ewwww, he’s a famous actor and he doesn’t have perfect skin; fucking execute him. We all know the beautiful people of the world have zero flaws, that’s what makes them human
And for the people saying, “Well, it was in the past, they would shun him for it back then!” No, no they wouldn’t. It was an era when people barely bathed and skin rashes and eczema was very common, even among the richest classes. The Phantom would have to be legitimately deformed to be ostracized like this. Heck, in the book he was literally known as the circus’s elephant man. He just looks ridiculous whining about the red skin in the movie. They just thought the teenage fangirls wouldn’t be able to handle him looking any less attractive. Which is really insulting to the girls, and totally misses the point of what makes the Phantom attractive- his genius, passion, and confidence as an artist, despite his ostracization, loneliness, lost childhood, and other pains.
I'd love to see a Phantom of the Opera film with a dreamlike tone, where the edges between reality and fantasy are blurred and the sanity of everyone involved is called into question. Probably never going to happen, but still...
@@colonyofrats4193 The other half of his face is still handsome though, in the book he looks like living corpse from head to toe, he's a 50 something man and literally smells rotten. I feel like he's not portrayed as completely disfigured to turn the musical into a twisted love triangle, because no one would actually root for the Phantom if he looked the same as he did in the book.
@@andreaelizeth yeah but they made him too handsome tbh? Im utterly disappointed like "wtf" now theres bunch of crazy fangirls obessed with his looks. None of the movies exceot the 25 version potrayed his deformity and reduced dso much of the horror aspects
@@andreaelizeth Lon Chaney made him look like the book and Lon Chaney's version was sympathetic and complex. You can't make him into a steamy paperback villain with him looking like the book, but you can make him a complex figure that Christine is drawn to if the actor is talented enough.
It's been 16 years. I feel like it is perfectly acceptable to remake Phantom Of The Opera again with someone competent at the helm and talented singers as the stars
I have a feeling a really good adaptation won't happen at least until Andrew Lloyd Webber passes. Not trying to crap on him, but especially after Cats, we need someone who isn't going to try to be so hands-on with the film adaptation.
The Phantom grew up being abused in a Freak Show for the amusement of others. That's not something you can move past just because ONE person showed him kindness after the damage was done. John Merrick in The Elephant Man proved the same thing; happiness is fleeting.
It remains a great tragedy that Joel Schumacher never made an film adaptation of Love Never Dies. It would somehow outdo Tom Hooper's Cats in badness. Just imagine
Musicals aren't for everyone, I know. But it really drives me insane when people say they don't like musicals because people bursting into song & dance isn't realistic. Like, a boy getting super powers from a spider is though??
I'm a year late but I think the difference is that people don't really want realism, they want something digestable (but they think they want realism). Super hero movies are digestable because people all want to have super powers and be the hero who saves the day, so they project themselves into that spiderman role, fantasize about how they would handle the situations he faces etc. Its less appealing to imagine yourself singing and dancing about love in a flash mob (like in musicals). Hence, less digestable and relatable, therefore in the mind of the average person, less reslistic.
There's a difference between expecting a willing suspension of disbelief to get involved in the universe story, and a deliberate artifice which immediately makes suspension of disbelief impossible. The latter is in essence, why I detest musicals. I can buy a world where someone getting bitten by a radioactive spider gives someone super powers. Yeah, I know that can't happen in the real world, no duh. But I can suspend my disbelief and follow the story where it goes. The second someone breaks out into song it forces me to stop paying attention to the story, to pay attention to someone singing, to stop being able to believe in the world, because it's now in my face that what I'm watching isn't real. It's not that it isn't realistic, it's that it's not believable; a distinction I think is key to why superhero movies are a lot more popular than musicals.
@@troodon1096 fair, but that's just you. I on the other hand can very easily buy into a world of song and dance, because that inspires me. Humans will never be all equally complelled by the same stimuli.
Im... not necessarily wrong, and anyway, I over explain everything whether people like it or not. So... sorry. Also, I get the joke, but I feel like she's missing the point of that shot
as much as this movie does wrong, it was THE MOST influential movie of my childhood and got me into musicals in the first place. I still watch it all the time and absolutely love it while also acknowledging that it has a few issues
My mom was obsessed with Phantom and I watched the movie all through my childhood and even now and I LOVE it😭 I didn’t realize until this video that so many people hated it 🥲
@@kshwi3215 I hear you! Literally watched the film first, then I saw on stage, i love them both, so I still feel as a movie on its own it is good, because it’s telling it’s own story, people just have an open mind.
It’s my forever go-to movie adaptation of a musical. It played the biggest part in my childhood and til this day, I watch at least twice a year. I can’t begin to express how much I love it. I get that it has some issues, but still, it’s very enjoyable, the music is good, the emotions are great. It’s one of my forever faves, idc if people don’t like it or say it’s bad, to me its perfect in its own way. i still have the dvd lol
Ok about the scene in the play where christine refuses to sing: I think it was a bad idea cutting it. It shows us how terrified she really is of the phantom. The movie needed that because she doesn't seem that scared and it makes people who ship the phantom and christine have more of a reson to belive they would be good together. It's also nice to see her finally stand up to carlotta. Idk I really like it.
Is it just me or Erik and Christine is just plain toxic relationship? Even though i know in the original novel he learned his lesson but Christine didnt love him romantically and their relationship got even worse with how it potrays in Love Never Dies. The ship makes me uncomfy And oh boy not to mention the huge age gap it makes me even more uncomfy
Yeah I disagree with Lindsay here in that I actually liked how she initially refuses. I always got the sense that she changed her mind because of what happened in the cemetery sequence and this isn't in the show because of timing/pacing issues. What the movie should have added was something like a dialogue after the cemetery scene showing Christine discussing her decision with Raoul and changing her mind, not a stupid swordfight. That would have built sympathy for both Raoul and Christine and added depth to/clarified their motivations.
Even worse is the change the broadway (and west end) productions made to the end of point of no return, where Christine, rather than being frightened of the phantom, pulls him center stage
Yes! And it gives more explanation for twisted every way, because even though she doesn't want to do it she feels she needs to to break free, which is why she was suddenly in rehearsals "Every hope and every prayer rests on you now"
Apparently Hugh Jackman was suppose to be Eric but had to drop out due to filming Van Helsing, where he plays the title character out to kill Dracula. Gerard Butler was pick after Joel Schumacher saw his performance in Dracula 2000. Butler plays Dracula and did not sing in that movie. Butler also only had four vocal lessons before filming. I can’t help but to see the irony of Jackman not able to take the role of Eric to play Dracula’s killer and getting replaced by a guy who played Dracula. Also Anne Hathaway was tapped to play Christine. Would the Jackman/Hathaway been better? Maybe not but at least it would have some some actual vocal talent for Eric.
@@Em_Elizabeth One could actually ask this question for every modern movie musical adaptation. It's all about the names. They want to force a younger audience into coming to the movie theater by casting "big names" and maybe one or two handsome Hollywood newcomers, thinking they're gonna pull off those vocals with one week of training. And even if they still can't sing... who cares? At least they look pretty and we can autotune the heck out of their pitchy notes. It's sad... I hope "Cats" taught those film studios at least some lessons.
@@Em_Elizabeth Same reason we have Idris Elba, Russel Crowe and Emma Watson in musicals. Hell, Sir Ian McKellen has been in TWO. The industry cares more about big name appeal than actual musical talent nowadays.
Lindsay's videos these days seem to pick movies based less on which movies are interesting in their own right and more on what interesting topics she can use them to discuss.
@@timothymclean ALW's production company is listed in the credits, but someone learned a lesson and made sure he wouldn't have his own credit as producer.
I also like that Christine's eye makeup seems to change during the title number. Again, not sure if it's non diegetic or if they're implying Phantom slapped some smoky eye on her while they were walking down the hallway. "Here Christine, this will imply that you're embracing your darker side" *brush brush brush*
Late to the party, but I've read that it's a conscious choice by the director/ALW/head of make up to show her progression into a woman. So, it's a virginity loosing eyeshadow look.
I read on Imdb that it was implying that the walk through the lair took days. I never thought that Christine and the Phantom were supposed to have sex,, but it was still a confusing thing to put in the movie.
One of the things that kills me the most about this phantom are the costumes. The originals are just SO GORGEOUS and deserve more spotlight. Yet these ones just feel so basic, like a high school trying to costume their production
Not to mention the setting. They set in in 1870. The orginal musical and novel were set in the early 1880s. In 1870, Paris was under siege and people were literally eating rats off the street to survive. A lovely day for the Opera I guess.
The colour palette of Masquerade is so boring and reminds me of the local production I was in, where we all wore black. They bought colourful masks and painted them black! It made me sad.
It bugs me that Christine's dresses are never the same as Carlotta's! Even as a tiny child watching the movie for the first time that bothered me so much.
My high-school did Wizard of Oz and the costumes were fantastic. This is a step below high school theater. This is middle school last minute replacement where the bake sale theme was 'wait, that was today?'
Andrew Lloyd Webber: I think we would've just filmed a stage show and I really hope we haven't done that. Lindsay: They basically just filmed the musical. Me who has 0 knowledge of film or this movie, shoving popcorn in my face: Oho you fools!
@@TheManWithTheFlan That's kinda beautiful that's such a pure emotional medium, in which Andrey Webber works, still exists not demanding self-awereness or rational
Extremely ironically, they filmed the show for the 25th anniversary of the London production and it fucks incredibly hard, so in the end, the move really was to just...film the stage production.
"Really this musical needed to be ripped violently out of Andrew Lloyd Webber's hands and shoved to a studio with a bug budget who would actually change some stuff and make the awards baity movie that they wanted instead of a no-man's land of a movie they got." ... I sometimes wonder if Lindsay regretted this quote around late 2019
I don’t know that the studio system was the problem with Cats. The main issue is that almost every aspect of Cats is uniquely ill-suited to a live action film adaptation, from the plot and pacing to the focus on dance to the fact that all of the characters are cats. I just don’t think there was any way to visually represent Cats on film without ending up in the uncanny valley, not to mention the structural issues inherent in transforming a revue into a film.
@@alissapenridge7516 They could have shown some basic understanding of the actual source material, maybe hired someone who actually understood the subtle story of Cats beyond "cats sing songs and do things, idk". Then they wouldn't have sucked all the meaning out of it while throwing a different, ill-fitting, unflattering new plot on top of it because they were too stupid to see the plot that was actually there and thought it needed to be "fixed" into something more conventional, axing all the strengths of the Cats musical and worsening the flaws. Not to mention that they ruined the music, the main highlight of Cats, because Joel Schumacher needed it to be "realistic" by having the actors improv in the middle of singing and have the actors sing without practice. And maybe it would've been hard to make CGI version of the Cat's costumes, but they didn't need to overwork the computer animation team to the point where they were passing out in the halls to make sure that the finished product looked as half-done as possible. And they definitely didn't need to reject all the more stylized concepts and sketches of what the CGI could have looked like because Schumacher thought naked-looking people would be more gritty and realistic somehow. It genuinely could've been a lot better, and I don't think a live action Cats would normally have ever been that bad if it wasn't so horribly mismanaged from the top from beginning to end. There were so many better ideas rejected because of the idiocy and cruelty and incompetence of the heads. It's an insult to Cats and filmmaking to assume things were always doomed to be anything close to this terrible.
If it wasn't for Wall-e, I probably would never have heard of Hello Dolly. I know a lot of people don't like that movie, but I really do. I find it a really fun and upbeat movie. It's my go-to movie when I'm sick or in a bad mood.
I always forget where Lindsay is going with this scene, because Michael Crawford's most famous role isn't Hello Dolly. It's as the original Phantom on Broadway.
You know what? This movie is... like one of my biggest guilty pleasures. I first saw it as a young man, but I feel as if it was part of my childhood or something. Even after hearing about it´s flaws clear as day... I still fell like watching it xD
I would never have thought of this, but oh my god I can think of moments from all over his work to support the idea of that working. Musical number - that wonderful flight of fancy in The Shape of Water. Genuine monstrousness in a man? Michael Shannon in that film and the officer in Pan's Labyrinth. Power-play? Mako and Raleigh's spar in Pacific Rim. Gothic grandeur? All over his filmography.
2016: "So lets talk about Filmmaker's Intent, does it matter? At the risk of going into an hours long digression about the Death of the Author..." 2018: Goes into an hour long digression about Death of the Author
She also mentioned in her phantom loose canon trying to not go on a 'hour long tangent about the filmmaking of the 2004 phantom' so... i'm guessing her passions don't leave without becoming a video of their own very easily
@@amberbydreamsart5467 *and* in the Hunchback video there's a cut hour-long tangent about Robert Moses, and one of the upcoming videos is about Who Framed Roger Rabbit and Robert Moses
27:11 I actually like having the beginning of the title song kick in as soon as they touch hands. Christine has been speaking with him in the shadows but this is the moment she deals her fate when she goes with him. I felt that moment was a good signifier of that change and actually really felt it even more with the title theme coming in at that exact moment. Of course just my opinion, I might be alone in that regard.
I felt the same way. It is a stark contrast. Maybe it was a first okay-ish idea that they shouldn't have gone with? Now, it seems a bit forced to me, like they really wanted that SYMBOLISM.
@@soneil7745 OOOOooh, I didn’t think of that! Her submitting to him while in a trance, him controlling her and literally puppetting her down into the catacombs… Yeah you’re right, a more aggressive grasping of her hand would have better lined up with both the audio bombast and the Phantom’s motives.
@@marcuspolzer5335 You’ve given me some thoughts and ideas. In theory, some well placed aggressive grovelling adds flair to this Erik, and it kind of works for some things (especially the Point of No Return’s lowest point emotions), but it’s all over the place and wrecks many better parts of other songs instead of adding some voice acting to special moments that could take them. It’s a thing I’m torn between hating entirely and finding disappointing because of how it felt like a missed opportunity for Butler’s Phantom to have meaningful characterisation.
@@wjzav1971 I can see where that makes sense 9The Duke's envy and sense of betrayal is played for laughs in Moulin Rouge while the Phantom's envy and sense of betrayal is supposed to be taken completely seriously. That being said, I'm still a bit iffy on The Duke's reaction being put in their because so much of the narrative is rooted in how slow on the uptake he is. He practically has to have it dropped on his head 2/3 of the way through the movie for him to get it. I know I'm rambling about basically nothing but I don't care.
Minnie Driver is absolutely the best thing. We quote her frequently. "These things do 'appen!" "I 'ate my 'at!" "Why?!" All delivered in that deliciously ridiculous accent.
Watching critiques like this, I always start out a bit angry, because "they're critiquing this piece of media that I love" It's a good excercise for me to remember that anything can be fairly critiqued, accepting that even my favourite pieces of media aren't flawless, and that it's still okay for me to love them. Thank you for making this video.
"Schumacher's obsession with nipples" "It's like they shot it while they were waiting in line for Pirates of the Caribbean" "I saw Titanic too, Shumacher" "We could do some closeups... Guys?" I laughed SO FUCKING HARD. Also, thank you for explaining to me why my brain just rejects this film. I WANTED to like it so much, but it's flat and boring in basically every visual respect.
The fact this movie could've been a good Movie, but they took every step to not allow it to be that good movie. That's why I hate it, and fun fact, the photo of Christine's father was Ramin Karloo, the guy who would play him in the 25th anniversary performance
I agree. I have tried to watch this, and it's just too much. It doesn't feel organic. It doesn't have the dreamy musical feeling the other musical films have captured.
There is a horse in the book. This is why. It is quite a big deal in the book, because the horse is stolen from the opera house stable and everyone fuzzes about it. It is used to transport her to the underground lake underneath the opera house.
Why's the movie also just look... _worse_ than Moulin Rouge? Like the resolution seems lower, the details fuzzier, the color looks washed out. I thought it was just older, but Rouge came out first, right?
It’s both but mostly the lighting. Everything is lit like a sitcom so there’s no contrast/variation/depth of light and the washed out image is only made worse when compressed into DVD and video files.
@Red Prophet Lindsay is a tremendously interesting person. I can't help but be drawn to her big sexy brain. I think she also has so many great ideas for videos, but she is pulled in so many directions these days. She's got her work with the PBS thing, she's trying to keep her own channel up and alive. Also trying to figure out how to sell a book during not only 2020 but a global pandemic as well. I just keep my fingers crossed that she doesn't lose interest in making videos before stuff like the one you suggest, gets made.
@Red Prophet She's friends with Dan Olsen of Folding Ideas, who has done an excellent trilogy of analysis'. Presumably she didn't want to tread on his toes or just had other projects. Side note: does anyone else think that Patrick Wilson just looks deeply confused when he's being tied up?
Wait Antonio Banderas could've played The Phantom and nobody wanted that? Way to drop the ball there. We could've had a sexy Spanish singing misunderstood man-God. I bet he could've turned straight men gay.
Hugh Jackman was also considered, and considering he has greater singing experience than Antonio and Gerald I really wanted to see him take on the role of the Phantom but he was busy filming Van Helsing.
About Hugh Jackman's singing - Did he used to be better or something? I was really excited to hear that he had experience when he was announced to play Jean Valjean in the _Les Miserables_ movie, but I had never actually _heard_ him before. Then when I saw the film, as soon as "What Have I Done?" started up and all he did was talk-sing through tears I was like "Oh no, he's going to sing like this the whole film, isn't he?" And he did.
Andy's Mad House I did see videos of him singing on Broadway, but I wanted to know if this was "normal" for Broadway actors in general nowadays. I can't remember a lot of them, but I saw him in Oklahoma and that was _terrible_! I saw the stage musical before, and while it had more talk-singing than the Broadway Cast recording I usually listen to, most of that was down to it having more _dialogue_. One of my issues with Hugh Jackman is that he would over-express with his voice rather than letting the words or his face / body language portray more emotion, so he would sob through lines and it sounded awful and more melodramatic than anyone else. Really, I didn't like most of the cast of that movie though, but Eponine and the Friends of the ABC guys were good - namely Enjolras.
Andy's Mad House I keep freaking forgetting about Hathaway! Yes, even though I thought the cinematography during that scene was horrible (it felt awkward instead of unsettling, in my opinion), she did balance emoting and actually singing well. For Enjolras I was alright with Aaron Tviet's voice, because I'm a big _Les Miserables_ book fan above any other version and from the book I got the impression that Enjolras was a good speaker but still young and with no real _personal_ power, so him not sounding naturally powerful never occurred to me as being a flaw.
My interpretation of the monkey: First, the Phantom was treated as a freak show (IE circus monkey) so he probably sees himself in the monkey. And when the Phantom breaks down sobbing, with the monkey behind him, he's saying good bye. Good bye to the monkey, to thought of himself as a freak, to that toxin that had fed into his mind for so long and kept him from any kind of true relationship (romantic or not). He is kissed, he is human enough to pity and to feel compassion. The monkey is both a comfort and a reminder, and after the kiss he is able to let go. For Raoul, it was him during the play who hears the Phantom's backstory by Madam Giry. That he was deformed and a treated as a freakshow. While he probably didn't notice the monkey at the time of Christine's rescue, she probably mentioned it off hand. And when presented at the auction, it stirs Raoul's memory and, after years of meditating on the whole Phantom incident, he decides to preserve it. Years probably got him to understand the phantom a bit more, and there's a small regret that he never got to really know him. So, purchasing that monkey is a kind of small kindness to the phantom's memory.
Costumes: the time period of the costumes is so all over the place. It makes sense that costumes in an opera and on stage or in a masque would be anachronistic, but the costumes of the people off stage would be at least in the same *decade*
i know it has been two freaking years, but the translation of "diegesis" is naration in common use greek, the etymological translation (not in use at all in modern greek) is "leading through"
And now begins our longest vigil. The day will come, when the moon and the wine glasses are full, when Lindsey Ellis will write and record her analysis of Cats. It has been foretold and it will occur. But when? For now we can only wait, imagining a new gif to spread across the land: "Thanks, I (seething Lovecraftian madness noises)"
THe worst scene in the movie to me is the final lair after he ties Roul to the gate Christine just stands there singing like a little girl as opposed to the stage version where she's trying to prevent him and even begging him on her knees. Unfortunately we get her standing there looking like Meh I kind of care but it won't be the end of the world if he dies. I get they are trying to portray her as a damsel in distress they miss the passion that the scene brings. This can also be said of the scene where Christine rips the mask from the Phantoms face in The point of no return, in the play she gets angry, in the movie there is literally no motive to why she did it. There is also the think of me scene where she just stands there singing, dance do something its a play...
Oh man I remember seeing Phantom in Melbourne, and the lady playing Christine started singing Think of Me all soft and nervous and ehh - and it was clearly on purpose - but then Andre and Firmin kind of comment and then she lifts that magical scarf AND SUDDENLY, she is all full of charisma and voice and we're all like "Eyyyy she's got the chops." And obvs it's not just in Melbourne, it's in the 25th Anniversary and I'm assuming it's in every production. And when I saw the movie and Emmy Rossum started off the same way but then the sudden confident and improved sound never came and I was like "Oh no they cast someone who at best is Nervous Christine."
@@McFatteh I’ll be honest I’ve seen scenes from the 35 th and she keeps giggling like a school girl in all I ask of you. I just didn’t feel it and the trailer is terrible with the chandelier graphics. She is by far the least favorite of my christines yet
oh man i love Chicago so much, every time it comes up i'm like DID YOU MEAN THE PERFECT STAGE TO MOVIE MUSICAL ADAPTATION??!? it's just so great. I'm enjoying these video essays so much!!
I’ve seen the phantom review so many times, but every time Lindsay says “I have deliberately been tied up in more comprising positions then this” it still catches me off guard
"The Phantom of the Drinking Game" was a thing my old roomies and I created to make this movie watchable, and actually hilarious. All those bottles brought back some good old times. To be fair, it works with the 25th Anniversary version with a few tweaks. Like "Drink when Raoul's a clueless douchebag", rather than "Drink when the Phantom goes out of key"...
For over twenty minutes I was sitting there like “will you please talk about the shot where they reveal The Phantom as Red Death” because I’ve always thought that was an amazing shot & that always kind of stayed with me.
I love her essay framing device of getting increasingly drunk and the alcohol bottles piling up as she elaborates in precise detail on how and why something was so bad, and no amount of wine can rectify it. And now I know the term "framing device"! ^_^
"Does he make them reserve Box Five and not use it because he's a jerk?" Short answer: YES. Longer answer: I believe there's something in the book, which explains that he designed the opera house (he's also well into his sixties in the book), and Box Five is engineered in such a way that he can hear and see perfectly from afar. (P.S. "The Jean Cocteau Arms" would be a great name for a pub.)
Another pointless change that actually made the Phantom even more unintentionally creepy: adjusting the libretto so that he repeatedly refers to himself as the spirit of her father and not a separate entity that her father SENT.
I find that some people are just more critically minded than others. It's a left brain vs right brain kinda thing. It's the whole reason Siskel and Ebert worked: Siskel was very nitpicky vs Ebert being a very big picture kinda guy who focused on the whole rather than the parts. I'm thinking of starting a TH-cam channel starring me and my cousin for that very reason. I'm a very rational and snobby kinda person who can know HOW something sucks, but not whether it sucks in actuality or generally, because I don't care about the big picture, because, to me, the parts are more important than the whole. That's what my cousin's for. She's a lot less logical and more emotional, so, while she might not know WHY a movie sucks, she can feel when the movie just doesn't work in general. I then help her figure out what is causing her to feel negatively towards the movie so she can elaborate on her genuine feeling. Or, alternatively, we can disagree on how something sucks or is good. Like, I hate Inuyasha because it's poorly written and lazy and a cash-grab, while my cousin hates it because the series didn't give her what she wanted, expected, or thought the series was about, which was an ending that befitted a series she and I used to love.
OR some people have just been educated in this field in particular and know all the jargon and complexities someone who hasn't studied literature and media has.
Adrijana Radosevic wow, your comment here is amazing! It really shows something about the difference between logic (how smart you are) and emotions (how nice you are to other people) and reveals an interesting conclusion about these things: you care more about feeling smarter than everyone else than you do about their humanity, (calling someone an idiot even though you've never met them,) managing to be simultaneously sort of an idiot, AND a major asshole!~
In the book he is pretty much a genius mechanical engineer, so it would have been interesting if they'd added that back in to explain water proof candles
"a part of why [Moulin Rouge!] is the way it is, is because it's all from Christian's point of view; the style is how he sees the world" I have been saying that for years, thank you Lindsay.
15:20 no no no this is spooky as hell. Also I knew nothing about the story, so just having the basic story beats hinted at was a good setup. Even just hearing a man speak on stage as the Auctioneer to a new theatre-goer is like dipping a toe in the water of live experience vs cinema. It's a very necessary calm before a very impressive storm. I love the intro to Phantom.
Holy shit, you're TOTALLY right about the gasps when the Phantom reveals himself over Apollo. I've seen it live 3 times, and it hadn't even occurred to me, but you're totally right!
Have you noticed that in scene of "The Point of no return", when she takes his mask off, the deformity seems bigger? Like, the mask was hidding all of it, then, when she takes it off, the deformity goes beyond the mask's delimitation...
That was kind of the whole point of the reveal because when she pulls off the mask you're supposed to be really shocked by the largeness of the deformity plus it's one of the least grotesque looking ones because it's more realistic and the fact that it's more of a birthmark e type of red burn rash and so it's terrifying and it's shocking but you also feel sorry for him instantly instead of scared of him like in most other adaptations plus this is based off of the Broadway show Even though in the Broadway show you even feel scared of him by his deformity in this they made it more emotionally Reliant and it's one of the best adaptations of the book as well as a great phenomenal adaptation of the perfect amazing alluring and outstanding flabbergasting Broadway show
@@SB992REBORN I can tell you’re forcing it. Just because media is trying to get something across and be good does not always mean it succeeds. You can acknowledge that a piece of media has flaws and still like it. Every piece of media has flaws, there’s nothing wrong with liking it anyway just like there’s nothing wrong with pointing them out. You don’t have to desperately try to lie those flaws out of existence to like it.
It drives me insane that they literally change the entire opera once Christine replaces Carlotta...I mean that Cinderella-looking set clearly isn’t any part of Hannibal. WTAF?!
@@makenziemazing While you are correct that she is probably referring to think of me and that in the stage musical the song is from a different act, UNLESS the entire time period of Hannibal switched and Christine's character took a bloody TARDIS to a different century halfway through, the drastic change in style makes NO SENSE. Hannibal appears to be set in Aztec sort of looking times yet Christine's Cinderella-esk dress is from a completely different time period and country. Opera's may change settings but they rarely change entire time periods. Furthermore, if you bother to research the general plot of the opera (which is fictional) it is stated that the opera is about troops returning from fighting ROME. Carlotta literally says "From our saviours from the enslaving forces of ROME." At the time that the Roman Empire was in power dresses like Christine's ballgown, were not being worn. Not to mention that it is only in the movie that this occurs. Therefore I believe Melissa's WTAF is perfectly justified. The change is extremely jarring and entirely unnecessary
carlotta said in the movie that her dress for act 3 was not finished, so when they costumed christine for that scene they just put her in a random gown because they had no costume for it
Just to throw in, historically accurate clothing is not always a goal for plays. (Doesn't change the main point, but the setting being Rome likely doesn't weigh in here.)
If I’m remembering correctly (and it’s very possible that I’m not since I’ve done my best to purge this monstrosity of a film from my memory), they say in the movie that the evening on which Christine makes her stage debut is actually a Gala for the new owners to introduce the Vicomte as their new patron. In the stage musical, they are in fact premiering the new Hannibal opera and Christine DOES actually wear Carlotta’s big fancy Grecian costume and presumably performs the entire opera. I’m not sure why they choose to change it from an actual opera performance to a Gala. I’m assuming they just wanted to change up the costume and have Christine wear something more Cinderella-esque. Or maybe it’s just not believable that the tiny baby actual-at-the-time teenager Emmy Rossum would ever be able to pull off a premier of a new opera without ever having rehearsed it on stage. I mean I don’t see what the point in trying to go with that kind of realism would be in something like Phantom of the fucking Opera, but idk.
"I know, comparing the Cohens to Schumacher is like comparing the finest chocolate torte to a twinkie, but bear with me." I think I am coming back to this video over and over just for that sentence.
Jack Washington She has actually seen it. In her Loose Canon episode for the Phantom, she talked about Love Never Dies and said it’s the worst musical she’d ever seen.
I've taken to watching this as a sort of comfort video recently. Moments like "Where have you gone, Minnie Driver? We miss you," just pop into my head for no discernible reason and the diegesis explanation is something I think about a lot, especially now that I'm trying to write a book for fellow hobbyist video game developers. So thank you for this Lindsay. I may not have seen Phantom '04 myself, but I learned a lot from the many times I've watched this video and I appreciate every moment of it.
One of my major pet peeves of this movie has ALWAYS been that in the beginning scene, Madame Giry looks much much younger than Raoul. Like aren't Raoul and Christine childhood friends, why tf does Madame Giry look 60 and Raoul look like he's 90?????
I always thought it was Meg. But also, the Phantom is supposedly around 50 or so (at least in the book), so if Raoul's like 80 or so now, how is Erik still alive and leaving flowers at her grave??
One of my main gripes about this movie is just that, that Raoul and Christine are supposed to be childhood friends but clearly aren’t even close to being the same age. I felt like Christine should have been a bit older, like in her 20s as she is in the stage show. And they should have cast someone who could actually sing, not just someone who can carry a tune but had minimal vocal training at best.
@@amydamjanovic9183 they could be childhood friends and not be the same age. I’m friends with one of my older brother’s friends and he’s 5 years older than me
@@meerkatnip892 I know you posted this like 2 years ago, but in the book the Phantom dies shortly after he lets Christine go. He wouldn't have been around to put flowers on her grave. The movie ending was stupid.
I’d hope you notice during masquerade that he literally pulled the finished score out of his ass because in the shot before you don’t see it anywhere so it’s like where did you get it??
I went through a huge Phantom phase as a tween/teen. My parents took me to see the musical when i was 12 and I was obsessed. Then the movie came out about a year later and I HATED IT. All my friends suddenly loved the movie because the Phantom was "hot". It blew my mind then and it still does now.
The really sad part about Notes is that Nostalgia Critic's parody of it was more fittingly shot, staged and edited than the actual film. It's a frantic song with bickering, exclamations and exposition, and in the movie everyone just walks around slowly.
PotO is my guilty pleasure but I respect it has so many flaws. I always skip those black and white scenes and agree 100% why they're worthless. But the bit with the arms holding the lights in the corridor is supposed to represent Christine's initial moment of meeting a person she's admired for sooo long. It's like when you meet your hero and see everything as if it's great. If you follow this scene on, you find meg going down this same corridor and it's horrible and filled with rats. This is the actual look of the corridor, which means Christine was lost in her own world when she was walking down it initially. The reason I believe that the scenes never match this level of wondrous is because she's coming to her senses more and more as the threat of what he is begins to show itself. the rose tinted glasses begin to slide off and she's no longer under his spell. I just think that bit needs some appreciation because as a movie it's not spectacular, but as far as trying to get the story out, it does an satisfactory job. The one thing I absolutely hate, though, is that whole 'make sure you hand is at the level of your eye'. Even as a die hard Phan I had to google this because I had no damn idea what this was about! The movie sounds so dumb when it puts this in. My two scents! A great vid and thanks for making it!
I did like those moments. I wish the film took these further! I think with a better director and a different actor as the Phantom, this film could’ve been brilliant.
@@horrorfanatic6990 I think this actor was 'ok'. He honestly did better than I thought he would. but I think his scenes at the end where he was supposed to be the monster exposed were more comical than scary, like how he seemed to miraculously get some fat top lip even though he never had that before, just made me roll my eyes, so I think you're right there.
I'm really sad that musicals have basically disappeared, even animated ones. Like, I'm less sad about not having new musicals, and more sad that our culture has shifted so hard toward logic and realism. I know it will shift back eventually, trends always swing in a pendulum, but I'm just a little sad being on this side of it right now
"The stage musical has a pretty perfect ending." *Love Never Dies has entered the chat*
Still utterly wild that we all got to (were forced to?) watch ALW's Phantom fanfic
So happy she made a video about it finally!
♫Give me the gun meg!♫
Darth Vader's Noooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!
TEN YEARS OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLD
"Musicals are something that your logic doesn't get, but your emotions do"
Such a great line.
And something every theatre audience should remember. I'm so tired of hearing people say "this doesn't make sense at all, and I don't want to interpret everything", while I always have to say "does everything in this world need to be interpreted for you to get emotionally invested in it?"
I felt like she completely took emotion, especially musical emotion, out of the thought process for 90+% of this, except a few still out of context parts that suited her diatribe. So it makes no sense that she added at the end that yeah maybe this movie isn't the worst and that she knows how it SHOULD/COULD be viewed and interpreted, but she still goes completely against that. It's like an admission that she's deliberately putting on blinders to help enforce her opinions- which are much more debatable if you don't take cinematic qualities as the ONLY defining context in a friggin MUSICAL. You cut back to Schumacher as a bad director so many times it's worse than your own comparison to him and the bomb. I'm not saying he's a GOOD director, I'm saying you're mildly missing the point and that he has artistic license to do things in a way that don't fit your objective ideas of what the standards and expectations on film should be. You whine that he slaps you in the face over and over with what the phantom is doing etc, but the show is ABOUT HIM. I'm not saying none of this needs improvement. I'm saying you're missing the thematic foundation under your cinematic foundation. Which still applies even though you're specifically coming after it in film format. Needing clearly defined diogenec interpretation after complaining he over explains to his audience just make you look childish for not being able to comprehend the irrelevance of it just because it doesn't fit into your box of I studied film and my books and teachers told me that this isn't conventional so my brain can't handle it, agggghhhhhhh!
Gah. Geez. I appreciate your surgical dissection, but hate that's in narrow minded and directed at an art form that has more elements than the only one I see you qualified to speak on.
Tl;Dr Lindsey you aren't wrong about most of the cinematography but goddamn you missed the point of the movie and the music and the emotion. The kicker is I can't tell if that was deliberately aimed to suit your content needs or if you honestly just are too critical to have seen what was there. The other kicker is I can't tell which one pisses me off more after you ranted for 40 minutes.
Grant Dixson the point I think was that schumacher’s bad directing choices and the score negatively affects the emotional experience because it either doesn’t allow you to feel (cuts are too fast paced and score so loud that it’s hard to feel for the characters/understand the scene) or wants you to feel so much that it hammers it in by a long take that doesn’t make sense.
Musicals are plays with songs that convey the emtions or story better than spoken dialoge do.
sharpaycutie2 and thus, a musical that has songs that serve that end worse than dialogue would have are musicals that fail the very conceit of bothering to use the conventions & structure that musicals follow.
Excuse me, I'll just be over here clutching my DVD of Hello Dolly and whispering "it's okay, I love you even if no one else does" all night again.
I'm pretty sure WALL-E loves it, too.
Remember
It was WALL-E’s favoutite movie.
And who knows more of cinematography and music than a rubbish bin on tracks.
Whatever i saw on this video essay; i liked the stylism of it. Not sure if it’s just too earnest for some peoples’ tastes? But i could enjoy it
@@nicolesong6199 It did win a couple Academy Awards and get nominated for more. It seems like the issue was mostly that it cost a huge amount of money but wasn't directed or filmed like it was an expensive movie. Wikipedia says it cost almost as much as Cleopatra - which is like the prime example of a humongous budget epic film - but it didn't know what to do with the money, I guess? I haven't seen it in decades, but I remember enjoying it. It just kind of looks more like the ABC Wonderful World of Disney made-for-tv musicals in terms of budget (and those are all WONDERFUL but obviously did not cost as much as Cleopatra)
literally had no idea people didnt like hello, dolly! until watching this video?
I have to say it... The Phantom actually IS a genius mechanical engineer. In the book, he makes automatons (referenced in some versions of the stage show by including the mannequin Christine). So the candles rising from water? I could totally buy the Phantom just being bored and thinking that would be a challenge and then just doing it for funsies.
Wouldn’t even be that complicated to do really, you’d just need something in the wick that reacted with enough heat when in contact with air. A little white phosphorus would work perfectly, once lit pretty much never goes out you can take away it’s oxygen the moment it comes back it will light up again.
@@AverageAwesomeDudeok but it's wet
@@faameexplains1192 shouldn’t matter, phosphorus will burn through water as long as it has a little bit of oxygen. Water would essentially roll off and once the smallest bit was exposed to air it would light up again, the heat would evaporate any more excess water increasing surface area in contact with air and boom u got u a candle burning
The film makes him a guy with bad skin row home in a boat!!
thank you! finally, someone who acknoladges it
the Phantom's face in this adaptation reminds me of Zuko's barely-there scar in the live-action The Last Airbender
Reminds me of the scar on Zoolander 2
There is no live-action Avatar the Last Airbender in Ba Sing Se. Here you are safe.
This is worse than Zuko's Scar, because that one didn't NEED to make him ugly - it was more a "mark of shame" than a disfigurement.
Eric's whole backstory lives or dies with his disfigurement.
What are you talking about? There is no live-action The Last Airbender movie. Now, if you'll excuse me, the Earth King has invited me to Lake Laoghai, and I am honoured to accept his invitation.
According to TV Tropes, Schumacher wanted to down the scar to show that it really wasn't that bad (which was a case of him not doing the research- the novel compares the phantom to a walking corpse). Which might have worked if he was allowed to also change people's reactions to it, but ALW wasn't good with that, so we have people screaming in terror at what looks like a bad sunburn.
What I expected to learn: the sheer incompetente of Schumaker's Phantom.
What I ended up learning: Lindsay has done rope play in the past.
I was thinking just bondage but you might be right.
I literally just stopped the video to see if anyone else caught this.
Was kind of hard to miss.
@@SyrilianJust reading the comments with post nut clarity now
@@liamwalton4183 bruh
Schumacher probably heard the line "Dare you tangle with Don Juan" and thought it was "tango"
holy shit why did this make me cackle
*slowly removes glasses* .....my god.
This guy solved it
Btw i’m sure y’all already know this but donjuan is ladies man in spanish lol
@@agalwithnoname Is there a connection between that phrase and horses?
People before the Phantom of the Opera movie came out: "Antonio Banderas? A singer that can successfully be seductive?! NOOO!"
People after the movie came out: "We have paid for our arrogance. What hubris possesed us? Why did we not see the value of casting people for their talents rather than their name before it was too late?"
I can only image Antonio Banderas being a phantom that is accually charming to Christine and can accually sing...
At least we still have the musical.
No joke.
That Gerard Butler has any career will always be our nation’s greatest shame. Scotland apologises, unreservedly.
@@Halokon He's been fine in a number of other things. This just happens to be one of the most monumental miscastings in Hollywood history.
@@ryanahr2267 I am mainly joking, but honestly, I can’t think of anything I’ve liked him in. Not calling you out, no offence or judgment intended here, but what would you say were good roles for him? The best I could manage from what I’ve saw was Leonidas, and mainly because Scottish and Greek accented English share some weird characteristics (which I only noticed after playing some Greek-set games, was a weird revelation!).
I remember my laughter when they unmasked the phantom in this film. They try to act like he's mutilated, but really it looks like he has a bad case of rosacea.
What a monster.
At first it was surprising but I was 12 and it was glowing was the most of it. After that I was like... oh. Ok. That's it? Also I'd never seen any versions before so I didn't know what to expect
Mike Zilla ewwww, he’s a famous actor and he doesn’t have perfect skin; fucking execute him. We all know the beautiful people of the world have zero flaws, that’s what makes them human
@@eddiedingle767 i think he meant they should've gone more grotesque with the face
Right?!? He's way too pretty.
And for the people saying, “Well, it was in the past, they would shun him for it back then!” No, no they wouldn’t. It was an era when people barely bathed and skin rashes and eczema was very common, even among the richest classes. The Phantom would have to be legitimately deformed to be ostracized like this. Heck, in the book he was literally known as the circus’s elephant man. He just looks ridiculous whining about the red skin in the movie. They just thought the teenage fangirls wouldn’t be able to handle him looking any less attractive. Which is really insulting to the girls, and totally misses the point of what makes the Phantom attractive- his genius, passion, and confidence as an artist, despite his ostracization, loneliness, lost childhood, and other pains.
I'd love to see a Phantom of the Opera film with a dreamlike tone, where the edges between reality and fantasy are blurred and the sanity of everyone involved is called into question. Probably never going to happen, but still...
I'd like to see that too, but maybe with a more gothic sort of theme, like the German Expressionist films.
American McGee's Phantom? =p
I would love that!!
Robogabriel - Be careful what you wish for. Here's your animated version: th-cam.com/video/d8ZsmgPDuEg/w-d-xo.html
Phantom of the Paradise is pretty dreamlike
oh they never make the phantom ugly, they slap a cool scar on a hot guy and call it a day
Not in stage productions lmao you can literally see his brain in most professional productions
@@colonyofrats4193 The other half of his face is still handsome though, in the book he looks like living corpse from head to toe, he's a 50 something man and literally smells rotten. I feel like he's not portrayed as completely disfigured to turn the musical into a twisted love triangle, because no one would actually root for the Phantom if he looked the same as he did in the book.
Also see: Alex Pettyfer in Beastly.
@@andreaelizeth yeah but they made him too handsome tbh? Im utterly disappointed like "wtf" now theres bunch of crazy fangirls obessed with his looks. None of the movies exceot the 25 version potrayed his deformity and reduced dso much of the horror aspects
@@andreaelizeth Lon Chaney made him look like the book and Lon Chaney's version was sympathetic and complex. You can't make him into a steamy paperback villain with him looking like the book, but you can make him a complex figure that Christine is drawn to if the actor is talented enough.
It's been 16 years. I feel like it is perfectly acceptable to remake Phantom Of The Opera again with someone competent at the helm and talented singers as the stars
And a phantom who is not obviously a young hottie with sunburn and crude bondage fantasies. I wonder what Michael Crawford thought when he saw it...
Who do we need? Guillermo del Toro! When do we want it? ASAP!
@@silentobserver3791holy shit yes
I have a feeling a really good adaptation won't happen at least until Andrew Lloyd Webber passes. Not trying to crap on him, but especially after Cats, we need someone who isn't going to try to be so hands-on with the film adaptation.
No
"Are the numbers in musicals diegetic or not?"
*cries in bollywood*
omg same 😂
I don't get it, are Bollywood musicals complete pace breakers?
@@Woodenfan yep. Normally they really just stop everything around them and starts back after. And it works.
MrBowser So like old American Musicals?
It's difficult to decide where "and now we're gonna cut from the Holi festival to a Swiss mountain to sing for 8 min" falls in the diegetic discussion
Looks at my bf's rash from trying a new soap. "You live in the basement now. Here's a cape, and a mask, have fun writing an opera!"
“Roof is leakin so it might turn into a spa time to time”
You win the comments
That sounds fucking nice tbh. I wanna hang out underground all day with a cape and a mask, writing operas.
“And don’t forget to give me the lead in it, or you’re out on your ass!”
“The world showed no compassion to me!” But like...didn’t Madame Giry help you escape as a kid or...?
The Phantom grew up being abused in a Freak Show for the amusement of others. That's not something you can move past just because ONE person showed him kindness after the damage was done. John Merrick in The Elephant Man proved the same thing; happiness is fleeting.
iluvlafferty 100% fair point
@@iluvlafferty but somehow when christine does it it counts?
It matters when it's Christine because she's the one person he let his guard down for, and that heightens the tragedy of it.
Seriously!
It remains a great tragedy that Joel Schumacher never made an film adaptation of Love Never Dies. It would somehow outdo Tom Hooper's Cats in badness. Just imagine
I dunno, at least Schumacher was sincere in his stylistic goofiness - Tom Hooper’s direction with musicals just comes across as sterile and cynical.
Musicals aren't for everyone, I know. But it really drives me insane when people say they don't like musicals because people bursting into song & dance isn't realistic. Like, a boy getting super powers from a spider is though??
It’s a fair reason to dislike musicals though
Hayden Barnes they literally explained tho?
I'm a year late but I think the difference is that people don't really want realism, they want something digestable (but they think they want realism). Super hero movies are digestable because people all want to have super powers and be the hero who saves the day, so they project themselves into that spiderman role, fantasize about how they would handle the situations he faces etc. Its less appealing to imagine yourself singing and dancing about love in a flash mob (like in musicals). Hence, less digestable and relatable, therefore in the mind of the average person, less reslistic.
There's a difference between expecting a willing suspension of disbelief to get involved in the universe story, and a deliberate artifice which immediately makes suspension of disbelief impossible. The latter is in essence, why I detest musicals. I can buy a world where someone getting bitten by a radioactive spider gives someone super powers. Yeah, I know that can't happen in the real world, no duh. But I can suspend my disbelief and follow the story where it goes. The second someone breaks out into song it forces me to stop paying attention to the story, to pay attention to someone singing, to stop being able to believe in the world, because it's now in my face that what I'm watching isn't real. It's not that it isn't realistic, it's that it's not believable; a distinction I think is key to why superhero movies are a lot more popular than musicals.
@@troodon1096 fair, but that's just you. I on the other hand can very easily buy into a world of song and dance, because that inspires me. Humans will never be all equally complelled by the same stimuli.
25:22 "I have been deliberately tied up into more compromising positions than this.."
*high five*
He would be strangled simply because he couldn't move upward, similar to why hangings work. So she was right, it was a reverse hanging.
@@juliadietrich3584 ... we know lmao, she explained it well. i would say this joke went over your head but thats a massive understatement.
@@steelydanfan321 I dont care
@@juliadietrich3584 thats fair but dont belittle people especially when you are straight up wrong.
Im... not necessarily wrong, and anyway, I over explain everything whether people like it or not. So... sorry. Also, I get the joke, but I feel like she's missing the point of that shot
as much as this movie does wrong, it was THE MOST influential movie of my childhood and got me into musicals in the first place. I still watch it all the time and absolutely love it while also acknowledging that it has a few issues
I love it so much. I'm not saying it's the best, I'm just saying I love it
My mom was obsessed with Phantom and I watched the movie all through my childhood and even now and I LOVE it😭 I didn’t realize until this video that so many people hated it 🥲
@@kshwi3215 I hear you! Literally watched the film first, then I saw on stage, i love them both, so I still feel as a movie on its own it is good, because it’s telling it’s own story, people just have an open mind.
Same, I adore the movie. I feel the criticisms aren't wrong, it has it's issues, but it's just enjoyable anyways.
It’s my forever go-to movie adaptation of a musical. It played the biggest part in my childhood and til this day, I watch at least twice a year. I can’t begin to express how much I love it. I get that it has some issues, but still, it’s very enjoyable, the music is good, the emotions are great. It’s one of my forever faves, idc if people don’t like it or say it’s bad, to me its perfect in its own way. i still have the dvd lol
"... Like trying to combine a glitter sprinkle cupcake and filet mignon... Mmmm! Tastes like tonal dissonance." Fantastic.
The payoff on the antici pation joke was so satisfying
I legit started panicking when I heard her just pass on it. "this will be the one reason I will downvo-SHE SAID IT!!"
I actually fastforwarded to the very end of the video thinking it'd be there.
Crisis~Averted
Yes!!!
classic brick joke
I’d be interested in Drunk History with Lindsay Ellis.
Holy shit that would be amaze!
Isn't this basically it?
YES!
totally
YES. I want this now so much, I would donate to the cause
Ok about the scene in the play where christine refuses to sing: I think it was a bad idea cutting it. It shows us how terrified she really is of the phantom. The movie needed that because she doesn't seem that scared and it makes people who ship the phantom and christine have more of a reson to belive they would be good together. It's also nice to see her finally stand up to carlotta. Idk I really like it.
Is it just me or Erik and Christine is just plain toxic relationship? Even though i know in the original novel he learned his lesson but Christine didnt love him romantically and their relationship got even worse with how it potrays in Love Never Dies. The ship makes me uncomfy
And oh boy not to mention the huge age gap it makes me even more uncomfy
Of course it's toxic as hell, and we're here for it
Yeah I disagree with Lindsay here in that I actually liked how she initially refuses. I always got the sense that she changed her mind because of what happened in the cemetery sequence and this isn't in the show because of timing/pacing issues. What the movie should have added was something like a dialogue after the cemetery scene showing Christine discussing her decision with Raoul and changing her mind, not a stupid swordfight. That would have built sympathy for both Raoul and Christine and added depth to/clarified their motivations.
Even worse is the change the broadway (and west end) productions made to the end of point of no return, where Christine, rather than being frightened of the phantom, pulls him center stage
Yes! And it gives more explanation for twisted every way, because even though she doesn't want to do it she feels she needs to to break free, which is why she was suddenly in rehearsals
"Every hope and every prayer rests on you now"
Apparently Hugh Jackman was suppose to be Eric but had to drop out due to filming Van Helsing, where he plays the title character out to kill Dracula. Gerard Butler was pick after Joel Schumacher saw his performance in Dracula 2000. Butler plays Dracula and did not sing in that movie. Butler also only had four vocal lessons before filming. I can’t help but to see the irony of Jackman not able to take the role of Eric to play Dracula’s killer and getting replaced by a guy who played Dracula. Also Anne Hathaway was tapped to play Christine. Would the Jackman/Hathaway been better? Maybe not but at least it would have some some actual vocal talent for Eric.
Jackman as Eric would have made that movie. Dunno about Anne.
Why'd they cast him if he's no singer?
@@Em_Elizabeth One could actually ask this question for every modern movie musical adaptation. It's all about the names. They want to force a younger audience into coming to the movie theater by casting "big names" and maybe one or two handsome Hollywood newcomers, thinking they're gonna pull off those vocals with one week of training. And even if they still can't sing... who cares? At least they look pretty and we can autotune the heck out of their pitchy notes. It's sad... I hope "Cats" taught those film studios at least some lessons.
@@Em_Elizabeth Same reason we have Idris Elba, Russel Crowe and Emma Watson in musicals. Hell, Sir Ian McKellen has been in TWO. The industry cares more about big name appeal than actual musical talent nowadays.
Only 4 lessons? Wow, that fact turns his singing from mediocre to miraculous. He could have actually been good if they gave him more time.
Oh... I can't wait to see her video after CATS comes out. Because... there ~has~ to be one.
several.
Lindsay's videos these days seem to pick movies based less on which movies are interesting in their own right and more on what interesting topics she can use them to discuss.
"Rarely does good come from a wealthy auteur micromanaging their 30-something year old property."
@@scarylion1roar Was Sir Andy meddling in Cats, too?
@@timothymclean ALW's production company is listed in the credits, but someone learned a lesson and made sure he wouldn't have his own credit as producer.
I also like that Christine's eye makeup seems to change during the title number. Again, not sure if it's non diegetic or if they're implying Phantom slapped some smoky eye on her while they were walking down the hallway. "Here Christine, this will imply that you're embracing your darker side" *brush brush brush*
+Anna Olson Wait..it is diegetic. She has the eye makeup on still when she wakes up.
Late to the party, but I've read that it's a conscious choice by the director/ALW/head of make up to show her progression into a woman. So, it's a virginity loosing eyeshadow look.
@@TheDodgerReid Then, non-diegetic but figurative. Makeup. Interesting.
I read on Imdb that it was implying that the walk through the lair took days. I never thought that Christine and the Phantom were supposed to have sex,, but it was still a confusing thing to put in the movie.
I thought she had put on mascara in her sleep
One of the things that kills me the most about this phantom are the costumes. The originals are just SO GORGEOUS and deserve more spotlight. Yet these ones just feel so basic, like a high school trying to costume their production
Na they got the costume material from dollar tree, but didn't consider the area and what they truly wanted to do
Not to mention the setting. They set in in 1870. The orginal musical and novel were set in the early 1880s. In 1870, Paris was under siege and people were literally eating rats off the street to survive. A lovely day for the Opera I guess.
The colour palette of Masquerade is so boring and reminds me of the local production I was in, where we all wore black. They bought colourful masks and painted them black! It made me sad.
It bugs me that Christine's dresses are never the same as Carlotta's! Even as a tiny child watching the movie for the first time that bothered me so much.
My high-school did Wizard of Oz and the costumes were fantastic. This is a step below high school theater. This is middle school last minute replacement where the bake sale theme was 'wait, that was today?'
Jesus, the way she just bites the cork off that wine bottle, spits it out and starts pouring the wine is intimidating.
so much chaotic energy.
Andrew Lloyd Webber: I think we would've just filmed a stage show and I really hope we haven't done that.
Lindsay: They basically just filmed the musical.
Me who has 0 knowledge of film or this movie, shoving popcorn in my face: Oho you fools!
Bruh how did you know my reaction
Listen Andrew Lloyd Webber didn't get to where he is in this business by being self-aware or rational
@@TheManWithTheFlan That's kinda beautiful that's such a pure emotional medium, in which Andrey Webber works, still exists not demanding self-awereness or rational
I’m eating a bagel right now but yeah lmao
Extremely ironically, they filmed the show for the 25th anniversary of the London production and it fucks incredibly hard, so in the end, the move really was to just...film the stage production.
Dia-Jesus, is he the one who died for our cinema sins?
He sacrificed himself to CinemaSins for us.
Thank you for this. I don’t have anything clever to say in response, just thank you for this joke. XD
He died to save us from CinemaSins.
You win the comments
this is so underrated lol
"Really this musical needed to be ripped violently out of Andrew Lloyd Webber's hands and shoved to a studio with a bug budget who would actually change some stuff and make the awards baity movie that they wanted instead of a no-man's land of a movie they got."
...
I sometimes wonder if Lindsay regretted this quote around late 2019
(CATS FLASHBACKS)
I don’t know that the studio system was the problem with Cats. The main issue is that almost every aspect of Cats is uniquely ill-suited to a live action film adaptation, from the plot and pacing to the focus on dance to the fact that all of the characters are cats. I just don’t think there was any way to visually represent Cats on film without ending up in the uncanny valley, not to mention the structural issues inherent in transforming a revue into a film.
@@alissapenridge7516 They could have shown some basic understanding of the actual source material, maybe hired someone who actually understood the subtle story of Cats beyond "cats sing songs and do things, idk". Then they wouldn't have sucked all the meaning out of it while throwing a different, ill-fitting, unflattering new plot on top of it because they were too stupid to see the plot that was actually there and thought it needed to be "fixed" into something more conventional, axing all the strengths of the Cats musical and worsening the flaws.
Not to mention that they ruined the music, the main highlight of Cats, because Joel Schumacher needed it to be "realistic" by having the actors improv in the middle of singing and have the actors sing without practice.
And maybe it would've been hard to make CGI version of the Cat's costumes, but they didn't need to overwork the computer animation team to the point where they were passing out in the halls to make sure that the finished product looked as half-done as possible.
And they definitely didn't need to reject all the more stylized concepts and sketches of what the CGI could have looked like because Schumacher thought naked-looking people would be more gritty and realistic somehow.
It genuinely could've been a lot better, and I don't think a live action Cats would normally have ever been that bad if it wasn't so horribly mismanaged from the top from beginning to end. There were so many better ideas rejected because of the idiocy and cruelty and incompetence of the heads. It's an insult to Cats and filmmaking to assume things were always doomed to be anything close to this terrible.
'The Jean Cocteau Arms' is my new band name
Really? It's my new pub name, I'll fight you for it :P
It’s my new drag name; I’ll fight both of you.
That’s my favorite place to buy guns
Ahhh this thread. It just kept going like this movie.
I burst out laughing every time she takes his hand and the theme starts BLASTING. I will never not find that funny.
I think I kinda get why that happens..... it's suppose to be like she's taking a deal from the devil but it's still sloppily done
3:51
People that’ve seen WALL-E: “Oooh, _that’s_ where that comes from”
If it wasn't for Wall-e, I probably would never have heard of Hello Dolly. I know a lot of people don't like that movie, but I really do. I find it a really fun and upbeat movie. It's my go-to movie when I'm sick or in a bad mood.
It also reminded me of Hunchback of Notre Dame
Jonah Epstein OMG I knew I’d seen that somewhere!
Hannah Brennan
I love it simply because of Barbra Streisand. She’s got an incredible energy and an unbeatable voice.
I always forget where Lindsay is going with this scene, because Michael Crawford's most famous role isn't Hello Dolly.
It's as the original Phantom on Broadway.
You know what? This movie is... like one of my biggest guilty pleasures. I first saw it as a young man, but I feel as if it was part of my childhood or something. Even after hearing about it´s flaws clear as day... I still fell like watching it xD
Imagine if this was directed by Guillermo del Toro. Edit to add, wow @ all the likes! Thank you.
Man I wish
I would never have thought of this, but oh my god I can think of moments from all over his work to support the idea of that working. Musical number - that wonderful flight of fancy in The Shape of Water. Genuine monstrousness in a man? Michael Shannon in that film and the officer in Pan's Labyrinth. Power-play? Mako and Raleigh's spar in Pacific Rim. Gothic grandeur? All over his filmography.
And started antonio banderas like the rumors. Yeah. I would be all about that.
Imagine if the hobbit was directed by Guillermo Del Toro.
MAN. I. WISH.
That rad electric guitar riff made me burst out laughing in the theater, along with the SHAMELESS Swarovski crystal plugging.
2016: "So lets talk about Filmmaker's Intent, does it matter? At the risk of going into an hours long digression about the Death of the Author..."
2018: Goes into an hour long digression about Death of the Author
+
Lindsay Ellis, the master of setup/payoff.
She also mentioned in her phantom loose canon trying to not go on a 'hour long tangent about the filmmaking of the 2004 phantom' so... i'm guessing her passions don't leave without becoming a video of their own very easily
@@amberbydreamsart5467 *and* in the Hunchback video there's a cut hour-long tangent about Robert Moses, and one of the upcoming videos is about Who Framed Roger Rabbit and Robert Moses
Not to mention she teased RENT for a while before she finally got to it.
27:11 I actually like having the beginning of the title song kick in as soon as they touch hands. Christine has been speaking with him in the shadows but this is the moment she deals her fate when she goes with him. I felt that moment was a good signifier of that change and actually really felt it even more with the title theme coming in at that exact moment. Of course just my opinion, I might be alone in that regard.
I felt the same way. It is a stark contrast. Maybe it was a first okay-ish idea that they shouldn't have gone with? Now, it seems a bit forced to me, like they really wanted that SYMBOLISM.
They should have cut to a wide shot or something when she finally touched him, then. It’s still bad use of film language.
I think so too, but it would have worked better if he firmly gripped her hand as the music kicked in.
I agree. It was perfect, and nobody will ever be able to change my mind about it.
@@soneil7745 OOOOooh, I didn’t think of that! Her submitting to him while in a trance, him controlling her and literally puppetting her down into the catacombs…
Yeah you’re right, a more aggressive grasping of her hand would have better lined up with both the audio bombast and the Phantom’s motives.
"Joel Schumacher has seen movies too, you guys". Citation needed.
Gerry’s “singing” voice might be the world’s worst excuse for an Erik ever, but there is one line that he absolutely nailed... *DID I NOT INSTRUCT*
He really does have a booming voice they probably should've just replaced his singing lines with dialogue
His singing is great
Eh... His voice could've been better if he had practiced his singing a bit more
This is very late, but those, idk, “growls” in the Point of No Return I liked.
@@marcuspolzer5335 You’ve given me some thoughts and ideas. In theory, some well placed aggressive grovelling adds flair to this Erik, and it kind of works for some things (especially the Point of No Return’s lowest point emotions), but it’s all over the place and wrecks many better parts of other songs instead of adding some voice acting to special moments that could take them. It’s a thing I’m torn between hating entirely and finding disappointing because of how it felt like a missed opportunity for Butler’s Phantom to have meaningful characterisation.
Oh my god, when you cut the Duke in to that Moulin Rouge scene I died.
I audibly laughed at that part !!
Lindsay's point was how the Duke being sad during that romantic scene wouldn't fit. But to be honest, I think it does fit. It's goddam hilarious.
Omg same 😂
@@wjzav1971 I can see where that makes sense 9The Duke's envy and sense of betrayal is played for laughs in Moulin Rouge while the Phantom's envy and sense of betrayal is supposed to be taken completely seriously. That being said, I'm still a bit iffy on The Duke's reaction being put in their because so much of the narrative is rooted in how slow on the uptake he is. He practically has to have it dropped on his head 2/3 of the way through the movie for him to get it. I know I'm rambling about basically nothing but I don't care.
Minnie Driver is absolutely the best thing. We quote her frequently.
"These things do 'appen!"
"I 'ate my 'at!"
"Why?!"
All delivered in that deliciously ridiculous accent.
BRING MY DOGGIE
I AM REALLY LEAVEING NOW BYE BYE
I maintain that her delivery of "Your part is silent, little toad" is easily the best recorded delivery of that line.
The way the wine bottles kept multiplying killed me
"Joel Schumacher has seen movies, too, you guys" never fails to crack me up.
I could listen to her say "jean cocteau arms" all day
Watching critiques like this, I always start out a bit angry, because "they're critiquing this piece of media that I love"
It's a good excercise for me to remember that anything can be fairly critiqued, accepting that even my favourite pieces of media aren't flawless, and that it's still okay for me to love them.
Thank you for making this video.
"Schumacher's obsession with nipples"
"It's like they shot it while they were waiting in line for Pirates of the Caribbean"
"I saw Titanic too, Shumacher"
"We could do some closeups... Guys?"
I laughed SO FUCKING HARD.
Also, thank you for explaining to me why my brain just rejects this film. I WANTED to like it so much, but it's flat and boring in basically every visual respect.
Right there with you
The fact this movie could've been a good Movie, but they took every step to not allow it to be that good movie.
That's why I hate it, and fun fact, the photo of Christine's father was Ramin Karloo, the guy who would play him in the 25th anniversary performance
I agree. I have tried to watch this, and it's just too much. It doesn't feel organic. It doesn't have the dreamy musical feeling the other musical films have captured.
“Why aren’t all of you fired constantly?”
"I have been deliberately tied up in more compromising positions than this."
- Great line
Lewd
"...instead, there's a horse."
I dont know why but this cracks me up every time, and I have watched this video a ton.
There is a horse in the book. This is why. It is quite a big deal in the book, because the horse is stolen from the opera house stable and everyone fuzzes about it. It is used to transport her to the underground lake underneath the opera house.
There is a HORSE LOOSE IN THE OPERA HOUSE
That's the biggest problem with the movie. It perpetuates the myth that horses exist.
20:39 “Look at Harvey Dent! Wow. Did you know you could do this in movies, Joel Schumacher?”
Make a good Batman film?
Damn that burn.
Why's the movie also just look... _worse_ than Moulin Rouge? Like the resolution seems lower, the details fuzzier, the color looks washed out. I thought it was just older, but Rouge came out first, right?
Assuming that both movies were filmed in film and not digitally, maybe the transfer to digital media was worse in one of them.
I think part of it could be the film stock but also it’s probably just overlit so nothing can really pop
@@Anonymous-54545 it was the 2000's, everyone wore unnatural colors
It’s both but mostly the lighting. Everything is lit like a sitcom so there’s no contrast/variation/depth of light and the washed out image is only made worse when compressed into DVD and video files.
Also, the assumption that a movie looks worse because it's older is wrong.
"I have deliberately been tied up in more compromising positions than this"
..."ooooh myyy"- George Takei
@Red Prophet Lindsay is a tremendously interesting person. I can't help but be drawn to her big sexy brain.
I think she also has so many great ideas for videos, but she is pulled in so many directions these days. She's got her work with the PBS thing, she's trying to keep her own channel up and alive. Also trying to figure out how to sell a book during not only 2020 but a global pandemic as well.
I just keep my fingers crossed that she doesn't lose interest in making videos before stuff like the one you suggest, gets made.
@Red Prophet She's friends with Dan Olsen of Folding Ideas, who has done an excellent trilogy of analysis'. Presumably she didn't want to tread on his toes or just had other projects.
Side note: does anyone else think that Patrick Wilson just looks deeply confused when he's being tied up?
Wait Antonio Banderas could've played The Phantom and nobody wanted that? Way to drop the ball there. We could've had a sexy Spanish singing misunderstood man-God. I bet he could've turned straight men gay.
But then he'd be a more dramatic Zorro that couldn't duel worth for shit.
Hugh Jackman was also considered, and considering he has greater singing experience than Antonio and Gerald I really wanted to see him take on the role of the Phantom but he was busy filming Van Helsing.
About Hugh Jackman's singing - Did he used to be better or something? I was really excited to hear that he had experience when he was announced to play Jean Valjean in the _Les Miserables_ movie, but I had never actually _heard_ him before. Then when I saw the film, as soon as "What Have I Done?" started up and all he did was talk-sing through tears I was like "Oh no, he's going to sing like this the whole film, isn't he?" And he did.
Andy's Mad House
I did see videos of him singing on Broadway, but I wanted to know if this was "normal" for Broadway actors in general nowadays. I can't remember a lot of them, but I saw him in Oklahoma and that was _terrible_!
I saw the stage musical before, and while it had more talk-singing than the Broadway Cast recording I usually listen to, most of that was down to it having more _dialogue_. One of my issues with Hugh Jackman is that he would over-express with his voice rather than letting the words or his face / body language portray more emotion, so he would sob through lines and it sounded awful and more melodramatic than anyone else.
Really, I didn't like most of the cast of that movie though, but Eponine and the Friends of the ABC guys were good - namely Enjolras.
Andy's Mad House
I keep freaking forgetting about Hathaway! Yes, even though I thought the cinematography during that scene was horrible (it felt awkward instead of unsettling, in my opinion), she did balance emoting and actually singing well.
For Enjolras I was alright with Aaron Tviet's voice, because I'm a big _Les Miserables_ book fan above any other version and from the book I got the impression that Enjolras was a good speaker but still young and with no real _personal_ power, so him not sounding naturally powerful never occurred to me as being a flaw.
My interpretation of the monkey: First, the Phantom was treated as a freak show (IE circus monkey) so he probably sees himself in the monkey. And when the Phantom breaks down sobbing, with the monkey behind him, he's saying good bye. Good bye to the monkey, to thought of himself as a freak, to that toxin that had fed into his mind for so long and kept him from any kind of true relationship (romantic or not). He is kissed, he is human enough to pity and to feel compassion. The monkey is both a comfort and a reminder, and after the kiss he is able to let go.
For Raoul, it was him during the play who hears the Phantom's backstory by Madam Giry. That he was deformed and a treated as a freakshow. While he probably didn't notice the monkey at the time of Christine's rescue, she probably mentioned it off hand. And when presented at the auction, it stirs Raoul's memory and, after years of meditating on the whole Phantom incident, he decides to preserve it. Years probably got him to understand the phantom a bit more, and there's a small regret that he never got to really know him. So, purchasing that monkey is a kind of small kindness to the phantom's memory.
I like that interpretation.
Costumes: the time period of the costumes is so all over the place. It makes sense that costumes in an opera and on stage or in a masque would be anachronistic, but the costumes of the people off stage would be at least in the same *decade*
I just wanted you to know that youtube auto translates your "diegesis" to "diet Jesus". THANK YOU
cassiodalcin Diet Jesus - now sugar free!
Thanks, I love it!
cassiodalcin no, thank-you. hahaha love it
cassiodalcin I thought she was saying diet Jesus the whole time 😂😂
i know it has been two freaking years, but the translation of "diegesis" is naration in common use greek, the etymological translation (not in use at all in modern greek) is "leading through"
And now begins our longest vigil. The day will come, when the moon and the wine glasses are full, when Lindsey Ellis will write and record her analysis of Cats. It has been foretold and it will occur. But when? For now we can only wait, imagining a new gif to spread across the land: "Thanks, I (seething Lovecraftian madness noises)"
It's here!
Witchcraft! You have the sight!
And now our watch has ended.
“Hal... it’s about cats.”
Funnily enough, "seething Lovecraftian madness noises" is pretty much what the Cats video ends with.
Years later and I still absolutely love the "...pation" joke. Fine editing.
THe worst scene in the movie to me is the final lair after he ties Roul to the gate Christine just stands there singing like a little girl as opposed to the stage version where she's trying to prevent him and even begging him on her knees. Unfortunately we get her standing there looking like Meh I kind of care but it won't be the end of the world if he dies. I get they are trying to portray her as a damsel in distress they miss the passion that the scene brings. This can also be said of the scene where Christine rips the mask from the Phantoms face in The point of no return, in the play she gets angry, in the movie there is literally no motive to why she did it. There is also the think of me scene where she just stands there singing, dance do something its a play...
Oh man I remember seeing Phantom in Melbourne, and the lady playing Christine started singing Think of Me all soft and nervous and ehh - and it was clearly on purpose - but then Andre and Firmin kind of comment and then she lifts that magical scarf AND SUDDENLY, she is all full of charisma and voice and we're all like "Eyyyy she's got the chops."
And obvs it's not just in Melbourne, it's in the 25th Anniversary and I'm assuming it's in every production.
And when I saw the movie and Emmy Rossum started off the same way but then the sudden confident and improved sound never came and I was like "Oh no they cast someone who at best is Nervous Christine."
@@McFatteh not even that they cast a Christine who couldn’t sing and we are left wondering why the phantom likes her at all.
@@McFatteh I’ll be honest I’ve seen scenes from the 35 th and she keeps giggling like a school girl in all I ask of you. I just didn’t feel it and the trailer is terrible with the chandelier graphics. She is by far the least favorite of my christines yet
oh man i love Chicago so much, every time it comes up i'm like DID YOU MEAN THE PERFECT STAGE TO MOVIE MUSICAL ADAPTATION??!? it's just so great. I'm enjoying these video essays so much!!
OH MY GOSH AND MOULIN ROUGE IS ONE OF MY FAVORITE FILMS YESSSSSS
Chicago is my favourite musical movie it's so good!!
YES Chicago!
Chicago is my favorite musical!
@@hannahettinger9088 I love Gigi!
If Bohemian Rhapsody paid the editor for every cut, Phantom paid the editor for not cutting lol..
As someone who actually started liking musicals because of the Phantom Movie...I am conflicted.
I’ve seen the phantom review so many times, but every time Lindsay says “I have deliberately been tied up in more comprising positions then this” it still catches me off guard
"The Phantom of the Drinking Game" was a thing my old roomies and I created to make this movie watchable, and actually hilarious. All those bottles brought back some good old times. To be fair, it works with the 25th Anniversary version with a few tweaks. Like "Drink when Raoul's a clueless douchebag", rather than "Drink when the Phantom goes out of key"...
For the 25th Anniversary: Drink whenever the Phantom screams melodramatically
@@hannahb6411 Drink for every dramatic cape swirl; Drink for every time Mme. Giry bangs her cane; Drink for every time Christine pretty-cries...
@Grace Drea That's Rule #1. Always rule #1. XD
So in conclusion:
_I'm losing to a _*_bird!_*
See how I glitter!
Hal, it’s about Cats.
ThAt wAs hIs mIsTaKe!
Meg, give me the gun
I ate the WHOLE plate!
For over twenty minutes I was sitting there like “will you please talk about the shot where they reveal The Phantom as Red Death” because I’ve always thought that was an amazing shot & that always kind of stayed with me.
I love her essay framing device of getting increasingly drunk and the alcohol bottles piling up as she elaborates in precise detail on how and why something was so bad, and no amount of wine can rectify it.
And now I know the term "framing device"! ^_^
"Does he make them reserve Box Five and not use it because he's a jerk?"
Short answer: YES.
Longer answer: I believe there's something in the book, which explains that he designed the opera house (he's also well into his sixties in the book), and Box Five is engineered in such a way that he can hear and see perfectly from afar.
(P.S. "The Jean Cocteau Arms" would be a great name for a pub.)
Another pointless change that actually made the Phantom even more unintentionally creepy: adjusting the libretto so that he repeatedly refers to himself as the spirit of her father and not a separate entity that her father SENT.
MorriganAtwood extra creepy add to this? Emmy Rossum is only about 18-19 in this film. It’s layers of creep
@@kodythomas9880 Emmy was 16 during filming and Patrick and gerard were both in their 30s
Rachel Lazenby Oh no
@@literallygaston2489 it makes it so much worse doesn't it
@@rach_laze WHAT
"Turn your eyes away from that garish light of day. And turn them to the cluttered candles instead. Listen to the music of bright night."
I just wanted Ramin Karimloo to be the phantom.
I think he had a cameo as Christine's father in the movie during a short flashback. So he has played her father, her lover and her stalker.
He was too young at this point. He would’ve made a good Raoul for the movie though (although I do like Patrick, hair aside!)
I love how Lindsay can break down academically why this movie doesn't work, but I'm just like "It sucks" when explaining why I hate it lol
I find that some people are just more critically minded than others. It's a left brain vs right brain kinda thing. It's the whole reason Siskel and Ebert worked: Siskel was very nitpicky vs Ebert being a very big picture kinda guy who focused on the whole rather than the parts.
I'm thinking of starting a TH-cam channel starring me and my cousin for that very reason. I'm a very rational and snobby kinda person who can know HOW something sucks, but not whether it sucks in actuality or generally, because I don't care about the big picture, because, to me, the parts are more important than the whole. That's what my cousin's for. She's a lot less logical and more emotional, so, while she might not know WHY a movie sucks, she can feel when the movie just doesn't work in general. I then help her figure out what is causing her to feel negatively towards the movie so she can elaborate on her genuine feeling.
Or, alternatively, we can disagree on how something sucks or is good. Like, I hate Inuyasha because it's poorly written and lazy and a cash-grab, while my cousin hates it because the series didn't give her what she wanted, expected, or thought the series was about, which was an ending that befitted a series she and I used to love.
OR some people have just been educated in this field in particular and know all the jargon and complexities someone who hasn't studied literature and media has.
Adrijana Radosevic wow, your comment here is amazing! It really shows something about the difference between logic (how smart you are) and emotions (how nice you are to other people) and reveals an interesting conclusion about these things: you care more about feeling smarter than everyone else than you do about their humanity, (calling someone an idiot even though you've never met them,) managing to be simultaneously sort of an idiot, AND a major asshole!~
Adrijana Radosevic Have you thought about starting an film analysis channel? That was a compelling and thoughtful analysis, it was really good.
Love this! Thank you so much!
Now THIS is what actual film criticism & scholarship looks like. Fantastic video Lindsay, keep up the great work.
are you referring to the technical knowledge, or the alcoholism?
JetSetDex Hey, random question, but is your icon Dizzy from 100 Bullets?
both
She’s awesome
*Now THIS is podracing!*
I can't tell if she's acting, or actually hammered.
In the book he is pretty much a genius mechanical engineer, so it would have been interesting if they'd added that back in to explain water proof candles
"mmm, tastes like tonal dissonance." I died.
"a part of why [Moulin Rouge!] is the way it is, is because it's all from Christian's point of view; the style is how he sees the world"
I have been saying that for years, thank you Lindsay.
15:20 no no no this is spooky as hell. Also I knew nothing about the story, so just having the basic story beats hinted at was a good setup. Even just hearing a man speak on stage as the Auctioneer to a new theatre-goer is like dipping a toe in the water of live experience vs cinema. It's a very necessary calm before a very impressive storm. I love the intro to Phantom.
Holy shit, you're TOTALLY right about the gasps when the Phantom reveals himself over Apollo.
I've seen it live 3 times, and it hadn't even occurred to me, but you're totally right!
Have you noticed that in scene of "The Point of no return", when she takes his mask off, the deformity seems bigger? Like, the mask was hidding all of it, then, when she takes it off, the deformity goes beyond the mask's delimitation...
I think it was somewhat covered by the awkward shiny black wig he was wearing that she ripped off as well
That was kind of the whole point of the reveal because when she pulls off the mask you're supposed to be really shocked by the largeness of the deformity plus it's one of the least grotesque looking ones because it's more realistic and the fact that it's more of a birthmark e type of red burn rash and so it's terrifying and it's shocking but you also feel sorry for him instantly instead of scared of him like in most other adaptations plus this is based off of the Broadway show Even though in the Broadway show you even feel scared of him by his deformity in this they made it more emotionally Reliant and it's one of the best adaptations of the book as well as a great phenomenal adaptation of the perfect amazing alluring and outstanding flabbergasting Broadway show
@@SB992REBORN I can tell you’re forcing it. Just because media is trying to get something across and be good does not always mean it succeeds. You can acknowledge that a piece of media has flaws and still like it. Every piece of media has flaws, there’s nothing wrong with liking it anyway just like there’s nothing wrong with pointing them out. You don’t have to desperately try to lie those flaws out of existence to like it.
It drives me insane that they literally change the entire opera once Christine replaces Carlotta...I mean that Cinderella-looking set clearly isn’t any part of Hannibal. WTAF?!
Melissa McDonald “Il Muto” is a different musical within the musical, like “Don Juan Triumphant”. :)
@@makenziemazing While you are correct that she is probably referring to think of me and that in the stage musical the song is from a different act, UNLESS the entire time period of Hannibal switched and Christine's character took a bloody TARDIS to a different century halfway through, the drastic change in style makes NO SENSE. Hannibal appears to be set in Aztec sort of looking times yet Christine's Cinderella-esk dress is from a completely different time period and country. Opera's may change settings but they rarely change entire time periods.
Furthermore, if you bother to research the general plot of the opera (which is fictional) it is stated that the opera is about troops returning from fighting ROME. Carlotta literally says "From our saviours from the enslaving forces of ROME." At the time that the Roman Empire was in power dresses like Christine's ballgown, were not being worn. Not to mention that it is only in the movie that this occurs. Therefore I believe Melissa's WTAF is perfectly justified. The change is extremely jarring and entirely unnecessary
carlotta said in the movie that her dress for act 3 was not finished, so when they costumed christine for that scene they just put her in a random gown because they had no costume for it
Just to throw in, historically accurate clothing is not always a goal for plays. (Doesn't change the main point, but the setting being Rome likely doesn't weigh in here.)
If I’m remembering correctly (and it’s very possible that I’m not since I’ve done my best to purge this monstrosity of a film from my memory), they say in the movie that the evening on which Christine makes her stage debut is actually a Gala for the new owners to introduce the Vicomte as their new patron. In the stage musical, they are in fact premiering the new Hannibal opera and Christine DOES actually wear Carlotta’s big fancy Grecian costume and presumably performs the entire opera. I’m not sure why they choose to change it from an actual opera performance to a Gala. I’m assuming they just wanted to change up the costume and have Christine wear something more Cinderella-esque. Or maybe it’s just not believable that the tiny baby actual-at-the-time teenager Emmy Rossum would ever be able to pull off a premier of a new opera without ever having rehearsed it on stage. I mean I don’t see what the point in trying to go with that kind of realism would be in something like Phantom of the fucking Opera, but idk.
Watched the stage show today, and please explain how the phantom looks way more deformed in a stage play than in a movie.
They can do it better for the stage production because it doesn't need to be as perfect due to it being seen from a distance.
"I know, comparing the Cohens to Schumacher is like comparing the finest chocolate torte to a twinkie, but bear with me."
I think I am coming back to this video over and over just for that sentence.
the phantom in the movie looks like bootleg prince zuko
I now just imagen Zuko singing about honour with a killer voice.
An Avatar musical needs to be a thing.
+Sasha Wallace
yes
+simone robson I NEED ITT
+marco benvenuti So prince Zuko from the M Night Shamalayn movie then?
"You take a strong ending and you weaken it."
--Lindsay Ellis, a sweet summer child who has not yet seen the OOC horror that is "Love Never Dies".
Jack Washington She has actually seen it. In her Loose Canon episode for the Phantom, she talked about Love Never Dies and said it’s the worst musical she’d ever seen.
Ok, the only thing I can think of OOC could stand for is "out of character". Am I right?
Oh she’s seen it.
That chandelier was the best actor in this movie
I've taken to watching this as a sort of comfort video recently. Moments like "Where have you gone, Minnie Driver? We miss you," just pop into my head for no discernible reason and the diegesis explanation is something I think about a lot, especially now that I'm trying to write a book for fellow hobbyist video game developers. So thank you for this Lindsay. I may not have seen Phantom '04 myself, but I learned a lot from the many times I've watched this video and I appreciate every moment of it.
Did you publish your book?
@@katietomberlin9766 Nah I'm still working at it, little by little!
I'd love to see your take on the 2012 Les Miserables adaptation. A video essay on that would be super entertaining.
I feel like you just uploaded what will become part of a lot of professors' curriculum.
Coming back to this after Love Never Dies is a lot of fun.
"I have deliberately been tied up in more interesting positions than this" is such a brave, fun, and great little line.
I feel like a just took a free film class. Thanks Lindsay, that was actually super interesting! Please make more videos like this.
I agree!
One of my major pet peeves of this movie has ALWAYS been that in the beginning scene, Madame Giry looks much much younger than Raoul. Like aren't Raoul and Christine childhood friends, why tf does Madame Giry look 60 and Raoul look like he's 90?????
I always thought it was Meg. But also, the Phantom is supposedly around 50 or so (at least in the book), so if Raoul's like 80 or so now, how is Erik still alive and leaving flowers at her grave??
It's not Madame Giry, it's Meg
One of my main gripes about this movie is just that, that Raoul and Christine are supposed to be childhood friends but clearly aren’t even close to being the same age. I felt like Christine should have been a bit older, like in her 20s as she is in the stage show. And they should have cast someone who could actually sing, not just someone who can carry a tune but had minimal vocal training at best.
@@amydamjanovic9183 they could be childhood friends and not be the same age. I’m friends with one of my older brother’s friends and he’s 5 years older than me
@@meerkatnip892 I know you posted this like 2 years ago, but in the book the Phantom dies shortly after he lets Christine go. He wouldn't have been around to put flowers on her grave. The movie ending was stupid.
I’d hope you notice during masquerade that he literally pulled the finished score out of his ass because in the shot before you don’t see it anywhere so it’s like where did you get it??
Lmao, I had never noticed this
what's wild is that ramin karimloo was IN THIS MOVIE and they didn't cast him as phantom ??? they deadass gave my mans a *silent role*
I went through a huge Phantom phase as a tween/teen. My parents took me to see the musical when i was 12 and I was obsessed. Then the movie came out about a year later and I HATED IT. All my friends suddenly loved the movie because the Phantom was "hot". It blew my mind then and it still does now.
omg were you on fanfiction.net we may have crossed paths
Little Sparrow You and me both
***** I was absolutely into fanfiction everywhere I could find it at the time. It's definitely likely that we crossed paths.
Little Sparrow Well, I mean, the phantom IS hot
zoe a Yeah, his stage version not the movie version. The movie version I don't like. Ramon Karimloo as "The Phantom" is gorgeous!!!
The really sad part about Notes is that Nostalgia Critic's parody of it was more fittingly shot, staged and edited than the actual film. It's a frantic song with bickering, exclamations and exposition, and in the movie everyone just walks around slowly.
PotO is my guilty pleasure but I respect it has so many flaws. I always skip those black and white scenes and agree 100% why they're worthless.
But the bit with the arms holding the lights in the corridor is supposed to represent Christine's initial moment of meeting a person she's admired for sooo long. It's like when you meet your hero and see everything as if it's great.
If you follow this scene on, you find meg going down this same corridor and it's horrible and filled with rats. This is the actual look of the corridor, which means Christine was lost in her own world when she was walking down it initially.
The reason I believe that the scenes never match this level of wondrous is because she's coming to her senses more and more as the threat of what he is begins to show itself. the rose tinted glasses begin to slide off and she's no longer under his spell.
I just think that bit needs some appreciation because as a movie it's not spectacular, but as far as trying to get the story out, it does an satisfactory job.
The one thing I absolutely hate, though, is that whole 'make sure you hand is at the level of your eye'. Even as a die hard Phan I had to google this because I had no damn idea what this was about! The movie sounds so dumb when it puts this in.
My two scents!
A great vid and thanks for making it!
I did like those moments. I wish the film took these further!
I think with a better director and a different actor as the Phantom, this film could’ve been brilliant.
@@horrorfanatic6990 I think this actor was 'ok'. He honestly did better than I thought he would. but I think his scenes at the end where he was supposed to be the monster exposed were more comical than scary, like how he seemed to miraculously get some fat top lip even though he never had that before, just made me roll my eyes, so I think you're right there.
@@dangelangello8567 Oh my stars! Yes 😆 I forgot about that!
I would love to see a good filmmaker retry!
I'm really sad that musicals have basically disappeared, even animated ones. Like, I'm less sad about not having new musicals, and more sad that our culture has shifted so hard toward logic and realism. I know it will shift back eventually, trends always swing in a pendulum, but I'm just a little sad being on this side of it right now