 February
2005
This month's reviews:
Phantom of the
Opera
My daughter and I took a trip to Europe when she was 14.
Phantom of the Opera was the biggest play going in London,
and we stood in line for hours to get tickets in case there were any
returns. We got in, saw the play, and liked it. I’ve always felt,
though, that there was something awry with its structure, that it
went downhill after the first act and in the end wasn’t very
edifying. Now the movie version has been released. My daughter was
visiting for Christmas, and this time the whole family went to see
Phantom the movie. We loved it and agreed it’s an
example of the movie version being better than the play—a rare
occurrence.
When Phantom opens, it’s 1919 in Paris. In a
beautiful, mostly black-and-white sequence, a famous auction is held
to sell off many of the items that figured in the past glory of the
Popular Opera. A few of the principal characters of yesteryear are
present, and we begin to look at the past through their eyes.
Suddenly, in what has to be one of the greatest cinematic moments
ever, we jump back to the time of the Opera’s heyday. As the famous
chandelier that signaled the famous historical disaster is sold, we
see it lift majestically off the floor and become restored to its
original position as the Opera’s centerpiece. Black and white
changes to rich color as we’re transported to the Paris of 1870.
There’s a lot more substance to Phantom than might
be apparent at first glance. Underneath, it’s part Pygmalion and
part Faust. The Phantom, a horribly deformed musical
genius who inhabits the dark, secret places of the Opera, loves the
young ingenue Christine Daae and seeks to turn her into his own
creation. He’s a lot more tragic a figure than Henry Higgins,
however. The basic tension of the story concerns whether Christine
will give in to him, in effect selling her soul, or marry Raoul, her
childhood playmate, who is now a wealthy opera patron. Which way
will Christine go? Whom will she choose?
There’s also lots that relates to the Christian world view here.
As 1 John 1:7 tells us, “But if we walk in the light, as he is in
the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of
Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.” The Phantom appeals
to the opposite of light. As he sings in Phantom’s most famous song,
“Softly, deftly, music shall caress you, hear it, feel it
secretly possess you,
Let the dream begin, let your darker side give in to the power of
the music that I write,
The power of the music of the night."
I can quibble with a few things about the picture. Gerard Butler,
who plays the Phantom, is not a singer (though his singing is more
than satisfactory). Also, we see his deformed face too often; the
Phantom is more powerfully mysterious if not seen too
clearly. Emmy Rossum, who plays Christine and is trained in opera,
sings beautifully but acts a bit woodenly. These are small flaws,
however. What makes the movie effective is that we learn more about
the Phantom’s history and his motivations than we do in the play.
The story is completed in a way that the stage version isn’t. I
don’t say Phantom of the Opera is the best movie this
year, but it’s certainly one of the most enjoyable.
Rating: 3 ¼
stars
2004: A Retrospective
Just for fun, here’s a list of some of my personal movie
favorites in 2004. Keep in mind that this is just one person’s
opinion. There’s plenty of room for disagreement.
| Emptiest Movies: |
Tie between
Lost in
Translation and Troy |
| Most seductively worldly movie: |
De-Lovely |
| Most intriguing mystery: |
The Village |
| Movie with the best acting: |
In America |
| Most convincing foreign accent
by an American: |
Tom Hanks in The
Terminal |
| Best movie that hardly anyone heard of and
turned out to be really good: |
Shall We Dance? |
| Best animal movie and
performance by an animal: |
Hidalgo in Hidalgo |
| Most entertaining movie of the year: |
Phantom of the Opera |
| Most significant movie of the
year: |
The Passion of the
Christ. No question. |
|
|
Index of movie
reviews...
(2003 reviews through present)
Jay Maurer, a member of West Side Presbyterian Church, is
a long-term movie buff and former college teacher of The Film as
Literature. He has written movie reviews for The Good News
(West Side newsletter) since 2002.
If you have comments or questions
about the movie (or play) reviews, please contact Jay at
dramachap@msn.com.
Ratings are expressed in
increments of ¼ star.
A rating of 2 ½ stars or higher is meant to be a recommendation.
1 star: poor
2 stars: minimally satisfactory
3 stars: quite good
4 stars: superb
Criteria for determining the ratings:
- Reflection, either explicit or implicit, of Christian values,
including suitability of language and lack of gratuitous violence
- Quality of the acting
- Originality
- Unity of the entire picture
- Substance, or in the words of C.S. Lewis, weight
Other Christian movie review Web sites:
Plugged In Online
ChristianityTodayMovies.com
|
