NationStates Jolt Archive

What is your favorite version?

1925 silent film. This film starred the man of 1,000 faces, Lon Chaney. This film was silent and predominantly black and white. This was one of the first films to use technicolor. The masquerade ball scene was tinted with red. This made the film a technological marvel of it's time. The make up for Lon Chaney was also considered ground breaking. This first adaptation of Leroux's novel is a masterpiece. It was re-released in 1929 with voices dubbed over.

1943 film: Claude Rains plays the Phantom in this film. This film is not considered one of the better adaptations due to poor music selections and the twisting done to the story. Rains doesn't perform as he did in “Casablanca.”

1962 film, haven't seen it.

1986 Musical: Andrew Lloyd Weber's masterpiece written for his wife of the time and star of the original London and New York casts, Sarah Brightman. Original cast featured the amazing performance of Michael Crawford as the Phantom. This version has stunning effects and music. It won the 1988 Tony for best musical when it first came to the US and won equivalent awards in Brittain and other nations. From the beginning auction scene where we see the Chandalier “illuminated” to the end, it is filled with good songs and suspenseful action. From effects like the mirror, falling chandalier, and the fireballs to the costume of the Red Death, the back scene crew did well. Stunning make-up on Phanton's deformed head

2004 film adapted from Musical: Weber once again tries a film on the silver screen after failing with “Evita”. I was a little down when I heard neighter Brightman nor Crawford would be in it. I had my expectations down. I was shocked when I saw it. I can't believe I'm saying it myself, but Emmy Rosum is a better singer than Brightman. Gerard Butler was good, but he still doesn't beat Crawford. Overall this is good, but the makeup was better in the play when you see the phantom's real face. The Red Death costume stunk too and the chandalier fall wasn't as dramatic due to a change in the placement of it. Overall, it gets an 8.5/10. Much better than Evita. Best musical on screen since Chicago.

have you seen the musical in a decent theatre?

have you seen the musical in a decent theatre?
I saw it in April at Chicago's Cadillac Theater.

I saw it in April at Chicago's Cadillac Theater.

cool, i saw it in Her majesty's Theatre in london--awesome

saw the musical at Birmingham Hippodrome (UK)... a few years ago now, but it was magical
was a bit wary of the film, but that was good too, just the stage show had much more atmosphere methinks

I saw the best version live and that was with Paul Stanley from KISS. :)

I got to see the Phantom at the Fox Theatre in Atlanta a few years ago; it was quite a show and I hope to see it again. As for the new movie though, I'll wait for it to hit the movie channels.

I love the musical and ALW's rendition of the story. I very much enjoyed the adaptation of his story to film as well.

I love the musical and look forward to seeing the film.

after failing with “Evita”.

I loved Evita - it was (still is) one of my favourite films of all time.

I loved Evita - it was (still is) one of my favourite films of all time.
It isn't that Evita is a bad movie, but it is a fact that the movie did poorly in theaters and wasn't as good as it could've been. Madonna shouldn't have gotten the role.

Ahhh

Well, from memory, it was pretty well received over here in the UK. It just stood out to me as a film that can be watched again and again - there are some fantastic musical scores (High Flying Adored, Don't Cry for Me), with some IMO intense acting from Madonna in places (although, tedious in others).

I liked it :-)

Doesn't appeal to everyone though.

Oh - to get back to topic - the 1986 Musical is my favourite :-)

Oops clicked 'other'. Wanted to click Movie.

The musical is excellent. Magnificent.

The movie is exactly the same, just probably better props & Scenes. Though the movie you have to regard it as a musical rather than a movie.

The props aren't always better in the movie. I thought the phanton's Red Death costume was better in the musical and original movie (it was the same basic costume in both.) The 2004 movie costume was less elegant, minus the hat, and without the staff.

http://www.mcfaddenweb.com/modelmania/images/details_images/RedDeathOrig1.jpg
Here's a pic from the 1925 film. Color was not added here by anyone messing with the film, this is how it originally appeared. This was one of the first films to have technicolor. It was only used during the masquerade ball though and no other parts of the film. It is still innovative though. Obviously the man playing the phantom here is none other than Lon Chaney.

I'm surprised no one voted 1925 yet since it is considered by many to be one of the greatest silent films ever shot and definitely Lon Chaney's best film.

The musical

Just once I'd like to see an adaptation contain the history of the Phantom (Erik) or the Persian. Dammit.

At least the movie did a better job than the musical of explaining why you have to keep your hand up hunting for him.

What, no inclusion of the Robert Englund Phantom?

The movie did explain more about his past. The 1925 film did a fairly good job considering it was a silent film. The book of course fully explains it.

masquerade, paper faces on parade. masquerade, hide your face so the world will never find you.

The 1925 film still gives me the willies. Powerful stuff.

Of all the versions, the original film captures the spirit of the novel better than anything else. The musical, well, ermmm ... good songs, some great voices in the original cast (Brightman, Richards, Crawford), but I hate musical adaptations of already good stories.

Angel of music guide and guardian! Grant to me your glory!
Angel of music hide no longer! Secret and strange Angel!

The movie is now playing everywhere:

DOWN ONCE MORE, TO THE DUNGEON OF MY BLACK DESPAIR!
DOWN WE PLUNGE TO THE PRISON OF MY MIND!
DOWN THAT PATH ONTO DARKNESS DEEP AS HELLLLLL!

Has anyone read the book? It's completely different from the musical, and even the earlier film adaptations varied from it quite a bit. Slightly hard to find, but a worthwhile read, especially if you like horror and suspense.

Has anyone read the book? It's completely different from the musical, and even the earlier film adaptations varied from it quite a bit. Slightly hard to find, but a worthwhile read, especially if you like horror and suspense.
I've read the book, it can be found at Barnes and Noble. The 1925 film is the closest variant to the book.

I love the Phantom of the Opera book, inspired to read it after hearing the musical back in 1986, and finally getting around to watching it in the London West End in 1991 and again last November. I have to say that it has always been my favourite musical, full of atmosphere and good characters.

Having become obsessed with the story, I was lucky at the time of the show's release for the television station to play most of the old films, from the 1925 film onwards (including the rather weird Phantom of the Paradise, which was set in a nightclub). Since then there have been a couple of mini-series and the gory Robert Englund film (with one scene that I cannot watch without cringing badly).

Based on this, I have to say that the musical is my favourite. I was impressed with the filmed version (if a little disappointed with the singing talents of the main stars), and thought the changes that were made from the stage version only added to it, (although I was greatly annoyed that they spoke so many of the lines that should have been sung).

My father went to see the 1986 while on business in New York. Returning home, he bought cd of the entire musical score. My brother and I use to play it and act the entire thing out. By the time I saw the musical in 1993, I knew the entire play.

I saw the 1934 as a kid as well. I thought CLaude Rain looked good in the mask, but other than that the movie was lame.

I saw the latest verison two weeks ago. After getting use to the difference from the play (like moving the chandlier scene.) I have to say this one is my favorite. Being a movie it was able to explain the story more, such as using flashblacks scenes. The roof scene was better and so was the final grotto scene.

I'v seen the musical onstage several times, though Ted Keegan was definately the best stage Phantom I've seen. Real interesting guy to boot.
As for the 2004 film, it's more or less you love it or you hate it. I was impressed with the fact that Gerard Butler didn't try to sound like Crawford (a good many of the stage Phantoms try) and though he could have done with another year of training for the singing, he has a good voice, it just needed more training (I'm a lyric soprano, with ten years of real vocal training to back that up). But his acting blew me away. I had to sit in the car for about fifteen minutes to stop shaking after it was over. Butler makes you want to hug the poor Phantom and tell him that everything will be all right... Even though you know you're lying through your teeth.
Critics be consigned to perdition!

I am however, surprised that no one has yet mentioned the novel by Susan Kay, which is, one could say, the pinnacle of fanfiction: She got published. It's a good story, and for those interested in another take on the story, read it. It's out of print, but you can find it on ebay or other used book vendors.

ANd just to note; I got the most lovely Phantom music box for Christmas, from SM Music Box Co. It's of Christine handing the mask back to Erik... It's bee-yoo-ti-ful!

You know you're devoted when you get the mask permenantly tattooed to your back