I May Not Like Opera, But I Sure Love Phantom!

This past spring, my house was filled with singing as my brother Nathan prepared for his role in his high school’s production of Fiddler on the Roof. We’d been hearing Fiddler since November, when the choice of show was announced, and had by now accepted it as part of our daily soundtrack. But as the show was wrapping up, Nathan brought home a new and less familiar set of songs, this time from Phantom of the Opera, a production of which he had watched on tape in his theater class. I was of course familiar with the title song, and my piano teacher had introduced me to a couple others years before, but aside from that the soundtrack was unknown to me.

It took a couple times through before I found my comfort level amidst the pounding organ that made me jump each time I heard it and the voices that were often just a bit too operatic for my taste, but by the time I found out about the movie I was almost as eager to see it as my brother. His anticipation heightened as the release date drew nearer; meanwhile, a colleague at work raved about Emmy Rossum, the film’s young star. When Christmas finally rolled around, I’d decided Phantom was the one movie of the holiday season that I absolutely could not miss.

Last night, one year to the day after viewing the desperately anticipated final installment of Lord of the Rings, my wait came to an end. From the magnificent opening sequence in which the decrepit Opera Populaire morphs into a glorious vision of its former self, I dismissed the murmuring of critics, very few of whom seemed to like the film. I instead allowed myself, like my brother and my friend before me, to be swept away in the majesty of Sir Andrew Lloyd Weber’s masterpiece.

The film centers around three main characters. Rossum is radiant as Christine, the talented young chorus girl who becomes a star when she is forced to pinch-hit for resident diva Carlotta (Minnie Driver), who storms out hours before the big production of Hannibal after one too many dangerous “accidents” courtesy of the Phantom (Gerard Butler). Generally speaking I find male characters far more interesting and rarely declare a female to be my favorite character, but Christine’s virtue and innocence won me over completely. I also found Rossum’s voice gentler and less prone to shrillness than Sarah Brightman’s, causing me to like Christine all the more.

Butler is haunting as the Phantom. Though I was mildly disappointed to hear little evidence of his Scottish upbringing in the film – I hate to hear a good brogue go to waste – I was moved by his searing performance. The Phantom is a tragic character whose misery is largely self-inflicted. I left with the feeling that if only he could have kept his temper in check and not hurt anyone, things would have turned out much better for him. His intense insecurity over his deformity first manifests itself when Christine removes his mask, only wishing to see the face of her “angel of music” perhaps the most devastating moment in the musical is when Christine informs him much later that she is repulsed not by his face but his cruel deeds.

In spite of the Phantom’s shortcomings, I was rooting for him the whole time and was prepared from the beginning to dislike Raoul (Patrick Wilson), Christine’s childhood sweetheart who returns at the most inopportune of times ready to rekindle their romance. He’s not a bad fellow, but during most of his screen time I found him incredibly aggravating. First he is condescending, refusing to believe Christine’s tales of an unseen tutor. As soon as he believes, he is determined to destroy this man of whom he declares “genius has turned to madness.” I kept finding myself thinking, Why can’t he leave them alone? What she has with the Phantom seems far more deep and meaningful, if also more dangerous.

Minor characters also add considerably to the film. I love Meg (Jennifer Ellison), the quiet, sweet-natured friend of Christine who duets with her in Angel of Music. She appears very little in the film beyond that point, which I was sorry to see because I found her character very appealing. Her mother, Madame Giry (Miranda Richardson), comes across as the most compassionate of matrons, particularly in a flashback that explains the Phantom’s origins in the theatre. She also seems to have a sly sense of humor bubbling beneath the surface. She was a pleasant surprise for me, as she did not appear in the soundtrack. Driver provides comic relief, making her diva as intolerable as possible, both in vocal and interpersonal terms. Also valuable in that regard are Firmin (Ciaran Hinds) and Andre (Simon Callow), the opera’s rather incompetent new owners.

Visually the film is stunning, with its deep, rich tones and splashes of vibrant color. The Phantom’s lair is particularly impressive. But the music is the real star of the show, and each musical number thrills and entrances. Notes was my favorite song lyrically even though it made no appearance on the movie soundtrack. The throbbing grandiosity of the organ in the title song is even more affecting when coupled with the images on the screen, as is the dramatic moment when Christine goes from timid audition to star performance in Think of Me. Many of the songs made a great deal more sense to me when I could view them in context. All of the vocals sounded transcendent. I think it perhaps best that I had never seen the show itself, as most of the people who did seem to have found the movie a bit of a letdown. When I saw Return of the King, its glory sent me into a month-long stupor, but when I emerged I was able to pick dozens of little details that, on comparison with the book, I found rather bothered me. As I have no such basis for comparison in this case, I suspect Phantom will continue to leave me satisfied, at least until I see the play.

I am a big fan of Jesus Christ Superstar and Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat, owning film versions of both as well as two different soundtracks for each. Based on my experience with those Weber rock operas, I assumed that I was getting the vast majority of Phantom through the soundtrack. I knew there must be a few missing pieces – for instance, a reunion between Christine and Raoul before his proposal. But I had no idea just how much of the movie would be completely new to me. Though some of it was simple dialogue, most was sung, or at least spoken in rhyme. While the melodies were predominantly echoes of the main songs that had graced the soundtrack, the intricacy of the lyrics was what really floored me. The clever back-and-forth, replete with internal rhyme, of Notes left me utterly in awe of lyricist Charles Hart, and I wonder why it is that Weber is the only one in this musical partnership who gets any attention. I deem that Hart is just as talented as Tim Rice, but I’ve never even heard his name before. I’m not sure how many “additional lyrics” Richard Stillgoe contributed, but I think both of them ought to get a bigger nod than they do.

I couldn’t help but be reminded time and again of Disney’s Beauty and the Beast, and for more reasons than just the French setting. Raoul is less villainous than Gaston, the Phantom more beastly than the Beast, and Christine more conflicted than Belle over which suitor to choose, but I still wanted the Phantom to win out in the end. The transformation of the opera house at the beginning brought to mind the castle at the end of Beauty and the Beast, while Christine’s heart-wrenching Wishing You Were Somehow Here Again recalled Belle’s devotion to her father. Maybe Disney drew influence from Phantom in crafting their version of the classic tale and chose the name Gaston in homage to the novel’s author. Doubtful, but it’s fun to speculate, anyway…

Phantom is, of course, much darker than that award-winning musical, and I suppose a straightforward happy ending would not only be inappropriate but impossible. I like to think that in the end Christine became to the Phantom what Bilbo Baggins was to Gollum; unable or unwilling to give him what he wanted more than anything, she instead provided what he needed: a chance for redemption. Her compassion for the twisted man who molded her into the woman she has become is the heart of the film’s central conflict, achingly verbalized with her entreaty: Pitiful creature of darkness, what kind of life have you known? God give me courage to show you you are not alone.

If you’ve never seen the play, get thee to the nearest theater and embrace the opportunity. Even if you have seen it, take the chance to be immersed once more in a wondrous creation. Its participants may not be unfolding their magic right before your eyes, but the enchantment remains.

Glenn Carter Shines as Jesus, But Not Brightly Enough to Save Superstar

I have always been a big fan of Jesus Christ Superstar, particularly of the songs themselves. I was privileged to see the show once in a local production, which was most impressive as I recall. Shortly thereafter, we purchased the 1973 Norman Jewison film. I was less impressed with this version. Although it had the advantage of being filmed on location, that vast expanse was often ill-suited to the style of the movie. I also was a bit turned-off by some of the extremely anachronistic touches, such as the tanks and B2 bombers stalking Judas and the disciples in hippie regalia. And because most of the performers were rock stars and not actors, the lack of skill in the latter area was sometimes apparent. Nonetheless, it has been a video that we pull out every year at Easter and watch.

Last year, I watched Joseph and the Amazing Techni-color Dreamcoat on PBS, and after the show I got a glimpse of several clips of the new production of JCS which would be coming out shortly on video. I'm not sure why I held such high hopes for this remake. Perhaps it was my immense satisfaction with the same company's production of Joseph. Perhaps it was my immediate attraction to Glenn Carter. Or perhaps it was just wishful thinking. At any rate, I became convinced that WHYY's offering would turn out to be the perfect performance of Jesus Christ Superstar. I'm afraid that the reality fell short of expectations.

You see, I held out hope that this movie would "get right what the first one got wrong", at least in my opinion. First of all, there was the cinematography. I would say that this aspect of the new version was handled quite well, and it would have made for a more watchable film than the first if it had not been for the choice of setting and costumes.

Most of the film took place in a large room which served a variety of purposes, from Heaven on their Minds to Gethsemane. There was no Judas running frantically down the cliffs of the desert or Jesus scaling the heights of the garden hills to make his plea more audible. It was just a big room. Then there was the long wall covered with graffiti, which we see as the film first begins. There's the temple, which looks like a casino/strip joint, and there's the hang-out of the Sanhedrin, which is centered around a long black table.

The costumes were certainly not biblical. Jesus' disciples all looked like a bunch of punk rockers, and Judas, the oldest of the bunch by far, was similarly decked out in jeans, a t-shirt, and a leather jacket. Mary Magdalene wore a red dress, and Jesus wore jeans and a white shirt, later a white robe. The high priests all looked like something out of The Matrix, and the members of the media, also dressed all in black, resembled witches. The people who cry out to Jesus for help are dressed similarly but covered with web-like bandages, looking like death itself. Finally, the Roman officials, Pilate in particular, look to me like members of the gestapo. I really didn't get much out of the attempt to put this in a modern setting; I saw Godspell, and that was one of my major complaints as well. They're trying to make this story happen 2000 years ago and today, both at the same time. I don't think it works very well.

But now to the meat of the movie. The characters are all well done, though I prefer the characterizations in the first film to some of these. Jerome Pradon does a fine job as presenting Judas as a conflicted individual, though his vocal talents and energy don't come close to matching those of Carl Anderson in the first film. He's also not as easy to like as that first Judas. From the beginning, he seems beady-eyed, sinister, and sarcastic. Throughout the film, his face contorts to show his affection for Jesus despite his growing frustration, and when he turns Jesus in he is overwhelmed with guilt.

Judas is undeniably Superstar's hero in the Greek sense of the word, meaning the individual who undergoes the most radical change from beginning to end. But this production messes it up. Judas has just become so crippled by his own guilt, so remorseful, that he hangs himself. But shortly thereafter, as Jesus is preparing to carry his cross to Calvary, Judas, along with a herum of leather-clad floozies, takes the opportunity to stand over Jesus and gloat. He seems to be saying, "Ha-ha, Jesus, you're so stupid," and Jesus just remains hunched over under his cross, a grotesque ezpression of agony on his face. It's my least favorite scene in the film. Nobody seems to be rooting for Jesus here; the "angels" in leather bikinis are as sarcastic and cruel as Judas' demon girls. And if Judas is talking to Jesus right before the crucifixion, in some sort of vision or something, how is he talking about the current day? It just doesn't jive. And then, as soon as Jesus makes his journey to the hill, Judas sobers up and goes back to being remorseful. That whole scene just blew Judas' credibility out of the water, and it removed the one indication of resurrection that existed in the first film. I was, quite frankly, disgusted, but it set up an expectation that they were going ot give us one doozy of a finale, a real resurrection that would leave no doubt as to Jesus' triumph and perhaps bring poor old Judas some peace. But that didn't happen either. I waited in vain. The closest the movie came to anything like that was the blinding cross in bright lights that blazed behind Jesus at the moment of his death. That certainly spoke of the supernatural, but it wasn't enough to satisfy me.

Glenn Carter was much more satisfactory than Pradon. Although I am pretty sure Jesus was not that gorgeous -- it just didn't seem to be his style -- Carter did a very convincing job. He has a heavenly voice, and his heart-felt rendition of Gethsemane was for me the most moving portion of the movie. His Jesus is straight out of Luke, and then some. His most striking attribute is the concern and compassion he has for everyone he meets, from the dying multitude to Judas to Pilate. Carter displays a wide range of passionate emotions, and it was much easier for me to connect with him quickly than was the case with Ted Neeley in the first film. At times, he is perhaps a bit too human. He spends the last scenes of the movie with a permanent agonized expression on his face, submitting himself to the whims of those who try to hurt him. It does give him a quiet authority, however. He refuses to fight back because he knows this is what must happen. Somehow, though, he seems to lose his control with Superstar, and it seems that he now is starting to wish he could get out of this. He appears helpless and terrified. He is a victim, not a triumph. And I'm sure Weber and Rice would have had it no other way. But Christians will have to look especially hard to see the determined savior in the eyes of that frightened deer-in-the-headlights.

Rene Castle as Mary Magdalene is excellent as well. Her voice is incredible, and as with Jesus, she plays her part with much more emotion than her predecessor (Yvonne Elliman) did. Unfortunately, her beautiful characterization takes one of the major complaints with the show by Christians and runs with it. Many Christians have been offended by the implication that there may have been a romance between Jesus and Mary. I simply did not see that in the first film. I saw a woman who loved a man who was different from any other man she had ever known. Because of this, she did not know how she was supposed to love him. Jesus' love for her was simply the love he had for any disciple, and I never got the impression that he was romantically inclined toward her. This film came a lot closer to implying that. Every time Jesus is with Mary, he has this rapturous expression on his face, and it is ultimately a confrontation between Judas and Jesus after Judas sees Mary kiss the sleeping savior that makes Judas decide to betray his friend.

The high priests are definitely sinister, but Annas goes far beyond that. He is downright creepy with his bald head, high voice, and cold eyes. Pilate, meanwhile, who was quite honestly my favorite character in the first film when it came to performance, comes across as a vicious gestapo leader here. He does sympathize with Jesus, and there is one touching moment in the trial when Jesus reaches up to comfort him, but overall I found his bellowing more obnoxious than anything else. In the original producation, Barry Dennen made Pilate extremely likable, pitiable and compassionate. I found his scene with Jesus to be the most moving scene in the whole film. This guy doesn't even come close.

And then there's Herod. I think whoever plays him is going to wind up looking like a fruitcake. The first movie's Herod at least tried to sing, even though his voice was pretty bare of talent. This guy, a British fellow who sounded like he had a stuffy nose and seemed to come straight out of the twenties, spent most of his song chanting instead of singing. He was not nearly as amusing as the first, nor was he menacing. He was just...there.

All in all, I must say that I was disappointed with this film. However, magnificent performances of Jesus and Mary as well as a few others (Simon Zealotes and Peter in particular) make it worth watching. The music is as fantastic as it ever was, and as easy to twist around to imply something different. This play can be very reverent, but this was obviously not the intent of the creators. Watch it if you get a chance, but listen to the soundtrack first and work out the rest of the story as you see it on your own. Because Jesus was more of a Superstar than either Webber or Rice could ever imagine.

Just in Time for Easter

As Easter approaches, this movie is a great one to pick up to get you in the spirit of the season. This energetic retelling of the last week of Jesus' life is more powerful as a play, but as a video it holds its own. Sung in its entirety, J.C. Superstar features a cast of rock singers with bizarre costumes.

For the most part, this Andrew Lloyd Weber-Tim Rice production stays true to the story, though they put a very different spin on it. Instead of focusing on Jesus, they attempt to show us the Passion of Christ through the eyes of Judas. A tortured individual, he believes that it will be to the betterment of his people to turn Jesus in to the authorities. Filled with remorse after the deed, he wonders if Jesus could still love him after his betrayal. Then he hangs himself, later confronting Jesus in limbo, in our current time, asking if he thought it was all worth it.

The music makes this movie. Similar musical themes run throughout, giving different songs the same tune. All are memorable, from the tender I Don't Know How to Love Him to the hilarious Herod's Song to the hesitantly triumphant title number. As that's the only dialogue in this movie, you almost might do just as well to simply buy the soundtrack.

There are so many absurd costumes in this movie, and the dances which go along with some of the songs are downright disturbing. As for the props...the scene in the temple includes everything from postcards to firearms. Herod's palace includes a huge swimming pool, a honky-tonk piano, and a big basket of bagels which he throws at Jesus. And in Judas' delusions, he sees himself being chased by tanks and B2 bombers.

All anachronisms aside, this is an interesting modern treatment of a sacred story which millions across the globe consider to be true. The music makes it entertaining and accessible to all manners of people in our young generation. Everyone should see this production at least once. It is highly preferable to see it in the theater, but if your local theater can't accommodate then give the video a shot.