Oh dear god.
cleolinda just posted a link to a review of the new Phantom movie soundtrack that is, if one is extremely kind, savage.
It would seem that the early viewers have confirmed the most general worry of Phantom fanatics: visuals were priority #1 and the music was priority #2. The British have been the most vividly spectacular in their negative criticism of the film --after all, the production was their brain child originally and they have the right to claim its successes and denounce its failures-- and one writer from The Herald summed up the critical response by stating, "I approached this with an open mind. I really did. And it made me want to claw out my own eyeballs and use them to plug my ears." But could it really be that horrible? After all, how could one of the greatest compositions of modern times be so thoroughly ruined?
Indeed, the music for this film version of The Phantom of the Opera is an unimaginable disaster of staggering proportions.
If Webber truly thinks that the performances of this film version live up to the standards established by the original recording, then he has completely lost his mind.
[...]
Butler's performance exists on a whole other level of hideousness, though, and it is this unbelievable error that renders the film recording of The Phantom of the Opera as both horrendous and painful. Butler's lack of formal vocal training is blindingly obvious, with the man shouting his role rather than singing it. He cannot hold notes worth a damn, and the entire demeanor of his voice is wrong for the role. The Phantom was both mysterious and romantic. There was something overpowering and seductive about his voice, as captured perfectly by Michael Crawford. Butler does well with the anguish and anger, but that's it. Volumes could be written about the particulars of how this actor was terrible for the role, but at some point, you have to just denounce the poor guy as the wrong choice and move on.
I think I need to go home and listen to my London and Toronto cast recordings so I can stop whimpering.
It would seem that the early viewers have confirmed the most general worry of Phantom fanatics: visuals were priority #1 and the music was priority #2. The British have been the most vividly spectacular in their negative criticism of the film --after all, the production was their brain child originally and they have the right to claim its successes and denounce its failures-- and one writer from The Herald summed up the critical response by stating, "I approached this with an open mind. I really did. And it made me want to claw out my own eyeballs and use them to plug my ears." But could it really be that horrible? After all, how could one of the greatest compositions of modern times be so thoroughly ruined?
Indeed, the music for this film version of The Phantom of the Opera is an unimaginable disaster of staggering proportions.
If Webber truly thinks that the performances of this film version live up to the standards established by the original recording, then he has completely lost his mind.
[...]
Butler's performance exists on a whole other level of hideousness, though, and it is this unbelievable error that renders the film recording of The Phantom of the Opera as both horrendous and painful. Butler's lack of formal vocal training is blindingly obvious, with the man shouting his role rather than singing it. He cannot hold notes worth a damn, and the entire demeanor of his voice is wrong for the role. The Phantom was both mysterious and romantic. There was something overpowering and seductive about his voice, as captured perfectly by Michael Crawford. Butler does well with the anguish and anger, but that's it. Volumes could be written about the particulars of how this actor was terrible for the role, but at some point, you have to just denounce the poor guy as the wrong choice and move on.
I think I need to go home and listen to my London and Toronto cast recordings so I can stop whimpering.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-23 04:51 pm (UTC)