I have limited Phantom experience. Up until now, I've only seen the musical (I may have fallen asleep) and watched a pretty okay 80's retelling of it called Phantom of the Mall. But I gather one needn't be familiar with the mythology to enjoy Dario Argento's take on the tale. When it starts off with an abandoned baby in a basket floating down an underground river (baby Moses style), which then gets rescued and raised by telepathic rats (!), you have to figure you've already strayed a bit from the canonical telling of the tale.
But yeah, this movie is pretty damned great. I know director Dario Argento starts to get some flak around this time, so I was a little hesitant at first, but I loved this movie. It's stylish, surreal, and kind of goofy. It's unquestionably it's own beast, and I can't think of any other movie to compare it to. The Phantom of the Opera is just awesomely odd.
The Phantom here was, as I've said, raised by telepathic rats, and seems to have limited telepathic powers with some people as well. But other than that, the Phantom (well-played with just the right amount of scenery chewing by Julian Sands) is pretty much just a lonely, kind of evil, very well spoken guy who knows all about the secret passageways in the old Opera house. There isn't anything overtly supernatural about him.
The Phantom is smitten with up-and-coming opera singer/understudy Christine (Asia Argento). She seems to be partially smitten with him as well - she doesn't fear him like most people, but goes through moments of intense hatred of him as well. It's a little unclear - she says he appeals to her darker side, but it almost seems like she's under a spell or something. It isn't really well-explained... But they start a relationship, as she is half-kidnapped/half-follows him to his lair in the caves below the Opera house. After their courtship, the Phantom causes all sorts of havoc (including a delightfully gory take on the old chandelier drop), all in the name of helping Christine's career.
Some other secondary characters stop by to add some color/outlandish outfits/victims for the Phantom. Most notable are Christine's (slightly) less-creepy love interest Baron Raoul de Chagny (Andrea Di Stefano) and the egocentric star of the Opera Carlotta Altieri (Nadia Rinaldi), who really seems to be having fun playing an over the top diva.
Overall, the story sticks to the general structure of the tale as I know it - and I'll presume you do to.
But what sets Argento's version apart is the visual quirks. The cinematography of the Opera house shots are excellent - it certainly doesn't hurt that the Opera house where it was filmed (the Hungarian State Opera House in Budapest) is just gorgeous in and of itself. But I loved the way the the camera moved around it - both when empty (cavernous and foreboding) and when it's full of people, where it takes on a playful feeling- almost like a surreal open-market or carnival. The film has got style to burn too. The 1880's setting really allowed the designers to play around with all kinds of intense outfits and accessories - I'm not much of a fashion guy, but I got a kick out of seeing all of the old attire and whatnot. I seriously doubt that it's historically accurate, but if you care about that you probably checked out at the telepathic rats.
The Phantom of the Opera just won me over with it's weirdness. There's this rat-catcher that drives a pseudo-steampunk rat-catching vacuum-mobile. Telepathic rats with glowing red eyes. An over the top orgy in a public bath. And there's this:
That would be a giant flaming rat-trap filled with people, manifesting from the sky. It's from a dream/vision, but it exemplifies the weird places this movie goes.
Other little bits - the gore is really solid. The Phantom is big biter in this one, so you get some pretty nasty attacks there. Also, to use a wrestling term, I popped huge for the chandelier scene. A lot of the violence is big and over-the-top, but it's very well done. The performances were pretty good - a lot of the time the actors are hamming it up intentionally. The tone of this Phantom is definitely more playful (in that bizarre, gory way only a horror movie can), and I think the acting is pretty well in line with that.
The only negatives? There is a lot of dubbed-over opera singing. I obviously don't expect that they would only hire trained opera singers, but apparently it's a really hard thing to fake. It's a little too obvious for my taste, and they do it a lot. Also, things lose steam in the last 20-30 minutes. The pace is good up until that point, and I think Argento and co. knew the endgame, but the route they take getting there tests its credibility - even irrational horror flicks need it, you know? For instance, everyone wants to save Christine from the Phantom. Then the filthy drunken ratcatcher says one bad thing about her, and all of a sudden everyone wants to kill her too? I think there would have been a better way to get to where they wanted to go - it just doesn't jibe with the rest of the story.
But despite a kind of sour taste with the ending, it's still a really good watch. I could see a lot of people thinking The Phantom of the Opera is just too gaudy, both in style and in substance. But I for one really liked the amped-up kitchen sink approach. I wouldn't recommend it to everyone, and it's definitely more "fun" and less "art." (Although there is still some artistry on display.) For those who are into this brand of weirdness though, it's pretty great.
I would highly recommend this film.
No comments:
Post a Comment