Academy Awards

Well, the Oscars are over.

My favorite part every year is the obituaries...I like to cry over my old favorites who have passed on.

I was thrilled that the screenwriter for Little Miss Sunshine won!!! YES. Very good.

I didn't mind that Marty won for best director for The Departed. But I was appalled that the best picture of the year in America, with all the really really good movies out there was the most bloody, negative, and violent of all the movies. With no "message" or if there was, I missed it. The other sad, bloody, and violent movies in the run-down had messages about the inspirational and strong spirit of mankind. Oh well. (The Departed was well acted but the story itself was a downer.) I guess I am just sick of America picking violence as our most representative quality. Ahh.


I was disappointed that Leo didn't win best actor. He is a very talented man. What does he have to do to win!?! He is magnificent in the two movies he was in this year. I don't want to see him sitting there when he's as old as Peter O'Toole with umpteen nominations, still waiting for his award.

I certainly hope the voters at the Academy actually watched some of the movies they voted for instead of just calling each other on the phone and picking one their friends recommended for unknown reasons.

Congrats to all the foreign movies in most of the categories, and foreign film-makers that won. It's about time Hollywood gave them equal consideration in the biggest film industry award.
Glad to see the black people being included equally now. Once we include all minorities and ethnic groups in the running, we don't have to make a specific point to give it to someone just because of that...we can actually pick the best of each category regardless.

So long for tonight. Your movie critic, Sandy S

Infamous--Glorious Review of a Work of Art

How pathetic am I? Sitting home on a Saturday night watching a movie? Not only did I sit and watch the whole movie (and what a wonderful work of art it is) but I watched the whole movie again with the commentary voice over by Douglas McGrath.

What a fabulous tool for a writer--the commentary of a movie. Previously I have listened to the commentaries of directors on movies that I was wild about. But this is a special case. Douglas McGrath was the screenwriter as well as the director.
.
Now here I am sitting at the computer writing about it. Wow.

If you are a writer and enjoy stories about other writers and have a yen for "literary" quality to your movies, presented by talented directors, writers, actors, then you will certainly appreciate my glowing opinion of this movie. I am sure many of those involved in this production consider it the master-piece of their careers. And they should. (Until the next great movie they do, of course!)

I am STUNNED that it received NOT one nomination for an Academy Award!!!!

I think perhaps we have here the subtle resistance of Hollywood against talented actors from other countries. Toby Jones and Daniel Craig are both British actors. They were so good, I can't even think of any more superlatives to use. Just...just...gosh. Fabulous.

I suspect too, for some reason, there is, in Hollywood, a slight "rejection" of a highly dramatic, even artistic, movie using stars better known for light-hearted comedies. But Sandra Bullock and Jeff Daniels were also superb in supporting roles. As was all the supporting cast. I had not one complaint. Everyone seemed so real that I was right there in the movie with them.

I have never seen Bullock and Daniels so clearly into the expression of the roles with their voices, facial expressions, exuding emotions, just wonderful. Thank you, thank you. I will never take you for granted again.

When a movie goes together like this one does, with all the elements--cinematography, costuming, music, script, true story elements, plus all the little things like foreshadowing and uses of color to convey mood...you have a classic work of art that takes the sting out of seeing so many Hollywooded-up movies that are lacking or downright terrible.

This screenplay was based on the book about Truman Capote and his own book In Cold Blood, as well as the story of his whole life actually, by George Plimpton. It brought the man Capote really was, truly alive to a depth that is breath-taking. And nearly all the scenes in the movie were accurate as to the actual event...right down to Capote's merciless gossiping.

As I said, the subject matter of a writer, to a writer, is gold when you can find it. If you are a writer, don't just watch this DVD and listen to the commentary by the screenwriter/director, study it and take into you soul.

All, I can say about the movie is mmmm, mmmm, mmmm. Magnificent.

I saw the other movie about Capote a year ago or so, and unfortunately it was before I got my hearing aids so I couldn't hear a lot of it. I thought it was a good movie, and the starring actor deserved his award, but it definitely spoke of Capote in a very different interpretation. It didn't have the depth and meaning and raw emotion that Infamous has.

Rent it, or buy and watch it.

Much impressed movie "critique" blown-away by a REAL movie, Sandy your movie critic.
Hey is anyone reading this blog? Let me know. Please. Post your comments below.

The Good Shepherd, Notes on a Scandal -- Movie Reviews

The Good Shepherd

The Good Shepherd. Thumbs down.

I thought I could ignore my better judgment and go to a Matt Damon movie. Certainly there were enough others stars and a story about the CIA to distract me from him.

Unfortunately, I couldn't ignore him in this movie any more than I could ignore Tom Cruise in a Tom Cruise movie. The movie was very confusing...switching back and forth from one era to another--and since Matt Damon didn't change much between the decades except for wearing different glasses, it was hard to follow.

I failed to see why Angelina Jolie took a small part in this movie (heck, any movie!) And why the heck wouldn't a man fall in love with a wife like Angelina even if he wasn't particularly thrilled to get married? That makes no sense.

What I did see was Matt Damon's character getting more and more stoic and withdrawn from life and displaying little to no emotion until the end he was like a rock...nothing...no feelings.

I failed to see the point of the whole movie--oh sure the history of the CIA, but why focus on that one character then? And through in a bunch of other characters that didn't seem to have much to do with the story?

There were characters and small diversions in the movie that had nothing to do with the forward movement of the plot. For the screenplay writer that gave us movies like The Postman, Forest Gump, and The Horse Whisperer, I was surprised to see such a hacked-up story line. Then again it might have been the editor's fault, not the writer. Sorry.

Oh well. I suggest you skip this movie unless you know someone who worked on the movie and want to do them a favor by going. Or watch it when it comes on network TV when nothing better is on and they cut out the really creepy parts and you just want to fill up with popcorn and diet coke (or beer.)

And what the heck was the significance of the title? Were they trying to compare the "sacrifice" the "leader" of the CIA to the REAL Good Shepherd and his sacrifice?

I think somebody is going to hell.

Monday, February 5, 2007

Notes on a Scandal

Notes on Notes on a Scandal....I went to the movies last week prepared to be entertained...no, amazed...by the acting if nothing more. Judi Dench and Cate Blanchett are the cream of the crop in both British and American movieland.

And while I was not disappointed with the excellent performance by both actresses, I was a bit disappointed with the movie. I am not sure it was the script, it was perhaps the forward movement of the story...I felt as if it were more of a horror movie unfolding and the uncomfortable suspense was not pleasant...sort of like "In the Bedroom" was--you watch and watch and hope the events take a turn for the better and everything will come out fine...and ultimately it doesn't. It just ends, still all unsatisfactorily.

I never once "forgot" it was a movie, never got lost in it. I didn't lost in the movie except having a good a bit of anxiety over where the movie was going to go next. (American Beauty had this effect on me, but ended up to be rewarding and almost metaphysical in its resolution.)

This movie could well have been entitled "Abusers and Users" if not "Users and Losers." All the main characters were either abusive, manipulative, or downright domineering. And not one character was "improved" by the events in the stsory...like it's supposed to do in proper story-telling and screenwriting. If anything they continued their unsatisfactory behavior--not learning from it (though they appeared to be punished for it.)

The secondary characters seemed to be put in the story to bounce the two stars off of--i.e. to react emotionally to their behavior(s.) They did an exceptional job but were just not important to the story. What a waste. Bill Nighty's skill was to play an ordinary man which he did wonderfully. (You might not recognize him from having been Davey Jones in Johnny Dep's most recent pirate movie.)

It was a scandal and all the characters behaved scandalously, even though they were all lost in their own little worlds, interacting but not relating somehow.

I realize that "foreign" movies are different than American movies, mostly British movies don't explain things, they let the viewer try to figure out what is going on by themselves. I feel that most foreign movies/dramas seem to be from a "dark" side (except for the one that are downright silly humor, which this was NOT.) There is an undercurrent of disturbing suspense, as I already mentioned. I assume it was supposed to be a "literary" story where the events just unfold andleave it up to the viewer to determine the "message"--no message seemed to be written into the movie, actually.

Only really good thing about this movie was that the two star actresses did good a job, the day I went to see it was free popcorn day, and all the abusers and users seemed to get what was coming to them.

SPOILER:

I felt that Judi Dench's character was especially pathetic and sinister. She was just not an honest person. She used manipulation and trickery to try to obtain what she wanted. In our 21st Century western society, I believe we are able to get closer to what we desire in life, I would home, if we are honest about what we want with ourselves and with others. And are more open about it. Having to trick someone into a "relationship" with a deceitful method of false friendship and support, is particularly distasteful and immoral. Her "crimes" were no less immoral than the woman who was caught and had to do time.

And Cate's character and her student--well, they exploited each other if you ask me.

Enough said. See the movie for the acting. But be warned...it's not a great movie. Have some popcorn, it's always good.

LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE: DON"T MISS IT

I LOVED this movie. I saw it in the theater and then rushed out to buy it as soon as it came out on DVD.

It was great, well-written, funny funny funny. Everyone was wonderful. Some are proven talents. The script was fabulous.

I sincerely hope that this movie finally gets Greg Kinnear a lot more serious attention. He's a talented man mostly just playing funny, ordinary guys. In fact, I have never seen a movie of his that I didn't love. Go, Greg!!!!

My favorite line of Greg's, the give away to the theme of the movie, "Okay, everybody, pretend to be normal."

The movie has everything, makes fun of a lot of things (in a kind, fun way,) and uses everyday occurrences as basis for humor. Genius. Superb. More. More. Please.

The movie family is from Albuquerque and since I am from near there, I had a strange craving to jump up in the theater where I saw the movie in California last summer, and shout "Albuquerque ROCKS!" when the scene gets wild and exciting and wonderful near the end.

It's a "feel good movie", not sappy but it leaves you with a delightful attitude of joy and amusement. Pleased that you have really been entertained in a genuine, honest way.

Definitely SEE this movie. You won't be sorry. The characters are "characters" -- funny funny funny... this cast made even the most outrageously impossible, unbelievable characters come alive and REAL. Magnificent.

I want it to win the BEST PICTURE at the Annual 2007 Academy Awards. But they rarely give the award to the real best picture...except that time, for one amazing, unpredictable moment when they actually noticed that American Beauty was the best picture that year, possibly one of the best movies ever made.

Go, Little Miss Sunshine!!!! Thank you, thank you. If they will Best Picture, I will "win" best picture at the same time.

Sincerely, Sandy your movie "critic" -- in this case a movie rave.

The Departed Review SPOILER

Okay, I broke my "vow" to never go to a Matt Damon movie ever again...yet again. But I love Leo DiCaprio so much, I thought I would take a chance on this movie. And the fact that it is almost an all star-cast and nominated for best picture made me curious.

When will I learn? !!???!?

I should have taken a clue from the title... The Departed, hello!???!

Departed means dead. Duh-uh!!!!

And Jack Nicholson's character sums it up in the first part of the movie, the basic premise of the movie. He says something about people being either good guys or bad guys and then "When you're looking down the barrel of a gun, what's the difference?" (He said this to a little kid, too.) That was absolutely on the mark for the theme of this flick.

I would not go to see Titanic until someone told me which of the main characters lived and which died. I can take a shock if I know it a head of time. It is sort of like that axiom, "If it's a romance they live happily ever after. If it's a love story one or both of them die." I wish I had known who was the bad guy and who was good guy and who got croaked before I switched on my DVD player.

I was delighted to see Matt Damon playing a bad guy and wanted him to get justice not just "getting dead" (which was postponed until the last 30 seconds and then, no blood, no body falling to the ground. I wanted to see the girlfriend turn in the letter and get the SOB into trouble and see him squirm while she triumphed over him. But alas, no feminine triumphs in this movie. At least in this movie they weren't victims.)

What kind of agent does Damon have that gets him him all the breaks in his movie contracts? Geeze.

The good guys got just as dead as the bad guys. What kind of justice is that? Was the point that the cops and bad guys are the f' ing SAME? It seems so in this script.

I would not have watched this if I had known it was both anti-crime and anti-cop. In other words, they wuz all bad-guys and nobody wins in the end. Everybody loses. Especially the viewer, at least, this viewer.

Is this is what our country is coming to? Not just the criminals but the cops and the average citizens taking the law and justice into their own hands? I don't believe in that. That is not right. I don't think it's true, either. Not yet. I still believe there are some good guys left in our organizations and institutions.

I wanted the good guy, even tho he was doing some pretty bad stuff (not by principle but because he was undercover) to live happily ever after. Or at least survive after he was put into a no-win situation and badly and immorally taken advantage of by everyone for his newbie dedication and willingness to participate in the fight over evil. Maybe he was too "innocent" or something and they had to "punish" him for that? I don't know. Are we doing that to our children now to "make" them grow-up? God forbid. And I doubt that guys are going to be lining up to go to prison and beat the crap out of someone just so they can get a wonderful, dubious, job of undercover superhero.

If I had know that the shocking scene that upset and angered me most about the movie was in there, I wouldn't have touched this DVD with a ten-foot pole. It felt like I GOT SHOT in the heart and mostly the mind. A thinking person shouldn't expose themselves to this kind of genre.

I can't believe it's nominated for a couple Academy Awards. Or yeah maybe the acting was good. Leo was fabulous and not just because I love him. He has matured as an artist and a man and is an exceptional actor in all his movies now. (He was actually the main character in this movie, so why the hell did Matt Damon get the "good" scenes?)

I don't think the screenplay nor the directing is worthy of an Academy Award, but that is just my opinion. They might give the award for directing to Scorsese because they admire him as a director regardless of the movie. I wouldn't be against that...the way they gave a bunch of black people all the awards one year to prove a point in equalization. That's cool.

Leo yeah he deserved a nomination for this movie role, the way Russel Crowe deserved the nomination and award for Beautiful Mind, but couldn't get it because he had one the year before in Gladiator. Or was it because he made a fool of himself with the press one time? The American public is very hard on foreign actors.

But Leo was already nominated for another movie role, so I guess you can't "run" against yourself. What would happen if someone is nominated for ALL the slots for best actor since they are so good all their movie roles prove it? I don't know. I doubt many people in the Academy even give a rats arse what movie or actor wins if it's not themselves.

This movie was an average, typicl cops and crime syndicate Hollywooded-up movie with some pretty gross special effects.

It was not so much suspense but a guessing game...Guess what's coming up next, HUH? Not the same thing.

And if it weren't for cell phones, this movie couldn't have existed.

This was a supermacho-macho, low-brow, caveman type movie for people who just delight in seeing people get offed in inventive and gross ways. They all did, get offed, I mean. Most of the main characters. The Departed. No intellectual integrity in that. Not literature. Just an updated form of the Godfather. The "grosser" the better I guess.

Go ahead and watch it. Some of you will love it. I was disappointed, especially with the end. You don't have to be a pussy to like "happy" or at least rational endings with some justice.

I have had it with violent graphic movies. This was not a horror movie. Just a cop/bad guy movie with a lot of talent crammed into it. Too bad. I would like to have an apology, but since they got my money already, fat chance.

Signing off, Sandy -- your movie critic.

Black Dahlia -- Poor

Shortly before I watched the DVD of Hollywoodland, I watched the Black Dahlia with Josh Hartnett, Scarlett Johanssen, and Hilary Swank.
.
It, too, was based on a true story back in the old Hollywood days. However, many of the facts. situations, and characters were purely fiction.

It was a subject matter I was interested in and was anxious to see the movie as soon as the DVD came out, because I missed this one, too, on the big screen. I don't think the big screen would have helped at all, and I sure am glad I didn't buy the movie.
.
The scene changes back and forth from the past to the present were done really poorly as were the time switches in The Good Shepherd. It would have been disconcerting in this movie IF the movie weren't so terrible to start with. As it was, it didn't matter.
.
Sorry to those who made a valiant effort to bring us a good-old-time movie, but even tho I love old vintage type detective stories and true events...this one was awful. Dialog was bad, I suspect so was the script. Characters were confusing and underdone--too many of them without one real main character to focus on.
.
What a shame because it has a potentially good subject matter and really talented actors. They just didn't edit and cut it well, write it well, or something. don't know what could have fixed this movie except leaving it in the can and using it as a write off. Luckily, Scarlett and Hilary have enough good movies under their belts to keep this from hurting them.
.
Skip this one unless you are drunk and home alone some Sat. night when it's the only thing on TV. On second thought, if Simpson's reruns are on or anything else like a documentary on bird feathers -- go for that instead.
.
Stinker of a movie. I watched a documentary of the Black Dahlia murder a few days later and it was better presented and the facts way more interesting than his dramatization. All I can say is more research guys. Better writers. Don't try to rely on special effects to carry the movie. (The actual published photos of the victim were not a gross as the FX shots in the movie.) And the resolution/solution was sensationalized and unbelievable.

Better luck next time, Josh. Potentially a good move to go to the big screen in something besides a silly comedy, but not with this movie. Too bad. Try again if they give you the chance.
.
Sandy Schairer, writer & movie critic

Hollywoodland--Movie REVIEW on DVD now

Starring: Adrien Brody, Ben Affleck, Diane Lane, with Bob Hoskins, Robin Tunney, and Lois Smith, among a extremely talented supportive cast. The movie was excellent. So was the screenplay and the cinematography, editing, and even the music was superb. Everyone gave a fabulous, professional acting performance.

I wanted to see this movie on the big screen but didn't get there in time, so I rented the DVD.

Surprisingly enough, it was Adrien Brody that played the movie's main character despite the fact that Ben Affleck played George Reeves, the original television Superman back in the 1950's, whose life was the basis of the movie.

However, the "real" story was Brody's character's story. His private investigator and and George Reeves' life story (especially the time around his death) were intertwined and paralleled. It was well-done.

Brody private investigator was trying to make a name for himself and impress the press and the police department as a professional sleuth. He began to investigate the allegations that Reeves's death may not have been a suicide.

As I said, everyone was exceptional in their performances. They were equally good, which is mind-boggling. The story was easy to follow even though there were many flashbacks into the lives of the two men and the people in their worlds. The story switched back and forth from Brody to Affleck's characters, and included a dramatization of all the possible scenarios of Reeve's death as seen through the imagination of Brody's private eye. It was easy to follow and well edited.

The impact of the story was not what I expected. I was a fan of Superman when I was a child and loved George Reeves as a good-lookin' television actor. As the facts about his death were uncovered, snips of his real life were revealed. My picture of Mr. Reeves changed considerably and gave me a deeper more complete perspective into the man he was.

As it frequently happens, the movie as a slice of life, gave a broader picture of "the everyman" and his struggles for success, love, and self-worth. Without being preachy or sappy. We know that Reeves either committed suicide and/or died under suspicious circumstances and the movie explores all of these possibilities, and it is left up to the viewers to decide for themselves.

Watching the interviews with the various people involved with the production of the movie, I was reassured that the facts about Reeves were portrayed as accurately as possible as far as the facts were know. I appreciate that sort of honesty in movies. [Otherwise, I spend hours researching and reading about true-life characters which sometimes makes the movies about them somewhat tainted for me.]

Not much was known about George Reeves' private life, and I appreciate the lengths the movie went to bring together the snippets and portray the real man. Perhaps this movie will send him down in history as one of many suffering heroes of the Hollywood era. I certainly hope so.

I won't give any of the conclusions away, but will venture to say the movie made me cry when it was done--thinking about the lives of the two men and most importantly my own life. I sat through the credits, listening to the music, sobbing. If a movie can provoke people to this kind of self-investigation, it is well worth the esteem given it.

I think this movie was perhaps overlooked by many because they did not realize the bigger significance of the story. It was more than just a plot, some characters and some action.


However, it was also a poignant portrayal of the real man and his life long struggle in the world of Hollywood. And also the heart-felt struggle of the private eye who became so involved with the actor's life that it changed his own life dramatically.

If you are a fan or Superman, George Reeves, private eye mysteries, true stories, old vintage Hollywood stories, or really good movies, DON'T MISS THIS ONE.

Thanks for reading me, Sandy Schairer, writer, movie critic.
Author of 123 ABC, flash fiction anthology

P.S. The significance of the title Hollywoodland refers to the Hollywood sign on the side of the hill over Hollywood…back then it said Hollywoodland. The other reference might have been the fact that the golden days−the beginning of Hollywood−were perhaps reference to it being a foreign or alien land with it’s own fantasies and values.

ABC 123 and My Poetry

If you like humor and don't have a lot of free time to read--check out the newest craze--Flash Fiction. I have an anthology of short short stories still available in softcover. Contact me for more information!

Phantom of the Opera: Deconstruction

Phantom of the Opera Part I

Phantom of the Opera—May Contain Some Spoiler Information

The Phantom of the Opera, original Broadway show, is coming again to Popejoy Hall, UNM, Albuquerque, NM, in October 2006. It played here two or three years ago. From what I understood, the set took two weeks to put up, was carried in seven semi-trailers, and took two weeks to tear down and repack for the next city. It was magnificent, the lake and candles looked real. If I recall correctly there was an actual horse used on stage to carry Christine to the depths of the opera house/phantom’s lair. Unfortunately, I sat in the very back of the theater and the actors appeared to be about an inch tall. I didn’t follow the story well, because when Christine kissed the Phantom, I couldn’t figure out why. He was supposed to be horrible and evil, right?
.
Also, so far back in the theater, I couldn’t see the faces and I had no idea how disfigured the phantom might have looked. Oh, another thing, were the characters such fools that they couldn’t see the slender, shorter phantom take the place of the tall, heavy opera singer in Don Juan Triumphant? But basically, the musical thrilled me—the music, the set, the chandelier that came to life at the beginning and fell to the stage during the disaster scene. Oh, what can I say? It made me laugh and it made me cry especially Christine’s song in the cemetery to her late father—it was all so bittersweet. I LOVED it.

I have tickets for Oct. 28th this year. I am not sitting in the balcony again! I have orchestra seats, even if the orchestra is on tape. I have already ordered a long opera cape with a hood, black with red lining, and am shopping for the perfect dress to wear with it. I am even considering wearing a phantom mask since it is so close to Halloween. And carrying a rose with a black bow and the little rhinestone ring that looks like Christine's ring (that's featured in the movie if not the play.) Heck, if the music is loud enough, and I'm sitting close enough, I'm going to sing along, since I know all the words to the songs by now, thanks to the CD from the movie.

I understood the plot much better after I saw the movie. My brother said he and his wife went to see it at the movie theater in Dec. 2004, and it was great. They loved it. Said the music was great, the actors excellent, and the settings mind-boggling. I was still thrilled with the play and didn’t go see it on the big screen myself, telling him it couldn’t possibly be as good as the stage play!

Ha! Was I wrong! I didn't go see it on the big screen, I rented the DVD. I am now considering buying a big screen television so I can see it lifesized. (Heck, I wish it was on Virtual Reality machine.)

Now, I understand, the whole Phantom of the Opera phenomenon is as amazing as it was unexpected and unexplainable! First of all, Andrew Lloyd Webber and Joel Schumacher wanted a young cast. They wanted to show this as a love story, a triangle with people young enough to show the passion and romance that they had written into and directed into the screenplay.

The movie was a bit ambiguous as far as marketing. A lot of people didn’t like it, some even told me they got up and walked out of the movie theaters!

People wanted it to be more like the stage play/musical, perhaps. Or they expected a horror movie and it wasn’t. Some wanted opera music and thought it had too much rock music tempo. Those that wanted more pop or rock music were turned off by the Broadway tunes and some of the songs, which bordered on the operatic. (Webber himself said he considered it more of a rock opera.) A lot of people didn’t like the Phantom himself. After all, he was a bad guywith serious anger management problems that crossed the line into murderous; and the character was portrayed perhaps as a sympathetic tortured soul, which turned a lot of people off. (Gerard Butler, the movie phantom, said he thought it was tragically sad even thought they kept urging him to play it "sexy.")

The most amazing phenomenon that couldn’t be predicted was the huge, vast masses of women that fell in love with the actor Gerard Butler. If you don't know by now, he’s a Scottish actor, former drunken rock singer, and actor in many B- and violent action movies, who did the whole Phantom (he sang not only his songs but his lines as well) in a broad upper crust British accent, which is not his usual way of speaking being from Paisley. And, if truth be told, he's really not all that good looking or outstanding as an actor. (For instance I saw him in other movies and didn’t even notice him.) However, once we fans got a taste of him in Phantom, we were swept away with his--what ever it is --"IT"--that can't possibly be explained by using the word "attractiveness." (What a mundane word for such a colossal experience.)

But I am one of the women who fell madly in-love with the 36-year old actor. Actually, he was only 34 when the movie was filmed, the co-star playing Christine being only 16 at that time. She was half his age, and therefore the illusion of the Phantom being much older than Christine was maintained. I thought Gerry was older and told one of my friends I finally had a favorite movie star that wasn't young enough to be my son. And she informed me that was sure wrong. (I have two sons older than Gerry Butler.)

There was something in Gerry Butler’s performance that captured heart and soul of viewers. He threw his own heart and soul (as well as his whole magnificient physique) into his singing and performance and it showed. He doesn’t appear entirely comfortable in some scenes, but he radiated a certain who-knows-what that just amazed and overwhelmed the viewers, some more than others!

Many women also fell in love with the Phantom character, seeing him portrayed as a suffering villian/hero who had serious psychological problems that could be forgiven, so to speak, because of his miserable life of being abused and mistreated as a freak simply because of a congenital disfigurement. As a result he was a talented and spectacular person who didn't know it, and had terrible self-esteem and an extremely big chip on his shoulder.

Actually, Andrew Lloyd Webber was a genius with this screenplay, putting layer and layer of meaning and symbolism into the musical and the character(s.) He went well beyond the orignal story by Gaston Leroux, which is good read if you happen to run across a good translation of it. It was written in French.

I rented the DVD of the movie first, then went and bought the CD with original songs from the movie that I play nearly non-stop on my car CD player. (I like to sing when I'm commuting on the long drive from the mountains to town. I guess the other drivers think I'm yelling at them.)

I then bought the movie and watched it a number of times. In fact, the first time I saw the movie, I back-tracked the DVD and played the scene where the Phantom sings Music of the Night to Christine in a very sexy, passionate, beautiful way. (Why are there no words that indicate something much more fabulous than “beautiful.” It was overwhelming.) I watched it over and over about 25 times. I thought at the time that it was the absolute best "love scene" ever put on film. At the end of all that, needless to say, I was a hopeless pile of melted putty in the Phantom’s hands.

In a later post I will explain the depth of the character of the Phantom and why he touched so many hearts, and how that occurred. Not to mention explaining why it made Gerard Butler, while still not well-known, a very much loved and exciting international actor.

The Phantom of the Opera II

The Phantom of the Opera Part II—Warning: Spoiler

Please read the previous post first. Thanks.

Why millions of women fell in love with the Phantom…based on the movie with Gerard Butler and Emmy Rossum by Andrew Lloyd Webber.

Many people disliked the phantom character. Let’s face it, he was a sly, deceitful murderer. He was disfigured and as mean as a hornet with his tail stuck in a screen door. He was also a talented musician and composer. He lived for his music. Until, he fell in-love with Christine. She was half his age, and he came to her as (what she thought of) as The Angel of Music that her father promised to send her from Heaven, when she was a child. (And even if you hated the Phantom, you must admit the performance given by Gerard Butler was superb. Thank you, Gerry!)

Later in the story, the Phantom refers to himself as The Angel in Hell. He was not an angel from Hell—he felt he was in Hell, having suffered all his life for the congenital deformity of his face, which nowadays we could easily correct with modern medical science. In those days, people perhaps believed that God was punishing the mother or the child for something they had “done.” Disfigurements were seen as a negative indication of a defective soul or even being “owned by the devil.” Even today, we believe those who don’t “fit-in” deserve to be teased and/or scorned for things that are obviously not of their own doing. This would echo even racial bias and prejudices that have plagued mankind for most of its existence, hatred of people because of their appearance, i.e., skin color.

The Phantom was an object of fear and hatred just because of his looks. In fiction, stress of physical appearance is indicative of a superficial value system—those who care more for appearances are, if nothing more, missing out on a deeper meaning of life, at least until they get their “Aha!’s.”

The Phantom felt unloved and unwanted, had the passionate soul of a musician, and the innate intelligence and creativity to make him a great composer. In the movie, we are shown a segment of his childhood that attempted to explain a few things, but could easily have been left out of the movie, especially since it does not appear in the original novel by Gaston Leroux. I urge those who see the movie, to ignore this scene if possible, it is not in the screenplay/musical either. A good read about the Phantom's life is Phantom by Susan Kaye.

As I said, Christine thought he was the angel of music, so she took voice lessons from the Phantom, trusting him, though never seeing him, and loving him because she thought her Father sent him (prior to the opening of the movie.) She shares the Phantom’s love of music, which bonds them together. They both have sensitive, artistic souls. (And raging hormones, at least in the movie.)

At the beginning of the movie Christine is a capable singer without an opportunity to show off her talents, actually being in the chorus line as a background dancer, or bit player. The Phantom, because of selfish reasons, plots to have her take center stage as a star. One of the lyricsis Christine singing, “I am the mask you wear,” and the Phantom singing in reply, “It’s ME they hear.” He wants his talents displayed in Christine.

At some point, the Phantom falls madly in-love with his “creation.” Here we have the Pygmalion theme…the artist Pygmalion falls in love with the statue he created in the ancient Greek myth. (This is also the theme of My Fair Lady the musical, too.)

However, as a recluse who hates people as much as they hate him, the phantom suffers from a selfish, possessive, jealous, domineering type of love. In fact, he hasn’t got a clue how to love someone, having never been loved himself. He attempts to control Christine. When the Viscount Raoul, the patron of the opera house, makes his appearance in the story as the good-looking, young, blond tenor, the phantom sings, “He was bound to love you, when he heard you sing,” he realizes that in making Christine’s singing so beautiful, he has basically given her to the Viscount to love. This is just one of the ironies that the Phantom realizes too late for his own salvation.

It is interesting to note that when the Phantom is wearing his mask, he is suave, handsome, elegant, powerful, talented and appears to be have poise and self-esteem. He seems to get a kick out of scaring people, which boosts his own arrogance. (He actually kills a couple of people in cold-blood, unemotionally, in the story, so watch out!) However, when his mask is removed, he reverts back to an almost childish stage of life, a pathetic victim displaying abject misery or overwhelming rage—both extremes of emotion. This would echo the Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde symbolism, which has also been done in numerous plays and movies since Robert Lewis Stevenson wrote it. That book was undoubtedly based on a more ancient theme itself.

When the Phantom realizes he's lost Christine to Raoul, he declares “war” on both of them. But his helpless longing and distorted love for Christine will not be eradicated by intention. It basically becomes his downfall. Not because he continues with the "war" but recause his love cannot be escaped…well, let me explain further.

When he forces Christine and the rest of the opera house patrons/staff to put on his opera Don Juan Triumphant, he’s still under the illusion that he's in control of the situation—even though he knows deep inside that he's lost it and/or never really had control over anything. He has the power that he can “create” with fear--and we all know that people (especially in dramas) overcome fear as unfounded and illusory. We all know the tale of the softhearted monster being nothing more than a fake, for example in the Wizard of Oz.

In Don Juan, the Phantom hears Christine singing words of love that he places in her mouth as song lyrics only...so he knows they’re insincere. At this point, Christine has lost all respect for him, knows he's a serious deceiver, murderer, and controlling, over-bearing monster of a person. She's afraid to get close enough to him to allow the authorities to capture him, but does it anyway because she's a pawn in in the opera's and authorities' hands, as well as in the Phantom’s hands. All she wants to do, as many a maiden has desired for eons, is to get out of the spotlight and get married and live happily ever after. This is the theme of nearly every fairy tale ever written.

So, in the middle of this “play within a play” the Phantom’s real desire comes out at the end of his duet with Christine--he sings to her the love song that Raoul sang to her earlier in the story—only his words transmit his true desperation. Instead of singing the words Raoul sang to her about wanting to love her, protect and save her from her solitude…the Phantom sings of his own wild desire for her to love him, be with him, and save him from his solitude. Cleaver reversal by the lyricist!!!

On the verge of being powerfully attracted to him again (which we know is real since the Raoul has tears in his eyes while he watches them,) Christine snatches off the Phantom's mask and reveals his true appearance to the entire opera house. The Phantom was lost in his own fantasy--the delusion that there is a future possible for him and Christine together. He blames her for betraying him, hurt & cut to the quick.

Continued in Phantom of the Opera III. Next blog

posted by Sandy Schairer @ 12:35 PM 0 comments

The Phantom of the Opera III

The actor Gerard Butler as he did NOT appear in the movie. He can squeeze my neck anytime!


Continued: Please read Part I and Part II first. Thanks.
~~
Of course, as in all good melodramas, the phantom runs off with the girl, but she's rescued by her true love.

Only there’s a twist in this particular ending. The phantom, after kidnapping her, gives Christine the choice of letting her “lover” live (there was only implied sexual attraction in this movie, no actual sex. As Jack Sparrow said in Dead Man’s Chest, “There will be no “knowing” here.) If she stays with the Phantom, he will not kill her true love Raoul. (If she leaves with Raoul, the Phantom will kill Raoul anyway and maybe her, too. DUH.) I will have to give the heroine credit for having a great deal of intelligence in reasoning this out. In so many movies the characters make the mistake of following their hearts when they know it will lead to their own destruction. People aren’t really that stupid. (Are they?)

Christine, loving Raoul, wants to save him. At the same time, she’s loved the Phantom for years since she was a young orphan. This love isn’t easily tossed away. Her compassion, too, comes into play. She chooses to stay with the Phantom, not only as “a sacrifice” to save Raoul, but she realizes that the Phantom didn’t really intend to be “evil.” He's behaved abominably because he's in dire need of love and approval.

She sings to him, “Pitiful creature of darkness, what kind of life have you known? God give me courage to show you, you are not alone.” This indicates that Christine’s love is a spiritual love. I believe, against her own better judgment, she had to admit she really did love him even if it is only as one human being loves another with human compassion.

She approaches the fearsome Phantom with his disfigured face just as he becomes exhausted with his own rage and confused desperation. And she kisses him! And he lets her. And he kisses her back.

(The lucky girl has an on-screen kiss with Gerard Butler.)

This kiss is what I didn’t understand in the stage play. In the movie the purpose is obvious. She chooses to show this “evil” man with a “suffering inner child,” compassion and unconditional love.

This is the Phantom’s undoing. You can read it on his face. You can see the battle that’s going on inside of him. The veil is lifted from his dark, twisted understanding…he feels unconditional love coming from Christine—something he has never felt in his entire life not even from himself or from God (whom he’s rejected, not vice versa, I am sure.) And he suddenly realizes that he could have had Christine’s love if he had not been controlling, domineering and murderous. His attitude of jealousy and possessiveness has driven her away! He realizes, too late, he’s ruined his own chances with his own behavior.

Not only that, but his heart is opened at that moment and he feels "real" love—unselfish, true, caring, deep inner love that Christine has shown to him. He can no longer keep her captive at the mercy of his possessive love. He truly loves her unselfishly when he allows her to leave and frees her to go with the man that's best for her, Raoul.

Of course, the Phantom (who never was given name in the movie to make him less than human?) is still caught in habitual self-hatred. With a sudden awareness that he's to blame for all his own misery in life, that it's not his deformity that caused it entirely, and the fact that with his talents and intelligence, he could have overcome his appearance by merely making different choices in life, he smashes the mirrors in horror. (Too bad there weren't 12-step programs back in those days to help set oneself aright, huh? Thank God there is now.)

Can you imagine the towering regret he must have felt when he realized that Christine’s love had been within his reach, and, with his own selfish, hateful ways he prevented himself from having that? It’s heartbreaking. (Reminder to myself: take Kleenexes to the theater on Oct. 28.)

So you see, the millions of women that fell in-love with the Phantom, perhaps were and are the women who have fallen for the “bad boy” in their lives—you know “the suffering child-man" who is his own worst enemy. They're the neediest, most pathetic of men that could be heros if only they would realize it, damn it! We women who have fallen in love with the wrong man, perhaps married him (and reproduced male children with him, for godsake; forgive me, world) and suffered for it, do understand the love for this Phantom character.

We have, like the Phantom, regretted causing our own suffering in life with our own delusions, i.e., thinking that the love of “a good woman” can change a defective man into what he ought to be and what he could be. (Forgetting that what he is and what he chose to be are out of our control and out of his own control, too.)

Most of us realize these things in life too late to fix the past, hopefully not preventing us from going on and having a better future, if we live long enough to become wise. (I know I have and I’m married to a wonderful, regular, ordinary, nice guy, now.)

The ring in the movie symbolizes this revolutionary story resolution perfectly. Raoul gave the ring to Christine as a symbol of their commitment. She's reluctant to wear it on her finger for everyone to see, because she’s afraid to let anyone know, especially the Phantom. Basically no one wants that happiness for her—marriage and family, except Raoul--and she wants to protect her dream. The Phantom wants to own her--body and soul--and the opera house wants to own her career and so keep her single and singing.

The Phantom appears at the masquerade ball where everyone else is attempting to hide behind masks just as he has done his whole life. There he snatches the ring from her. Only he can’t take away the love she has for Raoul—the ring is only a symbol of it. A hollow victory for him.

Later, he gives Christine the very same ring, and insists she wear it as a token of his ownership and love. She puts it on when she acquiesces to his demand she stay with him in the underground lair.

When he releases her, she returns it to him. The Phantom gave it as a show of power over her and as a blow against Raoul’s love for her, but when she gave it back she returns his love. This can be taken two ways—she hands his love back to him (refusing it) or she gives it as a symbol of her continuing love for him.

At the same time, when she gives the ring back, she’s accepting the Phantom's "gift." This is the ultimate gift her can give besides desiring, admiring and loving her--that is: loving her enough to let her go and be happy with Raoul.

At the very end of the movie, the ring turns up on Christine’s grave years and years later. On the same day that the Viscount puts the Phantom's monkey-music-box on her grave (symbolic of his surrender to Christine's love for the Phantom,) the Phantom puts the ring on the grave with his rose. (Red roses symbolize never-ending love.) With this, he shows his surrender to Christine's love for Raoul. Therefore, it's "a gentlemen’s agreement," after the fact, that they both loved her and admitted that she did, indeed, love both of them. (Again Susan Kaye's novel Phantom develops this concept a good deal more.

I have probably put this crudely, but the screenplay was magnificent with symbolism. It has given me much to marvel at over the past year or more.

When a group of individuals band their creative talents and powers into a collaboration and work of art such as this, the work becomes an entity of its own. It has a sum total much, much greater than the individual parts and even the group effort or final product. I believe this story is a genuine modern myth that will become part of our culture for years and years to come.

I would like to see it shown in movie theaters on a regular basis someday, just as The Rocky Horror Picture Show has become a cult movie showing, appearing in theaters for audience participation on Halloween all over the country. The fans of Phantom would LOVE to come to the movies at midnight, dressed as their favorite character and have a chance to sing and celebrate this exceptional phenomenon known as The Phantom of the Opera.

Thank you, all, for reading me. Best Wishes.

posted by Sandy Schairer @ 2:55 PM 0 comments

More About The Phantom of the Opera

Part IV


An important part of the media, is realizing the power it has over people's minds. Psychologically and even physiologically.

It's a known fact that music with a certain tempo (60 beats per minute) can put a person's mind into a mild state of altered consciousness. It seems to reach the mind at an unconscious or subliminal level, opening up the subconscious (perhaps) for easier absorption of stimuli and information.

If you know this, you can use this type of music to open your creative talents and write more easily from a subconscious level, if you happen to be a composer or an artist for instance.

But I noticed that certain songs from The Phantom of the Opera were subtly programming the minds of some viewers. Whether it was the beat of the music or the over-all emotionality of the movie scene, or a clever arrangement of words, this may explain why so many people were effected by the movie and the music.

Consider the lines in The Phantom of the Opera theme that the Phantom and Christine sing together (number 5 on the official CD.)

The Phantom of the Opera is now inside your/my mind.

So, getting hooked on the movie and the music and even the actor might have been a result of subliminal hypnotism.

They are certainly in my mind!! How about you?

Use the hyperlink on the sidebar to see Gerard Butler's Fan Website.

And use the convenient Amazon icon on my site to find the Phantom of the Opera movies, books, CDs, DVD's etc.

For information about the movie, click on:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0293508/