The Phantom of the Opera
Oct. 31st, 2005 12:41 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
timepiececlockWatched the movie for the first time tonight. It's my first exposure to the story, though I had a friend in high school who "OMGLOVEDIT." Anyway, I was not particularly happy.
There was the fact that one of my earlier reactions was "I think I'd enjoy this a lot more if it were a book than a movie" only to decide at the end that I was so put off by what I'd just watched that I couldn't see how changing mediums could possibly fix massive inherent flaws.
There was also the way that it was lushly designed and beautifully sung, yet inspired no emotion in me whatsoever. Which, as I was telling my mom, is damn shame, because big spooky gothic romances with supernatural undertones and a love triangle with a white hat and a black hat and the girl torn between happiness or dark evil lust? I could totally dig that. I mean, I'm a Spike/Buffy shipper. This is EXACTLY the kind of stuff I could totally dig --- if only it were written with an entirely different plot carried out by entirely different characters.
That wasn't the thing that killed the movie for me, though. About two thirds of the way through the film, I turned to my mom and said "I hate her character. She's the mostly passive female character I think I've ever seen in a movie."
Yes. I hated Christine's characterization. All she does is sing about how much she wants to sing, sing about how much she misses her daddy, sing about how she can't decide between two guys, sing about how much she wants to sing some more, and then finally sings some more.
Meanwhile, she does nothing. The people around her sing and have swordfights, sing and operate a theater house, sing and pass secret messages, sing and get killed, sing and run around to get attention, or sing and kill people.
Christine does...nothing.
It's not just the time period and her status as a woman being something to protect. Despite the oppression women have suffered historically, and especially the oppression going on in the Victorian era, within their spheres of influence women can still do a fucking lot. They may not be able to stab you with a sword in a duel, but they can have your tea poisoned or grossly & publically humiliate you. Just watch HBO's Rome, if you'd like an example. The women back then had little legal power, but you couldn't possibly call them passive.
Christine is completely passive as a main character. I can't call her a heroine because she isn't at all heroic. I can't even call her a protagonist because that implies some kind of pro-active behavior. Everything that happens to Christine in the film, every basic plot point, is put on her or driven by the men around her. She barely even reacts to them except to fall from one's arms into the other's, while singing. This carries all the way through to the end of the film, by which time I wanted to scream.
I see this as a fundamental problem with the plot that wouldn't be solved whether I saw it live or read the book. So I'll be doing neither.
There was the fact that one of my earlier reactions was "I think I'd enjoy this a lot more if it were a book than a movie" only to decide at the end that I was so put off by what I'd just watched that I couldn't see how changing mediums could possibly fix massive inherent flaws.
There was also the way that it was lushly designed and beautifully sung, yet inspired no emotion in me whatsoever. Which, as I was telling my mom, is damn shame, because big spooky gothic romances with supernatural undertones and a love triangle with a white hat and a black hat and the girl torn between happiness or dark evil lust? I could totally dig that. I mean, I'm a Spike/Buffy shipper. This is EXACTLY the kind of stuff I could totally dig --- if only it were written with an entirely different plot carried out by entirely different characters.
That wasn't the thing that killed the movie for me, though. About two thirds of the way through the film, I turned to my mom and said "I hate her character. She's the mostly passive female character I think I've ever seen in a movie."
Yes. I hated Christine's characterization. All she does is sing about how much she wants to sing, sing about how much she misses her daddy, sing about how she can't decide between two guys, sing about how much she wants to sing some more, and then finally sings some more.
Meanwhile, she does nothing. The people around her sing and have swordfights, sing and operate a theater house, sing and pass secret messages, sing and get killed, sing and run around to get attention, or sing and kill people.
Christine does...nothing.
It's not just the time period and her status as a woman being something to protect. Despite the oppression women have suffered historically, and especially the oppression going on in the Victorian era, within their spheres of influence women can still do a fucking lot. They may not be able to stab you with a sword in a duel, but they can have your tea poisoned or grossly & publically humiliate you. Just watch HBO's Rome, if you'd like an example. The women back then had little legal power, but you couldn't possibly call them passive.
Christine is completely passive as a main character. I can't call her a heroine because she isn't at all heroic. I can't even call her a protagonist because that implies some kind of pro-active behavior. Everything that happens to Christine in the film, every basic plot point, is put on her or driven by the men around her. She barely even reacts to them except to fall from one's arms into the other's, while singing. This carries all the way through to the end of the film, by which time I wanted to scream.
I see this as a fundamental problem with the plot that wouldn't be solved whether I saw it live or read the book. So I'll be doing neither.
