More Thoughts on the Film Phantom of the Opera

In response to "Why Didn't Moviegoers Surrender to Phantom of the Opera?" by Christopher Stone. Read it here…

Everything was in place for the 2004 film of "The Phantom of the Opera" to be a hit. Movie musicals were profitable prospects again-was it that long ago that "Chicago" had won best picture at the Oscars, and "Moulin Rouge" had inflamed new passion in every young lover's heart? And the material was certainly rife with possibilities; "Phantom" had run on Broadway, in the West End and everywhere else since more or less the dawn of time, or at least the 1980s, a remarkable achievement in a medium where shows close like clockwork. But the most expensive independent film ever produced, alas, did not bring down the house as far as box office was concerned.

Christopher Stone begins his analysis with a laundry list of statistics which need not be repeated here; it's no secret that "Phantom" was and is popular on stage. He takes aim next at critics. Reviews were unkind, this is true, though it seems a bit ad hominem to surmise that they are "jealous" of Andrew Lloyd Webber's success. 32% on Rotten Tomatoes is a hard thing to shake off, yet of course many films have done it. And, to be fair, yes, as noted, many of those reviewers didn't like the admittedly schmaltzy spectacle of Andrew Lloyd Webber's show in the first place.

Don't worry about Lloyd Webber's ego here; he's gotten his share of drubbings in the theatre and it's all turned out all right. Indeed, can we blame the critics here? If they failed to kill the musical, the movie should have been no challenge; after all, movie tickets are far cheaper, and movies with far worse critical reception than "Phantom" have gone on to make millions and permanently shatter the intelligent filmgoer's faith in God.

Stone goes on to challenge Warner Bros. for not getting behind the film here, but let's be fair. WB did, after all, purchase the film, and they wanted a profit as much as anyone. An exceptional trailer was released and, when all was said and done, a lavish 2-disc DVD set (curiously missing said trailer, but whatever) was produced. Looking back, Warner Bros.' mistake may have been in the staggered release. Rather than opening small in select cities in December to widen out in January, "Phantom" should have made a full-scale assault as Christmas counterprogramming to cheerful family fare. With "Lord of the Rings" gone, December was wanting for a dark and lavish fantasy with built-in support behind it.

He is right about a lack of star power, however, questioning where a big name like Nicole Kidman or Catherine Zeta-Jones was in all this. "Phantom" had no big stars, and this was by artistic choice, which certainly hurt the film; indeed, this reviewer was pleased not to see certain rumored big names contaminating the film. Ironically, both Gerard Butler and Emmy Rossum's names are used to sell their new releases.

It is unfortunate that Rossum in particular did not get all the glory she might have in a more financially successful film; her magical performance really is something to treasure, and it may be that as her star rises "Phantom" will be looked on more kindly. We might wonder what would have happened if the ever-charming Anne Hathaway had been cast as Christine, as very nearly happened. It probably would have made little difference if a major star landed the title role, though; we would hardly see his face.

Still, "Phantom" came away with recoupable losses after its run, an Academy Award nomination for Mathieson's cinematography and the knowledge that it made a devoted fan base ever so happy. Perhaps, just as the Phantom might console himself, we should be happy the show even went on in the first place, even if it didn't end quite as planned.