The Opera Garnier, Modernization of Opera Houses and the Operatic Phantom of the Opera
Today's article is inspired by last week's opera house quiz.
Answer to Last week's opera house quiz:
Le Palais Garnier in Paris.
L'Opera Garnier is a major tourist attraction in Paris. It has its own metro stop, square, and contains a Marc Chagall masterpiece as its ceiling (not to mention a rather famous chandelier which shall be discussed later).
Yet, with all its fame and the praise for its architect, Charles Garnier, the Garnier Opera House is no longer the main opera house of Paris, although it occassionally has opera productions which almost always sell out. The Opera Bastille is now the main Paris opera house, and the Palais Garnier the home of the Paris Ballet. My question to the people in charge who made that decision is: Why, if you have one of THE most famous, renowned and beautiful opera houses in the world, with an absolutely fabulous ceiling mural painted by Marc Chagall depicting scenes from opera, would you build a new, ugly opera house that no one wants to go to. What would happen if Sydney turned its opera house into a movie theater and performed operas in a new sky-scraper? Opera in Sydney and the world would never be the same. Yet, here is the Opera Bastille.
Opera is an experience. It is not only listening to or viewing a staged musical drama. One of the reasons that cities have invested in beautiful, palatial opera houses over the past centuries, is to create the 'experience' of going to the opera. Yet, in efforts to win the 'modern' contest many cities have forsaken their beautiful, experiential opera houses of old, and replaced them with new, 'modern' concrete jungles. If modern means to replace Marc Chagall (the epitome of 'old'?) with boring, ugly, futuristic architecture to house performances of an old art form, then I'll admit to being an 'oldie.' They can have their modern futuristic opera house, and they can dress Wotan in a space suit for all I care. I'll stay in Prague with their period performances of Don Giovanni in the theatre where Mozart premiered it. Now THAT is an experience.
The Musical Phantom of the Opera
This testament to the guilded 19th century was not only the toast of Paris, but the setting for Gaston Leroux's early 20th c. novel, 'le Fantome de l'opera' which was adapted into multiple big screen extravaganzas as well as Andrew Lloyd Webber's famous musical, 'The Phantom of the Opera.'
For music lovers who are less than inspired by Webber's unoriginal and partly plagerized musical score (listen to Puccini's 'La Fanciulla Del West' for the 'inspiration' of the Phantom's 'Music of the Night') the 1943 movie starring Nelson Eddy and Susanna Foster has some good musical scenes to offer. The best part of the 1943 film is the true-to-Leroux scene in which Christine is abducted by the phantom while singing the 'Jewel Song' from Gounod's, 'Faust,' a fitting symbolic moment as the mephistophelic phantom is taking Christine to the 'depths' of the opera house from which she must be rescued by the kind-hearted if dull-witted Raoul.
Another film version, which may be the best film adaptation of the story, certainly with the most character development, is a made for television mini-series from 1990 starring Burt Lancaster, Teri Polo, and Charles Dance, and is based on the play by Arthur Kopit. This rendition features many great musical moments, including several full arias that are clearly dubbed as the singer is quite good but has a much different voice than the young actress who acted the role. The abduction scene is very good, as is a scene where Christine reveals her Bel Canto training to a crowd including the washed-out Carlotta. Unlike the Webber version, a trained opera singer actually sings (if not acts) the role of Christine. This rendition offers a significant amount of the phantom’s history, partly derived from Leroux’s novel, and partly invented by the writers, which give a more complete understanding of his history and motivations.
Now, for those who are curious about the absolute worst rendition of this story, which is so bad that at breaks through the barriers of ‘bad phantom movies’ into the realm of ‘worst movie of all time ever produced in any language anywhere,’ there is the 1970’s ‘modernized’ version called ‘The Phantom of the Paradise.’ The Paradise is the modern disco where the ‘phantom’ wants to have his music heard. He gets his face stuck in a record pressing machine after getting screwed by the owner of the club (inspired by the 1943 movie where the phantom becomes disfigured by the evil impresario who throws acid in his face). The Paradise also happens to have a brothel in the back where the evil club-owner enslaves unsuspecting women, including Christine. Please, do yourself a favor, and never watch this movie. It has absolutely no redeeming qualities whatsoever.
1990 Made-for-TV version: The Phantom of the Opera [videorecording] / Saban/Scherick Productions and Hexatel
1943 Nelson Eddy & Susanna Foster Version: The Phantom of the Opera [videorecording] / Universal Pictures
Today's article is inspired by last week's opera house quiz.
Answer to Last week's opera house quiz:
Le Palais Garnier in Paris.
L'Opera Garnier is a major tourist attraction in Paris. It has its own metro stop, square, and contains a Marc Chagall masterpiece as its ceiling (not to mention a rather famous chandelier which shall be discussed later).
Yet, with all its fame and the praise for its architect, Charles Garnier, the Garnier Opera House is no longer the main opera house of Paris, although it occassionally has opera productions which almost always sell out. The Opera Bastille is now the main Paris opera house, and the Palais Garnier the home of the Paris Ballet. My question to the people in charge who made that decision is: Why, if you have one of THE most famous, renowned and beautiful opera houses in the world, with an absolutely fabulous ceiling mural painted by Marc Chagall depicting scenes from opera, would you build a new, ugly opera house that no one wants to go to. What would happen if Sydney turned its opera house into a movie theater and performed operas in a new sky-scraper? Opera in Sydney and the world would never be the same. Yet, here is the Opera Bastille.
Opera is an experience. It is not only listening to or viewing a staged musical drama. One of the reasons that cities have invested in beautiful, palatial opera houses over the past centuries, is to create the 'experience' of going to the opera. Yet, in efforts to win the 'modern' contest many cities have forsaken their beautiful, experiential opera houses of old, and replaced them with new, 'modern' concrete jungles. If modern means to replace Marc Chagall (the epitome of 'old'?) with boring, ugly, futuristic architecture to house performances of an old art form, then I'll admit to being an 'oldie.' They can have their modern futuristic opera house, and they can dress Wotan in a space suit for all I care. I'll stay in Prague with their period performances of Don Giovanni in the theatre where Mozart premiered it. Now THAT is an experience.
The Musical Phantom of the Opera
This testament to the guilded 19th century was not only the toast of Paris, but the setting for Gaston Leroux's early 20th c. novel, 'le Fantome de l'opera' which was adapted into multiple big screen extravaganzas as well as Andrew Lloyd Webber's famous musical, 'The Phantom of the Opera.'
For music lovers who are less than inspired by Webber's unoriginal and partly plagerized musical score (listen to Puccini's 'La Fanciulla Del West' for the 'inspiration' of the Phantom's 'Music of the Night') the 1943 movie starring Nelson Eddy and Susanna Foster has some good musical scenes to offer. The best part of the 1943 film is the true-to-Leroux scene in which Christine is abducted by the phantom while singing the 'Jewel Song' from Gounod's, 'Faust,' a fitting symbolic moment as the mephistophelic phantom is taking Christine to the 'depths' of the opera house from which she must be rescued by the kind-hearted if dull-witted Raoul.
Another film version, which may be the best film adaptation of the story, certainly with the most character development, is a made for television mini-series from 1990 starring Burt Lancaster, Teri Polo, and Charles Dance, and is based on the play by Arthur Kopit. This rendition features many great musical moments, including several full arias that are clearly dubbed as the singer is quite good but has a much different voice than the young actress who acted the role. The abduction scene is very good, as is a scene where Christine reveals her Bel Canto training to a crowd including the washed-out Carlotta. Unlike the Webber version, a trained opera singer actually sings (if not acts) the role of Christine. This rendition offers a significant amount of the phantom’s history, partly derived from Leroux’s novel, and partly invented by the writers, which give a more complete understanding of his history and motivations.
Now, for those who are curious about the absolute worst rendition of this story, which is so bad that at breaks through the barriers of ‘bad phantom movies’ into the realm of ‘worst movie of all time ever produced in any language anywhere,’ there is the 1970’s ‘modernized’ version called ‘The Phantom of the Paradise.’ The Paradise is the modern disco where the ‘phantom’ wants to have his music heard. He gets his face stuck in a record pressing machine after getting screwed by the owner of the club (inspired by the 1943 movie where the phantom becomes disfigured by the evil impresario who throws acid in his face). The Paradise also happens to have a brothel in the back where the evil club-owner enslaves unsuspecting women, including Christine. Please, do yourself a favor, and never watch this movie. It has absolutely no redeeming qualities whatsoever.
1990 Made-for-TV version: The Phantom of the Opera [videorecording] / Saban/Scherick Productions and Hexatel
1943 Nelson Eddy & Susanna Foster Version: The Phantom of the Opera [videorecording] / Universal Pictures
posted by Unknown at 10:56 AM
0 comments
