> We finally got to see the movie version of "Phantom" yesterday. I've heard that it isn't opera unless the bad guys sing, so this must be opera. I thought the Phantom was a little too young and good looking (side view)but he did a great job. It was well staged and well cast, and I suppose it goes without saying that it was well written and directed.
>
> I saw the non musical version in the 1940's. It was in black and white and was more of a scary movie than an opera. One thing that bothered me was that the musical never really explained the Phanton's disfigurement. It the old version, somebody threw acid in his face. Or did I miss something?
>
> The new version has a better depiction of the falling chandelier. In the old one he sawed though a chain link and it fell straight down. I think he timed the sawing with music on stage so that no one heard it. The new one was a lot more spectacular.
>
> How can people spend so much time out in the snow, at night, on a Paris rooftop, in short sleeves, and not get goose bumps?
> Howard


I agreed about the Phantom not looking right. Also, I didn't think the mask covered enough of his face. The half-mask works on stage, where the audience is far away, but when you can see a closeup it's just not alienating enough.

And I wondered about the goosebumps too. I got chilly just watching them, especially Christine with her fashionable decolletage. All in all, though, the movie was a lot better than I expected.