Phantom of the Opera

[Annie Wengenroth]

At first I wanted to see this out of pure morbid curiosity. (No pun intended?) Now I'm not sure because the Boston Globe review totally trashed it and it just seems that as far as hit-or-miss movies, it's a miss.

 

But I couldn't resist posting what The Onion had to say about it... :lol:

[Rob Belics]

The local paper doesn't like it and neither does rottentomatoes.

[Max Jacoby]

That's because it's not a great film. The look isn't too amazing either.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

More Emmy Rossum.

 

Less clothes.

 

Phil

[Kevin Zanit]

I thought it looked great.

[Guest fstop]

Anthony Pratt is one of our best designers.

 

John Mathieson's work never did much for me, though.

[Annie Wengenroth]

Hi,

 

More Emmy Rossum.

 

Less clothes.

 

Phil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

:lol:

[Phil Rhodes]

Sorry, Annie...

 

That was partially a crit on the shot wherein the dewy-eyed Ms. Rossum is stepping out of the Phantom's boat, and for some reason has her (under)skirt hitched up around her waist, treating us all to a view of her rose-bedecked garters and a couple of inches of thigh.

 

Attractive, but a bit obvious, particularly considering her youth.

 

Phil

[Lise Camp]

It did nothing for me...

 

I hate to say it, but this really isn't made for movies. You don't get a feel for it.

 

Lise :blink:

[Nate Downes]

I just got back from seeing it and actually I enjoyed it tremendously. I want to know what they shot it with, the movie is absolutely beautiful. Schumacher really is one of my favorite directors due to his visuals. It reminded me of classic cinema in many of the techniques used. Shoot, at one point I began playing the "spot the classic movie motif" and came up with shots, tricks, and motifs from 12 different B&W masterpieces. I am quite impressed with the camera eye, overall. I read the reviews, and frankly, I'd sooner see the movie and judge for myself, and I, for one, loved it. From the moment the chandelier began rising, with the opera hall returning to life, to the final scene with the candlelit rose on the grave, I was mesmerized by the spectacle.

[Tim Tyler]

I just got back from seeing it and actually I enjoyed it tremendously.

... absolutely beautiful. 

... reminded me of classic cinema

... quite impressed

... I, for one, loved it. 

... I was mesmerized

 

Are you sure you liked it? ;)

[Frank DiBugnara]

This last year I've let some of my cinematography subscriptions run out. Can anyone fill me on how they achieved the old B&W look? What stock? A DI? Old cameras/lenses?

 

What stock/lenses was the rest shot with?

 

Frank

[Nate Downes]

I don't know for sure on the lenses or stocks, but for cameras they used Panavisions. I highly suspect that they were shooting with older primes, however.

[Adam Frisch FSF]

Yes, E-series Panavision. The B&W sequences were achieved in DI with some added "noise".

 

I had high hopes for it after the great trailer, but was a little disappointed. There were some beautiful shots there, but the E-series aren't really that hot in my eyes. The have rather poor definition and some barreling going on. I just didn't feel the snap anywhere and I think the production could have benefited from the Primo's, probably. It's such a lush setting that you really need sharpness to define and separate everything. Maybe the DI was a little to blame.

 

It also suffered badly from technocrane-itis. Meaning the camera was constantly moving and you can feel that mistakes in focus, composition and light was done because there wasn't an eye in the eyepiece. The very few times the camera was static (like on the gold-painted guys holding chandelabras that's in the trailer), the image and the light looked great. Constantly moving the camera really compromises the lighting on such huge sets.

 

There was also a shot where the camera passed right in front of the key light and cast a huge shadow on the actors - did anybody else see that?

 

But I'm glad I saw it.

[Mike Panczenko]

I heard there was no DI for the present day images. Was there?

[Frank DiBugnara]

I did see that shadow...it was as part of a circular move.

 

Mathieson really pushed the "dark" envelope in some scenes.

 

I think Moulin Rouge was shot more like a music video during the songs (short shots, many camera moves) while some of the non-stage musical sequences in Phantom were shot more like dialogue with little difference except the actors were singing to eachother instead of talking. With the number of music videos we see, I think we are conditioned to think there is something wrong with a shot of a singer that is too long in duration. After a few seconds of a close-up in Phantom, I found myself getting restless, waiting for a quick cut instead of just enjoying the shot. (After a while I got over it.)

Edited January 24, 2005 by FrankDiBugnara

[David Mullen ASC]

The article on the movie made it quite clear that Matheison wasn't going to use a DI except for effects shots and the b&w sequences. He was pretty dismissive of DI's.

 

Anyway, I thought it was sharp enough for a romantic period piece -- how sharp does that have to be? Some of it was also diffused with filters (nets, Black ProMists). It seems he was fairly tame in regards to softening the picture -- it wasn't razor sharp but it wasn't heavily diffused either. Sort of like the amount of diffusion used in "Evita"...

 

From his interview in "New Cinematographers", you get the impression though that he prefers using softer lenses rather than diffusion because it looks more organic, the same reason why he likes the older anamorphic lenses.

 

It does seem diffusion is out of favor these days -- look at the negative comments that "Sideways" has gotten for the softness of the image.

 

For a while, it seems that the "descendants" of Unsworth were people like Andrew Dunn, Robert Richardson, Alex Thomson -- you look at "Madness of King George" or "The Crucible" and there's definitely a smoke & diffusion combo technique going on. Same with "The Doors", "JFK", "Eight Men Out", and "City of Hope". You also saw it in a lot of Hong Kong cinematography of the 1980's and 1990's (such as "The Bride with White Hair") -- they short of went nuts on the ProMist filter when it came out...

 

After the soft look of the 1930's, Gregg Toland's sharp work by the late 1930's seemed very daring and started a stylistic shift. In the fog-filtered days of the 1970's, you started to see the same thing with Storaro by the end of the decade, where clarity and contrast became the new style for many films. Also, the new high speed stocks of the early 1980's simply looked crappy with the diffusion filters of the 1970's.

[jordan kersten]

I liked the film visually. I really like John Mathieson's work in KPAX a lot better, but I enjoyed Phantom, kinda <_<

[Lise Camp]

That was partially a crit on the shot wherein the dewy-eyed Ms. Rossum is stepping out of the Phantom's boat, and for some reason has her (under)skirt hitched up around her waist, treating us all to a view of her rose-bedecked garters and a couple of inches of thigh.

 

Attractive, but a bit obvious, particularly considering her youth.

 

Phil

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

And did you notice that after she faints and is carried to a bed...she wakes up and there are no garters :o

 

And yes, I also noticed that shadow! However, I thought I was seeing things...considering it's such a dark film anyway...

 

Lise :blink:

[David Mullen ASC]

"Apocalypse Now" has the big shadow of the dolly, operator, and dolly grip during the move from the beach past Storaro, Coppola "don't look into the camera!".

[Max Jacoby]

I thought the movie looked very soft, especially since it was shot on anamorphic. Not so much the fault of the E-Series, but more a case of using diffusion too much. But then again I really like a crisp image.

[Ignacio Aguilar]

David Mullen wrote about John Mathieson:

 

From his interview in "New Cinematographers", you get the impression though that he prefers using softer lenses rather than diffusion because it looks more organic, the same reason why he likes the older anamorphic lenses.

 

I was dissapointed to see in "Kingdom of Heaven" trailer (the upcoming Ridley Scott & Mathieson film) that they went back to Super 35 for that film, the same format they used for "Gladiator". I think it's the kind of film that really needs the larger negative of the anamorphic format.

[Praetorian]

I am a huge Phantom of the Opera fan (*cough*the name*cough*). Books, theater, etc... But even with all of that aside:

 

I enjoyed the movie immensely. Butler did an awesome job with the singing considering he hasn't sang professionally before. He did struggle with a few notes, according to my music major friends. I am a drummer on the drumline, so I hang out in the music hall computer lab all of the time and we have extensive discussions on the subject.

 

The look. Unlike you guys, I am not that well trained yet. I thought they did a good job with the overall look. It was aesthetically pleasing, particularly the underground residence of Erik. Those candles that had the special wicks so that when they hit the air they lit were awesome. (The ones that rose from the water).

 

Emily Rossum. My music major friends rammed into her a lot, but you know, she was only 16 when they started. I thought she did a good job for a 16 year old.

 

I thought they did a great job with the movie, and I prefer it to the theater version. I loved all of the the little "shout-outs" to Weber thrown in--occasional Cats poses, etc...

 

I give it two thumbs way up and I can't wait for the DVD to come out.

[Jeremy]

The Phantom of the Opera is one of my favorite shows... but the movie was the definition of mediocre! Everything about it was bland, and time and time again I found myself insanely bored. And I don't think this is because we've been trained by MTV to expect quick cuts from people singing... if the director gives us something interesting to look at, it's going to hold our attention. In the musicals of yesteryear, they didn't cut every other frame, but that's because they had something for you to concentrate on... a unique dance, an interesting camera move.

 

The scene on the rooftop... I found myself looking around the audience in the theater. There was just nothing there... or the Phantom taking her down to his layer... very, very boring.

 

I guess I was just disappointed because it had so much potential. It could have been translated into a really great movie, but it wasn't. I was worried when I heard that Joel Shumacher was directing it, because he's known for being too over-the-top, but instead it was like he didn't even try... sigh...

[Christian Appelt]

David Mullen wrote:

"Apocalypse Now" has the big shadow of the dolly, operator, and dolly grip during the move from the beach past Storaro, Coppola "don't look into the camera!".

 

My favourite shadow is in AN AMERICAN IN PARIS during the final ballet sequence, sharp giant shadows of a Technicolor camera on a huge crane all over the painted backdrop! B)