So I decided to throw off the thongs and the beer stubbies and get myself an dose of culture by seeing the Phantom of the Opera at the Lyric Theatre on Saturday. Considering it cost me $90.00 to see it, I had fairly high expectations of an enjoyable experience. And yes, my requirements were fulfilled. I'm not a total uncultured buffoon as I've seen musicals before at London's West End when I was travelling, so it has to be reasonably good for me to appreciate it.
Not everyone can afford this kind of experience and I'd like to compare and contrast this with the Phantom of the Opera movie (which you can buy for far far less, or rent for almost nothing).
Whats great about both:
- The music: The Phantom has some AMAZING songs. Things like Angel of Music, and Music of the Night and of course who doesn't know the amazing starting of the title song. I don't think I can remember the words, but the music flows still through my head.
- The story: It is a moving, tragic story which you really only appreciate in Act 2. In Act 1 you kind of feel that the Phantom is, as Sunny might say, a bit of a douche bag. But in Act 2, you really do feel sorry for him. And Christine Daae is a beautiful character regardless of whether she is played by Julie Goodwin at the show or Emmy Rossum in the movie.
Why the movie over the theatre:
- cost: self explanatory. $90 vs free.
- convenience: both in getting and watching the film. No crowds or parking to deal with.
- more-absorbing: This may slightly contradict a later point, but a movie is a continuous piece of fiction, whilst a play has intermissions and set pieces and people stopping to clap which totally ruins your ability to disconnect from this world and go to that world.
Why the theatre over the movie:
- There is so much passion and depth in real life sound that digital conversion just robs. The theatre is also built for acoustics so that when you hear it at the theatre, it moves you on emotional level.
- Visually its a trade off. Some scenes (like the Phantom throwing fireballs) are kind of stupid looking in the theatre because you don't have access to CGI/special effects. But you cannot deny that seeing things in 3D makes you feel like you are a fly in the wall watching the story unfold. Well up to the point where it changes scene anyway (as mentioned above)
- Theatrics: Okay this maybe just me, but I enjoy seeing the various things they do on a stage. Being treated to certain 'special effects' without CGI such as the Phantom taking Christine on 'the boat' on stage is pretty darn neat.
In short, if you know its going to be a quality production, its worth considering seeing the theatre version of a story, but unlike a movie, the cost of guessing wrong is way more expensive than just the time wasted. In the Phantom's case, its Quality with a Q, so go with my blessing.
2 comments:
Stubbies have nothing to do with a beer stubby. Adjust your apparel appropriately.
Anthony Warlow was the Phantom at the session I attended! [/squeee] Definitely worth it.
Additional theatre over movie: Gerard Butler doesn't seem to hit some of the key power notes quite right... and there's nothing quite like an excellent live performance.
Post a Comment