![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Sep. 17th, 2001 03:20 amI'm all hot and achy, running a fever, trying to do laundry and develop what might pass for Ideas. I feel very dull, both from an external view and from my own current lack of sharp wits. so I haven't really done the schoolwork tonight that I ought to have been doing... a little here and there, but I'm seriously lacking energy and inspiration. I did a little cleaning up around the house. So many things seem to not matter at all right now. am I being depressive? nothing that has happened in the past week is "about me", but... i mean, I lost a pet and it's barely been on my mind because of weightier concerns. I can't seem to concentrate on my artwork, especially when it's these academic assignments that feel soulless to me. I am at least happy to report that I am improving in my Figure class, little by little.
Tonight Dario Argento's version of The Phantom of the Opera was on. I watched it because I've been wanting to see it for a while: the novel was one of my favorite books when I was a teenager and I've seen most of the movie versions, with the exception of the 1982 version with Jane Seymour and the late 80s or early 90s version with Robert Englund. I wanted to like this movie version more than I actually liked it.
The settings were good, the costumes were about right. They used the Budapest Opera House which was also designed by Charles Garnier and is very similar to the Paris Opera. Some of the actors were miscast (Raoul at the top of the list). But the script was bad, the whole concept wrong, and the pacing was off. Too much of the first half of the movie is just devoted to letting the titular character kill off people who cross his path, with no real reasoning behind it. The events that begin the book happen almost halfway into the movie. & a lot of the point of the story is lost, I think, when you take away some of the elements they decided to ignore, like the Phantom's skeletal deformation and genius, and the character of the Persian. No version ever deals with the character of Christine properly: she's supposed to be a blonde Swede! The book is never adapted well: filmmakers tend to use and amplify the horror elements and not the more sophisticated comedy of blackmail and manners. Argento's version managed to include some surprisingly faithful scenes, but since the whole concept was changed, it didn't make much of a difference.
Tonight Dario Argento's version of The Phantom of the Opera was on. I watched it because I've been wanting to see it for a while: the novel was one of my favorite books when I was a teenager and I've seen most of the movie versions, with the exception of the 1982 version with Jane Seymour and the late 80s or early 90s version with Robert Englund. I wanted to like this movie version more than I actually liked it.
The settings were good, the costumes were about right. They used the Budapest Opera House which was also designed by Charles Garnier and is very similar to the Paris Opera. Some of the actors were miscast (Raoul at the top of the list). But the script was bad, the whole concept wrong, and the pacing was off. Too much of the first half of the movie is just devoted to letting the titular character kill off people who cross his path, with no real reasoning behind it. The events that begin the book happen almost halfway into the movie. & a lot of the point of the story is lost, I think, when you take away some of the elements they decided to ignore, like the Phantom's skeletal deformation and genius, and the character of the Persian. No version ever deals with the character of Christine properly: she's supposed to be a blonde Swede! The book is never adapted well: filmmakers tend to use and amplify the horror elements and not the more sophisticated comedy of blackmail and manners. Argento's version managed to include some surprisingly faithful scenes, but since the whole concept was changed, it didn't make much of a difference.
