The history of the film was troubled then, but at the heart of it was an acting performance that held the film together. Out went much of the Sedgwick-directed material, and the final result restored many of the detested Julian’s scenes, after which it was a success. This time the film was so unpopular that it was booed at a preview showing in San Francisco. These included a number of comic and romantic scenes, some of which survived into the final edit. Initial reviews of the film were poor, so it was re-shot with extra scenes directed by Edward Sedgwick. Julian did much of the work on the film, but he had strained relationships with the cast and crew. The credits mention only one, Rupert Julian. Like The Thief of Bagdad, the production went through a number of changes in director. In the case of The Phantom of the Opera, the main point of focal interest for both the casual filmgoer and the serious film lover is the film’s lead actor, Lon Chaney. The Thief of Bagdad, for example, owes more to the vision of its producer Alexander Korda, who steered the film through a number of problems, including three changes of director. Despite this, there are films where even serious movie lovers would argue that the credit lies elsewhere than with the director. Nonetheless my opening maxim, however over-generalised, identifies the typical point of focus in the minds of the two groups of film lovers. Similarly the intelligent film critic remembers all aspects of a film, and not just how well-directed it is. Some films are led by special effects to the extent that the actors are eclipsed by spectacle. Obviously this statement is not really true. very cursory mention.Audiences remember movies for their actors, and film buffs remember them for their directors. However, given the play's popularity, I do think it strange that it was given such cursory mention-very. Note that the Andrew Lloyd Weber musical is only very, very briefly mentioned, as the filmed version had not yet debuted. It consists of film clips and interviews and is quite good. Fortunately, the film gets a lot better-and is an interesting look at the various of "Phantom of the Opera" made up until that time. Perhaps I noticed it more since I am relatively fluent in sign language, but really think most will find his gesticulations odd to say the least. You only briefly see him on camera-which is a good thing, as his hand movements were way over-exaggerated and distracting. The documentary begins with Scott MacQueen narrating.
Thankfully, this documentary was better than the full-length film and makes watching the disk worth while-an odd case where the DVD extras are better than the accompanying feature film. This remake was a very lavish but incredibly dull shadow of the great 1925 film. This 51 minute documentary was included on the DVD for the 1943 remake of "Phantom of the Opera".
0 kommentar(er)
