|
|
 |
The road for Angel of Music was certainly not an easy one. The production suffered from a common malady that many microfilms do - frequent loss of vital crew members. I can sympathize - I once gave up an entire summer of employment for a bare-bones production, only to have the DP, ADP, and gaffer drop out the day before shooting was supposed to start. In those cases it's very easy to throw one's hands up and can the whole thing, and many people do. It's always admirable that the committed few continue to fight it out and finish the project. It's an even harder decision when, as was the case with this film, one has already made a small commitment with a test film and a budget raised through investors. I do have to applaud the efforts of the filmmakers for sticking with it, even when things looked grim.
Despite this, the film still has a lot of issues. I'm sure many of them resulted from the problems that the production faced, but many microfilms have production problems - it's kind of a rule. And while I like the new and unique direction taken by the final film, there are still a lot of logic gaps that should have been worked out. Add that with the visual and audio problems, and it's hard to say whether the $20,000 was spent wisely. I find myself wondering if it would have been beneficial to take a step back from the project long enough to collect just the right talent and make sure everything is in order. (In fact, we just published an article from international author, William Akers, about this very conundrum and why it's so crucial to polish a script before going into a production, even if you lose crew members because of it.)
In the above-mentioned production, we were all forced to take a month off, which left us with only two in which to shoot, but it enabled us to find a good DP - who worked much better with everyone, allowed me time to take a class that gave me the experience I lacked, and gave us the opportunity to get the set completely dressed. Sure, we lost some money in location fees, and we weren't quite as well prepared for some things as the original production crew, but we still managed to pull off a semi-decent film. (And yes, that one still had issues, but it was the first time for many of us, and we learned an awful lot about filmmaking by all the mistakes from that first production!)
I realize the problem with trying to convince people to back a more faithful adaptation of Phantom, but that's probably got more to do with Andrew Lloyd Webber than with the novel itself. Leroux's story is amazing, but audiences are so used to the adaptation that they would never recognize the original. My hope is that the director is able to shake away the bad memories, but not the idea. I may be the only one, but I'll still be waiting for the faithful interpretation!
The film does make a concerted effort to stay closer to the novel than its later incarnations, which is a fact that many literary nerds (including myself) will appreciate. Devotes of Andrew Lloyd Webber might be disappointed, hearing hints of the original story - or even the suggestion that it might be more than fiction - could inspire some to actually pick up the novel.
My one big suggestion, however, is to look closer at the film O Brother, Where Art Thou, an interpretation of Homer's Odyssey set in the South during the 1930s. This is one example where a classic story is re-worked into a good story in its own right, but where enough hints remain in the original that one who knew the story of the Odyssey could figure it out - such as characters named Ulysses (the Latin equivalent of Odysseus), Penelope, Menelaus, and Homer; one-eyed Big Dan (as the Cyclops); and the theme song, "Man of Constant Sorrow," since Odysseus means "man who is in constant pain and sorrow." While Mr. Woosley and his team chose to take this adaptation in a different direction - and it was certainly an interesting one - I would encourage them not to give up on adaptation, but to attempt to take it in as many different directions as possible.
"The reader knows and guesses the rest. It is all in keeping with this incredible and yet veracious story. Poor, unhappy Erik! Shall we pity him? Shall we curse him? He asked only to be 'someone,' like everybody else. But he was too ugly! And he had to hide his genius or use it to play tricks with, when, with an ordinary face, he would have been one of the most distinguished of mankind! He had a heart that could have held the empire of the world; and, in the end, he had to content himself with a cellar. Ah, yes, we must needs pity the Opera ghost."
-Gaston Leroux
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
Content |
6.8 |
Visual
Look |
7.9 |
Use
of Audio |
8.0 |
Use
of Budget |
5.5 |
Lasting
Appeal |
7.0 |
|
7.0 |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
The
author of half a dozen screen plays, two novels, and a proficient
camera-woman in her own right, Monika
DeLeeuw-Taylor is Microfilmmaker's lead writing analyst and
one of our top film reviewers. When she's not writing a critique for
Microfilmmaker, she's writing screenplays for Viking Productions. |
|
|
|
|
|
