Lack of Chandelier Crashing

[The Phantom]

A major point I saw in the new movie was that during Il Muto the chandelier didn’t crash down at the end like it did in the operas. What are your thoughts on this? Personally, they should have done the same thing in the motion picture as the opera. The crashing chandelier was a important key part in the storyline. However, at the end of the movie the chandelier finally crashed down.

[Ubaldo Piangi]

Even though I haven't seen the movie, I've read reviews about it. One of the big problems people have with the movie version of the stage musical is the fact that they move the chandelier crash to the end of the movie. From the sound of it, it doesn't cut it for me. I've read the book, and the chandelier crashes down right around the middle of the story, when it's supposed to happen. I'm something of a purist when it comes to telling the story of the Phantom as Leroux wrote it.


"If you ever find a moment, spare a thought for me."

[The Khanum]

Well, being that ALW wrote both versions, I guess he found it fit to put it at the end. Personally, I think it would have been fine either way. I assume he wanted to use the chandelier crash as a sort of finale, and to me, that worked. Buquet being hanged in the middle of the performance seemed reasonable enough...perhaps having Erik cut down the chandelier would have been overkill.

::Shrugs:: I don't know...I didn't have a problem with it.

[The Khanum]

Actually, Schumaker (I can never spell his name...ah, oh well, we'll just say "director of the 2004 film") set the place on fire...literally. He wanted it to be realistic, so he... ::makes lighter gesture with fingers:: The set was burned to the ground.

[The Phantom]

The chandelier crash in the opera was one of the best parts after Il Muto. I knew the basic gist of the story back when I first saw the opera, but after that scene I had a sick feeling in my stomach that Christine was dead. The crash was so sudden I thought the worst. Though afterwards when she came back out for the next act I knew better.

Joseph Buquet’s death by hanging was done nicely in the movie version if I may add. I never even realized who he was in the Opera until I watched the movie and they expanded on his character some, instead of just suddenly having his body hang from the rafters.

[wolfwynd]

I didn't really have a problem with the chandelier crashing at the end of the film. I'd not seen the stage show but I had read the book, when I saw the film so it really didn't mean much to me.

[The Phantom]

If you had seen the stage version the chandelier crash would have meant everything in the world to you. The crash that separated acts 1 and 2 in the opera, from Il Muto to Masquerade, was a key point in the opera. It gave the audience a sense of uncertainty to how the rest of the performance was going to play out. Though at least we got a chandelier crash at the very end. ;)

[wolfwynd]

Yeah, I understand where your coming from and I guess it would, but hey, I love it either way, no matter what version it is - Robert Englund's version didn't even have one yet it rocks!

[The Phantom]

Sort of ask yourself this question; how would the Phantom movie be without the big Christine/Phantom kiss? What if Joel decided at the last moment that this wasn’t ‘needed’ for the storyline to provide more room for Carlotta’s croaking? Heh, that would be a clear point indeed. Some parts of the movie are needed in order to fill the full effect that was carried with the Opera.

[Forgotten Angel]

I felt that moving the crashingof the chandelier to the end was rather symbolic and final. In the beginning of the film, we see this amazing shot of it being raised. At the end, we see it crash, shwoing us how it got to where it was at the beginning. It just sort of brought the story full cirlce and to a close, if you know understand what I'm trying to say.

[BlondeAngel]

well, they just thought that it would be more intresting like that

"She is singing tonight to bring the chandelier down", I tink, is a very good line and they should have used it !!

[Wishing]

When I went to see the movie for the first time, I thought that I had fallen asleep or something! I saw 'All I Ask of You', then it was 'Masquerade'! I thought I missed it, but then I saw it at the end. Phew. It kind of makes sense there. But it was a good end of Act one in the play.

That is my lame story. :rolleyes:

[Reza Khan]

In my opinion, it worked better for the movie to have the crash at the end. I haven't seen how they do it in the stage version, but in the book, the chandelier comes down and that's it; there's no ensuing excitement, it's never mentioned again.

For movies to work, they usually follow the same format; the major action comes in right at the end, and a chadelier crash can add to action, so moving it to the end makes the movie more satisfying to the casual viewer.

That's just me, though, so don't take offense... :)

Elizabeth

[syioandthephantom]

I missed the crash but I suppose it was needed at the point where they put it.

[The_Persian]

i would have prefered it if they kept it where it was supposed to be "shes singing to bring the chandelier down!" i was dissapointed that they didnt put that in.

[Luciana]

I think that had they done the exact same drama in the scene it was supposed to be in, wouldn't it have ended the movie? Everything would have caught on fire, people would run away, and Christine would probably head for the hills. It makes it an easier flow to have it at the end, really.

[phantomphreak]

Originally posted by The Phantom
If you had seen the stage version the chandelier crash would have meant everything in the world to you. The crash that separated acts 1 and 2 in the opera, from Il Muto to Masquerade, was a key point in the opera. It gave the audience a sense of uncertainty to how the rest of the performance was going to play out. Though at least we got a chandelier crash at the very end. ;)

I think the Chandelier crash fit just before act two in the play version because there was going to be an intermission. It made sense to have people concerned and wondering what happened and having to wait an extra 10 minutes or so.

The Chandelier crash in the movie however, was in a perfect spot also. The movie never had an intermission so people who had never heard of or seen the play wouldn't think "Why the heck did he just drop the chandelier." It had to be built up to that point for a new audience to understand. It makes perfect sense that Buquet would be killed then because of what Buquet said about Erik: "Like yellow parchment is his skin. A great black whole serves as the nose that never grew..." You know the rest.

I think both endings are great, but if the play ending was put as the movie ending, it wouldn't be the same.

[YoungGiry]

I was quite angry about the crash being moved. I understand why they did it, but I still missed it. There was a reason that it was in the middle of the show, and taht reason could not be ignored!

On a slightly different, but related subject, they had to change a line in Masquerade because of this, and it now sounds stupid.

After "To a prosperous year!" It's supposed to be "And the new chandelier!" But it was changed to "And our friends who are here!" Which in my opinion doesn't flow as well.

[andydrumm05]

Wait a minute...the chandelier doesn't crash right before Down Once More in the stage version? Or have I misunderstood what you all are saying. You all are saying "moving the crash to the end" and it sounds like the only crash is the one at the end of AIAOY when the Phantom yells "GOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!"

I'm confused...could someone please explain?

[YoungGiry]

Yes, Andy, in the stage show, the only crash (I wasn't aware that there was more then one...) is at the end of AIAOY. They moved it for the movie.

[Claidissa]

Originally posted by Angel of Music
What was the "disaster beyond your imagination" if not the loss of the chandelier? It can't be Carlotta's voice because that was fixable.
Uh, I'm thinkin' it was Buquet...dying. I mean, murder isn't exactly "beyond imagination," (especially for Erik :D) but it's still pretty bad.

I don't mind the chandelier change. Personally I think it's kind of a lot of bad things happening at once during Il Muto. In the musical, Il Muto has toad!Carlotta, the death of Buquet AND the fall of the chandelier, correct? Kinda overwhelming. Then what happens at the end of Don Juan? Not too much. Much for the characters, yes, but what about the overall opera? What's the audience doing? Just...sitting there...? I mean, I'm not sure, I haven't seen the musical yet, but it would seem kinda awkward if you ask me. So maybe that's the thought process that Joel Scheumacher went through. Spacing things out.

[Beneath the Opera]

I think it was awesome where it was. It actualy FLOWED with DJT!

[IamErik771]

I loved how the 1990 version of the script had written this scene. They had originally planned to keep the chandelier crash in its original location, and so here was how the script was written:

PHANTOM

(With sudden and terrifying fury)
YOU WILL CURSE THE DAY YOU DID NOT DO
ALL THAT THE PHANTOM ASKED OF
YOU.!

He runs across and wrenches open two huge iron doors in the roof,
releasing DOZENS OF PIGEONS into the air. He jumps into the darkness
below, FILLED WITH HUGE BELLS and opens a second set of iron doors.
Revealing THAT WE ARE DIRECTLY ABOVE THE CHANDELIER WITH
THE WHOLE OPERA HOUSE BELOW.


INT. STAGE. NIGHT. (CONTINUOUS)

The opera curtains open and IL Muto begins again. CHRISTINE is
conspicuously dressed in CARLOTTAS costume.


INT. AUDITORIUM/DOME/CHANDELIER. NIGHT. (CONTINUOUS)

Simultaneously, the PHANTOM leaps right onto the chandelier. The
lights of the chandelier begin flickering and, at a great cry from him, it
descends, swinging more and more madly over the orchestra pit. The
AUDIENCE screams and both ORCHESTRA and AUDIENCE scramble
out of the way.


INT. STAGE. NIGHT. (CONTINUOUS)

CHRISTINE pushes the OTHERS to safety as the PHANTOM swings on the
chandelier.


INT. AUDITORIUM/DOME/CHANDELIER. NIGHT. (CONTINUOUS)

It is as if the PHANTOM and she are looking at each other. The PHANTOM
seems to aim the huge chandelier as it swings, then suddenly leaps off
hanging on to an elaborate system of ropes and pulleys which projects
him up into the inner workings of THE BELFRY: MASSIVE BELLS TOLL.

PHANTOM

Go!!!

He disappears into the darkness as WITH A BLINDING FLASH, THE
CHANDELIER CRASHES TO THE STAGE AT CHRISTINES FEET.

You can find the (almost) full script at the Michael Crawford Phantom Movie Campaign. (http://www.phantommovie.com/script1.htm) For some reason, though, it's missing the title song.

[Phantompherak12]

Well it could have done better. In the broadway production it was amazing. It wasn't so go in the movie.

[jumper]

I would have liked to see the chandelier crash at the part it does in the play, Not at the end.

I like it in the theater at the end when insted of the Chandelier crashing, They find Piangi Dead and then everyone freaks out It is just so much more exciting!!!

JUMPER

[THeFaCeiNTHeMaSK]

Considering I haven't seen the musical or read the book, I've only seen the movie, I kinda give a biased oppinion. From what I know of POTO, I agree with it being at the end. Didn't the Chandelier drop distract the audience from seeing the Phantom escape with Christine until it was too late? I would've been confused if they put the chandelier crash in Il Muto, because that's what destroyed the Opera House. How else would the Opera House be destroyed?
*Note* Do not answer if it's gonna give away something from the book! My birthday's in less than 3 months, and I'm planning on getting the book, so consider the question a rhetorical question!

[AAW0487]

I can see your point on how the chandelier should have come down at the same point in the play as the movie. My boyfriend thought the same thing when we saw the movie. I'm kinda surprised ALW didn't make it happen that way. I'm guessing that they wanted to cause a more extraordinary ending the the movie! Though i'm quite sad that the chandelier caused a fire to the opera house. But I liked it the way the movie had it, ALW must have planned it that way for a reason.

[Minoru Inoue]

I prefer the chandelier coming down in the middle -- when it's supposed to. The most awesome Phantom parody I know has all the phans go "OMG where's the chandelier?!!!" at the end of the Il Muto scene. X3 It was sooo good.

[MystMoonstruck]

Frequently, when Broadway musicals/plays are filmed, scenes and numbers are rearranged because it's quite a different medium. "West Side Story" was rather drastically rearranged because they felt that the mood was too up and down and up then down.

This isn't the first time the chandelier was crashed at the end; so, perhaps they wanted to follow previous versions. Besides, it's sort of the Hollywood notion: volcano blows up, temple collapses, island sinks into the sea, Death Star is destroyed, etc. That leads into/becomes the climax, followed by the denoument--the return to relative normalcy. Also, maybe they were playing tricks with public expectation; those who had seen the original would be thrown offguard, while those who were unaware when it occurred wouldn't be surprised when it was a major moment.

I like the full-circle idea, too: Raising the chandelier sweeps us back to the past, where we see the collapse and, we suppose, destruction of a good share of the Opera House.

I've seen the chandelier crash in the various versions, and having it come near the end seems somehow right to me. That's a really huge, destructive moment. In the Herbert Lom version, Erik shoves Christine out of the way and is crushed by it! That is NOT a good version, by the way.

I think what is jarring for those who have seen the stage version is that that becomes the way it IS. So, I can understand their distress. But, for those of us who are more open to interpretations... Well, I LIKE the crash near the end. It's sort of Hollywood traditional.

[Kaze]

Okay. Do you REALLY, really, HONESTLY thing that after seeing the exchange between Raoul and Christine, Erik wouldn't do anything but throw a threat to the empty air? Give me a break!

I know I am a purist. Nothing surpasses the brilliance of Leroux, and though Kay was pretty good (all the way up to the meeting between Erik and Christine),there is nothing like Leroux.

Think of it character-wise. Erik was in love, and thus his cold and calculating self disappeared in favor of a more impulsive side. Makes sense? Of course it does! Erik was not a machine, he could feel like anyone else.

I remember my disappointment when the chandelier doesn't fell. I seriously turned to my mother an was like: "Mom, where's the chandelier?" And my mom turned to look at me with a very serious expression and said: "That's wad bad directing does to the film, sweety."

Mind you though, my mom likes the film a lot. She prefers Emmy Rossum than any other Christine (well almost any other because Sarah Brightman just rocks!), but I think that the fact that she has been forced not once, but three times through Sandra Joseph's performance may have something to do with it.

The chandelier belonged in the middle, there is no question about it. Moving it to the end modified: story-line, impact, and lyrics. Because in the masquerade song there is a toast for the: "new chandelier", not to mention that many pre-movie phans were disappointed and have come to dread the movie. I remember the night of bad reviews in the phantom board I used to belong to.

And between, Erik would have NEVER set his Opera House in fire, just as he never would have destroyed his Don Juan Triumphant. Just for the record.

[masquerading rose]

I know that the chandilier is supposed to come down in the middle, like in the book, but the musical and play are very differnt from the book. It works better at the end I think. it shows just how insane Erik really has become.