Let's speak plainly: this musical came pre-loaded with baggage, its own cargo ship's worth, before it ever opened in London. The very idea of a sequel to Andrew Lloyd Webber's 'The Phantom of the Opera' raises a skeptical eyebrow; to read a one-line premise raises our hackles. Then we read the plot synopsis, and learn of the critical reception, and see the history of productions; while the tale may have been revised between London and Melbourne, frankly the differences are minimal, more cosmetic than substantive. Still, the question remains: How is the music? How is the show at large, in and of itself? Does it really deserve such infamy; could it really be so bad? Thankfully movie lovers, theater nerds, 'Phantom' aficionados, and general audiences can decide for themselves without necessarily shelling out cash for seats in the orchestra, balcony, or gallery, for this recording of the Australian production - in some measure better received with its rewrites than the original London show - gives us a look at 'Love never dies' in all its splendor, or alternatively, in all its notoriety. For better and for worse, we're able to begin forming an opinion very swiftly once we press "play." For my part I think this is enjoyable, and worthwhile on its own merits, but with significant issues that severely limit its lasting value.
To the credit of all involved, there really is much to admire here in most every regard. Pretty much everything we love about musicals as a class of live performance, and about cinema as an audiovisual medium, are alive and vibrant in these two hours. The costume design is truly gorgeous, and the hair and makeup, too; the sets are lovely, and the choreography fetching, and stage director Simon Phillips is to be roundly commended for such a splendid, finely-tuned piece. By and large the cast is terrific, treating us to superb singing and lively, engaging, laudable acting. Broadly speaking the music in and of itself is delightful, with some selections being extra nice and enticing, and the same applies to the lyrics. Why, if we consider the narrative at its core, then alongside the music, performances, and overall spectacle it's easy to get swept up in the saga: a famed singer traveling with her rakish husband and young son to a new engagement, where they will encounter old friends, confront the past, and have their lives forever changed. There are times throughout when I really do see the brilliance of the best potential this may have had. And it's worth observing that this 2012 feature is a credit as well to filmmaker Brett Sullivan, the camera operators, the editors, and all others who put in the work to bring the stage musical to our screens. Some recordings of live performances are better than others at visualizing the entirety, and at making the show matter, and whatever we think of 'Love never dies' as a musical, I believe this rendition of it is counts as one of the better examples of a port to the screen.
All this is good, or even wonderful, not to mention encouraging, entertaining, and satisfying. So what, then, could the problems be that have given Webber's work such a sorry reputation? Well, let's start with the acting. I mean it when I say that everyone on hand is terrific, by and large. However, everyone also has their moments - some more than others - when they unquestionably come off as overacting and chewing scenery with overly severe, forceful delivery and comportment. In fact, this fault of the acting kind of exemplifies an overarching issue that plagues the whole endeavor, for in too many ways, and at too many points, there is a glaring lack of subtlety, tact, or thoughtful care being applied in the fundamental construction. Just as some of the lyrics are superb, some are terrible; just as some underhanded musical callbacks to 'Phantom' are fantastic, whatever their form, the most overt counterexamples mostly feel cheap, chintzy, and desperate; just as the music at large is swell, with some especial highlights (even as small as a few bars), there are also more dubious phrases or themes, and in a title built for drama, the worst instances actually inspire laughter. The storytelling itself also has distinct weaknesses, not least as the pseudonym "Mr. Y" belongs in Saturday morning cartoons, not a would-be prestige theatrical production; I'm less than enthused about some of the characterizations as they present, dovetailing into issues of some numbers ("Bathing beauty") and where they fit into the story, and shifts and disparity of tone ('The beauty underneath"). To top it all off, the plot development seems shortchanged, in that two hours fly past too quickly, insufficient to shoulder the weight that the plot and its conflicts should ideally carry. Yet we've not even talked about the elephant in the room.
It's as simple as this: the root plot, and the flavors of carnival, sideshow, and funhouse that adjoin the principal drama and romance, are stupendous, promising foundations for a musical, and for a motion picture. The trouble is that 'Love never dies' is a sequel to 'The Phantom of the Opera,' and I emphatically believe that it should have been its own standalone creation with no ties to that prior creation, nor any other. Worse is that 'Love never dies' is a sequel that demands enormous leaps of logic and presuppositions for the plot to work. I'll stop short of saying that the 2010 successor retcons its progenitor; it IS possible that following the previous events, Raoul turned out to be a louse, Madame and Meg Giry developed closer ties to the Phantom as they relocated, and jealousies and dark passions would stir as lives collide once again. For all these things to be true is too much for the 'Phantom' aficionado to take in stride, however, and above all, if we're to believe that 'Love' truly follows 'Phantom,' the central conceit of a love affair between Christine and the Phantom exceeds all limits of suspension of disbelief. These supposed narrative connections also ultimately inform our view of most other facets here: the carnival flavors are out of touch with the prior material, and while "The beauty underneath" is striking in and of itself, it heavily clashes with the tone of the rest of this production, let alone the predecessor; the last stretch of the second act, following Christine's aria, resolves the continued saga in a manner that feels hastily and poorly written, and which is unconvincing and dissatisfying, particularly as the beats place even greater strain on reworked characterizations that are already thin. With some retooling the show could feasibly have been phenomenal as a singular entity; as a sequel to one of the most cherished musicals in the world, it direly struggles.
And here's one more thing: there is no song in 'Love never dies' that comes anywhere near to matching 'The Phantom of the Opera.' All are good, and some are excellent, but whereas every tune of years before is a revered classic, there is nothing here that stands out in a fashion that will endure in memory. There is no showstopper to receive thunderous applause; Christine's big number in the second act - that which kind of held to be the crux of the whole tale - is okay, but doesn't really make a big impression.
I repeat that there really is a lot to like here. Everyone specifically involved in the Melbourne production did a marvelous job, and all are to be congratulated. At its best, we are reminded of why we love 'Phantom' as 'Love never dies' tries so, so hard to recapture that magic. I cannot and will not say that I dislike this musical, or got nothing from it, or would recommend against it. What I will and must say is that there is no arguing that the Melbourne production, praise-worthy as it is, is the best possible interpretation of something that even on paper leaves us actively doubting; it's the musical equivalent of screenwriter Melissa Rosenberg, and filmmakers Catherine Hardwicke, Chris Weitz, David Slade, and Bill Condon, adapting Stephenie Meyer's 'Twilight' series to the Silver Screen. I'm glad for those who find it even more enjoyable, or who possibly take no issue at all with the material. As far as I'm concerned, it's just that the flaws and failures are as readily evident as the advantages and successes, and any discussion of the title must be lengthy and comprehensive as to what it does well and where it goes wrong. Don't take my harshest criticism to mean that you shouldn't watch 'Love never dies'; take it to mean that you should watch with a very open mind and active awareness.
To the credit of all involved, there really is much to admire here in most every regard. Pretty much everything we love about musicals as a class of live performance, and about cinema as an audiovisual medium, are alive and vibrant in these two hours. The costume design is truly gorgeous, and the hair and makeup, too; the sets are lovely, and the choreography fetching, and stage director Simon Phillips is to be roundly commended for such a splendid, finely-tuned piece. By and large the cast is terrific, treating us to superb singing and lively, engaging, laudable acting. Broadly speaking the music in and of itself is delightful, with some selections being extra nice and enticing, and the same applies to the lyrics. Why, if we consider the narrative at its core, then alongside the music, performances, and overall spectacle it's easy to get swept up in the saga: a famed singer traveling with her rakish husband and young son to a new engagement, where they will encounter old friends, confront the past, and have their lives forever changed. There are times throughout when I really do see the brilliance of the best potential this may have had. And it's worth observing that this 2012 feature is a credit as well to filmmaker Brett Sullivan, the camera operators, the editors, and all others who put in the work to bring the stage musical to our screens. Some recordings of live performances are better than others at visualizing the entirety, and at making the show matter, and whatever we think of 'Love never dies' as a musical, I believe this rendition of it is counts as one of the better examples of a port to the screen.
All this is good, or even wonderful, not to mention encouraging, entertaining, and satisfying. So what, then, could the problems be that have given Webber's work such a sorry reputation? Well, let's start with the acting. I mean it when I say that everyone on hand is terrific, by and large. However, everyone also has their moments - some more than others - when they unquestionably come off as overacting and chewing scenery with overly severe, forceful delivery and comportment. In fact, this fault of the acting kind of exemplifies an overarching issue that plagues the whole endeavor, for in too many ways, and at too many points, there is a glaring lack of subtlety, tact, or thoughtful care being applied in the fundamental construction. Just as some of the lyrics are superb, some are terrible; just as some underhanded musical callbacks to 'Phantom' are fantastic, whatever their form, the most overt counterexamples mostly feel cheap, chintzy, and desperate; just as the music at large is swell, with some especial highlights (even as small as a few bars), there are also more dubious phrases or themes, and in a title built for drama, the worst instances actually inspire laughter. The storytelling itself also has distinct weaknesses, not least as the pseudonym "Mr. Y" belongs in Saturday morning cartoons, not a would-be prestige theatrical production; I'm less than enthused about some of the characterizations as they present, dovetailing into issues of some numbers ("Bathing beauty") and where they fit into the story, and shifts and disparity of tone ('The beauty underneath"). To top it all off, the plot development seems shortchanged, in that two hours fly past too quickly, insufficient to shoulder the weight that the plot and its conflicts should ideally carry. Yet we've not even talked about the elephant in the room.
It's as simple as this: the root plot, and the flavors of carnival, sideshow, and funhouse that adjoin the principal drama and romance, are stupendous, promising foundations for a musical, and for a motion picture. The trouble is that 'Love never dies' is a sequel to 'The Phantom of the Opera,' and I emphatically believe that it should have been its own standalone creation with no ties to that prior creation, nor any other. Worse is that 'Love never dies' is a sequel that demands enormous leaps of logic and presuppositions for the plot to work. I'll stop short of saying that the 2010 successor retcons its progenitor; it IS possible that following the previous events, Raoul turned out to be a louse, Madame and Meg Giry developed closer ties to the Phantom as they relocated, and jealousies and dark passions would stir as lives collide once again. For all these things to be true is too much for the 'Phantom' aficionado to take in stride, however, and above all, if we're to believe that 'Love' truly follows 'Phantom,' the central conceit of a love affair between Christine and the Phantom exceeds all limits of suspension of disbelief. These supposed narrative connections also ultimately inform our view of most other facets here: the carnival flavors are out of touch with the prior material, and while "The beauty underneath" is striking in and of itself, it heavily clashes with the tone of the rest of this production, let alone the predecessor; the last stretch of the second act, following Christine's aria, resolves the continued saga in a manner that feels hastily and poorly written, and which is unconvincing and dissatisfying, particularly as the beats place even greater strain on reworked characterizations that are already thin. With some retooling the show could feasibly have been phenomenal as a singular entity; as a sequel to one of the most cherished musicals in the world, it direly struggles.
And here's one more thing: there is no song in 'Love never dies' that comes anywhere near to matching 'The Phantom of the Opera.' All are good, and some are excellent, but whereas every tune of years before is a revered classic, there is nothing here that stands out in a fashion that will endure in memory. There is no showstopper to receive thunderous applause; Christine's big number in the second act - that which kind of held to be the crux of the whole tale - is okay, but doesn't really make a big impression.
I repeat that there really is a lot to like here. Everyone specifically involved in the Melbourne production did a marvelous job, and all are to be congratulated. At its best, we are reminded of why we love 'Phantom' as 'Love never dies' tries so, so hard to recapture that magic. I cannot and will not say that I dislike this musical, or got nothing from it, or would recommend against it. What I will and must say is that there is no arguing that the Melbourne production, praise-worthy as it is, is the best possible interpretation of something that even on paper leaves us actively doubting; it's the musical equivalent of screenwriter Melissa Rosenberg, and filmmakers Catherine Hardwicke, Chris Weitz, David Slade, and Bill Condon, adapting Stephenie Meyer's 'Twilight' series to the Silver Screen. I'm glad for those who find it even more enjoyable, or who possibly take no issue at all with the material. As far as I'm concerned, it's just that the flaws and failures are as readily evident as the advantages and successes, and any discussion of the title must be lengthy and comprehensive as to what it does well and where it goes wrong. Don't take my harshest criticism to mean that you shouldn't watch 'Love never dies'; take it to mean that you should watch with a very open mind and active awareness.