Archive for Musicals.Net Musicals.Net |
| deedlebug103 |
Christine Daae ActingEveryone knows that Christine is a VERY demanding vocal part, but what about the acting? I hear a lot of complaints about Sarah Brightman and Emmy Rossum's poor acting in the role. How do you guys think the character of Christine should be portrayed? |
||||||
| pish123c |
I think Christine is sometimes poorly acted because the typical actresses that could perform that role have focused more on their voice throughout their careers. | ||||||
| Sweeney Hyde |
^Very well said...
I don't think the problem with Rossum and Brightman were that they couldn't act...just that they didn't...they didn't weld the two together... I have yet to see the part acted well...all three times I saw it it was sung well... I would think that WYWSHA for instance would make her morbidly depressed...I would think she would be in tears...or break down and sort of collapse at the climax...that would make the song that much more moving. |
||||||
| Fantine |
I think Rachel Barrell had a good take on the role. | ||||||
| HarmonicSoul |
I agree with the above. Rachel Barrel is by far my favorite "Christine" when it comes to acting.
I do think that when it comes to Phantom, the most important thing for Christine is to sing well. In some cases, she can be portrayed as just a pretty thing that both leading men have fallen for, and nothing would be incorrect in that. However, I think the experience of watching the show is altogether more moving if Christine, too, had depth. Just my opinion, though. ^^ |
||||||
| LittleGavroche |
Very much agreed with HarmonicSoul.
I can't quite understand why the acting is so nonexistent, as songs like "Wishing..." make it perfectly clear how they should be acted, and yet the young ladies do not seem to comprehend that. Christine is a much deeper character than she is usually acted. sigh. |
||||||
| Quique |
I've seen the show 33 times and every single Chrstine I've seen has acted the role almost the same, with little to no variation.
I don't think it has so much to do with lack of acting ability. I think the actors just aren't allowed that much artistic freedom in those types of shows due to Cammacks insistence that the show should be carbon-copied around the world in every way. I think the actors are given a basic framework on how to approach their roles and anything outside of that is considered a no-no. I could be wrong, but it certainly seems that way. The same applies with every single Raoul, Carlotta, Mme. Giry, Meg, Piangi I've seen. All basically the same interpretation; Meg with her horrific, out of tune singing voice and wooden acting, Christine as a deer caught in headlights, Raoul with British accent and very stiff, Mme. Giry as creepy and stoic, and Piangi and Carlotta are always waaay over the top and obnoxious. The only character who's interpretation has varied in my experience is that of the Phantom. |
||||||
| RachaelB |
I agree, Rachel really acted the part well.x |
||||||
| crystalphan |
Ana MarinaI saw Ana Marina in the current Australian production in Melbourne and she is a fantastic actress!, I agree a lot of actresses don't seem to be able to bring out the emotion or bring depth and detail to the role but Ana Marina was truly brilliant her 'Wishing' she was absolutely heartbreaking with the emotion, you could see she really needed to move on and let go to move on with her life. You could clearly see each thought and emotion throughout her performance, she was truely passionate and you could tell she was giving her all to the role. Final lair was also just superb, she's a truley exceptional and talented actress. I have never been moved as much as I was when seeing/hearing Ana Marina. Her voice was equaly brilliant, strong and crystal clear and so expressive. My absolute standout favourite Christine. |
||||||
| Guinevere |
I completely agree. I just really had issues with Emmy Rossum, though. She was the thing that really took the film down for me. I won't even get started! Anyway, I will say that the first time I saw it, I think that the actress I saw (Diane Frantantoni) was actually decent, acting wise. She sang quite well, too. It was a very pleasant surprise. The second time I saw it, though, it was just a great disappointment for me. The actress seemed to be overplaying the character. Making her a little too vulnerable, I guess. Her voice was kind of irritating. Slightly screechy. Not much meat to it. So, the combination of the two made her extremely annoying. I feel that the when they are casting the show they should pay a little more attention to the person they are ultimately choosing to play their lead! It is a little ridiculous that Carlotta is basically always better (considering Christine is supposed to be the standout here!). So, I will say that I am pretty content to have seen at least Frantantoni doing a satisfactory job! I think a person should pay just as much attention to their stage presentation and acting as well as their voice. After all, they aren't just singing these songs in a concert! They are acting in a musical play! |
||||||
| thephantomofoperafan_1987 |
HeyEmmy Rossum singing/acting is HORRIBLE!She puts no expression, emotion to the song |
||||||
| Xxmcfly85xX |
Re: Ana Marina
I second that. I saw Ana a couple of weeks ago. The Melbourne show with Anthony Warlow and Ana Marina just works. Quite simply, it's amazing. |
||||||
| santtu |
Exactly. Phantom and Carlotta (to some extent) are the only characters in the show where the actor is allowed to do things differently from the original production. All the others must remain the same. I read an interview about an actress/singer who played Christine in Canada/tour (don't remember which one it was) and she said she wanted to do a small change in delivering one of Christine's lines and she wasn't allowed to because "that wasn't how it was done originally". |
||||||
| Mistress |
Though I've never seen her live (before my time) I've heard that Rebecca Caine was an excellent Chrisitne acting-wise. She certainly had the most amazing voice (as is proven by the OCC highlights recording...which I dearly love  ) Anyway I have to agree that Christine is a very difficult part to act well simply because she is very flat and 2D to begin with, and many actresses can't do much to fix it because of restrictions and what-not.
It doesn't really matter, though, because it's the Phantom who really holds your attention, or should, anyway. |
||||||
| Fantine |
I do not agree. He has only like 20 minutes of stage time in the whole 3 hour lenght musical, whereas Christine is on stage almost full stop. So she'd better be impressive. Otherwise POTO would be a very, very dull musical. |
||||||
| santtu |
He's on stage about 45-50 minutes of the approx. 2hrs 20min (plus intermission) show. And Christine is alone on stage only during "Wishing..." so there's always someone else to 'save the day'. As for Rebecca Caine, I never saw her in the role, but based on the OCC Highlights cd there's more acting there than in any of the Christine's I've seen on stage! I don't care for her voice much, I prefer the Swedish cast's Christine, she really has an amazing voice for this part! |
||||||
| Fantine |
The main focus is on her though, so I still don't agree. |
||||||
| santtu |
Yes the main focus is on her, but Christine's acting is mostly reacting to somebody/something else, she doesn't start/create anything emotional (acting-wise) herself to other cast members to react to. Her acting is mostly reactions to others' strong emotions.
Like "Twisted every way..." no strong emotions there created by her until the managers, Carlotta, Piangi and others surround her and she storms out. So I think, feel free to disagree, that this role doesn't require that much acting. But when it is performed by a singer who really can act, not just sing it... 
|
||||||
| mastachen |
I don't really get all the Emmy bashing, I mean, sure she's not that good of an actress, but if she was basing her performance off Sarah Brightman, then I'd say she did a pretty darn good job.
Also, she was only 16 when she made the movie. She did the best she could do, and it's not like it's an easy part to sing. She was good enough to be nominated for a Golden Globe. At the age of 16, I think her voice is just amazing, and it's probably more mature now. Who knows, maybe I'll buy her CD now since it keeps flashing at the bottom of the page. |
||||||
| Megziid |
A real actress would have their own interpretation and not try to emulate another person's performance.
Another thing to loathe Joel Schumacher for - casting a child in an adult's role. Her voice wasn't mature enough to be a convincing enough diva to oust Carlotta. I've just seen Ana Marina as Christine in Melbourne, her acting was phenomenal. Incredibly nuanced and real considering the constraints of the direction. I didn't love her singing though - she was capable, but her voice didn't 'shine' for me. She was still the best Christine I've seen. |
||||||
| Mistress |
Ahhh...thing is, Christine is a child's role, so to speak. If you go back to Leroux's original story, Christine is about 18, and Emmy was 16 going on 17, so she was actually about the right age, even if her vocals weren't quite up to snuff. Now I also remember coming across a site reviewing the now long past South African premier of POTO. According to the reviewer, the principle Christine couold not perform (I think she was ill, but I don't know for sure) so her 19-yearold understudy went on instead and was apparently pretty impressive. See now, if Emmy had better vocal training and had a better range for the vocals, she could've pulled it off. |
||||||
| Megziid |
However, the difference in vocal maturity between a 16 and an 18 year old is immense. And Rossum - despite what the publicity would have us believe - hadn't really sung much before anyway. She'd been in the children's chorus of the Met till she was 12, then hadn't sung until Phantom. Again, a big difference between chorus singing as a child and lead role singing at 16, particularly as she hadn't continued to train and develop. |
||||||
| mastachen |
You don't know that she hadn't had training in the four years between 12 and 16. And, to address your point that a real actress would have their own interpretations, as we've already discussed in this thread, Christine is a very restrictive role. They can't even say a line differently than how it was originally said. My point is that the movie was bad because of the direction and because Emmy's voice wasn't developed enough for such a huge role, but it's not fair to automatically think that she's a bad actress now just because she was doing what she was told by the director. |
||||||
| Megziid |
Apart from the fact that she's said so herself. "When I got this part, I was doing movies straight for five years and hadn’t been singing at all" http://www.cinecon.com/news.php?id=0412141. And I don't disagree that Christines are limited in what they can do with the role, my point was that any actor who is 'copying' another actor's portrayal (as was suggested in an earlier post, I never saw Sarah Brightman so I can't judge that) isnt really acting. I certainly blame Joel Schumacher more than I do any of the actors - I believe he never really understood what POTO is about - but to suggest that the actor has no control over their performance is quite disrespectful to the actor and the acting process. By the way, I don't hate Emmy, and I don't think Ive said anything here that would suggest that I do. She was miscast, And I don't think she was right vocally nor dramatically for the role. She certainly looked the part though 
|