The Resource For Musicals



The Phantom of the Opera Forum


Reply to topic  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Christine Daae Acting 
Author Message
Supporting Player
Supporting Player

Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 2:27 pm
Posts: 113
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Post 
Quique wrote:
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.

---

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.


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".

_________________
"The sweet things in life to you were just loaned, so how can you lose what you never owned?" - LIFE IS JUST A BOWL OF CHERRIES


Mon Oct 29, 2007 9:23 am
Profile
Broadway Legend / MdN Veteran
Broadway Legend / MdN Veteran
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 6:19 pm
Posts: 2846
Location: If you care to find me, look to the western sky...or just look in Toronto
Post 
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 :D ) 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.

_________________
"No, you can't pour live ants all over Ingrid Bergman!"


Mon Oct 29, 2007 2:01 pm
Profile
Broadway Legend / MdN Veteran
Broadway Legend / MdN Veteran
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2003 2:56 pm
Posts: 2310
Post 
Mistress wrote:
It doesn't really matter, though, because it's the Phantom who really holds your attention, or should, anyway.


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.

_________________
Image


Mon Oct 29, 2007 2:15 pm
Profile WWW
Supporting Player
Supporting Player

Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 2:27 pm
Posts: 113
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Post 
Fantine wrote:
Mistress wrote:
It doesn't really matter, though, because it's the Phantom who really holds your attention, or should, anyway.


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.


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!

_________________
"The sweet things in life to you were just loaned, so how can you lose what you never owned?" - LIFE IS JUST A BOWL OF CHERRIES


Mon Oct 29, 2007 2:25 pm
Profile
Broadway Legend / MdN Veteran
Broadway Legend / MdN Veteran
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2003 2:56 pm
Posts: 2310
Post 
santtu wrote:
Fantine wrote:
Mistress wrote:
It doesn't really matter, though, because it's the Phantom who really holds your attention, or should, anyway.


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.


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'.


The main focus is on her though, so I still don't agree.

_________________
Image


Tue Oct 30, 2007 7:15 am
Profile WWW
Supporting Player
Supporting Player

Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 2:27 pm
Posts: 113
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Post 
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... =D>

_________________
"The sweet things in life to you were just loaned, so how can you lose what you never owned?" - LIFE IS JUST A BOWL OF CHERRIES


Tue Oct 30, 2007 2:13 pm
Profile
Broadway Legend
Broadway Legend

Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 1:13 pm
Posts: 1886
Post 
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.


Tue Oct 30, 2007 10:39 pm
Profile
Chorus Member
Chorus Member

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 8:47 pm
Posts: 95
Location: Various Locations in Australia
Current Obsession: Amanda Palmer, Doctor Who, Jane Austen
Main Role: Performer
Post 
Quote:
but if she was basing her performance off Sarah Brightman, then I'd say she did a pretty darn good job.


A real actress would have their own interpretation and not try to emulate another person's performance.

Quote:
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.


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.


Thu Nov 01, 2007 3:27 am
Profile
Broadway Legend / MdN Veteran
Broadway Legend / MdN Veteran
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 6:19 pm
Posts: 2846
Location: If you care to find me, look to the western sky...or just look in Toronto
Post 
Megziid wrote:

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.


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.

_________________
"No, you can't pour live ants all over Ingrid Bergman!"


Thu Nov 01, 2007 11:11 am
Profile
Chorus Member
Chorus Member

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 8:47 pm
Posts: 95
Location: Various Locations in Australia
Current Obsession: Amanda Palmer, Doctor Who, Jane Austen
Main Role: Performer
Post 
Quote:
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


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.


Last edited by Megziid on Thu Nov 01, 2007 11:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Thu Nov 01, 2007 3:56 pm
Profile
Broadway Legend
Broadway Legend

Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 1:13 pm
Posts: 1886
Post 
Megziid wrote:
Quote:
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


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 copntinued to train and develop.


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.


Thu Nov 01, 2007 4:27 pm
Profile
Chorus Member
Chorus Member

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 8:47 pm
Posts: 95
Location: Various Locations in Australia
Current Obsession: Amanda Palmer, Doctor Who, Jane Austen
Main Role: Performer
Post 
Quote:
You don't know that she hadn't had training in the four years between 12 and 16


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 :wink:


Thu Nov 01, 2007 11:31 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 32 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.