This is a video clip which shows Gerard Butler from the 2004 film Phantom of the Opera, having the Phantom's disfigurement and distortion being made with lots of make-up!
No, in fact the majority (which includes me) seem to prefer the Phantom to Raoul. The Phantom is definitely sexier, especially with Gerard in the role.
The character of Erik the phantom is like a diamond with many facets. Each actor who plays the role draws out the parts of Erik they can relate to. One isn't better than another just different. I love the book best of all.
I read a mag interview he did years ago just after the film came out &he said he hated not just having the makeup on because it was SO uncomfortable, but because when he was in full makeup shooting the scenes he was actually UPSET by the looks & reactions he received from those working on the set - even though it wasnt real. It made him realise I think how terrible it was for someone to have any kind of deformity, &he really got upset by it personally as well to be looked at like that.
I for one think (without seeing the whole movie or being a gerard butler fan) that making the scars much less frightfully in this movie showed the cruel nature of the people back then and their easy judgment made based on the pshysical appeareance. You don't have to be totally disfigured to be watched different in society, you just need to have sometimes a little scar an bang! Everything changes. For this adaptation they did well in my opinion. For THIS adaptation which is very good in it's way.
Personally I think the hair also de-tracks from what was actually done to his face I also think the deformity is simply too small and that also has to do with the fact that the mask was too small. I feel like if they had the mask go down to about his upper lip and around the upper part of his jaw, that would have given the makeup artist more room to work with on his face and maybe create something far more ghastly that what was put on screen. I also think they should have went with him being completely bald that way we could have gotten a real disgusting look not just on the one side of his face but on his head as well. The behind-the-scenes really do show the potential that this makeup had but again because of the way it was shot and the lighting it just looks more like a mild sunburn that can probably be covered up with some contour rather than a serious deformity.
People complain that the makeup wasn't gruesome enough or he wasn't "that disfigured", but you guys have to remember that this movie took place in the late 1800's. What may seem not that big of a deal to us may have been a HUGE deal to them.
Inora Faolan He has basically a really bad sun burn Would he be ostricized or joked at for that back in the 1800s? Depending on the area, and his backgrounds, yes Sent to a freak circus and make people faint because of his face? Fuck no
Counterpoint: In the book, erik is described as having no nose or lips, and having a skeletal face that was so horrifying to look at that even the daroga couldn’t bear to look at him. The phantom needs to look gruesome because it drives the plot. It is where his pain comes from - having a face so horrible that no one, not even his mother - could bear to look at him, let alone love him.
this disfigurement wasn't that bad!!!!! that man had so many emotions in his soul, and so much talent inside him...despite he'd faced so much misery in his life, and he'd never known how it feels someone to care about you, he was able to love and care...so for all that he deserved to be with Christine without a doubt!
If you read the novel, you'll see it's *much worse* than in the musical. His face looks like a skull, he has pale/yellow skin, deep eyes and skinny body. That's what makes him so beautiful and special.
@@la_esmeralda444 true. this film was the one that introduced me to POTO, and i loved many moments from it, but his face... i was so disappointed even without reading a book yet. i understand how they maybe wanted him to look more attractive for female audience, but there is a way to make him attractive _and_ canonically accurate (and a lot if artists will tell you just exactly that lmao). and even with that, he doesn't have to be attractive. the whole point of the Phantom is that his voice and his personality are charming and his love is pure in the end, and this is why readers loved his character. Butler can play good, and i really loved him in this film (tho there were moments in his Phantom's behaviour i didn't agree with), but to hear someone say that he felt uncomfortable with this kind of a simple sun burn?.. am i not getting something, or i just have very low standarts for man's appearances? :D
to those who think they know the phantom, erik is not his real name. The name comes up in the book but that was a name the phantom chose for himself because he never had a name.
His name is Erik. When the book says "it's not his 'real' name", it's because he has no registred identidy and his abusive mother never named him. But his name was decided to be ERIK, by himself. If it's not registred in the law, then he doesn't exist? How people still misunderstand this and insist to call Erik "The Phantom" or a "nameless legend" is still unnerving and increible to me.
Yeah maybe the disfigurement could of been better but I don't really think the 25th anniversary is acted better, may be sung better on the Phantoms half but, Gerard's voice suits it more for me, its more mysterious and sexy, and easier to connect with him more than Ramin. I think, the overall emotional drive of the film is displayed better than that of the play. Both great, but the movie does it for me more.
Thank you. I so aggressive with you on this. Also I really like the pacing in the movie. In the stage musical everything seemed so fast, where as in the movie the characters had some time for their emotions to fully sink in and act accordingly to the situations they all were put in. It was just fantastic.
I'm glad Gerry was such a good sport about the makeup. Most actors hate being made up! In fact the hatred felt between Lon Chaney Jr and makeup man Jack Pierce was LEGENDARY!
I'm sorry I know one side of his face looks scary from his past but that is what makes him so beautiful. The phantom is beautifully broken and needs beauty to heal him. If i were Christine I would of stayed with Phantom.
Girls. I just want to tell you, that in the books he looks nothing like he does in the movie. He has like three hairs on his head, his face is unrecognizable... I mean, if you saw him on the street, you wouldn't automatically think, WHAT A BEAUTIFUL AND ARTSY PERSON!. no, truthfully, although I do like this version of phantom. Sincerely, to everyone who read the book
maybe they could have made it a little more gruesome, but I'm my opinion (and I'm sure not everyone will agree) I think that the disfigurement didn't need to be really terrible, it was also the fact that no matter what he looked like under the mask, people didn't want him and didn't like him, and so maybe that made him think his disfigurement is a lot worse than what it actually is.
Honestly, whether its the stage plays horrific corpse face or the movies warped features, I think both work because they exemplify how, first of all, Erik allows himself to become as monsterous as he appears and secondly, it shows the cruelty of people. That no matter how talented and extrordinary Erik was, even half his face being warped was enough for people to scorn him and demonize him
True, in the 19th century, it was a big deal to them. Any type of deformity and you'd be called a freak. Every adaptation is different - that does not mean that it is bad. It is not important how disfigured he is, it is how disfigured he feels which is what leads him down a dark path. His own mother and society made him feel like an ugly, worthless person.
I hate how poor this "deformity" is, but bruh, Gerard Butler was so great as Erik! His acting and his voice fited completely to Erik, and he's such a good gentle fellow! The 2004 movie is magnificent, althought they missed the deformity.
Watch the 25th Anniversary Concert with Ramin Karimloo! You won't be disappointed with the disfigurement ;) (plus it's sung/acted and generally better than the movie in every way)
And can i say at first he killed to escape and then no one showed him compassion or love so he killed them like erick said" the world showed no compassion to me "
It would have been interesting if they'd gone for a full face deformity for this movie, given that the half-mask is used in the musical only because a full mask wouldn't work with the stage microphones. It would tie in with the logo and make it something 'different' than what's seen on stage. Though given they went with the vague sunburn look here, I don't think they would be ballsy enough to go full-face ugly. It also suffers because Gerard's Phantom has the droopy eye socket with the mask off but in all the scenes where he's wearing a mask, his undereye area looks fine, and there's no hint the mask is anything more than a fashion accessory. At least during the stage version, you still see hints of the deformity with the mask on, especially with the mouth and bloated lips. It reminds you of what's under the mask, and ups the visual suspense until you see the full reveal.
The book is the book, and will always be the original, nothing will change that. I don't know why people seek perfection. I for one love when they make some changes in on-screen adaptations. It shows a "what if..." side that you never thought about and explores new depths. Just sayin'!
The original make-up for the 1925`s Lon Chaney Sr.`s "Phantom of The Opera"' will be always more haunting and heart-breaking nowadays than the make-up of the last version of the "Phantom of the Opera"' for me...If you could watch the original Unmasking Scene several times, you can feel the fear and the fierceness of those facial and body expressions saying everything that need to be said without using any words !
actually, the whole "burned as a child" thing depends on what version you go by. I've never read the book, but I don't think that's part of it. I still think they got cheap on the disfigurement. Probably because they went through all this trouble getting a "young, sexy" phantom and couldn't bear to ugly up that pretty face. Have you seen the original disfigurement from the play? Or Lon Chaney's face? THAT is something to hid in a mask
People are saying this makeup doesn't look as "intense" as the stage versions. Well...yeah. Stage makeup HAS to be intense so that even people up in the nosebleed section can see it. In film that's not the case.
My thoughts on Ramin is, He has a pretty face, and he sings okay, but I see the phantom singing more like Ben or deeper like Gerards. Ramin isn't a favorite, but he isn't bad.
There's a penny arcade comic about the movie Beastly that also applies to this, where the "deformed" guy says he's tormented, and she replies "I love you, even though you're so cool and rad."
@aniva26 It's a wig. You can see him adjusting it during "Seal my Fate" -- and a spare wig on a stand in the background, too -- and then Christine pulls it off during "The Point of No Return".
I agree it was wrong to be so mean. However the fact you said 'we didn't realise he is disfigured' says it all. The centre of the Phantom's character is his disfigurement, it's the reason he is a Phantom! That's what angers me most, that the movie/gerard butler fans don't realise this, it's the point of the movie!
Listen, why be so mean and shoot this person down for no reason. For thinking someone is attractive? I think the Phantom is hot! lol . His look, his voice his personality and the romance behind his character make him sexy. .and I dont have a twilight name. So I would keep your "facts" to yourself. Oh and thanx tips, we didn't realize he is disfigured. I dont care if he isn't meant to be hot, I find him attractive. :)
Its crazy how Gerard Butler in general & him as the phantom, there like 2 completely different people and looks, he played the phantom so well,you wouldin't even recognize that Gerry played the phantom,cuz Gerry is like this chill funny guy, and as the phantom he is like this evil,and mysterious man. I dont know why but he looks better as the phantom for some reason, too bad that phantom character isin't real, still Gerry is very handsome & good looking,but Gosh when he stransforms...HOT
I wished that the make-up could have looked more gruesome too, it made Erik seem like a whiny bitch for blaming everything on his face when it really isn't that bad. However, I do like how that may be the tragedy in itself: He spent his life focusing on something that isn't that big of a deal and wasted his chance at happiness. It adds weight to Christine's line: "This haunted face Holds no horror for me now. It's in your soul That the true distortion lie" So in the movie, she's basically saying "You ain't that ugly, but you are pretty fucked up mane"
Lets not forget also that the makers of the film wanted the Phantom's deformity as, and I quote from what Gerard said, 'repulsive yet human'. If they had a similar deformity from the musical.. which granted is more impressive.. then personaly I don't think it would of been as believable.
@MsAliciaSelena agreed, but you have to give Gerard props for doing what he did in such a short amount of time: he's never had singing lessons and managed to perform fantastically well. Plus, they had to have a fairly well known name for the movie
My personal opinion is that this version of the phantom's disfigurment is better for the film. It's way less severe than it is in the musical, and I personaly like it that way.
I think this is a grand movie, but I think the deformity should have been worse, after all it was supposedly so bad that his own mother could not bear to look at him. However to fit it under that half mask, I understand there's only so much they can do.
That is a genius reworking of that song! Here's a cross country-themed version- As I run up that hill, this is what I see All the girls in spandex are strain' at me I got passion in my spikes and I ain't afraid to show it, show it, show it, show it I'm speedy and I know it
I have mixed feelings on Butler's Phantom, Sure the singing and acting was good, but yes the disfigurement could have been a lot more pronounced. The stage productions phantom looked miles better, but the Original Phantom makeup wouldn't have worked for the 2004 film, as it would be considered to gruesome for the purpose of the film, which was more romanticized than the 1989 version.
+ShiMorino I agree with you on the makeup and acting, although I personally was not a fan of Butler's voice. I thought they needed a stronger singer in the role. Just my opinion though...
I agree, the original version wouldn't be fitting for the romance theme the movie was going for. Besides if they, or any adaptation for that matter, really wanted a live action phantom they would have to starve the actor til the point he beats anorexic teenagers. That's what the phantom was described as, a living corpse. And that's just not on for any film production.
His disfigurement looks like he just had an allergic reaction to his mask! And in the final scenes, you can barely see it! They could have done a much better job making his disfigurement. Otherwise, I think he was a great phantom, and I like his voice better than the original London and Broadway cast recordings.
But here's the thing that was the 1800s, it may not seem like a big deal to us but it was a big deal to them. Any type of deformity and you'd be called a freak
I only seen a few songs on YT and I know the voices were better than the voices in the movie. But I love the effects and the sort of reality in the movie that you can't put in a play. I also think the characters in the movie looked better, especially Christine.
OMG I’m in love with the phantom the make up is cool and he still looks good if I seen him unmasked like that I’d give him a kiss on that side before kissing him on the mouth and say to me your just perfect
I think she was being sarcastic when she said, "Thanks, we didn't realise he is disfigured." You know what angers me most? Stage fans who think all movie fans "just don't get the point of the story." You're basically saying, "If you like the movie, you're an idiot." Condescending much?
Only Gerard Butler could make a disfigurement look attractive. He's just gorgeous and played the part of the phantom well considering he wasn't an experienced singer.
i might be wrong but i thought that was the point, thats it is a disfigurement but its not really that bad and the phantom just builds it up in his head aswell that hes a monster, which he is but for physco issues not physical issues
does anyone else see that christine didn't choose raoul because he was better looking BUT BECAUSE HE WAS A CRAZY STALKING MURDERER! I mean I absolutely believe that the phantom deserved sympathy and love, which he should have been given in the first place but people act like there's nothing wrong with the phantom and that raoul is the bad guy...