> I have just noticed a lot of people discussing how they felt the singing
> in the film was mediocre in comparison with the play. I completely agree,
> however I also feel this particular had perfect casting. In a play, the
> audience will not see the expressions on the actors faces.

As someone who has seen the show over 40 times I can confidently tell you that this is completely untrue. Sure, if you sit in the ##### seats at the very top back of the house, you can't see facial expressions. But with a good Phantom, you can see a great deal of facial expression, including expressions in their eyes. The great stage Phantoms convey a tremendous amount of subtlety in their faces which can be seen close-up and mid-distance, as well as using body language and movement, and vocals, for the rest of the house.

Defending Butler's performance because he isn't a trained singer is a bit silly really - the point is that they should have cast a trained singer/

Butler, though he does his best, does not have the vocal ability to sustain the role. He is striving so hard to hit the notes that he cannot use his singing to express any emotion, the meaning of the words.

His acting similarly lacks the passion and depth of so many who have done the role on stage.

I am not comparing him to Crawford, I didn't see Crawford in the role. I am not comparing him to any particular stage Phantom. I am just looking at whether he was good enough for the role -- whether he was able to portray as strong a Phantom as a good stage actor, and the answer is sadly no, not by a long way.

Much of the fault lies with Schumacher, of course, and Lloyd Webber (who sold out long ago).