Phantom Theory

phantomtheory @ 2006-09-26T11:21:00

2006-09-26T15:23:08Z

Hi everyone, new member here. I saw Phantom for the first time last week when I was visiting New York. It was awesome! Had to find a community here to join ;)

Loved the chandelier part in the beginning, my friend warned me right beforehand but I still jumped lol.

How many of you thought Phantom was a complete asshole?

phantomtheory @ 2006-03-20T01:09:00

2006-03-20T06:13:11Z

A little ramble about the dynamics of Erik/Christine and Raoul/Christine, copied from my personal journal. I don't think it's coherent enough to be called an essay or a theory, but there's no longwinded_phantom_meta community, so I'm just pimping it here. Comments, criticsm, arguments, etc. welcome.

Plz to be noting that I have abandoned my Leroux purism for the moment, and this post is based on the ALW musical except where stated otherwise. Mostly because it was relistening to the musical that brought this on, but also partly because for all my book fangirliness, ALW is my original frame of reference, so it's easier to think in those terms.

Abstractly, I think Christine's feelings towards Erik can be summarized pretty well in Twisted Every Way: there are essentially two reasons why she doesn't want to take part in Raoul's plan. She wants to avoid Erik, and she also wants to protect him. Why does she want to avoid him? Well, quite simply, she's terrified of him. She knows he's obsessed with her, that he's unstable, that he places very little value on human life. She doesn't want to be responsible for another disaster, and she most definitely does not want to give him the chance to kidnap her. Underlying this is the subtext that she doesn't want to be in close proximity to him because of the effect he has on her. By day, when she's not in his presence and she's in full possession of her faculties, she knows rationally that he's a psycho stalker and she shouldn't be involved with him at all. But she tends to, ah, forget that when he's singing in her ear and doing the much-fangirled Sexy Hand Thing. And once she's away from him, she knows she shouldn't let herself fall under his spell, but she also knows that if she's alone with him she probably will, and that would be a betrayal of not only her integrity but of Raoul as well. In addition to wanting to avoid Erik's violent instability, she wants to remove any possibility that she would cheat on the man she loves due to a perverse attraction that only comes into effect when she's in Erik's magnetic presence. It's reality versus fantasy, a stable and committed relationship versus the thrill of seduction.

And yes, O E/C shippers, she also wants to protect him, but I'd put that at about equal level with avoidance, or maybe even a bit lower, and a lot of it is motivated by pity. She knows he's flippin' psychotic, but she's also seen his vulnerable, human side, and doesn't want to see him captured and treated like a monster when there is obviously so much more to him. She also knows that she's indebted to him because he "made [her] song take wing;" her feelings towards Erik himself are ambivalent, but she never ceases to treasure the rapture he gave her through music.

The reason Raoul seems like such a jackass for pressuring her into taking part into his plan is because the audience can see the multiple angles of Christine's dilemma, while he sees only the first reason for her reluctance: her fear. Consider what Raoul knows about Erik and what Christine has said about him--in the musical, not the book! He seems to realize fairly quickly that the Angel of Music who's so controlling of her actions is the same as the Phantom who's responsible for her disappearance after Hannibal; the next he hears of the Phantom is on the rooftop after Il Muto. And what does Christine say about Erik then? That he's a murderer, that he took her down to his lair, that he's horribly deformed but that his music has a wonderful effect on her. (Note that she conveniently left out all the swoony seduction bits of Music of the Night.) All through AIAOY she asks him constantly to protect her, to help her live free of Erik and his bizarre netherworld. And so when he tries to convince her to help her trap Erik, he doesn't understand her attraction to him, her desire to protect her relationship with Raoul, her pity towards Erik or her debt to him. All he sees is that she's terrified of what he might do to her, and since her fear is the only obstacle he's aware of, he thinks it's just a matter of reassuring her and giving her courage. Which, regardless of the dubiousness of his plan, is a sweet and supportive thing to do.

The fantasy vs. reality issue, I think, is the heart of the schism between E/C shippers and R/C shippers. E/C is exciting; it's all about danger, seduction, forbidden desire. Whereas R/C is downright boring, but it's an infinitely healthier relationship in the long run. And I completely understand the appeal of excitement--honestly, who doesn't instinctually root for Erik? But where most E/C shippers go wrong is in assuming that because their dynamic is more interesting and more appealing, Erik and Christine are going to settle down happily and have eight children and make sweet sweet music of the night together until they die at a ripe old age, romantically curled up in the coffin in one another's arms. An ending like that is, quite frankly, R/C dressed up with a mask and some pretty music. The excitement and passion of their relationship, let loose as it is in so many twisted forms, makes it ridiculously unstable; to remove the instability is to remove what makes E/C appealing. We find Erik more interesting than Raoul because he's dangerous, because he kidnaps the woman he loves and drops chandeliers on people's heads and throws shit fits whenever anyone touches his mask and extorts and blackmails and murders in Christine's name. The same intensity in his character that's so seductive in Music of the Night leads him to be rather, well, explosive. But seduction, no matter how toe-curlingly delicious it can be, is not in and of itself the basis for a long-term relationship like E/C fics are so fond of portraying. Can a relationship have a crackling-hot dynamic and still lead to years of stability and committment? You bet your buttons it can, but they're separate phenomena and while Erik and Christine have attraction in spades, I'm not seeing the stability and longevity bit. At all.

Raoul/Christine is practically the opposite. It's boring. It's mushy. It's got about as much sexual tension as my left sock. But it's also based on mutual adoration, caring, and respect. No, Christine probably doesn't get the same thrill in Raoul's presence as she does in Erik's, but she does feel happy and safe. That thrill of danger and seduction and infatuation wears off after a while, and unfortunately for the E/C ship it's practically all those two have got going for them in terms of a relationship. But caring, respect, safety--with a bit of maintenance, those can last a lifetime.

I, personally, see Christine's choice not to return to Erik as a sign that she has matured throughout the story. Her childhood was marked by fairy tales and wild flights of fancy, and the entire Angel of Music issue is an extension of that. Erik's love for her forces it into a more mature dimension, but throughout most of the story Christine continues to see him in fairy tale aspect, and constantly gets her feeling with him confused with her feelings for her father, who planted all the fantasy in her head in the first place. After the graveyard scene, she lets go of this fantasy mindset and her inability to get over her father's death; this allows the more sexual side of her relationship with Erik to come into full bloom (PoNR, etc), but it also severs the tie she had to him as her Angel of Music. With that gone, when she is confronted in the Final Lair scene with the full twistedness of his adoration, she is able to forgive him, but she's also able to leave him once he lets her go. And in that act of forgiveness, I think, Erik is able to take a step back and realize, as she has already done, that they have no future together. He lets her go. Yes, she could have gone back, and if she had, I doubt he would have been able to keep up his resolve, send her back to the relationship that would be better for her, and insist on breaking his own heart in the process. But she doesn't go back, because she understands that as alluring and beautiful as the fantasy he represents may be, she can't live in it. Fantasy vs. reality, excitement vs. stability. She gives up the doomed, short-lived ecstasy she might have experienced with Erik for a mild but long-lived happiness with Raoul.

E/C is terribly romantic, but in the end, Christine makes the choice I think most of us would make in The Real World. Fiction is not, of course, The Real World, so the E/C ship flourishes, but yes, it annoys me when people write boring fluff fic that sucks out everything that makes the pairing appealing in the first place. They don't have a happy ending, and that's what makes them more interesting than R/C.

I really should give this thing a decent conclusion, but frankly, I'm all rambled out. I realize that I've completely failed to address Erik's perspective throughout this, but it's not meant to be an all-encompassing rant. No, really, it was originally supposed to have a very specific subject, if you can believe that.

phantomtheory @ 2006-02-25T20:03:00

2006-02-25T19:39:27Z

I'm new here, so greetings to all.
I just started my researches, but didn't get far... I'm reading Leroux and Kay parallel at the moment, so sorry when I mix up facts.
Wondered about a few things:

Does anyone know details about Don Juan in connection to Erik? I think there is a reference in Susan Kay's novel, but I'm not shure how to interpret the whole aspect... Okay, they both wear masks (well, have to confess that I didn't read the Don Juan novels yet, just saw the movie with Johnny Depp :)...) but is there something in the figure of Don Juan that makes Erik write an opera? (Is this from Leroux or just ALW's invention?)

About the question if there was a real ghost/Erik... Just a thought, no opinion:
For Erik is a genius in music, I wonder if he'd like to stay in the cellar of an opera-house, which is famous for it's bad acoustic... Therefore it's used for ballet only, today.
Okay, I know it would have been difficult for him to move just to the next theatre, but I don't think that someone who is so deeply in love with music could bear this mistake.
So there is a little mistake in Kay's novel... When he really was involved in the planning/building of the opera house (and was great at architecture, too), he would have made sure that the sound is great- well, you'll say that it's author's right to change the facts and I think Kay did a great job in general, but that was an aspect, that made me think about it.

sorry for my english- I'm no native speaker

Something Special for the PoTO Fans on my Flist

2005-12-31T17:50:16Z

Not all of of us can make it to Broadway to see the record-breaker performance of "Phantom," but we can order the playbill: http://www.playbillstore.com/phofop7pecop.html. I received the notification in my e-mail this morning.

X-posted to several places from my personal LJ.

Maybe that scene isn't so pointless...

2005-11-11T02:03:30Z

The one where Raoul falls into the water and the grid comes down on him.

The whole scene is vaguely incriminating Giry. She leads Raoul towards Erik's lair but then says "This is as far as I dare go." Perhaps she KNOWS the trap is there. And maybe even she's hoping Raoul will be foiled by it because it seems all along that she's been assisting Erik in his pursuit of Christine.

Food for thought.

phantomtheory @ 2005-10-19T13:37:00

2005-10-19T17:34:00Z

Hello. Newbie. ::waves::
One of my favourite past times with my best friend is debating Phantom. It'll be interesting to see what our conversations turn into with multiple input.

If Erik were alive today, do you think he would have corrective surgery on his face? Why or why not?

Sorry if this was already discussed.

Old opera acoustics

2005-10-09T05:07:11Z

Just something I've been pondering.

Back in the days of the Paris Opera House, they didn't have speakers/amplifiers/microphones etc.

How on earth did the entire crowd hear the singers?

phantomtheory @ 2005-09-16T22:22:00

2005-09-17T02:23:31Z

some thoughts on archetypal / close critical approaches to the Erik/Christine/Raoul love triangle.

comes from too much AP English. (on the other hand, you can never have enough Phantom.)

sorry if the language seems pretentiously articulate (or not at all articulate), been reading lots of older literature for school lately...

It's important to note the several differences between the Christine Daae of Gaston Leroux's novel and the Christine Daae of Andrew Lloyd Webber's musical. In the book, to begin with, Christine is blonde, childlike, and, strangely enough, really in love with Raoul. As it happens, it is stated in the book that (and I paraphrase) her heart belongs to the Vicomte. Basically, Leroux's Christine is a perfect little engenoue -- fair-haired, pretty, subservient to her master, and in love with her nobleman. However, it is remarkably clear that Webber's Christine is a whole different animal.

Let's begin with her appearance. The only major difference between the novel's Christine and the stage's Christine is the hair color -- while Leroux's Christine has golden locks, Webber's Christine is invariably dark-haired (which, by the way, doesn't fit at all with her supposedly Swedish heritage). It is completely possible that this coloring is a nod to Sarah Brightman, but it's much more exciting to take an archetypal approach to the issue. In general, by this approach, a blonde, beautiful person is the purest and most perfect character there can be -- certainly true of Leroux's Christine. Webber's Christine is certainly beautiful enough, but the dark hair means she has a dark streak, and that dark streak manifests itself in her curious relationship with the Phantom of the Opera. Archetypically, Webber's dark colored Christine is basically good, but she has a tendency to be attracted to evil things. This attraction is what puts the play a cut above the book in the respect of general comprehension (not to be confused with general awesomeness, the book might take that one); in the book, as much as Erik may have loved Christine, she is far too pure for him, and her feelings for him were close friendship at best and terror at worst. However, Webber's Christine posseses a certain capacity to fall from grace, and it is because of this that she is able to relate to Erik's inner emotions and begin to elevate their relationship above the level of student and pupil. What's more fascinating about her than other heroines is that, when the gallant Vicomte saved her from the clutches of the evil monster, there was a very real part of her that very definitely didn't want to go.

While we're on the subject of arcehtypes. The key archetype to any story involving romance is the idea of the sacred marriage -- that is to say, the romantic union of the two characters that are equal in their souls. Throughout the story, both Raoul and Erik are trying to make a sacred marriage with Christine, and the conflict is that she doesn't know which one she's supposed to go to. She ends up on the light side with Raoul, but she comes damn close to giving in to that dark streak of hers and running off with Erik. How perplexing.

Anyhoo, let's go close-critical and analyze Christine's relationships with both Raoul and Erik.

Obviously, the key moment to Raoul and Christine's relationship is the song All I Ask of You. If Andrew Lloyd Webber is doing what I hope he's doing, then he's a genius, because this song where she's supposed to be loving someone else demonstrates more profoundly than anything that Christine is having very strong emotions for her tutor. Through the whole song, Raoul is making Christine promises to "guard" her and "guide" her, heaping praise on her, and basically laying down his sweet lovestruck little heart before her. There is not a doubt in my mind that Raoul honestly loves Christine and honestly intends to keep all these promises. But, unfortunately for him, Christine isn't reciprocating at all -- at best, she's just reapeating what Raoul has said about her, or projecting her feelings for Erik onto Raoul. The closest she comes to expressing any emotion for him is when she says that she wants him "always beside" her, but even that is followed with the statement that she wants him there to "hide" her -- a statement that shows that the Phantom (in this instance, her fear of him) is dominating her thoughts. You'll notice that the question of "why have you brought me here" is never really answered in the musical; the answer is an immense and ridiculously complex love. Christine is scared out of her poor sixteen year old mind, and Raoul unwittingly takes advantage of this. He believes Christine loves him. So does she. But she doesn't.

Also, to examine the structure of the script itself. In musicals, dominant characters are given solos -- i.e., arias -- to develop themselves. The managers have one; Carlotta has one; Erik has one; Christine has two. Raoul, however, has none. The closest thing he's got is All I Ask of You, which is sung on account of and in the context of Christine. Really, Raoul only exists in the context of other characters. This seems to imply that he is less important than Christine or Erik. This could be taken as a very subtle way of showing that Erik and Christine belong together more than Raoul and Christine do.

i'm done.

your opinions are excellent =D

xposted some places.

Musings

2005-09-12T20:20:01Z

I'm afraid I've been thinking...a dangerous pastime, I know.

ALW/movieverse thought: Aside from the fact that Erik was crazy about her, it really wouldn't have made sense for Christine to play the contessa in Il Muto. Maybe Erik has logic problems?

The character was pretty well-fit for Carlotta, at least physically. Christine was young enough that, in any real opera setting, she would have been playing boys (I think that would be mezzo-soprano, but I don't know much at all about opera, so correct me if I'm wrong). I mean, I know the managers wanted to stop Carlotta's bitch-fit, but automatically throwing Christine into a silent role seems rather illogical.

But then, there is very little in The Phantom of the Opera that really makes perfect sense, no matter what version you're dealing with.

¿Pensamientos?

phantomtheory @ 2005-09-08T21:32:00

2005-09-09T05:42:58Z

I have The Essential Phantom of the Opera, which, as most of you probably know, is a much more accurate and detalied translation of the original novel than the version that is most commonly sold, and that the majority of us have.

Anyway... I was rereading it last night and I noticed a part that, for some reason, I had overlooked before. It's at the end of the chapter Apollo's Lyre.

The common version goes like this:

"You are frightened...but do you love me? If Erik were good-looking, would you love me, Christine?"

She rose in her turn, put her two trembling arms round the young man's neck and said:

"Oh, my betrothed of a day, if I did not love you, I would not give you my lips! Take them, for the first time and the last."

The Essential POTO goes like this:

"You're afraid. But do you love me? If Erik were handsome, would you love me, Christine?"

"Unhappy man! Why do you tempt destiny? Why do you ask me about things that I hide deep in my conscience the way I would hide a sin."

She got to her feet and trembling, put her lovely arms around the young man, saying "Oh, my fiance of a single day, if I did not love you, I would not give you my lips. For the first and last time, take them."

Aha! Look at that sentence! Why do you tempt destiny? Why do you ask me about things that I hide deep in my conscience the way I would hide a sin. So she does have feelings for Erik other than horror and pity! I mean, it was "between the lines" throughout the entire book, but there is actual proof. ^_^

And, another thought - what do you think Christine means when she says "For the first and last time, take them." The last time? I've thought about it for a while, but can't think of a good reason, except that inwardly, maybe she thought Erik would take her for good... *ponders*

Inquiring minds want to know...

2005-09-06T22:09:57Z

Hola! New here, but prone to theorizing and mental wanderings, especially within the realm of The Phantom of the Opera. I've never seen the stage show (uncultured town + exorbitant ticket prices), but I've read Leroux a few times and I own the 2004 movie. I am a Raoul fangirl in training *dodges rotten fruit* I know he's a bit of a nosy, whiny prat sometimes, certainly not anybody's "knight in shining armor", and really not all that dreadfully important to the story, but I'd still hit that. Haha, just kidding. But someone needs to defend our lovesick vicomte around here, no?

Anyhoo, onto the theorizing.

1. How would you picture Leroux's Christine? Like, in terms of any celebrities or anything. I'm not terribly imaginitive, but I kind of see Mischa Barton...plus about 20 pounds. I mean, think about it: I'm assuming that until the gala where she played Margarita, Christine was playing boys; she probably was thin and boyish-looking. And we know she was blonde. Anyone want to continue (or derail) this train of thought?

2. Has anybody ever thought about Sorelli, the prima ballerina? I mean, she really wasn't important either, but have you ever been curious about maybe where she came from, what she was like (besides superstitious), how she came to "know" the Comte de Chagny, or anything like that? I've read one or two fanfics dealing with her, but they were all kind of sucky. It's just something that's always sort of been scratching at the back of my mind.

3. Why does the Phandom hate Raoul? I know he's not nearly as badass as Erik (few literary men are, except maybe Mr. Darcy, but that's a totally different story), but why is there such animosity towards him? Is it because he ended up with Christine, or because he shot a cat (>_< bad Raoulie), or what? I know there are some intelligent arguments out there besides "OMG KiLL teh f0p!!111oneeleven". You can do it. Come on.

Whew. That's all for now, but I'm sure I'll have more soon.

♥ Christine

phantomtheory @ 2005-08-26T17:29:00

2005-08-27T01:30:51Z

Has anyone else thought of the significance in Christine calling Erik "guide and guardian" and then, in All I Ask of You, transferring that to Raoul as she says "you'll guard me and you'll guide me"? Just makes me ponder. :) I think it sort of shows how young and innocent she really is, and how she's looking for a "father figure", or at least someone to protect her.

phantomtheory @ 2005-08-18T07:30:00

2005-08-18T14:38:17Z

Hey, being that this is a " phantom theory " community, have you all ever heard the theories of the existence of a REAL Christine and that Erik might have been related to Raoul and Phillipe? Now before you scream and stomp up and down on me, because I was floored at the thought too. Well I was checking out this site:

this is the one about a possible real Christine:

http://www.phantomoftheopera.info/history4.htm

And this is the bit about an "Eric" (not Erik) de Changy

http://www.phantomoftheopera.info/history2.htm

There's also "evidence" of Carlotta!

new here

2005-08-02T20:43:34Z

Hello
:D I'm Melissa. I'm 16 and of course in love with the Phantom of the Opera. I haven't read the book yet but I plan too. When I was 12 my grandma took me to see the opera at Fox Theatre in Detroit. I loved it but didn't quite understand it all. My grandma explained it to me though and we bought tapes that contained the whole opera. Me and my sister own the new movie. We watch it all the time and so do some of my friends! It's great! Just thought I'd introduce myself. :) Feel free to comment.

<3
Melissa

phantomtheory @ 2005-07-08T00:20:00

2005-07-08T04:26:15Z

Hey all I just joined a few days ago and I'm a fellow Phantom obsessee. I read the Leroux novel after I saw and fell in love with the '04 movie. It's got some crazy parts in it, like the disappearance of Christine's stockings, and (have any of you noticed?) how Erik kind of knocks her head against this huge tassel after she faints during "Music of the Night," and the terrible but hilarious "Point of No Return" dancers. I still adore that movie and watch it waaay too much, which is probably where I got my crazy theory from. It doesn't make much sense when put in context with the information provided in Leroux's novel, but from the way Madame Giry acts towards the Phantom during the movie, and the overall vibe of her character, and the incredible and undeniable sexiness that is Gerard Butler's Phantom, I was wondering if anyone else thought it might be plausible that Meg was the lovechild of Erik and Madame Giry. They never mention Madame Giry's husband or Meg's father during the movie, and I think that Madame Giry was casting some longing glances at Erik during the film. This might not apply at all to the stage version or the book but I thought it was interesting anyway! Any thoughts?

phantomtheory @ 2005-07-06T12:07:00

2005-07-06T16:13:20Z

This is a question for everyone, but I'm specifically hoping that vilia64 will comment (because you said you've sought out all forms of the phantom)

What is the BEST version of Phantom?

The Book, The stage production, ANY of the, like, 12 movies that have been made....

And WHY?

If you could put what the characters are like and any other details that appeal to you for those of us who haven't experienced that particular form of Phantom, That would be great.

Thanks!

phantomtheory @ 2005-06-28T11:18:00

2005-06-28T18:24:06Z

Okay. Help me out here. I feel positively silly about this- I humbly ask the question:

"Was The Phantom of the Opera a true story?"

Now, I've heard bits and pieces here and there that it might or might not be, and even if it was true, that there are all kinds of details that are VERY different from the book, movies and musical. I fell in love with the ALW show first and pursued the movies (don't get me started on the flawed 2004 flick...there's already a rant in my journal about it...) and while I still call myself a fan, I am just now sitting down to Leroux's book for the first time. Please give me any and all information you have- I love this story, and I can't imagine ever getting tired of it!

phantomtheory @ 2005-06-24T11:30:00

2005-06-24T15:43:46Z

Ok, I must admit that I fell for the movie first, and have never seen the stageplay (although it's on the top of my list). PoTO is the go-to movie for me and my best friend. Sleepover? Phantom. Little extra time just sitting around with nothing to do? Phantom. Here are some things we've noticed:

1 Point of no return: Yeah. Pretty hott. "I've already imagined our bodies entwining defenseless and silent" "How long should we two wait before we're one" yeah. You know what I mean. Well, in this scene, when Christine's sleeves fall down, ("fall down") Does it look to anyone else as if they're pulled by strings? And, What is with the black-clothed flamenco dancers? Did anyone else notice an excess of cape-swishing (by the way, the sexiest motion known to woman). And The burning question: DOES THE MIDGET KNOW SOMETHING?

2 The directing for most of the sung scenes was CRAP. When there is supposed to be a huge buildup (i.e. "Let your song [soul?] take you where you long to BE!" "Every hope and every prayer rests on you now") There is NOTHING. I mean that Raoul/Christine scene I just refered to : hug. COME ON NOW!!! And "Music of the Night" That entire scene is so BORING. The singing is awesome, but the direction? eh.

3 Just in general (movie, stage, not book though) Why does Erik show her the wax Christine? That just screams "CRAZY!" Don't get me wrong. I loved Erik SO MUCH. I just think that the wax figure of christine is CREEPY. I think it takes away from his character. It makes him more stalker and less unrequoited lover.

Anyway, Let me know what your thoughts are.

Thanks kids!
Less Than Three

The Ghost's Lady

2005-06-22T03:05:21Z

An entry or two back, I posted a question about how Madame Giry told the managers that the ghost "sometimes brings a lady" to the Box 5. Well, I thought about it for a while and I actually wrote a short fanfic on it. Hope you like. :)

The Ghost's Lady

Discussion.

2005-06-20T05:18:47Z

Discussion Topic #1:

Andrew Lloyd Webber "Phantom" vs. Ken Hill "Phantom"

Since this community is kind of dead, I thought I might try to start some kind of discussion of a more "opinionated" nature, opposed to "theory" or "fact"... yes, I know this community deals with ANALYZING PotO, but why not add a little opinion of your own?

Which stays more true to The Phantom? Which one really, all in all, IS Erik/"The Phantom?" I wanna know what you think. I've been juggling this around for a while. Also bring in certain actors--

For example, I personally do NOT think Gerard Butler was "THE PHANTOM"... granted he was a GREAT approach to the Phantom, but he wasn't the complete epitome of what the Phantom of the Opera really is. Michael Crawford was "the Phantom" for me, as is Ethan Freeman. Gerry-Phantom is... so different from other Phantoms. But no matter the actor, it's still all in all, the "Andrew Lloyd Webber Phantom of the Opera."

But then there's the Stephen Blanchard (my personal favorite of the Ken Hill performers) kind of Phantom which.. stayed a LOT more true to the ORIGINAL Phantom character in my honest opinion. If you took the real Phantom, Ken Hill's Phantom, and mixed him with an emotionally tense 10-year-old boy, I think you'd get Michael Crawford, who I personally, although cliche, think is THE "Phantom", even if he really isn't "true" to the original character. So cliche, yes, I know...

When you really think about it.. ALW and Ken Hill's Phantoms are.. ENTIRELY different phantoms, and ALW includes an entirely SPECTRUM of different Phantoms in and of itself.

So tell me what you think.

Doesn't need to be "true" to Erik himself from his 'roots', but who do you all think gives the best depiction and feel of The Phantom of the Opera? Ken Hill's or ALW's? The overall character, not particular actors, but bring in certain actors to prove points.

I'm just curious as to what people other than myself think.

Also feel free to bring in other Phantom musicals, if you want...

- - - - -
Discussion Topic #2:
Would it have been more beneficial for Raoul to keep his hand at the level of his eyes or his hand on the railing of the staircase? Discuss!

Erik's "lady"?

2005-06-11T21:09:33Z

Okay, this has been niggling at the back of my mind ever since I first read Leroux's book. In Chapter 4, Box Five, Madame Giry says several things that catch my eye....

"Well, I brought the footstool. Of course, it wasn't for himself he wanted it, but for his lady! But I never heard her nor saw her."

"Some evenings, I find flowers in the box, a rose that must have dropped from his lady's bodice... for he brings a lady with him sometimes; one day, they left a fan behind them."

Who is Erik's lady? Is there even a real lady at all? I have several theories, but none of them quite make sense.

The Evil I Love You

2005-06-09T16:54:15Z

This is totally a movie based discussion topic. Just sos ya know!

I think by this point, we've all seen the evil 'I love you' from Christine to Raoul just before she kisses the Phantom. My question is why? What's Christine's motivation? Why did Joel think he was accomplishing by adding that to the film? And why does Erik still think she chose him from love if he SAW that!!!

Personally, I think it weakens the scene and Christine's character (which I typically think is pretty weak anyway). Christine has split loyalties, we all know this. Without getting into my personal rant or any arguments on the nature of love and desire in Phantom of the Opera, let's take it to it's simplest premise. She loves Erik. She loves Raoul. She can't be with both. By forcing this choice on Christine, Erik is actually doing her a favor. She can show her love for Raoul by saving his life and show her love for Erik by choosing him, all in one action.

But adding that 'I love you' weakens the choice. She's now doing this purely out of sacrifice to save Raoul, and wants him to know it. And I think she wants Erik to know it. If she loved Erik, the same message to Raoul could have been accomplished with just a look that Erik couldn't have read.

Self-sacrifice is noble and all that, but it's just not in Christine's character. Take the second love (for Erik) out of that final scene, and it has now been taken from a beautiful and tragic story where a woman loves two men and must chose between them to a horror story. Erik falls from beloved dark angel to fiend from hell trying to separate the lovers.

And honestly, I've had the impression since I first saw it that some of the filmmakers didn't see the love in Erik, only evil, only villain. Nothing I could actually pin down, but little nuances. Tricks of the light, camera angles, things that affect the subconscious where humans process images, but you'd have to know a lot about film to point out specifics. This stupid 'I love you' has really just cemented that idea for me. *grumble mumblestupidnon-compassionatefilmmakersgrumblemumble*

So, after that tirade, what does everyone else think?

Think of Me

2005-06-01T22:06:36Z

Okay, sorry if t5his has been talked about already.

Now, why do you think Think of Me was in the musical? I mean, of course there HAD to be a song there, but why this particular song? Why did ALW feel he had to write a new song for this scene instead of using a song from a real opera? Considering that it was originally advertised to have new music AND traditional music. So, how does "Think of Me" apply to the story/ Do you think it's commenting on Christine & Raoul's past? Do you think it somehow applies to Erik? Opinions please.

Safe Opera House?

2005-05-30T19:22:46Z

Although, it was a good bit of time between everything that happened that one year at the Opera Populaire and the auction, would it still have been safe to have the auction there? And at the same spot where the fire started? I'm sure building codes (if they had any), weren't probably as strict back then as they are now, but would it really have been safe?

Since it is a major point (and a good one to get the story going) to the plot, I'm sure ALW didn't do a lot of thinking about whether or not an auction really could have taken place at a burned out building some years later. I guess it's one of those suspension of disbelif plot points. lol

Thanks.

cross-posted

phantomtheory @ 2005-05-30T13:34:00

2005-05-30T17:37:45Z

I have two movie questions for everyone:

1) When the swordfight is over, Raoul has "won," because he kicked away Erik's sword and is ready to kill him. However, we are led to believe that the movie version of Erik is similar to Kay's version, because Madame Giry says he's an architect, composer, designer, etc. Wouldn't that version also be an accomplished swordsman and be able to easily beat Raoul?

2) At the end of "PONR," Erik crashes the chandelier and sends himself and Christine down through the set to his lair. If he made such precautions to insure that he would escape, did he know that she was going to betray him?

I'm very interested to hear what you guys think ♥