The Music of the Night - A Phantom of the Opera Discussion/Debate

Okay, as the title says this thread is about Andrew Lloyd Webber's Phantom of the Opera, arguably one of the greatest musicals of modern time. This thread will be for discussion of some finer points.

First question: The Phantom - man or monster? At times, he appears to show enough emotion that you can feel sorry for him, but otherwise he is full of revenge and hate for the world that shunned him.

My take - I think by letting Christine and Raoul go, he showed that he was a man. His feelings for Christine's happiness were greater than his own desires. I can also sympathize with him as he sings from the statue of the angel when he feels rejected. But of course that doesn't last long as he proceeds to take down the chandelier.

Anyways, feel free to introduce your own questions. Hopefully, this will be a good thread.

 

His killing of Bouquet and Peangii as well several other actions would make meny think he was a monster. Yet the audiance sees that he is capable of emotions, such as love, jeliousy, and in the end compation. Hence with these points in mind, I would have to say he is a little of both.

 

Ahhh...is this just the ALW version or everything?

Because frankly, while I love the music of the ALW version, it's my least favorite version of Erik. (POTO)

If you've ever read the original Leroux version, or especially the Susan Kay version, you'll KNOW he wasn't a monster. Both do incredible jobs of making him human.

Plus, even though the silent film version was SO off from the book, Lon Chaney still does a good job of making Erik human.

In my humble opinion, in the ALW version we don't see enough of "The Phantom" (his name is never used) to think of him as human. In the books however, it is made quite clear that he is a brilliant, caring, sensitive man who has been ostracized by society. As Leroux put it "His heart could have held an empire, but in the end he was forced to live in the cellars of an opera."

If you are remotely interesting in POTO, I strongly suggest getting your hands on Susan Kay's "Phantom." While it's out of print at the moment, it's still relatively easy to find at BarnsandNoble.com, Borders.com, and Amazon.com. She does a brilliant, non-sappy, romancy (thank goodness) job of turning Erik into a human being. you follow him from his birth through his death, through the eyes of many people, including himself. Read it!

 

Oh, goody! People replied! And this thread is about the novel, the play, or whatever else we come up with about it.

In Leroux's novel, he is definetly a man. At least he has a name in the novel! I need to read it again. Also need to pick up that Susan Kay book.

With the musical, I think how he is viewed depends on who is playing him. I've had the opportunity to see two different Phantoms when the National Tours have stopped through. I saw Brad Little the first time, and he scared me (of course, I was only 12). I saw Ted Keegan a few months ago, and he nearly brought me to tears.

Since we got a few replies, I'll throw something else out. In the musical, what actually happens to the Phantom at the end?

 

I saw Brad Little the only time I saw ALW. He's fantastic.

I think the ALW version purposely leaves it ambiguous. You're not supposed to know if he dies or just...disappears. The ALW version still leaves a hint of that "super-human"ness where as the books break down the magic bit by bit to show the man.

 

Yeah, he really does have the super-human thing going. I like to think that he dissapeared from the bowels of the opera and was able to go live out the rest of his life in peace. But it's also cool to think that he just vanished into thin air.

 

Again, I love in Leroux that he "dies of a broken heart" and how in Kay that's portrayed in more literal terms, and yet -- somehow, it still works. It's cool.

 

Lon Chaney SR is The Phantom Period!

 

Wow, I'm surprised to see a whole thread dedicated to The Phantom of the Opera. I've seen the play twice and I really enjoyed it. I think the music is just incredible; Its so emotional. I always feel bad for the Phantom though, I think he is just a good guy deep inside. He's just "evil" because he is misunderstood. I think he is just looking for some love and attention that was denied to him throughout his whole life. I too have been rather confused by the end, however, I never did grasp it. Its my theory that he just disappears, never to be seen again. I don't really think he would die...but then again, I've never really read the book...

Amigirl

 

As far as Leroux wrote him, he was very definately a amn, and Leroux wen tto the trouble of explaining each and every one of his tricks. This makes him rather more pitiable and perhaps seen as rather more childish in a way. I mean he's not a ghost nor a spirit but a man pretending to be these things. Which also makes him rather more to be feared as it also makes him appear capricious and unpredictable. Especially if things are not going his way.

The musical (by ALW) was written in a very romantic vein so he had to be rewritten to still have a bit of a mystique about him. The lassoo is not explained, nor how Carlotta is made to croak. And of course with the 2 hours to tell the tale many thigns need to be trimmed.

And um.. I've seen it in five countries in three languages Not to mention all the soundtracks I own.. la dee dah....

Not to mention all the costumes I've made of Christine's Dresses.

Ken Hill's version is hilarous and pokes fun at the genre and at Opera. Yet is has some moments of breathtaking beauty. The While Floating High Above You" reprise is just beautiful:
"All the songs you hear me sing are echoes of your name"

The musical by Maury Yeston is really disapointing to me. I have seen and been backstage crew for a production of NINE, which is wonderful, musically smart and actually offers much in the way of understanding of the human psyche. Phantom just was really flat in comparisson. A few pretty tunes, and I adore "This Place is Mine". But apart from that...

And I loved Kay's book the first time I read it, but it grates on me now. Can't put my finger specifically on what it is, but I think it is her lack of sympathy or dumbing down of other characters in her attempt to make Erik sympathetic. Much like what Charlotte Bronte does in Jane Eyre. Or in many of Jane Austen's books.

And I generally fume over how Christine is often treated as an absolute ditz (ecept for in Maskerade, as that's a bit different). Leroux's character is certainly out of her depth with Erik but she knows her own mind and will not be bullied. She certainly wasn't going to be intimidated by Carlotta (the last time she was onstage in Faust and Carlotta made an entrance designed to make Christine nervous only made her pull herself together and show what she was made of). And it wasn't her that asked Raoul to say he loved her.

 

Okay since Neimhaille knows so much, she picks our next topic. I think she has to be the biggest "phan" here!

 

lol! Well I was a fan from pretty much the beginning. When they first played the videos of the title song and MotN. Which was just before the London production actually started.

Dunno what next to discuss with this... certainly not the movie I've not problem with the idea of a movie of the show, but it would have to:
a) do justice to the show so no stunt casting of performers purely for name
b) offer something different to the stage production as this is a different medium and if it's going to have a wide cinema release you don't want people thinking well I've seen the movie no need to see it live, or else we can say goodbye to the stage production.. mind you it might then hasten the rights being offered to am groups... hmmmm.

OK, so I've discussed the movie

 

Ooh! I'm reading Maskerade right now!

I didn't think Christine was ditzified in Kay's novel; she was just perceived as child-like. At some point Erik says "Anyone who marries Christine is going to have to play the father as well as the lover." Of course, by the end, she's very grown up.

 

Well, since you started on the movie . . .

I would absolutely love to see a movie made, but I'm not sure how it could be done without damaging the integrity of the stage version. I read some of the stuff about the movie that Warner Brothers was talking about in the early 90s, and I thought it sounded awesome, though it would have been completely different. The script was talking about all of these camera angles and stuff they would use and it just sounded great.

As for the cast, you would have to get people who have done this before. Michael Crawford would be awesome! Sarah Brightman may be too old to pull off the young Christine, but I have seen Christines that look older.

My latest idea would be to digitally film the play itself and release it on IMAX and other large-format cinemas. I think it would be about the best you could do. So there's my take on the movie issue.

 

Yeah, I just didn't like that Christine had to be weak.. she really wasn't in Leroux's book But there were elements I liked: the physical problems of being a man past middle age living in the dark and dank.

I would like to see a direct stage:film translation but only after it has done it's dash on stage. Look at what happened to Cats. Mind you I think they knew the stage run was coming to an end anyway.

I've seen an .. ehem... video of Michael in his last performance and he was astounding. But that was a decade ago and Im not talking about him being too old when I mention how long ago it was, just that an actor/singer changes a lot in that time.

I'd love to see Anthony Warlow take on the role again.. the man has the most amazing voice... and he can act! I saw the video of Patience with him (in pink tights!) and his timign was wonderful. I don't know if anyone has seen the infamous photo of him and Marina in the traditional MotN pose.. but wheee! Talk about steamy!

 

Frankly, in Leroux's version, Christine and Erik really didn't show up that much except for "Apollo's Lyre" and at the end, when the Persian is telling the story. The rest of the time we spend following the managers around as they babble about the safety pin. I always thought Leroux's Christine was a little flat, nothing more than a catalyst in the story for Raoul and Erik and the Persian. The only intelligence Christine ever really has is when she asks if Erik has [Skandanavian?] origin because of his name.

The only place I've ever seen where Christine wasn't a "ditz" in some sense was in Charna's Beauty and the Opera and man, I HATED that story.

 

How edited was your version of Leroux? There's the whole opening chapter and the Graveyard.. and the Masquerade scene... and Raoul and Christine's game of being engaged... Sure all the pieces are brought together later, and you don't know why Christine is warm one moment cold the next. But there is a lot of focus on Christine and Raoul. Erik is a bit more shadowy.. as he needs to be. For though we know from the start Erik is a man, we have to wait to the end to understand what brought him to this point. Not physically but emotionally.

Reread those sections, Apollo's Lyre has the best moment for getting what Christine was all about. She says she doesn't hate Erik, but fears him. And it's not just fear of his physicality but that she loses herself when she sings. It's a pretty insightful scene. It's just a pretty dry text. And of course loses a lot in translation from French to English. Especially English of the 1910s.

I've read Charnas's work. I was not too impressed by it, perhaps because it was too modernised. And ther was no need to try and make Christine that.. well not strong. I don't think being forthright with sex means you are strong. Telling both Raoul and Erik that they need to get over themselves.. now that would be good

 

Long time no post in here. Thought I'd bring this thread back with some movie news. It appears the cast is beginning to come together.

Phantom: Gerard Butler (Reign of Fire)
Christine: Emmy Rossum
Raoul: Patrick Wilson (Oklahoma! and The Full Monty on Broadway)

Also, Alan Cummings (Nightcrawler in X2) is playing either Firmin or Andre. Joel Schumacher (Phone Booth, 8MM, Batman Forever) is set to direct. I really don't know much about any of the cast, especially Emmy Rossum. The one thing I found was that she starred in the 1999 Disney Channel Original Movie Genius. This will be interesting to follow as production begins.

 

Joel Schumacher confirmed the "Big Three" in an interview with Moviehole. He offered a little bit more on Emmy Rossum. She's 16 and sang with the Metropolitan Opera starting at age 7. Also, he says Gerard Butler can really sing. Sounds good to me.

 

has any1 heard Phantom of the Opera by Nightwish? its excellent... its a rock version of the song Phantom of the Opera.. i love the version by Sarah Brightman... but this one is very good as well, especially if you like rock

 

Ah, Phantom. My old obsession, or anyones

My favorite Phantom has to be Sir Michael Crawford. He is amazing. I really would have liked to see him, but he is out of musicals lately.

I really dispise this Phantom Movie. I think it would be awsome if they had a movie like "Les Miserables: The Dream Cast". Only, Phantom of the Opera. Ah, only a dream.

 

Ah, Phantom. My old obsession, or anyones

My favorite Phantom has to be Sir Michael Crawford. He is amazing. I really would have liked to see him, but he is out of musicals lately.

I really dispise this Phantom Movie. I think it would be awsome if they had a movie like "Les Miserables: The Dream Cast". Only, Phantom of the Opera. Ah, only a dream.

 

Good thread. I have loved the phantom of the opera since 1989 when my mother came home with the CD from the musical. I've seen the musical in Stockholm (1992) and in London (1998). A few days ago I reread Leroux's novel.

Ok, now over to the original question:

"The Phantom - man or monster?"
As I see it Erik is something in-between. He seems insane in many ways, needlessly killing people when he could have used other methods. I think this is more emphasised in ALW's version than in Leroux'. I mean in the musical he kills Piangi. Compare that event when he drugs the men operating "the organ" in Leroux's novel. When Erik gives up Christine at the end it is the first time he does something rational. What life would Christine have had in his company? For her sake he gives her up and thus becomes human.

When I reread Leroux's novel I thought of the historical context. For me the romance of Christine and Raoul represents the typical 19th Century love story. What Christine and Erik shares is something entirely different. It seems more passionate for one thing. My take on it is that Erik stands for something that's been hidden so deeply by the society of that time. At the same time he is paying the price that everyone who is different does. In the original novel I get the feeling that the root of Erik's madness lies in his longing for a normal life.

I agree with Neimhaille's take on Christine. She seems independent in the original story. I think she gives in to Raoul's suggestions because she's scared. But at the end she saves them all. Which is as it should be IMO. For in my eyes it is Christine who is the real hero of the story. she is the one who brings about the change in the Phantom. I have always found her journey in the musical from unsecure to adult very interesting. In the musical she comes to a turning point during the scene in the graveyard when she lets go of her grief over her father's death. Another great part in the musical is when she sees that the true distortion lies in Erik's soul, not in his face. She is the only one to come to that insight. At least in the musical, in the original story the Persian must have come to the same conclusion.

As for a movie, I rather see a new interpretation than a musical movie. I think it is time for a new take on this marvellous story. I think the latest ones have been to close to ALW.

Now over to Kay. I like her background on Erik. Her description of his childhood made me cry: Kay managed to pull it off convincingly. She also gave the Persian an interesting background story. Plus Erik's advert for an opera ghost is hilarious. But I am not fond of her take on the love between Erik and Christine. It seems too Freudian to me. Another thing I have pondered since finishing Leroux' book: what would Raoul's and Christine's marriage be like? Any happiness would depend on Raoul's acceptence of Christine's feelings for Erik. In Kay's version it turns out well thanks to Raoul accepting Erik. But I read a Swedish version where Raoul cannot do it and so the marriage ends in disaster. What do you guys think?

 

I definatly think the Phantom is a man that has been warped to exhibit monsterous tendancies due to his experiences. He is shunned as a monster because of his appearence most of his life, therefore he exhibits a bit of the self-fullfilling prophecy (ie: "They view/treat me as a monster, therefore, I shall act like one).

He is most defianatly a man, as is exhibited by his music, his deep emotion for Christine, and the fact that he lets her go.

All in all, I think the phantom is a fasinating character: he is one of the monsters that does terrible things, however, as an audience, you empathize with him because you understand why and how he came to such a state.

 

I am a fan of musicals and had already seen and loved Les Miserables when my friend asked me to go see this. I was kinda ho hum about it. I had seen a couple movie versions, knew the story, even heard a few of the songs already. I was blown away by the performances. Before the show started, I was thumbing through the program. I realized the lead was being played by Franc D'Ambrosio. He played Anthony Corleone, (Michael's son) in the Godfather III. I didn't realize he actually sang all of the pieces from that movie. (in the movie his character was in an opera)....He was beyond amazing. I have looked everywhere for a copy of his version of Phantom. But it doesn't exist. I got the regular version for Christmas that year and I hated it. I cannot stand listening to it. The voices on it don't even compare to the show I saw. It's weird because I have several different versions of Les Miserables, with all different casts, and I love every one of them. Michael Crawford, yuk.
Oh and has anyone seen the one from 1989?? The Freddy Krueger version? It was weird but I kinda liked it.
The BEST Phantom