Kopit and Yeston's PHANTOM

Well they claim it was first, but who knows... nothing was published til what '91?

"Home" is my absolute favourite Yeston song, and one of my all time favourite musical theatre songs. Robert Cuccioli performed this role many many times over the years (The Phantom), and sings it with Laura Benanti on the Maury Yeston Songbook Album!

The show itself is OK, but I definitely prefer Lloyd Webbers. To me it seems once Lloyd Webber's popped up, they tried to distance themselves from his plot/ways, including the mask even.

I think there was a big thread on this a while back BTW!

I saw it several times and preferred it to Lloyd Webber's piece. The staging and costumes weren't as opulent but the story was more cohesive and coherent. Yeston wrote some lovely tunes for the score including one thrilling number detailing the Phantom's childhood that was reminiscent of The Bells of St. Sebastian from Nine. It was the most sumptuous production number of the show, yet conspicuously absent from the cast recording. Richard White and Glory Crampton were stunning on stage.

---

*Spoiler Alert*

Kopit and Yeston took just as many liberties with the book as Webber, Hart, and Stilgoe did. Some areas where the Kopit's libretto veers from the novel:

1. Christine starts as a street peddler selling the new "popular" song on the street. The Viscount de Chagny (who has been given the name of Phillip, Raoul's brother in the novel) "discovers" her there and offers to connect her with the Paris Opera. All of their past, which I think factored pretty heavily into Raoul's motivations in both the novel and Webber's adaptation, has been completely removed. They start out as complete strangers.

2. Carlotta is also new to the Paris Opera, having bought it in order to use her new position as owner/manager to install herself as its resident prima donna. Carlotta is generally portrayed (at least in the two productions that I have seen) as fairly untalented and grossly unsuited to be the leading lady. In the novel, as I remember, her true talent is not doubted, the Phantom just wants to install Christine above her because of his obsession.

3. The Phantom's initial motivation in coaching Christine seems to be that she resembles his deceased mother.

4. Christine becomes a success after beating Carlotta in a singing competition in the local bistro (I think one of the story liberties where I actually did say "really?" to myself)

5. *Big Spoiler* It is revealed that the Phantom's father has been around the whole time in the form of the former manager who lost the opera house to Carlotta. This is eventually revealed to the Phantom as he is dying at the end of the show in a rather sappy and, quite frankly, corny sequence of song and dialogue.

I think in general the script for this version attempted to really beef up the Phantom's back story, but it did so by removing a lot of the mystery that surrounds the character. And, as I stated, the show definitely sounds much more operetta than it does grand opera. Lloyd Webber definitely ran much further with the "gothic love story" slant than Yeston and Kopit did.

I think Leroux put enough history for the Phantom into the novel that there was plenty of material to work with if they had wanted to explore that angle, without resorting to the "father has been there all along and is now willing to accept his son as he lays dying on the floor" resolution to his story that they created out of thin air.

"Home" is definitely the best song in the show. But overall, the lyrics kinda blow.

---

I would actually argue that Webber's version is a rather faithful adaptation to the novel, with the a very similar plot structure, it just focuses more on the romance instead of the mystery. There are obvious shifts in character development, and added and cut characters, but the crux of the show actually follows the Leroux novel very well...it even adapts the ridiculous choice she is given at the end, albeit a tad different.

The Yetson/Kopit one is interesting, very exploratory within a very different story.

---

Updated On: 11/16/10 at 10:29 AM

I have to disagree. I saw a fine summer production of the Kopit/Yeston PHANTOM and felt it was superior to the ALW version by far. The book is far more intelligent and doesn't depend on the audience knowing the original novel before the show begins. The ALW version has so many potholes in the script, it's hard to follow. I mean, HOW did the Phantom become deformed? WHY do people have to shield their eyes as they descend into the bowels of the Paris Opera House? Who lit all those candles on the underground lake? (Incidentally, I just returned from Paris and took a tour of the opera house while there. There is, indeed, an underground lake but it's purpose is as a cistern to put out fires. When the opera house was built, everything was illuminated by either gas or candles and the architect included this water supply as a safety precaution).

Additionally, Yeston wrote some lovely and effective music for this version.

---

And don't forget some of the "jokes/puns" (if you can call them that).

Carlotta: (upon discovering Buquet's body) My costume man!

Cholet: She sent him down below!

Inspector: Well someone has sent him back up!

I don't need to laugh during the story of the Phantom of the Opera (not that these types of jokes did make me laugh, but I don't need the attempt to even be there).

LOL, AEA, yes, and the delivery of those lines on the cast recording does not help.

I made my musical theatre debut in this in Danbury in 2005. I played the Young Phantom and agree that the sequence about his life is haunting and beautiful. I feel that piece is a very different interpretation of the novel and while Phantom of the Opera is more haunting and sweeping this one has a more focused libretto. The score while never achieving the heights that Music of the Night or All Ask of You reach, is a very nice score with some very memorable songs (Melodie De Paris, Home, My Mother Bore Me/Christine. I wouldn't compare them as they both do different things and have many differences (Meg and Madame Giry are not their in this version. I do recommend people to check out the recording with Richard White and Glory Crampton. Don't go in expecting something as lush as Lloyd Webber's version and you just may enjoy some of it's wonderful melodies.

---

Why is the character of the Persian left out of both versions? This character is quite prominent in the denouement of the story in the novel.

Well argued, Mr. Baritone, but I do want to note that I think the Yeston/Kopit recording is a fairly poor document of the show, despite featuring most of the leads from its Houston TUTS premiere. The chief problem is Richard White, whose singing is overwrought, and whose diction is abominable. (Though yes, it might be argued that with some of Yeston's lyrics, the latter is a "plus".)