The end of Phantom

Was anyone else totally confusified by the ending of the show, when the Phantom disappears and Meg holds his mask in her hand? I've seen it three times on tour and I LOVE the show, but what happens to the Phantom? Does he die? I know it's left up to the audience's interpration, which is part of what makes it so brilliant. What's your interpretation?

I personally think that when Christine kisses him, it melts his heart and he's finally able to leave. I don't think he dies, he simply ceases to exist.

For some reason, I read the title of this thread and almost had a nosebleed of fear. Don't scare me like that!

---

well, in the novel, Erik (The Phantom) is actually a person, a brilliant person who can play with the mind and is a master of illusions. BUt nonetheless, a person, and in the book, the final line was when the Persian looked in a paper the next day it read "Erik is dead". So that answers some questions. I like all of your interpretation. When I saw it I thought it was more like, the Phantom is gone for good but has left an impression on everyone and all that is left is the mask, the one thing that brought himself together, is what he leaves behind. And like, Meg is the one who will tell the tale from there on because she's a youth and myths and legends are always appreciated by the youth.

---

The book to which you are referring is "Phantom" (I don't remember the author's name...Susan something), which was written after Webber's musical came out. It was an attempt to expand on the original novel; but Webber's musical isn't based on that book (which came out in the 1990s).

---

What happened in Gaston Leroux's version again? I don't even remember anymore...

---

Oh right, thanks. <-- not at you, just at the lame ending

---

<< What happened in Gaston Leroux's version again?>>

<< I believe he is running from the mob and jumps into the river and is assumed dead. >>

No, that is the end of one of the several films that have been made that have some pretensions to being films of the original book.

It's been quite a while since I read the original Leroux, but I think it ends with the Persian (who isn't in the films) reading something in the paper that makes him sure that Erik is now dead. We are to assume that he has died of love.

BlueWizard, Webber's is barely based on the original.

But it still is an adaptation from Leroux's novel, not Kay's. That's what I meant. And yes, I agree that POTO is a horrible adaptation.

---

Sally--Oh yeah! I was thinking the Silent movie version. Oops.

And I have to disagree with Webber's version being a horrible adaption. I am re-reading the story right now and I find A LOT of things very similar. Yes, the cut characters out, but I think it is a great adaption. You want one that goes completely against the novel, try the Claude Reins movie and Robert Englund version along with the many other film versions and the Yeston musical called "Phantom."

---

I adore the Y/K version and the Lon Chaney film is one of the most brilliant things I've ever seen done. I do love the musical, too, but the plot is a bit confusing.

Man, you know, I was just gonna visit the site, see what was up and then go. But NOOOOO. People had to go and make comments about my lif...er.....POTO....and therefore make me sign in and respond. I hate you guys, you're distracting me from countless hours of homework that need to get done....

*hold on, I just heard that Martha Stewart was smuggling spices in jail...ok, that was dumb. Anyway*

The original book (Leroux) is its own entity. I've never (and probably will never) see a perfect adaptation of it. ALW's musical, The Phantom of the Opera, is also its own entity. Yes, it's partially meant to be an adaptation of Leroux's novel, but it's also meant to be a heart-breaking story of love and pain and death that will draw audiences in. Note: I love the novel. However, the novel and the story that it presents would not, on its own, draw in a broadway/west end audience. Webber wrote the show for Sarah Brightman. We all know this, or if you didn't, now you do. He didn't write it to pay tribute to the genius of the original novel, he did it to make money like most or all broadway shows and non-broadway shows. Don't get me wrong: POTO is my favorite musical of all time and I will always love it. I also love broadway from the big splashy musicals to the two-person dramas. They can touch us and make us cry or even make us that much happier for a brief instant. But behind it all is the capitalist motives that drive it. And that's ok. So what I'm trying to say in this ridiculous pointless rant that is keeping me from doing work is: Don't try to compare the original novel with ALW's musical. They're two totally different things that are attempting to tell the same story. Yes, one has its roots in another, but just like I have roots that come from my mother and father, I'm not exactly like them. I'm my own entity.



Ok, that was really deep and I have to go now. I'm starting to scare myself.

---

I don't "hate" the Yeston version, but it sounds A LOT like Hunchback of Notre Dame and Anastasia and the plot was changed a lot. I like some songs but I think Webber's is vastly superior.

---

The song that stuck out for me, was "Bistro: Sing/Paree Is a Lark." It sounded almost IDENTICAL to "Paris Holds the Key (To Your Heart)" from ANASTACIA. I even started singing the words from the Anastasia song and it fit PERFECTLY with the Phantom song.

---