The end of Phantom

[Elphaba3]

Posted: 11/26/04 at 12:44am

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.

[chinkie azn jai]

Posted: 11/26/04 at 1:00am

I always thought that since meg finds the mask in the end and it blacks out right after she lifts the mask, that she becomes the new "christine." If that makes any sense. Like then the phantom and meg would have a relationship. Or Elphaba3's ending also makes sense.

[Type_A_Tiff]

Posted: 11/26/04 at 1:04am

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

[ozboy]

Posted: 11/26/04 at 1:19am

Jai I never thought of it that way - that's a really interesting idea.

I do like the idea that every inch of the story and its ending is not spoon-fed to us (Wicked comes to mind here..). You'd think... HOPE... that audiences were bright enough to make up their own minds.

[wickedfan]

Posted: 11/26/04 at 1:39am

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.

[Type_A_Tiff]

Posted: 11/26/04 at 1:42am

Wickedfan, that's what I thought too, but you put it more coherently than I could.

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 11/26/04 at 1:44am

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).

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 11/26/04 at 1:47am

It is called PHANTOM and the author's name is SUSAN KAY. And no, Webber's musical is not based on that. PHANTOM is about what happened before the original novel takes place. It is heartbreaking. Great novel.

[Type_A_Tiff]

Posted: 11/26/04 at 1:47am

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

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 11/26/04 at 1:51am

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

[Type_A_Tiff]

Posted: 11/26/04 at 1:53am

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

[wickedfan]

Posted: 11/26/04 at 2:08am

BlueWizard, Webber's is barely based on the original. Okay, I think I've made my point in the last couple of threads. In case no one has noticed (where have you been if you hadn't?): Phantom of the Opera is a HORRIBLE adaptation. Had it been it's own idea, it would have been much better, or at least much better received. It practically butchered the book. OKay, out of my system completely. I will refrain myself from saying anything else.

[Sally]

Posted: 11/26/04 at 2:08am

<< 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.

[wickedfan]

Posted: 11/26/04 at 2:10am

Sally, check out my earlier post.

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 11/26/04 at 2:13am

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.

[wickedfan]

Posted: 11/26/04 at 2:15am

Thank you. Don't take thtat line seriously. I was joking around wit hmy opinion. I thought it was clever, ah well, i guess i lack the wit of other posters that lie here.

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 11/26/04 at 2:33am

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."

[Mamie]

Posted: 11/26/04 at 12:54pm

"Phantom of the Opera is a HORRIBLE adaptation. Had it been it's own idea, it would have been much better, or at least much better received."

Yes. In fact, this is probably why it's always had trouble drawing an audience and is having such a short run.

[theatreangel]

Posted: 11/26/04 at 1:36pm

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.

[wickedfan]

Posted: 11/26/04 at 4:01pm

Mamie- HOw many times has it been stated on this website that having a long run doesn't mean the show is good? Cats was far from a great musical and it had the longest run on Broadway. It was a TOURIST attraction and created a setting that audiences never had before. It was exciting, but far FAR from good. I feel the same way with Phantom.

[secret-soul]

Posted: 11/26/04 at 5:22pm

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.

[Belle-arina]

Posted: 11/26/04 at 7:17pm

At the end of the book Erik dies. He goes to see the Persian and tells him what happened down in his house under the lake (how Christine kissed him and he let them go, etc). And then he goes back and dies. I believe you are right (whoever posted this, sorry , I can't remember who it was). I think the Persian did read about the death paper.

By the way, am I the only one who really DIDN'T like the Yestin/Kopit version of Phantom? I mean, I HATED it with a passion!

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 11/26/04 at 7:30pm

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.

[Belle-arina]

Posted: 11/26/04 at 7:39pm

I feel like they changed some really important parts--and the whole thing about his mother loving him really bothered me. I mean, isn't the whole point that no one--even his mother couldn't love him. Oh well, just my opinion.

And that's a good point--it DOES sound an awful lot like the Hunchback!

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 11/26/04 at 8:03pm

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.