Why The Phantom Of The Opera Just Isn't A Believable Piece Of Theatre- Page 2

[jejr]

Posted: 6/17/09 at 12:43am

I've seen PHANTOM 16 times starting with Michael Crawford and Brightman. Rebecca Kane in Toronto was a FANTASTIC Christine giving real character to the role (Wilkinson was the WORST Phantom - short, heavy set and MEAN everyone was so happy that Christine left with Raoul)
PHANTOM has beena success as a novel, silent film and 2 color films. There are a number of successful stage versions. It has never been a character study. It is a fantasy and never has had real life characters. Appreciate it for what it is and stop trying to make a deep dark happening of it. I will take 1000 Phantoms to one N2N.

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 6/17/09 at 12:52am

Schmerg, I love you dearly, but PLEASE do not pull the "Raoul = Fop" argument. It drives me crazy.

He gets the same treatment as Cosette: a decent character in the novel is made absolutely bland in the musical because the attention is paid to the other third of his/her love triangle.

[Schmerg_The_Impaler]

Posted: 6/17/09 at 6:36am

He gets the same treatment as Cosette: a decent character in the novel is made absolutely bland in the musical because the attention is paid to the other third of his/her love triangle.

Exactly-- I said that Raoul in the play is portrayed as weak and sometimes foppish, depending on the actor. The character itself is too bland to really be a 'fop' or any other label like that. But when I think of Raoul, I tend to think of Patrick Wilson from the movie... and while I love him very much, I think he tried to much to bring some characterization to Raoul, and he just ended up seeming kind of wimpy at times.

[Dollypop]

Posted: 6/17/09 at 9:49am

PANTOM OF THE OUTHOUSE is one of the most poorly constructed musicals I'd ever seen. There are so many loopholes in the libretto that a thinking person would barf.

Examples:

Why do people have to shield their eyes when entering the Phantom's lair?

Why are there floating candles on the underground lake? Who lights them?

How did the Phantom become so hideously deformed?

What lighting fixture can fall at a 90 degree angle?

How did the Phantom develop his supernatureal abilities?

(Don't tell me that the answers are found in the original novel. I read it in college--both in French and in its English translation. A good piece of theater should stand up on its own without sending the audience scurrying to the libraries!)

I won't even get into the derivative music and the overly orchestrated score.

PHANTOM stinks.

[Schmerg_The_Impaler]

Posted: 6/17/09 at 10:08am

Weirdly, I've still never read the novel, but I know the answer to most of those questions... the plotholes I have in mind are more like:

1. How could anyone not realize that Piangi has been replaced by the Phantom? They have completely different body types.

2. If Christine thinks the Phantom is her father, why does she let him grope her so frequently?

3. After she learns who he really is and hears his voice coming out of her father's tomb, why doesn't she recognize his voice as that of the same creeper who lives in her mirror?

4. If the Phantom is around the same as Madame Giry, how can he move around so easily?

5. If the Phantom is a genius, why doesn't he construct a better prosthetic face that looks like the other side? After all, he has those little wax replicas of Christine and stuff...

6. If the Phantom is a genius, why does he like Christine?

7. Why is Meg even in this musical?

Updated On: 6/17/09 at 10:08 AM

[JenNYferTheatrical]

Posted: 6/17/09 at 11:32am

Phantom of the Opera is a fantastic musical, it just faces the same problems that all other epic novels-turned-musicals face: one needs to take 700+ page book, and make it coherent, relatable, and entertaining within 2-3 hours. Raoul and Cosette, while both being somewhat annoying characters to begin with, don't get the best treatment in the transition because, to put it simply, their characters just aren't interesting enough.

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 6/17/09 at 11:35am

Schmerg: Okay, I can agree about that. I love how Raoul thinks having the police there will stop Erik--

Dollypop: I hate the musical as much as anyone else, but they mention the magical lasso in the script; if you keep your hand at your eyes, you can get out of it. Or so they say.

JenNYferTheatrical: I dunno, I don't even think the musical tried to be a faithful adaptation. I mean, he has them perform Don Juan Triumphant? Seriously?

[jejr]

Posted: 6/17/09 at 11:35am

Dollypop, the characters don't cover their faces, they put their had and arm up to prevent the lasso from being attached.

Schmung (sp?) you hate the show, leave it at that and go on to something else. When you can write something as successful then you MIGHT have a little creditability

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 6/17/09 at 11:39am

Edit: I thought of another! What composer in his right mind would write an opera with a silent role?

Updated On: 6/17/09 at 11:39 AM

[Schmerg_The_Impaler]

Posted: 6/17/09 at 12:27pm

Schmung (sp?) you hate the show, leave it at that and go on to something else.

I'm guessing I'm Schmung? Anyway, I actually love Phantom of the Opera! I just think it's flawed. And one of the reasons why I've been... dissecting the librettos of musicals lately is because I love writing scripts and song parodies, and I'd like to be a lyricist or book-writer for musicals someday. I'm sorry I offended you, though.

Ha, Spork, I never thought about that one! And why are there two managers if they have the exact same personality? It's certainly not in order to be accurate to the novel, since the managers in the novel are named ARMAND and Firmin. (And I haven't even read the book!)

Updated On: 6/17/09 at 12:27 PM

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 6/17/09 at 1:10pm

There is no OBCR.

Well, there was an OBC recording (of sorts) that was issued. Actually, it was the London cast recording repackaged using "Original Broadway Cast" on the spine and the addition of a small American flag in the upper right corner of the front cover. It was the only time I had ever seen this sort of marketing ploy used with a cast recording.

Why do people have to shield their eyes when entering the Phantom's lair?

That is actually explained in the show. They are not sheilding their eyes. They keep their hands "at the level" of their eyes to avoid being hanged by the "magical lasso".

Why are there floating candles on the underground lake? Who lights them?

That's not a loophole in the libretto. It is a visual feature of the design which is rather inconsequential. The story had already been long-established as a romantic horror fantasy, so questioning the use of such visual effects is sort of pointless. It's sort of like asking why Rapunzel couldn't escape a tower only 15 feet tall in Into the Woods.

How did the Phantom become so hideously deformed?

Good question, though not really essential to the plot, but it is more of a curiosity. Kopit and Yeston's Phantom answered this question beautifully in a stunning number not included on the cast recording.

What lighting fixture can fall at a 90 degree angle?

It's not 90 degrees, but it does change its trajectory mid-fall. Again, special effect not a libretto loophole. Suspension of disbelief is required just as with Hello Dolly when people burst into spontaneous song and dance with matching choreography.

How did the Phantom develop his supernatureal abilities?

That's the one question I've always had. Though it's not explicitly explained, it is implied that he has some sort of supernatural magical qualities, which is very odd.

When you can write something as successful then you MIGHT have a little creditability

Credibility for what? Forming an informed opinion and posing some rather obvious questions? You don't need to be a librettist to make observations.

My problem is a bit more basic in nature: that the audience is expected to sympathize with a stalker/kidnapper/murderer. I don't hate Phantom of the Opera, but it's not one of my favorite shows. Probably because I worked on two of the tours for such a long time and the first was one of the worst experiences of my life. But even before then, the first time I saw it, I thought it was visually stunning, but I quickly got bored with the overly repetitive score and the book is quite weak. Christine comes off looking like a gullible idiot. Raoul and Madame Giry are woefully underwritten when they had potential to be incredibly vital complex characters. Meg is pointless other than to demonstrate that Christine had at least one friend at some point in time (that and she introduces us to Angel of Music, which we will be assaulted with ten more times throughout the evening). And as I said earlier, the real protagonist of the musical is an evil manipulator whom we know nothing about and nothing is ever revealed other than he was disfigured at some point in his life, but we feel bad for him because he has pretty music.

[lusciouslace]

Posted: 6/17/09 at 1:19pm

jejr- "Schmung (sp?) you hate the show, leave it at that and go on to something else."

She's merely trying to present a discussion topic. Seems that others are enjoying the discussion...sooo methinks that if you hate the topic then maybe you should leave it at that and move on to another thread...

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 6/17/09 at 1:54pm

I'm pretty sure the musical gives enough evidence to us that Erik was born that way. "This face, which earned a mother's fear and loathing. A mask, my first unfeeling scrap of clothing."

[ThankstoPhantom]

Posted: 6/17/09 at 2:00pm

One thing I find strong in the show is that there is much left up the imagination and the interpretation of the actors. I've never seen the same cast twice in the show (although I've seen actors play the same roles, but with different people around them). Each time there have been incredibly different performances presented by the actors (or, in some unfortunate cases, terrible performances).

The official website in its better days featured a dissection on the show, and Hal Prince stated that the audience is able to identify with the characters by being able to put the bits and pieces presented together themselves. The show is basically about the present.

But, yes! It does have flaws, of all the characters, I wish Christine had been given a little more to say, as her journey through the show is truly inspiring. She starts off as someone completely fooled (and remember, she's from a different time), who also then allows herself to be controlled by Raoul. In the end, she becomes her own person and actually shows some backbone.

The Phantom should never be given much background (hence why I hate the 2004 film). He is a CREEPER! Why else would he stalk her miles away from the Opera House? I think it's important people to recognize that people of the most violent and disturbing nature also have their meaningful motives.

The whole show's impact really comes out at the end when the Phantom recognizes his evil... he has completely shattered his humanity, and when he finally was given some humanity it was too late for him to appropriately reciprocate and keep it in his life. THAT'S where the sympathy comes in. Audiences identify with similar situations in their own lives (hopefully not as violent, of course!).

[jejr]

Posted: 6/17/09 at 2:34pm

Schmerg (sorry for the misspelling previously) I don'tknow of any book for a musical that does not have flaws. Many of them are just excuses to get to the next musical number.
For me PHANTOM is a mature Beauty and the Beast even though the Beast does not become the handsome prince. If Christine had stayed with him it could have been something else. The fact that he disappears at the end leaves so much open to the imagination.

In the original book years later a skeleton is found in the depths of the opera house with the ring on it's finger. That's a heartbreaker.

Personally I think it's great that so much is left to the imagination of the audience. It makes you really think about the characters and what happens to them.

[Schmerg_The_Impaler]

Posted: 6/17/09 at 2:42pm

Though it's not explicitly explained, it is implied that he has some sort of supernatural magical qualities, which is very odd.
Hmmm, I never saw it as supernatural qualities, I just assumed that he is very talented with architecture and has created scores of hidden passageways to everywhere, allowing him to SEEM to appear and disappear by magic-- and that his voice can come seemingly out of nowhere by being talented at projection. He is a 'magician,' as in sleight of hand, but not a wizard...

I agree with the poster who called the Phantom a creeper. I've never liked the character of the Phantom at all, and I'm very glad that Christine chose Raoul-- one thing I love about the show is the way "All I Ask Of You" is Raoul promising Christine light and telling her that he doesn't want her to do anything she doesn't want to and that he's there to protect her-- everything he's promising her is the exact opposite of the Phantom's kind of love. That's the one scene that really shows Raoul's character, even though it does come off as a generic love song.

Schmerg (sorry for the misspelling previously) I don'tknow of any book for a musical that does not have flaws. Many of them are just excuses to get to the next musical number.

For me PHANTOM is a mature Beauty and the Beast even though the Beast does not become the handsome prince. If Christine had stayed with him it could have been something else. The fact that he disappears at the end leaves so much open to the imagination.

In the original book years later a skeleton is found in the depths of the opera house with the ring on it's finger. That's a heartbreaker.

Personally I think it's great that so much is left to the imagination of the audience. It makes you really think about the characters and what happens to them.

What a beautifully worded post! And yeah, every musical does have flaws-- I just like to analyze what those flaws are so I can avoid putting in similar plotholes and inconsistencies. It's really interesting about the skeleton-- the original Hunchback of Notre Dame ended very similarly. I like the ending of Leroux's book much better than the ending of the 2004 film, where the Phantom's magically managed to live longer than Christine, despite the fact that he's old enough to be her father.

This discussion made me curious about the book, so I just started it-- I'm only on page 34, but I love how the author pokes fun at the characters. That doesn't transfer well to the stage, but there's no way it could.

Updated On: 6/17/09 at 02:42 PM

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 6/17/09 at 3:13pm

Erik doesn't have super powers, he's just a genius who's good at ventriloquism (sp?) and has travelled the world to see and master technologies that not everyone knows about--for instance, the Punjab Lasso.

Btw, yes, Erik is a creepy, inhumane stalker. The tragedy is... well, to quote/paraphrase Leroux: He "had a heart that could have held the empire of the world, but instead he had to content himself with a cellar." In the end, though, he is redeemed through his first selfless act of letting Christine go with Raoul.

Updated On: 6/17/09 at 03:13 PM

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 6/18/09 at 2:51pm

Erik doesn't have super powers, he's just a genius who's good at ventriloquism (sp?) and has travelled the world to see and master technologies that not everyone knows about--for instance, the Punjab Lasso.

Except that none of that is actually implied in any way. In fact, it is more the reverse; that he has spent his entire life hiding under the opera house. Where he...learned ventriloquism, magic tricks, sleight of hand, advanced architecture, technology, costume construction, pyrotechnics and special effects? While I accept that most of it has no substantial impact on the plot, it really is sort of stretching the boundaries of the suspension of disbelief. This was another area that was clarified a bit more in Kopit and Yeston's version.

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 6/18/09 at 3:00pm

I guess I have to reread the libretto, but isn't that only in the movie version?

I completely agree, btw, which is why I intensely dislike that particular storyline adaptation.

Posted: 6/18/09 at 5:24pm

I've seen Phantom 20 times and I just enjoy the fantasy of it---the music (especially now with the new sound system in the theater). Yes, there are inconsistencies, but.... Just relax and enjoy the experience!

[Dollypop]

Posted: 6/18/09 at 5:30pm

I can't understand why a person would see a show 20+ times.

It boggles my mind.

Posted: 6/18/09 at 5:38pm

Dollypop---The main reason I've seen this show so many times is because when out-of-towners come to visit----that's the show I take them to see. (This has been over a period of over 10 years) I see a show about once a month---so I've seen alot of other shows in between! But Phantom has universal appeal and so, most people see it first if they haven't seen a Bdwy show before. (and I'm there with them!) :)

[Fan123]

Posted: 6/19/09 at 8:00am

"1. How could anyone not realize that Piangi has been replaced by the Phantom? They have completely different body types."

Reminds of me of a Les Mis parody where they say "VALJEAN appears, having cut his hair and acquired some fancy clothes, thereby rendering himself unrecognizable to everyone except the audience." (http://miscynic.livejournal.com/1504.html)

Maybe the cloak is billowy enough to make them look more-or-less alike. Maybe everyone realises who he is, but they're freaked out by this unexpected development so don't know how to react. The thing that *I* don't get about this scene is why Christine rips his mask off - way to escalate a volatile situation! Perhaps if she didn't already know what he looked like, it would work...

"2. If Christine thinks the Phantom is her father, why does she let him grope her so frequently?"

Some Freudian thing?

"3. After she learns who he really is and hears his voice coming out of her father's tomb, why doesn't she recognize his voice as that of the same creeper who lives in her mirror?"

She probably thinks "Since the mirror voice is appearing here too, that *proves* that he *is* the spirit of my father!" Or something.

"4. If the Phantom is around the same as Madame Giry, how can he move around so easily?"

Not sure if they're really meant to be as similar in age as they are in the movie, or how old Madame Giry has to be - with a late-teens daughter, she might be only 40 or so.

"5. If the Phantom is a genius, why doesn't he construct a better prosthetic face that looks like the other side? After all, he has those little wax replicas of Christine and stuff..."

Personally I think that would look creepier than a white mask!

[Byron Abens]

Posted: 6/19/09 at 9:08am

During "Angel of Music" she states that her father told her he would send her an angel. She does not think it is her father, but the guardian that she thinks was sent to her by her father.

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 6/19/09 at 11:48am

In defense of Valjean, before he was sent to prison he lived as a peasant in another town. I don't think anyone would really even know him unless they actually knew him from prison. Plus, he's nineteen years older.