phantom of the opera how is it romantic?- Page 4

[Sally]

Posted: 10/20/07 at 1:04pm

To GHOSTLIGHT2:


You're right. Nobody attacked me. There was some hard criticism, but not a lot. The poster who began the thread said, "it's a story of seduction. i seriously hate this play. it's so dumb. some guy living under an opera house seduces a soprano into loving him? please. if this is what is considered a classic what is this world coming to?"

---And there were a few other comments like "Creepy old man stalking a young girl and convincing her it's true love. That happens every day on MySpace. It's not romantic in any context."

Other posters were quite fair so I did over-react. I think I was, in part, reacting to a lot of other criticism of the show I've read over the years. I promise you that a lot of theater fans despise The Phantom of the Opera for various reasons, but I shouldn't have brought that baggage to this thread.

I'm sorry you've had a hard life, and you are to be commended for not letting it belittle you. There are thousands of others who have reacted the same way to terrible circumstances.

Nonetheless, there is something about this particular story that has captured the imaginations and emotions of countless people, especially since the ALW musical. There are *some* people who find the Phantom in Leroux's book romantic despite his creepy appearance. Not many can find "the smell of death" (which was one of his characteristics in the novel) attractive, but as you suggest, Michael Crawford (and the Phantoms who have followed him) is quite another thing. The Phantom's awful deformity is revealed toward the end of the show, but the memory of the elegant, seductive Phantom of earlier in the show persists.

In the ALW musical, the Phantom is still a man who kills to get what he wants and who selfishly tries to force the woman he loves to marry him, but as I and another poster or two mentioned, he changes! He is redeemed at the end of the story. The audience forgives him. Although nothing can bring back the two men he has killed, he sees that he has been wrong, and is, whether you think he deserves it or not, more an object of pitty than disgust or fear.

Perhaps your perspective prevents you from seeing what others find romantic in this story. Unrequited/ impossible love has been the heart of many romances for a very long time, and not everyone measures the Phantom by your standards.


Updated On: 10/20/07 at 01:04 PM

[MaronaDavies]

Posted: 10/20/07 at 3:43pm

"Can anyone please answer for me why it seemed like christine was really into the phantom during and at the end of 'Point of no return' ? "

"Because she WAS. LOVE has no boundaries. "

Right. A woman can't help but love a man who spends the entire show menacing her, pushing her around, chasing her, making creepy shrines to her, kidnapping her, ripping jewelry off her neck, killing people and threatening her loved ones.

I agree with Ghostlight2. The Phantom/Erik is portrayed as a sympathetic character. As in the book, the audience/reader feels for him because he was abused by the world. He had so much potential to go far, and because of his deformities, he was not allowed that chance. And perhaps after Christine's show of kindness at the end, he does gain new perspective that will help him in whatever remains in his life.

It doesn't change the fact that he's a stalker, he's abusive and he's out of his mind. The fact that the world hasn't been nice to him doesn't give him any license to be that way. Compare his behavior in the show to classic signs of stalking/abuse and he doesn't seem like such a nice person all of a sudden. And the whole "she loves me even though she's running away and crying! She wants me, she just doesn't know it!" delusion is a pretty typical stalking thing.

[GHOSTLIGHT2]

Posted: 10/20/07 at 3:59pm

To Sally:
It does NOT matter if others hate the show,I am rather indifferent to it, simply confused by the re-interpretation of the story.
The story in the play is not the story in the book or the major films,I understand that,indeed it is not the story purists want to see.

But for that I would advise anyone who frowns on the romantic Phantom to go out and get a copy of Dario Argento's Phantom wich bears even less similarity to the original concept than the musical did.

I can understand the draw to the show that it is a story of redemption but look at all this from outside YOUR point of view: after all the death and all the suffering is His redemption worth it?
I do not hate this play but a lot of the comments are valid, The Phantom was a stalker who manipulated to get what He wanted and when that did not work He resorted to Bloodshed He was no hero, He was an unashamed monster and He knew it.

See it as romantic as You wish but do not trick Yourself into thinking He was anything but what He was.

There is a huge diffrence between unconditional Love and selfish Love.
My only Love I could never be with,and that will hurt til My dying day but I would never try to steal Her from Her Husband.

The Phantom baisicly did just that, REAL unrequited Love demands nothing but gives all,He demanded all and gave little.
He loved in an unashamedly selfish mannor,only when He was facing His own demise did He concider Her wellbieng.
I can see everything from Your point of view , However You are not seeing things from the point of view of the detractors,All of there points are as valid as Yours.

[flicker_]

Posted: 10/20/07 at 5:02pm

ro-man-tic : adj. inclined toward or suggestive of the feeling of excitement and mystery associated with love.

"Excitement" and "mystery" are the key words here. Romance is not always warm-hearted or fluffy or joyful. Romance can be heartbreaking, tortured, depressed, etc. In this case I find the Phantom of the Opera to be very romantic because it is the story of a tortured soul. While the phantom's love for Christine may be perverted, it stems from the genuine need we all have for beauty (beauty not just in the physical sense here). He threatens her because threats are all he has ever known. When he finally lets her go after Christine kisses him, he does so because he realizes the sacrifice involved in love.

This story paired with Christine and Raul's relationship, lush music, and tender lyrics definitely make Phantom of the Opera romantic.

[Sally]

Posted: 10/20/07 at 5:36pm

__________________________________________________________________________________
"I can understand the draw to the show that it is a story of redemption but look at all this from outside YOUR point of view: after all the death and all the suffering is His redemption worth it? "
__________________________________________________________________________________

Logically, probably not. From your point of view, definitely not. Emotionally, however, it must be for many people, and it is for me. If the thousands of people who have seen the show and enjoyed it, been MOVED by it, were looking at it from your perspective, it wouldn't have been the theatrical success it has been.

__________________________________________________________________________________

"There is a huge diffrence between unconditional Love and selfish Love.
My only Love I could never be with,and that will hurt til My dying day but I would never try to steal Her from Her Husband.

The Phantom baisicly did just that, REAL unrequited Love demands nothing but gives all,He demanded all and gave little. "
__________________________________________________________________________________

Yes, he did. Through most of the play he is totally selfish and concerned only with getting what he wants, doing anything he believes he has to do to get it.

__________________________________________________________________________________
"He loved in an unashamedly selfish mannor,only when He was facing His own demise did He concider Her wellbieng. "
_________________________________________________________________________________

I don't agree that he considered her well being only when facing death. As I have said before, when Christine kissed him ( no one had ever touched him before with caring, pity, love?, compassion before---ever) and when she was willing to sacrifice herself to save Raoul, the man she loved, the Phantom has an epiphany. What he has been doing is all wrong. His love is selfish, and the actions he has been taking to get her are selfish. (The mob, by the way, had not yet appeared on the portculis. He has been acting on the assumption that he can win her through whatever means and have her).

After he has that sudden, profound insight, he lets her and the young man she loves go. At that point, he has the kind of love that demands nothing and is concerned only with her well being.

The change comes too late for you, I guess. You hold him responsible for the wicked things he has done and feel no sympathy for him. Others feel the same as you do, and I can't imagine that anything I write will change this point of view---and as you say, it is another valid point of view.

I think, though, that the way the final scene of The Phantom of the Opera goes, there is room for compassion for this character in many people's minds and hearts. The people who put the show together wanted the audience to react with those emotions. Hal Prince (I'm paraphrasing) said that if the audience doesn't leave the theater wishing (unrealistically) that Christine would have stayed with the Phantom, they (the show's creators and the performers) haven't done the job right. Many people do leave the theater feeling that way. Some don't.

The show really has nothing to do with Christianity, but many audience members are familiar with the Christian concept that it is never too late for a sinner to repent.

By the way, I wouldn't recommend D'Argento's Phantom to anyone except fans of bloody horror movies. I'm not a fan of his, but I've read that it isn't even very good D'Argento. Sex with rats. Now, THAT offends my sensibilities!

[GHOSTLIGHT2]

Posted: 10/21/07 at 9:37am

To Sally
ALL MEN should be held accountable for the wrong that they do.
In the real world last minuet epiphanys have never wiped a man's misdeeds from the record,Yes it is a play but what does it say about Us if We concider some bad behavior acceptable because it suits our fancy?
We have laws and codes of conduct and the structure of society is underpinned by them.

Making the whole concept of right and wrong pointless is what has clogged up the legal system as it is now.
Did Erik die a better man in the show? YES did You feel for Him? clearly You did.

Again , that some people have been moved by it justifies the shows existance You were moved by it , feeling for others is a good thing.

But why is it that when I try to in a fair , balanced mannor point things out to You You disected every facit of what I put down drawing Your own conclusions from it and not what was meant?

Again, I can see Your point of view but Your last posting suggests that if You cannot see mine You have to alter it either because it helps You understand or because it would erode the comments I made.

With all due respect Sally it is pointless trying to talk when the words are either not bieng heard or are bieng heard in a distorted mannor.

Again this comes down to point of view and I am the only fool trying to communicate what the otherside thinks in this matter.
You want to win? well, You got it, You win .

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 10/21/07 at 3:03pm

You can't say what you would or would not have done in Erik's situation. No matter how hard your life is, you are not in his exact situation.

To quote Leroux: "He had a heart that could have held the empire of the world, but in the end, had to content himself with a cellar."

The tragedy of Phantom is that Erik could have been a great, successful man had he not had his face. He probably always had those darker aspects to his personality--I can see him as a tortured artist--but had he not been raised with a mother who hated him, caged as a circus freak, etc., he probably would have never become a murderer. He was absolutely encased in depression, darkness, depravity, until he met Christine and fell so in love with her. What he did with the love was bad, yes, but the love itself was pure. It wasn't just the need for power and control like most abusers have, otherwise he wouldn't have let her go at the end. Erik, therefore, is redeemed by his love for Christine.

What I am saying, however, is that people shouldn't go "Oh, she was such a witch for leaving poor Erik to be with that fop Raoul!" Christine and Erik wouldn't have worked out. He was too far gone, and his views too warped. He stalked her, hurt her, displayed abusive and posessive behaviors and attitudes. But, he did love her.

Some people find that kind of thing creepy. It depends on how romantic and willing to accept fantasy you are. In a fantastical, story setting, it could be viewed as romantic. When you apply it to real life, not so much.

[GHOSTLIGHT2]

Posted: 10/21/07 at 4:26pm

With all due respect SporkGoddess I know Myself far better than You know Me.
I know DAMN well what I would do in Eriks situation because I have lived a life of self examination, "what would I do?" is importaint because it is a survival skill.

I do not have to be in his possition to know what I would do because I know Myself .
Shure He was disfigured SO WHAT? then I was six My forhead was badly scarred by an automobile accident- I lived with it.
So his mother was bad, again SO WHAT? My mother was so neglectfull She would scream shout and complain if We were half starved and begged for Her to make something for Us.
I had to subside on Dry Dog Food at one point,it is safe to assume I have been a lot closer to The Phantoms circumstances than You have been and I DO know how I would behave in His situation because I would Never put Christine in that possition.

[Sally]

Posted: 10/21/07 at 5:08pm

____________________________________________________________________________________

"Again , that some people have been moved by it justifies the shows existance You were moved by it , feeling for others is a good thing. "
__________________________________________________________________________________



I'm glad that you think so, but I'm a little surprised, considering how you feel about the protagonist.

I would guess that you do not like Sweeney/Todd either, but you say I have been misunderstanding you so maybe that is a bad guess.
_________________________________________________________________________________

"But why is it that when I try to in a fair , balanced mannor point things out to You You disected every facit of what I put down drawing Your own conclusions from it AND NOT WHAT WAS MEANT.

Again, I can see Your point of view but Your last posting suggests that if You cannot see mine YOU HAVE TO ALTER IT either because it helps You understand or because it would erode the comments I made. "

[Sorry about the CAPS, but I don't know another way to show emphasis on this board.]
_________________________________________________________________________________


I really do NOT know what you mean by these comments. What conclusion did I draw that was not what you meant? What did I alter? I'm not kidding. I answered as honestly as I could so either I misunderstood what you meant or you didn't explain clearly enough. I *thought* I understood what you meant, but I could be wrong.

I do not think it is possible to "win" this discussion/argument. Neither of us is likely to change our minds, but I am satisfied that I have stated my view of the show and its main character.

If you will explain what I have misunderstood/ altered/heard in a distorted manner, I promise you I will read what you say and think about it, but I don't think I will reply as I believe this discussion (between us two) has nowhere to go.

I'll let some others have a say.

[SporkGoddess]

Posted: 10/21/07 at 6:25pm

GHOSTLIGHT2: Modern social psychology disagrees with you. It is the situation that defines a behavior. That's why Milgram found that over half of his participants were able to shock someone to the highest level. You cannot know how you will act in a situation unless you are actually in it.

Even if you've experienced similar things to Erik, you're in an entirely different timeframe.

[amalou]

Posted: 1/11/08 at 12:09am

Don't get me started on phantomgerry.net Talk about obsessive and crazy! They out crazy the Phantom!

I think the romance is mostly between Raoul and Christine. They are in love with each other. But it's also a love triangle and those are always fun. It's also romantic because obviously the creepy older deformed obsessive guy stalking a young woman is a huge turn off and yet it doesn't come off as gross when you're actually watching the musical. The idea on paper is creepy but when you watch it on stage it is very compelling and yes, dare I say, romantic as well.

It's also romantic because the Phantom does let Christine and Raoul go in the end. That is the whole point of the story. He loves her too much to make her suffer with him. And that's why I can't stand "phans" like those at phantomgerry.net who insist (quite aggresively, I might add) that ALW and JS inserted a hidden plot in which Christine marries the Phantom and not Raoul at the end. I won't get too into it but you know how it says Countess de Changy on the grave at the end? They believe- and I kid you not- that the Phantom is Raoul's older brother which makes him a Count and that's why Christine is a Countess at the end.

...frightening.

[GHOSTLIGHT2]

Posted: 1/11/08 at 1:17am

Good points one and all.
As for psychology disagreeing with Me,what can I say but that that it is a study that has as much going against it as it does going for it.
Yes it is romantic that Erick let Her go in the end, sometimes We must suffer for Love,saddly when the Sequel musical comes out the Phantom will have to be just as bad as He was before.
Any lesson He learned He clearly will forget.
Of course I hear the new one will be set in America, that could be amusing.
if you set it in Nashville you could have 'The Phantom of the Opry'with Grandpa Jones trying to stop Eric influencing Minny Pearl.
Again I do not understand it but I respect the show, Making a Sequel show is a poor idea, they tried it twice with ANNIE and they failed because it was a sensation that fit in at that time in a manner that would not fit in later - wich is why it is unlikely to have much success in revivals, not that the New Broadway seems interested in old shows.
amalou raises some interesting points namely that people can read to much into a show that is really not there, such people can ruin it for everyone else because they muddy the waters til there is no clarity to the story.
I never heard of phantomgerry.net but I can understand why You would find it so abrassive,by such people building it up for themselves they inadvertently tear it down for others.

Updated On: 1/11/08 at 01:17 AM