The Phantom Project Forum

I recently saw Webber's Phantom of the Opera in Brisbane. I sat throughout the whole thing thinking "Something's not right here..."

Perhaps it was just the production quality. Maybe I've just been spoiled by seeing the movie too many times and listening to the Crawford/Brightman cd too much. Perhaps I'm just getting cynical in my old age.

Lots of lines that I'm pretty sure are meant to be sung were spoken - especially during Music of the Night. Now I'm all for artistic licence, but I thought with PotO, there were pretty strict rules regarding changes.

Granted the last time I saw the musical was then I was 12 (over ten years ago now), but I remember it being so much more... spectacular. This show was just very humdrum. Considering the cost of the tickets, I felt very let down. The singing was mediocre - surely Australia must have more talent that this??

Also another that's been buggin me - at the end, when Christine returns to give the Phantom back the ring and leaves... does the Phantom say anything? Cause this Phantom kept repeating "No, no, no, Christine, no."

Then he jumped up and declared the music of the night over and did his vanishing thing.

I've gone through the libretto - nope, not in there. And it's definately not in the movie. Anyone else seen this?

Also - my god movie fangirls annoy me! I had a bunch of chicks behind me carrying on. One said "Oh I really hope this ends differently to the movie! I want Christine to get with the Phantom." Another declared, "Wow this Phantom is really ugly." And the last one was baffled as to why the chandelier fell at the end of the first act. Argh.

That's really interesting. I'm sure different performers do different things with the show (in small ways--changing large portions of it should be off-limits in terms of the rights). The repetitions of "No, no, Christine," in particular strikes me as a very different interpretation of the character, and a little bit confusing--it sounds as if he's begging her to stay, which runs directly counter to his letting her go for her own good. Of course, I'd have to see/hear the delivery to really get a sense of what he was trying to do, so maybe I shouldn't judge.

The shenanigans with the passing around of the ring are (correct me if I'm wrong, anybody) something that was primarily added in the film; it may be that this particular production is adding that element in order to keep things interesting for film fans, or even just because they thought it was a cool move (personally, I thought it was confusing as hell, but not everything works for everybody). There's nothing in the libretto about a line there, but depending on how the Phantom in question is playing his role, it does seem like a spot that could be effectively ad-libbed.

The singing was mediocre? That's disappointing to hear. I thought Anthony Warlow was playing the Phantom in Brisbane right now--the idea of a mediocre Warlow isn't quite working in my head.

Schumacher's film (I ain't reviewed it yet, but I seen it) focuses extremely upon the sexuality inherent in the Phantom, making it overt and very in-your-face instead of being a passive, metaphorical side of the character; it leads a lot of viewers who haven't read or seen other versions to be confused when they encounter somewhat less surface-level attractive versions of the character. I like to think that maybe they'll discover other versions of the story--it could only be interesting for them, right?

(Let's hear it for the first thread on the site!)

The 'No, no, Christine, no' was definately something strange - it gave me the impression that he was mourning her leaving him, fair enough, but something in the delivery just made the Phantom seem... pathetic. Which isn't really needed as his next lines are "it's over now...". It was very unsettling. It'll probably be a while before I get to see the musical again, but I'll definately be waiting for something like this again - it's really floored me.

Anthony Warlow is only allowed to perform in 6 of the shows weekly - which he apparently reserves for the night shows (obviously). I thought the singing was off and even my mother turned to me and said that it didn't sound like him. I haven't actually seen Warlow in many productions, but I did listen to my mother's copy of the Main Event where he sings songs from Phantom, and it sounded nothing like the singing in the show. I suspect that Warlow's understudy is getting a bit of a workout and not being credited to please patrons. That or he was having a very bad night and would have been better off asking for the understudy to step in.

With Australian musicals, it's usually the same old singers getting marched out again and again - it's probably time someone took a risk and found some new blood anyway. With a big name production like Phantom, you could have a totally unknown cast and you would still have sell out shows I think. The girl singing Christine the night we saw her was okay, certainly not captivating - I actually thought Emmy Rossum had a more interesting voice. The girls playing Christine share the role, though I'm not clear if that's through out the show or they alternate nights.

But the guy singing Raoul's role was great. He actually sounded a lot like Steve Barton - which may or may not be a good thing. Either way, he almost made up for two rather poor leads.

As for dopey fangirls - well, I like your idealism, but I wouldn't hold your breath. They might just be better off wandering through Fanfiction.net ^_^

The Phantom is, in many ways, meant to be pathetic (though much less in Webber's musical than in the novel--the musical removes most of that groveling and begging at Christine's feet stuff ), but at that part of the musical things should, in my opinion, be focused more on the redemption/salvation that the Phantom is achieving (albeit tragically) right now. The grovelly Phantom has his place, but not when he's offering to let Christine go; that's when he's finally showing some strength of character and an ability to own up to his actions. I'd hate to see that undermined, but again, it' s just my two cents' worth.

My copy of Wildhorn's Jekyll & Hyde concept album gets a lot of play at home, largely because Warlow is so incredible on it; I also love his Craven in The Secret Garden. If he was having an off day, I hope they're a rarity for him, because he's pretty damn fabulous, in my opinion.

That's a very good point--Phantom regularly sells extremely well here in New York and there's been quite a bit of cast changing around with little overall effect on sales, and that's from a production that's been running for two decades now. I think that's a common theatre practice, however; as in all other areas, investors would rather bet on a sure thing than take a chance on an unknown, which is sometimes a pity for all the fresh talent out there.

I certainly enjoy Barton's Raoul, so that's a good recommendation as far as I'm concerned! Rossum... well, I saw the 2004 film in theatres while I was in college working on my vocal degree, and I wasn't impressed. It's not that she has a bad voice; on the contrary, I think it's quite lovely, and I have her Frou Frou-esque single album on my computer. But I don't think she was able to sing the role, at least at that point in her vocal development; I'd have preferred she lend it her lovely looks and had a professional singer dubbed over her, a la Minnie Driver. But that's just personal opinion, and I should save it for when I re-watch the movie. Maybe I'll even change my mind.

Fanfiction.net frightens me deeply (with apologies to all the good fanfiction out there--I know it's there, but there's so much dreck to wade through to find it). The way I see it, the "dopey fangirl" has three evolutionary paths: 1) they eventually fall out of love with the Phantom story and move on to something else, 2) through their interest in the subject, they discover other versions and broaden their horizons, or 3) they remain happily ensconced in their preferred version, and if they're happy, who am I to complain?

Of course, I still say disparaging things about them sometimes (who, me? Cough). But it's all in love.

The first time I saw The Phantom of the Opera in New York, the Phantom and Christine sang "Point of No Return" after he kidnapped her from the stage -- as he was leading her beneath the opera house once again. I had never even really heard of Phantom before, so it didn't strike me as odd... until several years later, when I saw the show again and "Point of No Return" was performed in its proper palce, during Don Juan Triumphant.

I remember thinking, "Wow, that makes a lot more sense."

In retrospect, I'm surprised that production was allowed to change something as huge as song placement -- so surprised, in fact, that I asked my mother and grandmother (both of whom were with me for the first show) whether I was remembering it wrong. But no! My memory is correct, and my introduction the Lloyd Weber version of the story will simply have to live on as "weird."

Huh, that really is bizarre.

Putting the song there would really make it seem a lot more like Christine was intentionally offering herself to the Phantom. Performing it as part of a stage show makes it part of the "world" that the Phantom has created through his opera, so her involvement isn't of her own free will; if she did it on purpose as he was leading her down to his lair, that would encourage one to think that she was succumbing to the sexual overtures (ha, I made a pun) of the music, in essence agreeing to let the Phantom "corrupt" her. And without the context of a stage performance, that would be more like actual recitative dialogue (the way the "Notes" and "Angel of Music" songs are), which would be tantamount to her point-blank SAYING, "Take me now, you stud, you!"

Certainly changes the dynamics of the ending quite a lot. I'd be really surprised to see a production allowed to do that, too, but if it wasn't supervised too well, it seems possible. I know a lot of shows pay out for the rights but, for one reason or another, change portions of the script and/or songs (sometimes quite heavily) in order to accommodate their specific performers' and director's needs. But in a big (in the US, pretty much the biggest) venue like New York, that's really strange, indeed. I've never heard of that change before.