The Phantom Project Forum

Regarding your comment about the fact that Christine changes her dress when she wakes up:
You know, I always thought that the reason she changed out of the Marguerite-costume was because it had all the bad memories attached to it of how her performance went disasterously wrong.

Regarding your comments on how you never get to see The Phantom's face:
I wasn't disappointed in the least. I think the look on Christine's face says all I needed to know. I like that Richardson credited the audience with having some imagination... and honestly, I would rather not see his face than have to put up with the disappointment of seeing a bad make up job, like with the Lloyd-Webber version.

Regarding your comments about the scene where he drops the rats on Carlotta's head:
Again, I wasn't disappointed by this scene and I strongly disagree with your comments that this was some kind of cop out. It seems to me that driving Carlotta mad is actually a much nastier thing to do than just killing her.

Regarding your comments about the way the cops are killed:
Again, I disagree with your assertion that killing the cops with boobytraps somehow makes the Phantom more sympathetic than if we'd seen him kill them with his own hands. He set up the traps with the purpose of killing them, so their deaths are still his fault... if anything, it seems to me like a much nastier way of disposing of his enemies than fighting them himself. It doesn't serve to make the Phantom any more sympathetic or likable, quite the opposite in fact.

Regarding your comments on the chandalier crash:
You seem to be implying that he didn't know what he was doing in this scene. Again, I strongly disagree with this interpretation - I always thought his cutting the rope was a malicious act of revenge against an audience who, quite reasonably, were disappointed at seeing such a disasterous performance. It seemed to me like he was angry at the audience and wanted to make them pay. He knew what would happen and he wanted things to happen the way they did. Significantly, he doesn't show any remorse for these people he's killed. He cites his one regret in life as being not killing someone else.

Regarding the singing:
Teri Polo's singing is dubbed by Michele LaGrange. Charles Dance's singing is dubbed by Gerard Garino.

I must say, as a fan of this version from way back, I was rather disappointed it got such a relatively low mark. I personally feel it is one of the most underrated and undervalued versions out there, and I was half hoping you would leap to it's defence - especially considering you were so generous on Argento's version, which strays even further from the source material and is even more unpopular.

Really though, I shouldn't be surprised. Looked at from a purist's standpoint, the mini-series is a sugar coated atrocity, and you could argue that's it's nothing more than very expensive fan fiction
(it's almost there - the only thing preventing me from sticking the Phan Phic label on it is that Kopit didn't have Erik/Christine getting it on, or contrive for them to live happily ever after... a real Phanatic would've contrived to put some sex in there amidst all the sweetness)

But I have a soft spot for this version in my heart. Even though my brain realises I should hate this version for veering so far from the source... I can't hate it... I can only love it... it never fails to move me every time I watch it...

I think it stems from the fact that this was the first version I ever saw. I saw it when I was eight years old. I was totally unfamiliar with any other version of the "Phantom" mythology at that point... so I went into it fresh. I wasn't comparing it to anything else, or whining because it didn't fit my preconceived notions of what a Phantom story should be. I just enjoyed it for what it was, rather than criticising it for what it wasn't.... I found it to be a hauntingly tragic, exquisitely beautiful fairytale romance. And I enjoyed it on the level of a fairytale.

Also, as a child, all the creepy Oedipal elements of this version went completely over my head.

This mini-series has a lot to answer for... it got me interested in classical music... it got me interested in opera... it got me interested in France... it got me interested in musical theatre... it got me interested in all things Phantom... it made me hunt down every other version of this story I could lay my hands on over the years... it opened so many doors for me. Because of that I'll always have an odd sense of gratitude to this version.

Viewed as an adult, with all the diminished sense of wonder that comes with maturity, it's magic has dimmed somewhat as most fairy tales do when you reach a certain age. I am now all too aware of it's cheezy bits.... the bizarre stew of accents... the pop psychology of Erik's origin story... the implausability of Erik's underground dreamworld.

But I still can't dislike it... like with other films I watched as a kid such as "Neverending Story", "Labyrinth" and "The Slipper & The Rose", I just abandon myself to the over the top sentimentality and allow myself to be swept away by all the deliriously larger than life happenings.

I am still enchanted by Teri Polo's winsome innocence and ethereal beauty... even with the fake accent and declawed character, Charles Dance has an oddly arresting screen presence and I feel his Phantom's quirky charm compensated for his lack of menace - to paraphrase the reviewer, I LIKED HIM GODAMMIT!
Burt Lancaster is also quite charming and his chemistry with Dance is priceless. The dramatic highlights of the series are the scenes where they are interacting and a lot of their verbal interplay is genuinely witty.
Though the one that steals the show for me every time I watch it is Andrea Ferreol. She is absolutely hysterical, I don't think there has ever been a funnier Carlotta before or since (at least for me)

I must admit, in rereading the book, I do find it hard not to picture Teri Polo as Christine and Andrea Ferreol as Carlotta in my mind - they are just my favourite screen incarnations of these characters.

I guess what I am trying to say is that this version is a guilty pleasure for me. Like chocolate. I know that it's bad for me but I just can't leave it alone... I realise Anne is totally right in all her criticisms of this version... but some of the very things she criticises are the things that make me love it so much.

The sheer unabashed and unapologetic romanticism of this version is what gets to me. Nowadays so many fairytale romances are couched in layers of irony. I find this version so rewarding because this grandiloquent, over-the-top, melodramatic fairytale romance is presented in all sincerity, with no irony whatsoever. You don't get much of that nowadays.

Ben wrote:Regarding your comment about the fact that Christine changes her dress when she wakes up:
You know, I always thought that the reason she changed out of the Marguerite-costume was because it had all the bad memories attached to it of how her performance went disasterously wrong.

That's a good idea, actually; I can see that. I didn't really see it being presented that way in the film, but in retrospect it does seem psychologically plausible for her to want to escape the traces of a recent trauma. It still seems odd to me, however, that she decided to change clothes while in a strange place she didn't recognize, especially in the time period.

Ben wrote:Regarding your comments on how you never get to see The Phantom's face:
I wasn't disappointed in the least. I think the look on Christine's face says all I needed to know. I like that Richardson credited the audience with having some imagination... and honestly, I would rather not see his face than have to put up with the disappointment of seeing a bad make up job, like with the Lloyd-Webber version.

I definitely agree. While I was burning with curiosity throughout the miniseries, waiting to see what it would look like, in the end I was relieved that Richardson avoided the question of deformity makeup entirely. It's a point that often kills a film Phantom for me, and, as I said in the review, there was just too much buildup for even a fabulous makeup job to deliver.

Ben wrote:Regarding your comments about the scene where he drops the rats on Carlotta's head:
Again, I wasn't disappointed by this scene and I strongly disagree with your comments that this was some kind of cop out. It seems to me that driving Carlotta mad is actually a much nastier thing to do than just killing her.

Fair enough. I don't disagree that driving Carlotta mad is nastier, actually--but I don't think that was really the intent here. Carlotta's madness seems to be a vehicle for comic relief more than anything else (much as she and her husband are throughout the miniseries), and while the rat attack had the effect of driving her off her rocker, I don't buy that Erik did it expressly for that purpose. It seems more like a prank to me--very unpleasant and nasty, but not the sort of revenge I would have expected from the original character. Then again, as you note later in your response, this definitely ain't Leroux's Erik.

Ben wrote:Regarding your comments about the way the cops are killed:
Again, I disagree with your assertion that killing the cops with boobytraps somehow makes the Phantom more sympathetic than if we'd seen him kill them with his own hands. He set up the traps with the purpose of killing them, so their deaths are still his fault... if anything, it seems to me like a much nastier way of disposing of his enemies than fighting them himself. It doesn't serve to make the Phantom any more sympathetic or likable, quite the opposite in fact.

I don't disagree with you in principle, actually, but by having so many of the deaths happen "offstage" with very little visible violence or struggle, there's still an illusion created that the Phantom is less involved. Intellectually, we know perfectly well that he's killing people, but the film was deliberately shot that way to preserve more sympathy for the character. Had we seen him messily killing people in closeup, as we do in the Little/Englund film, for example, the visceral reaction to that violence would have damaged the character much more. I don't think that Erik's use of traps makes him any less culpable and reprehensible for killing them, but I do think that the film was intentionally set up this way in order to preserve an illusion that doesn't include that violence.

Ben wrote:Regarding your comments on the chandalier crash:
You seem to be implying that he didn't know what he was doing in this scene. Again, I strongly disagree with this interpretation - I always thought his cutting the rope was a malicious act of revenge against an audience who, quite reasonably, were disappointed at seeing such a disasterous performance. It seemed to me like he was angry at the audience and wanted to make them pay. He knew what would happen and he wanted things to happen the way they did. Significantly, he doesn't show any remorse for these people he's killed. He cites his one regret in life as being not killing someone else.

Just difference of opinion there; he looked distraught to a level of blindness to me, but that's just interpretation of the actor's portrayal, so your opinion is entirely as valid as mine. Certainly, I agree that he's entirely at fault for killing people, and that his desire to also have killed Philippe doesn't exactly elevate him in terms of morals.

Ben wrote:Regarding the singing:
Teri Polo's singing is dubbed by Michele LaGrange. Charles Dance's singing is dubbed by Gerard Garino.

Oh, thank you for letting me know! The credits seemed to just list the dubbers as "singer", so I wasn't sure who was who. Good to know.

Oh, stop quoting my favorite childhood films, or I'm going to go all misty (oh, Labyrinth, I still can't watch you without joy despite a heroine who is way more annoying now than she was when I was 10). I agree that I don't think this is a bad version at all; I enjoyed it a lot, and I'll probably watch it again for fun. Dance is immensely talented, and while the plot has definitely veered from the original, it's still a good story in its own right. You're right about Andrea Ferreol, too--Carlotta is a role with a huge amount of comedic potential, and it's really nice to see someone take advantage of it when so often the character falls cardboard-flat.

Don't think of it as a guilty indulgence. Sure, purists may hate it, but it's a pretty good film, all things considered. Love it unashamedly. God knows I sometimes read and watch some utter crap and love every minute of it. In the end, one of the most important things a film can do is stir emotion and thought, and if the romanticism of Richardson's miniseries does it for you, hats off to him!

Had we seen him messily killing people in closeup, as we do in the Little/Englund film, for example, the visceral reaction to that violence would have damaged the character much more. I don't think that Erik's use of traps makes him any less culpable and reprehensible for killing them, but I do think that the film was intentionally set up this way in order to preserve an illusion that doesn't include that violence.

it's interesting that you bring up Robert Englund's "Phantom" as a point of comparison... because, again, I actually think that Kopit's version comes across as much worse in the comparison.

You see, all of Dance-Erik's victims are innocents.

The audience members that he crushes with the chandelier have done nothing to hurt him personally - all they've done is commit the crime of bruising his ego by jeering at his girlfriend... the cops that he kills are no more deserving of death either, they are just doing their job in responding to the threat of a stalker/thief/extortionist/vandal/murderer. They aren't even trying to kill him, they just want to arrest him.... Bouquet is another innocent who dies because of Erik. Admittedly, it's indirect, but Erik's reaction is quite callous... he's only concerned about how it will affect his lifestyle, and later he uses it as a tool to manipulate others.

The sick mind games he plays with Carlotta and Cholet prior to Christine's debut aren't any more justifiable than the murders he commits - again, it's all about ego... all that they've done is have differing taste in music to him. For no other reason than this, he feels justified in screwing around with their heads.

Really, if you think about it, Dance's Erik is definitely not the cute and cuddly incarnation of The Phantom that he might appear to be on first glance - look beneath the surface and it's clear that he really is a nasty piece of work.

Robert Englund on the other hand... sure, he's evil, but there is a greater honesty and openness to his brand of evil that makes him less of a monster in comparison.

In typical 80s horror movie style, the acts of murder he commits are rationalised by tried and true slasher flick morality... Carlotta is killed because she is bitchy and mean... the critic is killed because of his deceitfulness and lack of integrity... the thugs in the alleyway he kills in self defence... Joseph he kills for being exceptionally stupid (and it's a moral touchstone of 80s slasher flicks that all people intellectually inferior to the killer deserve to die)... the cops in this one are actually trying to kill him rather than arrest him... and as for Richard... well, he is the Raoul-figure here, and a lot of fans would argue that he deserves to die simply because he would take Christine away from Erik. The film bends over backwards to make sure we get how corrupted Erik's victims are.

Also, he faces people openly in a fight, and gets his hands dirty (bloody?)... again, the fact that he faces these people in an open fight could be construed as a more honourable way of killing than setting up boobytraps for people - because at least the people he's up against seem to have some chance of killing him... whereas the Kopit Phantom does things in a much more underhanded way

So the 1989 version shows Erik going after people who are decidedly "impure" and who have seriously affected his life in some way... whereas the Erik of the Kopit version kills innocent people (or else screws with their head) for mostly egocentric reasons.

The more I think about it, it seems to me that the Dance Phantom is ultimately more of a monster than the Englund incarnation.

Englund's brand of evil is honest and open for all to see... whereas Dance's brand of evil is hidden beneath a mask of smiles and charm.

I don't disagree with you in principle, actually, but by having so many of the deaths happen "offstage" with very little visible violence or struggle, there's still an illusion created that the Phantom is less involved. Intellectually, we know perfectly well that he's killing people, but the film was deliberately shot that way to preserve more sympathy for the character. Had we seen him messily killing people in closeup, as we do in the Little/Englund film, for example, the visceral reaction to that violence would have damaged the character much more. I don't think that Erik's use of traps makes him any less culpable and reprehensible for killing them, but I do think that the film was intentionally set up this way in order to preserve an illusion that doesn't include that violence.

I know this probably wasn't your intention - but that comment comes across as quite patronising and insulting.

I don't think that these events were filmed the way they were in order to generate more sympathy for the character... I think they were filmed this way for the same reason Richardson didn't show the Phantom's face... he realised his audience weren't morons who needed everything spelt out for them in big neon letters. He probably just assumed that the audience already knew that killing is wrong and therefore didn't need blood and guts splattered all over the screen to make the point clear.
(besides which, you wouldn't be able to get away with that kind of violence on prime time TV anyway)

Speaking for myself, I am just as emotionally affected by an offscreen death as I would be by seeing it unfold in bloody detail. There is absolutely no "illusion of sympathy" for me whatsoever - the offscreen deaths caused just as much damage to my sympathy for the character as if I had seen them in gory detail.

And as I said, I felt I had less sympathy for the character BECAUSE he killed them in such an underhanded way, through the use of boobytraps. If he had faced them openly, like in the Englund version, then it would've seemed like they actually had some chance of getting away or killing him... but here they aren't given that chance, or even the chance of an honourable death by going down fighting... so I end up having less sympathy for him than if her had faced up to them directly.

Don't think of it as a guilty indulgence. Sure, purists may hate it, but it's a pretty good film, all things considered. Love it unashamedly.

Alright then, I will.

You certainly make a good point about the certain lack of morality that Dance's Erik displays. I don't disagree with you at all, there--I don't think there's a good excuse for the things he does, and I don't think he's any more innocent than most other versions of the character (the only really innocent one I can think of is the Phantom from the 1962 Hammer film, since the worst he ever did was play some pranks on the people who were stealing his life's work; he never hurt anyone worse than a slap). I personally prefer Englund's Erik (he's one of my favorite interpretations of the character, actually), but it's not because I think one or the other is more or less reprehensible in his actions. They both at least somewhat fulfill the role of villains, even though they have plenty of sympathetic points. But I really do think that the intent of the directors was very different when it comes to the two characters. Little wanted us to be afraid of Erik, so we see a lot of blood and gore and ghoulishness and comparatively less positive emotion (though not none; I love the prostitute scene, for instance); Richardson wanted us to sympathize with Erik, so those factors are minimized while his relationships and inner turmoil are played up. In the end, of course, it's always the viewer that makes the call on what they think about a given character, but the delineation in intent between the two directors seem clear (to me, at least, but of course that's somewhat my opinion as a viewer, after all).

I certainly didn't mean to be patronizing. I apologize if it sounded that way--it wasn't what I intended. I didn't mean to say that audiences are sheep; I meant that there seemed to be a certain intent on the part of the director.

(Also a good point about primetime TV--you can't exactly gore it up in a BBC miniseries the way you can in a theatrical release!)

I read your review again, and this part really bugged me.
I think it was reading this bit of the review that must've made me respond so strongly the first time.

All of the "evil" elements of the original novel have been removed, even the hideous face, and that weakens the plot irreparably. I care much less about a nice guy getting killed because of a misunderstanding

That is simply not true.

The Phantom of the mini-series is a thief, liar, extortionist, stalker, murderer, vandal and arch-manipulator. He is not a nice guy at all, and he is not condemned simply because of a misunderstanding. He is condemned because of his own actions, his own hubris.


Your review of the mini-series is enourmously entertaining, but I think it is the weakest one you've posted to this site, and certainly the most misleading.

Your review seems to imply that the Phantom is portrayed in a totally sympathetic light in the mini-series... and that is not true at all.

At the very least your review seems to imply that the creators intended for The Phantom to come across in a totally sympathetic light in this mini-series - and again, I think this is untrue.

Certainly, I don't believe that the creative team intended this Phantom to come across as sympathetic in the same way that you seem to be suggesting they are.

Sure, they want us to feel sorry for him because his isolated existence and general wackjob-ness are the product of social prejudices... but I don't think they intended for him to come across as any kind of hero (let alone a "tragic hero") or wanted the audience to be okay with the crimes he committs...certainly it's telling that this Phantom doesn't get the girl and ends up dying because of his crimes.

Compare the "just deserts" ending of the Yeston/Kopit version to the ending of the Spencer version. In the Kopit/Yeston version The Phantom pays with his life for the crimes he has committed. In the Spencer version it is all blithely dismissed and all is sweetness and light in the end.
Just going from your review, it seems to me that the Spencer version is a much more reprehensible attempt at softening the Phantom's character than the Yeston/Kopit version ever was.

The Phantom of the Yeston/Kopit version is still evil and nowhere near as sympathetic as your review says that he is.
The fact that he's still evil makes his final lack of redemption all the more poignant to my mind.

But I really do think that the intent of the directors was very different when it comes to the two characters. Little wanted us to be afraid of Erik, so we see a lot of blood and gore and ghoulishness and comparatively less positive emotion (though not none; I love the prostitute scene, for instance); Richardson wanted us to sympathize with Erik, so those factors are minimized while his relationships and inner turmoil are played up. In the end, of course, it's always the viewer that makes the call on what they think about a given character, but the delineation in intent between the two directors seem clear (to me, at least, but of course that's somewhat my opinion as a viewer, after all).

Well, I guess this gets to the heart of the disagreement between us and why this is one of my favourite versions and one of your least favourite.

I think you have misunderstood the intent of the creative team here.

I think that they wanted the audience to feel a certain amount of sympathy for the character - but I do not think they meant for him to be a totally sympathetic character.

The Phantom in the miniseries, for all his charm, is still presented as a man without a proper moral compass and a man who has a very cavalier attitude to lying, thieving, killing and manipulating people.

I really do think that your review gives the wrong impression, the Kopit/Yeston Phantom isn't really portrayed that sympathetically.


Mind you, I could be wrong...



I have met fans of the Lloyd-Webber musical who have straightfacedly told me that Erik is the "true hero" of the story... that he is a totally sympathetic character and that Raoul is the "real villain" of the piece.

This despite the fact that the Lloyd-Webber Phantom is also a thief, murderer, liar, stalker, extortionist etcetera and the team of Lloyd-Webber/Schumacher leave none of these things up to the imagination.

Certainly, I can see how someone gullible and short-sighted enough to imagine Gerard Butler's Phantom as a "true hero" would be quite taken in by Charles Dance.

Yep, you've hit on the heart of the disagreement--we just have different theories as to the intent of the director and writers. I don't disagree with you at all that Dance's Phantom's actions are any less reprehensible than they are in other versions of the character, but I still really do think that the creative team intended to set up a much more sympathetic character for their audience--to create a more appealing-seeming Phantom despite his misdeeds. We may have to just agree to disagree on this one.

But I'm glad you were entertained, at least, even if you think I'm full of it!