The Phantom of the Opera
 

So my girlfriend and I watched the Phantom of the Opera (the movie version, which is horrible compared to the original, but whatever.)

Afterwards she's talking about how bad she feels for the Phantom. I immediately called her out on being a moron, because the Phantom simply is not a figure of pathos; he's a monster. I mean he kills like 5 guys, he lies to Christine for the entirety of the play (he tries to convince her that he is the spirit of her father, what??) and involves everyone in his cowardly tricks, particularly Raoul at the end. Also, it seems the only minor chords in the entire musical happen only when the Phantom is there, and you also can't put aside the fact that he essentially sings the whole time about how he's the bad guy. How about the fact that near the end of the play Christine condemns him (The tears I might've shed for your dark fate/grow cold and turn to tears of hate) and he still forces her to go with him?

My girlfriend defended the Phantom, saying that everything he did was because of his dreadful childhood, and also that in the end he came to his senses and released both Raoul and Christine. However, I still contend that a poor childhood does not justify growing up to be a major dickpurse; one must still be held responsible for their actions. Also, releasing Raoul doesn't mean he actually did anything good for them, all he did was NOT do something terrible to them.

So what's your opinion? Is the Phantom pitiable, or merely pitiful?

In my opinion the Phantom is both a being who is to be pitied and at the same time dealt harshly with.

From the very beginning of his life, he was cast out and persecuted as a monster because of his face. He had known nothing but the hatred and fear people had for him. He lacked guidance on how to deal with these sorts of problems, so he was left to his own devices, which were inevitably just imitative of what he experienced (lies, pain, torture, manipulation, etc.)

However, his behaviour should be dealt with justly. A past does not excuse someone's current actions. It only explains it.

(considering the different versions of the story too, I am assuming the one told by Susan Kay)

Just because he did some horrible things doesn't mean you can't feel sorry for him. I think its possible to pitty him and still think he should be arrested/killed (whatever his justified punishment would be).

Also, everyone I know who saw the movie first and then the play thought the movie was much better. I also like the movie's soundtrack much better than the broadway one and I was introduced to both at roughly the same time.

For the sake of argument, I have yet to see the play, but comparison between the original London production soundtrack and the movie reveals that the singing in the movie is just god-awful. (The phantom is supposed to be a tenor but is played by a baritone. What??) The movie itself isn't bad. Aside from the omission of a few omissions that clearly characterize the Phantom as a major fuckwad.

Of course it does. Take any serial murderer with a traumatic past, the "aww, poor guy" factor fades after about the first killing.

Nobody can compare to Michael Crawford as The Phantom. Everybody knows that.

I feel that he is just an all around boring character to begin with, and the whole notion should be pittied to begin with. To more specifically answer your question, however, I think he's more of a Monster, than anything.

You'd think that instead of his rough childhood turning him raw and callous, he'd be more... pliable? I figured he would definitely be more compassionate to other's plight, but alas, the opposite was true. He was a fucking dick prick that manipulated, killed, and scared the living hell out of people.

Perhaps they should change the title of the play to Mask: with a vengeance.

ORRRR, it just may be that I have no sympathy for freaks.

That could be it.

I feel he shouldn't be pardoned for all of his actions, especially killing people and brainwashing girls. I like the movie (and Butler as the phantom is simply divine), and I couldn't get myself to hate him completely though. I did feel a twang of pity near the end, when he let Christine go, but that's the right thing to do. Other than that, I felt like he was a maniac. Sure, he's had a bad life, but that doesn't justify his actions.

I don't pardon him for his actions, but everything he did was because he was infatuated with Christine - which, from a female POV, makes the figure of the Phantom come across as unfortunate and pitiable (despite the fact that in 'real life' that would be unimaginably creepy and disgusting, but whatever). In the original novel he was painted as a tragic villain, who did terrible things but at the same time had terrible things done to him, things that he did not deserve. The fact that he was committing murders in the name of 'love' somewhat softens it.

Of course, I'm really not thrilled with the movie version. I hated Butler as Phantom, because A) he can't sing. and B)he's faaar too young and faaar too attractive to be the Phantom. I find the Phantom attractive, and like most PotO Phans, I want Christine and him to be together (even though it can never be); his attraction isn't physical, but his musical genius and almost superhuman abilities of manipulation. But he's supposed to be completely malformed, and about 60 years of age. This would have probably made him much less pitable on-screen, though, and in the Lloyd-Webber adaptation they want it to lean heavily on the Phantom's side.

Susan Kay's version is absolutely amazing. In my opinion, it's better than the original in that it delves much deeper into Erik/the Phantom's past and the reasons behind his actions later in the novel -- which was outlined in the original, and very much changed in the ALW movie version.
But...I think the original novel says it best:

So yes, it is completely normal and expected to pity the Phantom. In a way, he's a tragic hero -- albeit with some awful big flaws.

As an aside, and correct me if I'm wrong, I don't believe Andrew Lloyd Webber had much to do with the film itself; it was directed by Joel Schumacher.

Perhaps, but isn't that very similar to saying you feel bad for a Macbeth because he only killed all those people after the witches essentially gave him permission?

Yes, but it was a movie version of the ALW musical. Which was adapted by ALW and Richard Stilgoe. Maybe he didn't have as much to do with the movie (I heard he oversaw the casting), but the film was based on his adaptation, tweaked by Schumacher.

I'm just saying that even the original author -- who should be looked to as the authority on his own story -- says that the Phantom should not be viewed as purely a villain. He gives us permission to pity him, and I do.

Yeah, I see what you're saying. It just seemed like you were saying ALW had all the creative power behind the movie, which is for the most part true, but Schumacher did change things.

The Phantom is a monster. However, he is a monster that is supposed to receive pity. The story just lends itself that way. He may be a monster, but his emotions, reactions, and despair all lend themselves to making people feel sorry for him.

In regards to the movie, I would like to point out that I didn't care much for the portrayal of the Phantom, especially towards the end. His hair seemingly spontaneously changes color and he has a larger portion of his face scarred than was depicted before he took off his mask. Maybe it's a metaphor for how, towards the end, he became more of a monster, but still...

i've seen the whole play/musical and only a little bit of the movie. I was put off by the guy who played the phantom in the movie almost immediately. don't even know who he is. My wife is a big fan, so my association with phantom of the opera is only due to being a tag along. I bought her the soundtrack, just looked at it and it was 1986 london cast version and I dig it.

Movie phantom = monster (i think it's because I could actually see the horrible things he was doing)

Acro-nym, that picture of the hulk in your sig is to be the bombness. that's how i feel when i'm trying to weed all of the grass out of my tomato garden.

Thanks. It's a custom-made black-and-white variation on a Chris Gairrusso cartoon. http://www.chrisgcomics.com/main.html
He did some comic strips for Marvel and this happens to be one of my favorites.

I agree with Acro-nym.
What he did was unacceptable, because even though the managers did get on his bad side, 1)Tradition isn't always the best, 2)You can't always get what you want, 3)They were just doing their jobs.
But you must also feel sorry for the guy since he wasn't acceptable to society. Don't we all feel like that?
I personally think that Leroux took everything that ugly and rejected people feel like doing, and made the Phantom do it.
I mean look at him: "I wish there was a good hole to crawl into." "I wanna kill em all." "I love her, but she like someone else." "Everyone hates me, so I act bad so I'll get attention."
Doesn't that sound a lot like some people you know?


PS the movie is GREAT, but I don't like the phantom either.

NOtwithstanding any bad treatment he may have received, the phantom is a mosnter. I read the book (a masterpiece) and watched the most recent movie, and I can't feel pity for him. I mean, he acts like a spoiled child who thinks he can have anything he wants

I haven't watched the film nor listened to the whole musical (I only like Jesus Christ Superstar; the bits from Phantom bored me), but my ex-girlfriend bloody adored this film. I'm merely mentioning this because I think that

a) this film was targeted at females, who usually love a dashing dickpurse (congrats on the expression, I like it), especially if he's handsome and if he does something "heroic" or "noble" at the end of the film;

b) I'll never understand girls, and anyway Rocky Horror is better. It's got men in suspenders, dammit.

I did read part of the book, and I know I empathised with Raoul. I didn't form an idea of the Phantom (I only got to read around half the book), but if he killed all those people... well... it's not too though a judgement, I think.

PS: Anybody who liked Phantom could do worse than read Maskerade by Terry Pratchett, which is in part a parody of Phantom. AND it's more fun.

Okay, so men empathize with Raoul? How odd. The movie was the first incarnation of the story that made me even sort of like Raoul; I've always found the Phantom to be more attractive in personality. He has this tragically romantic aura that I just find to be very... intriguing. Reading Phantom definitely reinforces this perspective. I love Rocky Horror also, but I fail to see how the two could possibly be connected :confused:.

And yeah, I've read Maskerade :). I love Pterry and his Discworld, and Maskerade isn't my favorite of the series, but it was amusing enough.

Men empathize with Raoul because we know how it is to treat a girl well, and then have her fuck the guy who treats her like shit instead of you.

But -- she never does anything with the Phantom.
Barring the

Spoiler:

Susan Kay version

...

The Phantom idolizes Christine, he doesn't treat her like shit. He's just a tad obsessive >___>...in any case, her attraction to him is his genius, which I think is a good reason to like anyone. I dislike Raoul because he's your pretty-boy-rich-guy that just happened to grow up with the girl. Maybe the reason I dislike Raoul is because I inheritly dislike those types of men, but whatever.

QFT (and personal experience, so I must be right :p). OK, she didn't do anything with the Phantom, but I suppose most guys still would like to kick the Phantom's backside to kingdom come if in the same situation. Christine still chose the Phantom over Raoul, no?

As I said before, the character is practically built to be adored by females ^^;.

No connection, apart from both being musicals. ^^;

Yep, Maskerade isn't the best of the bunch, but still good when compared to books by lesser mortals. And the "!!!!!" joke was fun!!!!!

Seen in that light I can see your argument, yes. Maybe what rubs us in the wrong way is the fact that the Phantom is so egoistical, in a way... he wants to pass on his musical talent at all costs, even if it means breaking up a relationship (and killing people). We automatically dislike him for taking somebody else's girl and for being a villain, and we can't easily identify with Christine because we find her decisions to be somewhat inexplicable (being female and all that, I mean). Raoul is the only normal person, and though he might be a spoilt brat, he still does what he can to get her back. And remember, the book is written in the first person, so its bias is in favour of Raoul, probably. It's been years since I've started reading the book, so details are hazy at best.