Alright, enough of the snobbish voice. Even being me, I can only take so much of myself in that form. :) So yes, I watched the play, the whole of it, hoping it would improve and redeem itself somehow and sadly all I can say is I liked the music. (Oh and I must confess, Sierra Boggess is incredibly talented as well as beautiful.) Not the lyrics mind, for I disagreed with the majority of those and they were at times the disturbing parts I mentioned previously, but the music did carry the passion and overall feel of the play. But I rather knew that going in so that was nothing really new.
So, what's my point, well I just want to kind of review the impression this play leaves us with which is that if you are disfigured there is no love for you in the world and you are to suffer in perhaps a martyr's fashion and take some kind of noble high road to accept your fate. You are allowed to excite fear and commit murder because you are so misunderstood and therefore allowed such liberties because again you are...disfigured. Now I know there is another story about disfigurement and love out there somewhere, well there are several, but there's one I have in mind, oh, it's just there on the tip of my tongue, OH YES, it's called Beauty and the Beast. (I said my snobbish voice had to go, but I will employ my sarcastic voice to my dying day. ;)) As I recall, and maybe I'm just entirely off the mark, the beast was thought to be in the realm of the unlovable because of his physical appearance and yet, this story does have a happy ending. (And that's both the original tale as well as Disney's take.) And there's this phrase I know, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", therefore why do we praise this extremely melancholy story of an obsessed stalker that lusts after a talented young woman as a tragic romance? Tragic as it may be, I don't think we are considering the same part of the story-line as tragic.
Some of you may be wondering where the tragedy enters my story-line, well by the fact that this story is considered a romance. That the phantom's obsession is considered a love, that his lustful controlling actions are being categorized as love. Oh my stars, NO! Please do not get me wrong, I am not saying that a lack of love isn't heartbreaking, or that loneliness can't all but consume you, but I am suggesting that a lack of love is no reason to lust for and control someone else. Does no one else see anything wrong with this? How harmful is such a thought?! That because you are a victim of your circumstances you are justified to victimize and terrorize others. I shudder at the unhealthy, twisted mentality that this play seems to promote.
I didn't really have a proper post structure when I started this post (I'm sure you must have noticed) and I'm not sure what purpose this post had other than simply being a long rant and I have succeeded in that. So, I suppose I shall leave you all now to be back another day with *fingers crossed* a much better topic.
Yours truly,
Cordy
P.S. How truly alone am I in this thought? Is anyone with me, or no?
I enjoyed reading Wuthering Heights but certainly not as a romantic tale! Ew.
ReplyDeleteIt was more of a "Of my goodness. This is horrible, but fascinating. It was like a train wreck you can't look away from because you're just so curious to find out what crazy thing they'll do next. (And the prose is so pretty)
(I saw the Phantom of the Opera live and TBH I fell asleep halfway through...)
I thought Wuthering Heights was very unique in style and how the story was told, and like you I continued to read it because of the train wreck factor, but if I hear it categorized as a romance once more--I just don't know what I shall do. Ick!
DeleteHahaha, that's kind of funny. How did you manage that when normally the music is so loud?
I've read the book this was based on (after seeing a local Broadway performance and the 25th anniversary edition), and the Phantom is definitely portrayed as a psychopath. The musical portrays him MUCH more sympathetically than the book. However, I don't think it's exactly sympathetic completely, it's the Phantom who is trying to justify himself, and Madame Giry, but no one else. I think also some of the singers (Ramin Karimloo is awesome, and I know someone who loved Gerard Butler in the move despite is brain splitting non-singing singing) who played him caused him to be romanticized along with the "conflicted antihero" sort of trope. I was never in camp Phantom like some people I know.
ReplyDeleteI'm so glad that I'm not as alone as I thought in this.
DeleteNo. You're not alone. I love The Phantom of the Opera because the music is amazing, but face it, it's basically a soap opera onstage. You're spot on about Erik (the Phantom) as well. Using the excuse of love to justify his abusive nature is just insanity. If he didn't get his way, especially with Christine, he just killed and tortured. He ruled Christine with fear and emotionally abused her. Yeah, he might be lonely and mishapen, but he's a mad genius who has been hidden away for close to 30 years. There's nothing to trust or even to love in that situation.
ReplyDeleteThank goodness! :D
DeleteThe music is fantastic, but the rest of this nonsense is a twisted mess. Hahaha.
Yes! I agree with your thoughts! I wasn't able to watch it on YouTube which I was a little miffed about because a friend keeps telling me that I need to see it. Anyway, yes, your thoughts! The first time I saw it I was freaked out. Like, what did I just watch?? I didn't know what I was supposed to think. It wasn't until my rewatch this January that I started to figure it out. I don't think that we are supposed to ship Christine with the Phantom or that it is supporting it or that it is saying that you can't possibly be happy if you are "deformed". It shows that people can become how they are treated. The Phantom was treated horribly in his youth and wasn't shown goodness and that made his heart turn into what he became. I think that it reminds us to treat everyone with love. It would be nicer if the message was more obvious, but oh well. I will always prefer Beauty and the Beast or The Hunchback of Notre Dame because those are amazing!
ReplyDeleteI can totally see what you're saying, I just think that the focus of the play doesn't play as heavily into that direction as a theme as they could have. Because that is a good point, I just think there is still to much pressure to make us "pity" him even when his actions are so very wrong on many levels. But I liked your point of view, and now we can both prefer other stories. Hahaha.
DeleteWell, yeah, if I thought that Eric/Phantom was the love interest in the story, I'd find that pretty disturbing. But he's not. He's the villain. Raoul is the love interest, and there are also problems in the "we were pals when we were kids and haven't seen each other for years but now we're in insta-love" story between Raoul and Christine as presented in the musical (it's much better in the book). I think that point of the musical is that you CAN'T justify current maniacal behavior by pointing to how you've been abused in the past, as much as you may want to. Eric thinks his disfigurement and his treatment at the hands of others makes him above their moral standards, when actually he's using that as an excuse to act without morals.
ReplyDeleteAnyway. I do quite love this musical, and the book it's based on. But not because I love the Phantom, or think he's an okay dude. He's messed up. I can pity him, but I can't like him. And I think Christine comes to the same conclusion.