Phantom of the Opera discussion
All Things Phantom!!
>
The Phantom or Raoul?
message 1:
by
Paula
(new)
Jan 20, 2009 06:14PM
Do you like the phantom or Raoul better? I like the phantom. I have reason to back it up but I want to know what others think first.
reply
|
flag
*
The Phantom - there is something about him, how mysterious he is, his genius, how passionate he is about music (also Christine)
Phantom -- although in real life, I might find his obsession/willing to kill a bit unnerving.Even though in the musical, ALW writes good music for Raoul (and he comes off as better and more interesting than in most films) he still pales in comparison to Phantom. I feel like even in the musical he's in love with this distant fantasy ideal he has of Christine that he remembers from childhood and does not really see her as she is. (i.e. in the musical "Little Lotte" and "Notes (Version 2)"
PhantomErik shows a quality of good things. He is mysterious, sexuality, and some charm. He steals my heart any day. Unforantely, Raoul is way too simple, predictable. Phantom all the way
Maybe she should just skip both and find someone else...that apparently is not in the story or musical...
PHANTOM !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! NOTHING DIFFERENT
WELL, phantom is cooler and raoul is so girly but loyal, but raoul is good for Christine and the PotO isnt so much. I agree with Bee all the way. plus, the phantom is fat!!
the phantom is fat? lol no that's all muscle.
Phantom, duh. He has passion and is charming and sexy. I don't mean the original musical. He's fat. Raul is steady but has no wow factor. Nice guy, no thanks. It is creepy that the Phantom kills people, and I wouldn't like that. But i feel so sorry for him because of what he's gone through. Change the bad habits and I'd say "I do."
Is this even a question? ;) Phantom all the way. He's mysterious, dark, passionate, and there's something about him that I love. Poor Erik...hearing about his past always makes me cry, and his deformed face :( There is only reason I don't like him...he's so willing and ready to kill - that scares me. EDIT:
I've been thinking about this, and I think I've changed my mind. I really like Raoul too. He's very caring, and sometimes I really wonder if the Phantom truly loves her. He is such a maniac, so I don't know. I guess that if I were Christine I'd choose Raoul without a doubt.
The phantoms real past is not sad what so ever!
Definitely the Phantom. I was lucky to be working at our performing arts center when Phantom played here (a total of 10 weeks over two tours) and every night I was drawn into the story and hoped that at last the story would end differently. We never got tired of seeing the play, either.Raoul is just another good looking rich kid IMHO and only there as an antagonist - or protagonist for the phantom.For me, travesty #1 was the movie which I admit I haven't seen, and HUGE travesty #2 is the sequel set in Coney Island which ALW hopes to open in about 4 locations worldwide. POTO does not need a sequel.
BTW, why do you say the Phantom's past isn't sad? Just curious.Also, have any of you read Susan Kaye's novedl Phantom> If you're and Erik fan, I recommend it 110%.
She says that because she seems to think the only thing Erik did before becoming the Phantom was to kill people in Persia. Nevermind the gypsy fair, nevermind his mother's treatment of him, nevermind everything else that happened in his life. I don't get it.And yes, Susan Kay's novel is amazing!
Everyone makes there own decisions. It might not have not helped his morals, but he was the one who made the decision to do all those things. To go through with them. It was a choice. Maybe not easy ones at times, but there always is a choice.
I think in order to have a good moral grounding one must be taught those things, especially at a young age. It's ultimately not something that would come naturally to people if they were raised away from society. Someone not given those morals is going to act more akin to animals - strike first in defense, do what you have to do to survive. Erik never saw himself as a human being because others did not see him that way.Erik was also seriously mentally unbalanced -- likely bipolar, maybe schizophrenia or a host of other issues.
It's clear he was mentally imbalanced and plenty has been said about it over the years. What it was, specifically, I don't know, but it's pretty clear something was not right.
I think there are many things that "ruin" the romance of the plot -- like the fact that Erik was a walking skeleton with a death's head and whose hands "smelled like death." The "romance" in the original book is macabre and rather twisted to say the least. The ALW musical made him and the whole story much more romantic.And I don't see how having a mental affliction can ruin the romance.
I think that the readers are the one to put the romance into this book. It's not really in the book itself. Erik had an uhealthy obsession somewhat mixed with love directed towards Christine. As for Christine, she at first thought he was the angel of music sent to her by her father. When she actually met him, she more confused than anything else. The most romantic aspect to me, is that he let her go.
i love the phantom !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OK, here's a new question. What do you think about the POTO saequel "Love Never Dies" set in Coney Island?
I hated Phantom of Manhattan. I hate the concept of the sequel. ALW is just trying to capitalize on his success of Phantom since no other musical he's written since then has really gotten quite the following. Essentially, I think it's going to be yet another flop for him.
I agree. I didn't read the book, but heard enough about it from people on another list not to waste my time. This plot is so contrived, in the first place, and why would someone who was exhibited at carnivals buy one? Why would an opera singer go to the grand opening of said carnival? Senseless. He should have left it at "It's over now, the music of the night."
Yep...Erik said it best. The music of the night was OVER. Yes we don't know technically what happens to him at the end of the musical as he just disappears, but the crazy idea of going to NYC, buying a carnival, and Erik ONLY being concerned with money? Oh and of course Christine. Because he has to act the same way he acted in the first musical. The book is just AWFUL. It buys right into ALW's latest schlock with wanting the Phantom to be only 30 or so (Forsyth opens with a lovely prelude slamming Leroux and saying how he got it wrong and the Phantom HAD to be young since he hadn't accepted his deformity, so he clearly could NOT have done all the things Leroux said he did). I did read the book (library -- I wasn't about to buy it!) and wish I could have gotten those couple hours of my life back.
who plays the phantom ? ( actor )
Andrew Lloyd Webber is writing the sequel. I'm not sure who's slated to play the Phantom yet (maybe John Barrowman? I can't recall...I don't keep apprised of what goes on with it because I hate the entire thought).
Ah ok...I had it wrong. I couldn't recall who the rumors said he wanted for the leads. Either way...just ick.
I enjoy various phanfic sequels and might have enjoyed a sequel if it weren't based off the atrocity that is PoM. I'm not sure how much he can change -- he's still in Coney Island, he's still going to be some money grubbing idiot. I wonder if Raoul is still going to be, well, not quite a complete man. LOL The whole plot was just bad.
i loooooooooooooooove the phantom even tho i was 8 when i saw it :p
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/col...http://www.broadwayworld.com/article/...
Maybe these links will answer some of your questions
Michele wrote I hated Phantom of Manhattan. I hate the concept of the sequel. ALW is just trying to capitalize on his success of Phantom since no other musical he's written since then has really gotten quite the following. Essentially, I think it's going to be yet another flop for him.Yes, i agree. It's too bad really, that he seems unable to break out of this rut he's been in since the 1990s. He writes some wonderful music, but he just seems unable to choose a really good project since then. Frankly, this seems to be true of Boublil and Schoenberg also.
OMG! i drew anime versions of some of the POTO charries(christine, erik, sorelli, carlotta, raoul), and my mom saw that i labled raoul as the ultimate idiot of shame(cuz i cant stand him)... i told her why i did that, and it turns out that shes on raouls side... grrrr...
cloris wrote: "i loooooooooooooooove the phantom even tho i was 8 when i saw it :p"
omg! i was 8 or 9!(i cant remember which) when i saw it the 1st time!!!
omg! i was 8 or 9!(i cant remember which) when i saw it the 1st time!!!
I feel old. The musical wasn't even written at the time I was 8.
While Raoul is the morally correct choice, if I were Christine I would have chosen Erik. The Phantom has passion, inner fire, and as it turns out he wasn't a villain after all. Raoul is little more than a teenager feeling the pangs of first love. Erik told the Persian that he was just a puppy willing to die for Christine, but I think that description befits M. le Vicomte perfectly. If I could find a man exactly like Erik (without the homicidal tendencies), I could die happy.
Mod
The thing is that, IMO, you have to consider the mores of the time. Women in France did not have the right to make the kind of independent choices that we think of as normal now; coverture laws were in place there until after WWII. The only way a woman could hope for a decent life was to marry well.Now, the other factor is that Leroux is making a commentary about Parisian society with this book. Erik is *not* a nice man. He is a murderous sociopath. He does not understand human emotion, for a wide variety of reasons that are exposed to all of us in the story. Raoul, OTOH, is the Prince charming of the whole damned thing. He's handsome, IMO not too bright -- but he's The Right Answer according to the mores of the time.
I think that the reason so many people say "I would take Erik" is that we are dealing with a Jungian archetype: the Wounded Healer. We look at Erik's situation and relate to things that have been done to us. We think to ourselves, "I would do better by you than was done by me," and by that process we heal our wounds and Erik's simultaneously as we relate to his story and his anger.
I also think that Christine (who has an Electra complex as big as the great outdoors -- the girl just ain't right) plays both of them for saps.
Ok well I know that you all disagree with me but I tend to love Raoul a bit more than the phantom. Don't get me wrong I love him two I just like Raoul better...
Mod
Anne wrote: "Jeannie, as an avid lover of Erik, the Phantom, I cannot see why those who like Raoul need to be apologetic. Raoul had a lot of good points, and I still feel he was a better match for Christine, wh..."Raoul did indeed have his merits. He truly cared about Christine and did all he could to protect her from Erik. As Leroux wrote both of them, though, it's hard to choose between them. The cons outweigh the pros of both personalities. For my part, I have no disdain for either one of them, I just prefer Erik's good points to Raoul's.
(Whoo! 8 am class canceled, time to catch up on my absence!)Oh, it's so lovely to come into a discussion like this only to find people already defending Raoul before I get here!
I am a staunch Raoul defender because in this day and age, good guys are so underrated. Raoul is a fine young man with so many excellent qualities that so few people seem to notice. I personally think Christine made the right choice going with Raoul and, most importantly, Erik knows that, too.
Now, is Erik more interesting? Certainly. I find him exceptionally fascinating in the same way I'm fascinated with Hannibal Lecter and Ted Bundy (just not nearly as dangerous, of course). But had I been Christine's guardian in the novel, I would have raised Hell to keep her safe from Erik. Inside, Erik's a sweet guy, but he needs years of therapy and cognitive restructuring before I'd give him a serious shot. Doesn't mean we can't be friends, though!
Raoul was fine. He was kind and sensitive. The thing was, he was a bit too sensitive. In my mind, anyway. He was a rather pathetic. Especially in the book. I think that he was better for Christine than Phantom was, but personally, I prefer Phantom. Phantom was fascinating and wonderful. Mysterious. And he did care for Christine, maybe even as much as Raoul. His love for her was just a more intense, frightening love. I like Erik best. Always have. Raoul annoys me, but I can understand Christine's decision.
