MovieChat Forums > Il fantasma dell'opera (1998) Discussion > Thats not the Phantom...Stop messing wit...

Thats not the Phantom...Stop messing with Gaston Leroux!

posted 16 years ago by Carnelian-Zebra-Lily
5 replies | jump to latest

Now, I haven't seen this film. I've watched the trailer, and I've read a few of these other message boards and thats enough for me to guess that this is one twisted version of Gaston Leroux's tale. I've seen the Andrew Lloyd webber musical on stage (took my breath away and moved me, grand stuff}, I've read the original book {the most marvellous material, beats everything else hands down) and I've seen the 1989 version by Dwight H. Little, which is a rather odd but refreshing take on Gaston Lerouxs novel, although it is inacurate. Nearly all versions of 'Phantom' seem to be inacurate in one way or another, but this film - or so i've heard, correct me if I'm wrong - is bursting with unnesecesary filth, sexuality and...rats...
My advice, lest you have not already - Read the book and be captivated by the original story where the Phantom is actually disfigured, frightening, and not some figure of forbidden desire and raunch.

Erik aka The Phantom is meant to be completely distorted. Once Christine rips his mask off (in the book) he loses all sense of musical superiority and confidence and becomes a pitiful, pathetic creature who begs christine for mercy and love. That goes to show that he is meant to be a character who is not confident in love or sensuality, his only release from his physical ugliness is the beauty of music, and the beauty of Christine. He feels euphoric to find that Christine sees him as an 'angel', when in reality he is a physical monster who has never been showed love by other human beings.
Thusly, he becomes obsessed with Christine and kills/hopes to kill anybody who stands between himself and her. He is not an altogether pitiful, tragic character, for he is also a madman and a murderer.
Leroux's character is not meant to be a symbol of desire and sexual awakening for Christine, he is meant to be her source of musical inspiration and also of complete terror. In the book, she is clearly terrified by the Phantom once she understands his villainous nature, and has no sexual feelings for him. She trusts him because she beleives he is an angel sent to watch over her by her father, and in a way he uses that trust to form a bond with her, but not a sexual one. He is a very lonely character, but he and Christine share a passion for music. I think the Phantom has romantic feelings for Christine, but she doesn't have them for him. She honours him as her own angel of music, before she tears his mask away to reveal a creature she cannot possibly, romanticly love. Which is why he (in the book& musical) becomes so dangerous and wrathful when she plans to leave with Raoul, and thusly kidnaps her.

[–] mmd147 16 years ago

I definitely agree with you that the book is by far the best version, but I really didn't like the musical so much. In fact, I had quite a few problems with it. (I posted a fairly long thread on that message board, I really don't feel like typing it all again here.)

You keep mentioning how Erik looks, but in the musical, he's totally "hot" with his mask on. Erik in the book is just a better character in so many ways. He's such much more realistic and in depth. So much more...tragic.

But, you did a great summary of the book. If I had never read it before, I'd probably be persuaded to by that post.

[–] KittyGrimm 14 years ago

Agreed. I'm usually pretty open-minded to different takes on Phantom of the Opera because when that's your favorite book, you start to become a little less of a book-movie purist when you find that the most faithful adaptation of the story is an episode of Wishbone, but this...
Really, hasn't poor M. Leroux suffered enough?

---
I can't help being a gorgeous fiend. It's just the card I draw!-Lestat

[–] GodfatherCW 14 years ago

There have been many phantoms and like you said, just about every one I've seen has some deviation from the book. The most obvious being how the Phantom is disfigured. This was never explained in the book. The phantom was a genius of music, architecture (called The Trap Door lover in Persia), and illusion.
The other common exclusion is the disappearance of The Persian, who is usually merged with Madame Giry.
This version was pretty bad, but I think the version staring Robert Englund was perhaps the worst I've seen

[–] StrongRex 13 years ago

There have been many phantoms and like you said, just about every one I've seen has some deviation from the book. The most obvious being how the Phantom is disfigured. This was never explained in the book.

Wrong. The book, like the musical, states he was born that way.

[–] GeneticSugarKane 12 years ago

There have been several relatively faithful adaptations of the Leroux novel. This one tried something different. You need to relax.

They mostly meet me at the waterfront after the social... mostly.