Isn't the dummy of Christine in the bridal dress actually from the novel? I may confuse the Susan Kay with the Gaston Leroux canon here, though.
Anyway, I'm still very fond of the Phantom, flaws and all.
For the first 95% of the musical I feel like the Phantom is clearly portrayed as this super-creepy predator who is playing on Christine's feelings for her dead dad, it's actually quite impressive to me how clearly that comes across in the music, the words, the acting, everything (and in the 1980's, too -- although maybe this can just be chalked down to "uh, the 80's were just super-creepy in general"). (Though Michael Crawford helps -- that guy can do seriously-creepy so easily with his voice!) Then, of course, the last 5% makes it into a ~romantic love triangle~ and the Phantom into a woobie who just needs True Love's Kiss to reform
Not really, though? (With the first 95 %, I mean.) His big freak out when Christine unmasks him the first time does include the self loathing and loneliness required for woobieness, and his reaction to having observed Christine and Raoul on the roof just before the interlude is written as a "poor Erik" scene as much as a "antagonist threatens doom for protagonists" scene. Which isn't to say he's not presented as manipulative and using Christine's grief for her father throughout, absolutely he is, but the "woobie" element is there from the start as well along with the "creep".
As for the ghastly movie, yes, while both feature (some) actors who can't sing, the Les Mis movie was better as a movie, plus two of the three leads weren't meant to be singers with incredibly beautiful voices in universe, and Hugh Jackman can actually sing.
no subject
Anyway, I'm still very fond of the Phantom, flaws and all.
For the first 95% of the musical I feel like the Phantom is clearly portrayed as this super-creepy predator who is playing on Christine's feelings for her dead dad, it's actually quite impressive to me how clearly that comes across in the music, the words, the acting, everything (and in the 1980's, too -- although maybe this can just be chalked down to "uh, the 80's were just super-creepy in general"). (Though Michael Crawford helps -- that guy can do seriously-creepy so easily with his voice!) Then, of course, the last 5% makes it into a ~romantic love triangle~ and the Phantom into a woobie who just needs True Love's Kiss to reform
Not really, though? (With the first 95 %, I mean.) His big freak out when Christine unmasks him the first time does include the self loathing and loneliness required for woobieness, and his reaction to having observed Christine and Raoul on the roof just before the interlude is written as a "poor Erik" scene as much as a "antagonist threatens doom for protagonists" scene. Which isn't to say he's not presented as manipulative and using Christine's grief for her father throughout, absolutely he is, but the "woobie" element is there from the start as well along with the "creep".
Have you seen Lindsay Ellis' very entertaining two part video essay, about Phantom before ALW and about the musical and the aftermath?
As for the ghastly movie, yes, while both feature (some) actors who can't sing, the Les Mis movie was better as a movie, plus two of the three leads weren't meant to be singers with incredibly beautiful voices in universe, and Hugh Jackman can actually sing.