Because of watching CinemaTherapy, the phrase "Staying means nothings if you don't have the option to leave." Has entered my consciousness and I have said it to several people in bad situations.
@Kim Thank you for your lovely compliment. ❤ I agree that having real life experiences help a lot. I have 2 support workers myself, who are both ADHDers. They are great! I never need to explain myself in greater detail. My psychologist is an ADHDer herself, and her child is Autistic. She's very pro Neurodiversity. So I never need to worry that my psychologist will try to teach me in NT ways, or try to make an NT out of me, or try to problematise my way of thinking.
@ChibiYotsuba just wanted to say thats very awesome of you to have real life experience behind the advisement, direction, & logistics for this couple. so often you find mental health/& other professional specialists that dont have the real life experiences so they can’t relate so how can they when they dont have the real life tools & experiences to counsel
@Coochie flip flops That's not real life though. In real life, people don't have the option to change everything that happens outside their control, nor the consequences AFTER consenting to a free choice. Nobody is forced into marriage except in criminal situations - mutual consent has been an absolute legal requirement for marriage in the Western world since the Middle Ages. After making a free decision, there are consequences, and no one is free to avoid those. If you sign a contract on a house or a job, staying still means something because you didn't HAVE to sign the contract. You do not have the option to leave; you had the option to not sign up in the first place. Same goes for a marital contract. If people knew they couldn't change the consequences of a stupid choice of partner, they would take more care not to get into bad relationships and get hurt in the first place - plenty of people get abused in relationships where they never committed to a marriage and still don't leave; that's what this is referring to here. Because Christine doesn't marry the Phantom. Unlike so many young girls today, she can at least recognize the obvious red flags of his control (although she misses Raoul's more subtle manipulations). If the person who wants you to marry them claims you don't have the option to leave them when they have no mutually consensual contract, then staying with them would indeed mean nothing. But if you had the option to leave during courtship and freely chose to stay and committed, people should honour that comittment. It's called loyalty, honesty and keeping promises, not force. They had a choice beforehand; Christine did not so she had to leave.
One of the biggest points that wasn't pointed out but that was really notable for me was how Raoul gaslit Christine for so long telling her the phantom didn't exist when she KNEW he was real, and then used her as bait to catch him during the musical later even though she's scared and doesn't want to do it. Phantom is toxic, but don't put Raoul on a pedestal either😂
@EJohnston I went through a phantoms of the opera phase. I read the book and watched probably all the different phantom of the opera versions. There is one version where she rejects both lovers. I can’t remember it well but I think the phantom was really down played. And she chooses her singing career
@KitsuneMoon I always thought Raoul always felt like he was always in charge in everything. He underestimated the phantom and didn’t realize who he was dealing with
Loving all the discourse here and I have an interesting fact to put into it. I saw Phantom on tour a few years ago and it was the restaged version, and in this version Christine actually physically slapped Raoul when he wanted her to be bait in Don Juan! There certainly were some interesting parts in that production that have changed some of my views on the show as a whole.
I watched this when I was younger, and I remember thinking and asking my mom "wait, why's she kissing him?" When Christine kissed the phantom. I was a confused little child. I think my mom explained it as an apology. I think her word were "she's saying I love your music, but not you." Doesn't really hit the nail on the head, but it made sense to like, six year old me.
@Madeline R Never feel bad about learning something. Be proud you now "get it". Some people get it age 2, others get it age 22, some at age 72 and some of us never do... Just never stop learning :) keep growing. I learned human behaviour with a detour: I just was reading up on all those great biologists that studied animal behaviour: they observed as best as they could, and had to be very very carefully with their conclusions (since animals in those days were not suposed to "feel" of have "emotions" etc.). It is easy to get an impression of things (for most people anyway) but it is very hard to describe what is going on. So they (esp neurotypicals) will be generalizing, filling in the blank spaces they missed with ?experience/ wishfull thinking/ fuzzy bullshit that looks good to them etc.?, and they will never be able to explain afterwards what and why they were thinking something. And of course they will be pissed off if you ask them to explain... I loved the old Star Trek, Spock was a breath of fresh air: he needed to have a good logical explanation for almost anything, and the other people actually liked/ appreciated him a lot! But I will look into that Kylo Ren, it sounds like a good character to meet. :)
@muurrarium interesting point. I guess part of why I usually don't have an emotional read on almost any movies is because my parents would tell me verbally how I was supposed to feel about it and they were never right, so now I just kinda get this gray wash of "eh, how the fuck am *I* supposed to know?" Which is another factor in why I like Kylo Ren so much, because The Last Jedi was the movie that finally got the message across to me that people do things for reasons. That realization also happened at an embarrassingly late age, and in my defense the way people behave can still seem a little nonsensical even now, but it helped a lot and its effect on my world view still has aftershocks today
The phrase that resonated with me the most out of this whole episode was "A lot of times the monsters that we're scared of are the ones that we create by our lack of compassion". It's an incredibly thoughtful view, full of empathy and responsibility.
God yeah, it’s also why I am so attached to the character of The Phantom tbh. Like, while I didn’t end up like him (fiction is a fun house reflection of reality), I can certainly see ways in my past that could’ve turned such. Hell I still cry like a baby at his fate, especially if I’m listening to the 25th anniversary soundtrack! It’s so good. Stab me in the heart more, ALW!
Unpopular opinion: Whatever I do, I just can't get myself to like Raoul. I feel like in a strange way, he's just as controlling as the phantom except he disguises it. He's always telling her that he'll follow her wherever she wants to go, but also kind of assumes that she will choose him and doesn't respect her boundaries either. My grandfather always used to say that actions speak more than words and that's how I see it. He tells her what she wishes to hear from the phantom, but expects her to be with him in return. I believe Christine just needs to grab her dancer gal-palls and go on a girl trip to reassess her life choices bc neither of these men are good news. Maybe that's just me.
Respect her boundaries? Love, it's set in 1880. Raoul wasn't exactly going to wear a 'smash the patriarchy' t shirt and take joint parental leave ;). But yeah he's definitely cloying and controlling. The men in Christine's life totally suck except her dead father. I love your idea for a lesbian sequel. I'd watch that.
@Dear Luciella yeah, I read the book when I was around 15~16 years old, and while I pittyed Eric (phantom), I despises Raul even more. I just could not see why she liked him so much. Eeh. At the end this story is about compassion for one another.
I really don't see how and from where you got the impression because Raoul has nothing to disguise, and Raoul is definitely nothing compared to the phantom, though Raoul has his flaws. He says, "Anywhere you go ,let me go too" because Christine explicitly says she wants to be with him (not because he assumes she'd choose him) and when did he repeatedly say that he wants to be wherevershe is all the time it was just one time and when your stalker is on the loose , Is it really Raoul's fault that he wants to protect her? and it sounds like a heartfelt request to protect her than anything disguised as controlling. Raoul has his flaws, which make him human, and he is leagues better than his book counterpart. And also Raoul had no idea that phantom existed for most of the time in the musical to really actually know what Christine would want to hear from the Phantom , hell Raoul didn't even know that the phantom loved Christine , like no one thinks kidnapping and manipulation is loving someone so, ofcourse Raoul would try to protect her from the Phantom. I think what makes Raoul a likeable is that he is literally willing to die to ensure her freedom, he remembers a peasent girl and gives a standing ovation for her, tries to protect her every way he can, he also saves her from the falling Chandelier and in the movie, even sleeps 24×7 outside her room to ensure her safety etc. I would say try watching loveable Raouls like Michael Shawn Lewis, John Cudia, Christian Lund, Jordan Donica .
I always interpreted the ending a little differently: when Christine chose to stay with the Phantom to save Raoul, Erik saw in her eyes how much she truly loved Raoul. Whether or not he was going to break the trust and to kill Raoul anyway, he realized doing so would only hurt Christine and make her miserable. I think it was that moment for the first time in his life, Erik felt compassion for someone else. Because he once lived miserably, and experienced cruelty against him. Coercing Christine to stay here with him would be repeating what happened to him as a child. And I think that's what finally made Erik break, and he let her go. I wouldn't call it a redemption arc by any means (he did commit murder after all) but it's the closure he needed all these years. I also loved the contrast between Erik's lair and the rooftop where he watched Christine and Raoul make out. The Phantom's hideout is dark, murky, and cluttered, and it feels almost claustrophobic and hard to breathe in especially with the Phantom's menacing aura. The rooftop, despite the cold and snow, has open air and space allowing Christine to breathe and be vulnerable. I don't think Erik realized it then, but I think after the kiss was when he also realized that Christine needed to be free to be alive, something he never had. Because even with the help of Madame Giry, all he was able to do was move from one cage and live in another.
@nicolina1987 Becayse they changed Raouls character and behaviour during the song in newer productions to “fit” his loser character in LND. He literally rolls his eyes at the end as he exists the stage like he’s fed up and exasperated with her whining.
And then we get the "masterpiece" that is LND and all that character growth is tortured in Erik's lair, strangled to death, drowned in murky lake water, and set on fire to make sure is dead for good 😶 Oh and it's bones are brought to the circus Ta-da 🎪🤩
Am I the only person who love Gerard.B singing in the movie? I loved it because it does not sound manufactured, it sounds real and passionate.. Gerald if you see this I am a fan, I think you did excellent!
So true, honestly, maybe I’m just so messed up, but I often find other Eriks’ to be way too bland and uninteresting. Gerard Butler might not bring years of the musical education to the table or hit all the notes perfectly (imo that’s not the point of the performance), but he brings his soul, charisma, and amazing voice. Gerard will always be my Phantom 🥹❤️🔥
The relationships in the book are even more problematic. Also now you've said it Hugh Jackman as the Phantom is something strikes me as a real missed opportunity I wish I could see.
@Dannalee Mosteller I know Raoul is flawed but he didn't gaslight Christine. Not believing someone isn't gaslighting. Gaslighting is intentional and it doesn't fit with what Raoul does in the musical.
@Welbeck Manor Have you read the book? In the book the Phantom is much more psychotic. He forces Christine to choose between him and the entire opera house. At that same time, he puts Raoul in a torture chamber. In the book, Raoul does believe in her more quickly and there’s a little less gaslighting, but there’s a lot of jealousy between him and the Phantom.
24:14 I think Raoul wasn't tearing up because he thought she was being sincere. I think he was heartbroken because he had promised to protect her and she ended up in danger. Raoul didn't even realize the phantom was on the stage with her until she was practically in his arms, and there was nothing he could do without putting her in more danger.
@Anne I feel the same way about Raoul and Christine. I've always thought that Christine and Raoul's relationship seem like they'd be a healthy couple in the original musical. I've always thought that their relationship was a counter to how their formation of a bond through genuine care and being friends as kids made it seem wholesome when they are happy together, where as Erik was trying to manufacture something real built on gaslighting and manipulation and threats.
@MyStringSnapped Ikr? I think Raoul in the musical has no irredeemable flaws whatsoever.I personally think much of the hate on Raoul is bad faith.And it could be interpreted differently depending on the actors. My absolute favourite Raoul is Michael Shawn Lewis.I mean it is physically impossible to hate Raoul after seeing him.Agreed.Raoul/Christine scenes are so sweet and Raoul reminds of Prince Philip personally (I love how both of them are mostly driven by their desire to protect the one they love even if they're facing a formidable adversory and both are ultimately rescued by other female characters, Philip by the fairies and Raoul by Christine yet I think their bravery and their depth of love shine through) and Raoul/Christine totally are like a Disney couple especially in the musucal. Also people can say whatever they want,but "All I ask of you" is sweetest love duet.
@Annepeople want to rag on Raoul because they want to assume badly about him even when it’s kind of a stretch to say the musical version of the character is unpleasant, but I always thought he was just earnestly trying to protect Christine and did love her. I think the scenes between Christine and Raoul are cute.
disagree. you can see her clothes falling on the side of the phantom on the side of the phantom and staying up on the side of raoul. unless he was thinking "oh wow she really is a good actress" his eyes watering realised there was in fact something there, and a side of christine that he never got to know
This is why Ramin Karimloo will forever be the most amazing Phantom to ever grace the screen or stage. Man has the range needed to play The Phantom and you feel like you're ascending when he hits the money notes
You guys should react to Labyrinth! Jareth’s possessiveness over Sarah is crazy to think about. And it’s deeply romanticized in an almost identical way to Phantom of the Opera
@Isobel Duncan This, also on the start of the book adaptation is explicit (in the movie is hinted on the photos in her mirror but can be lost) that Jareth pretty much looks like the new partner of her mother, both an actor and actress. She kind of is infatuated with him and even dances with him on her fifthteen birthday which is also used later against her on the ballroom dance scene. I didn´t read the whole book which is based on the script, I don´t know other facts but this one is cleary hinted on the actual movie but is more show don't tell I guess.
Labyrinth is very much about Sarah's coming of age. Brian Froud even stated that Jareth was a figment of her imagination and fantasies but he also represents temptation, hence the tight pants and why he looks more like a glamorous rockstar rather than a goblin.
@MossyMozart Similar only in that they're about young girls getting lost in a scary labyrinth and finding their personal agency. Otherwise, very different! Labyrinth skews dark, but is also funny, musical, and campy. It has David Bowie as the antagonist and musical piece, and very intricate Jim Henson puppets as the labyrinth's inhabitants. Definitely recommend, it's a great movie.
I remember when I first watched this as a teenager and I was so upset that Christine and Phantom didn't end up together. Now as an adult I rewatched it and realized what the movie was trying to do and all of the messages it was trying to get across. Definitely can't blame Christine since me too as a teenager thought Phantom was dreamy
@Nat domt worry my comment is a sarcasm. Of course i know that shitstorm "sequel" is though i pretend it never exist. It shouldnt and wasnt supposed to be canon anyways since it wasnt made by gaston himself not to mentioned the motivation behind that dumpster fire is very questionable
@rei It's a sequel ALW created a long time after the original musical lol. It follows Phantom, Christine, Raoul, Meg, and Madame to Coney Island. ...it's...a journey haha
@Anne ah i also love a i ask of you its romantic. Also not gonna lie i donr hate raoul in the book i just find him eitger annoying or forgetabble but after having discussion with decent poto fans i realized hes at least a bit more interesting than he seemed and i can definitely see why hes more fit as christine's spouse than erik It enraged me this crazy erik fans go all lengths to either hate or belittle christine or raoul and this fans forgot erik did much owrse things than raoul for examole kidnapping christine, dropped a chandelier, dragging people into the lake if they ride a boat(in the book) and tried to choke raoul using lasso like all that evidence is more than enough proof that erik is dangerous of his approach of love and an unstable person even if he did learned his lesson in the end Even if raoul is annoying he checked on christine's situation and lets not forget hes willing to risk his life to save christine from erik
@rei Same ! I really find it baffling too that people go to great lengths to justify their love for Erik( which is fine,he's a great character).But we're not even allowed to love Raoul ?(like it's some kind of a justified fact carved on a stone that Raoul is some kind of jerk) I mean it's subjective,right?Like I get Raoul wasn't the best in the book(far from it) but we're not allowed to like Raoul in any adapted version of it( some try to justify their hate for him even there by saying "oh Raoul is toxic in the book so blindly he's toxic in every adaptatios of it"? I mean it depends in the musical who plays him, y'know. Like Movie Raoul is a good guy while I would say there are many good and loving Raouls in the musical too like see Raouls of John Cudia,Michael Shawn Lewis,Christian Lund to name a few.These are impossible to hate. And y'know I find Raoul very appealing personally, sweet,protective , comforting and ready to die for Christine in the musical, Who wouldn't want that?. All the qualities you'll find in a classic romantic hero. Steve Barton' s "All I ask of you" and in general is my favourite love duet too.
When Jonathon mentioned seeing the show in Sydney and the Phantom singing “music of the night” and “I thought I think I just got impregnated” I FELT that. When I saw Phantom live, during “music of the night” and “past the point” I thought the same thing 😂
That was me watching Peter Jöback in NYC as the Phantom in 2013. He's a Swedish pop star but hearing him do a Broadway musical live was such a treat. He was amazing.
A revelation in my brain was that Christine creaved a fatherfigure and Erik craved a motherfigure. I feel like it might even be designed with that thought, since Erik also kind of raised Christine liek a fatherly person but as a grown woman for his subnconcious she fit the role of mother because of her compassion. The Phantom desperately clinged to her as he couldn't cling to his own mother and Christine has a hard time letting go of him because he was there for her when her father couldn't.
Honestly I love Gerard as the phantom. His voice carries so much weight and intensity. Sure he wasn't a trained singer, but that makes it all the more impressive to me. It's so rough and edgy and carries the heaviness of his soul.
I like to make excuses for "bad" things in movies, The Phantom lives in the sewers and only ever sings to Christine when she is alone. That and the probably badly ventilated living space could have made his voice sound so rough xD
If he where a perfect singer it would be harder to like his character. In this version of the phantom feelings actually go into his singing and you feel his pain and can enjoy a character who isn't a healthy character emotionally. If he where completely calculated and controlled in everything with no sense of that emotion he would come off as a narcissist. Cool, calculated, and void of any emotion. This character would be much more difficult to romanticize or for the audience to enjoy. His voice shows he has a broken heart, even if he's controlling and a murderer the raw emotion allows for you to empathize with his character giving him in a sense a redeeming quality that makes him almost likeable.
Yeah, I also liked his voice in the film. It could be due to my being completely new to any Phantom of the Opera production, but there is a lot of power in there even without special opera skills.
I loved this movie when I was like 14. I really wanted Phantom to be with Christine, but I left it for a few years and re-watched it recently and all I could see was how afraid Christine must have been. It's amazing the difference some growth can make.
@Ingrid May Because the Phantom has this "do-as-I tell-you-or-else" thing to everyone, even to Christine in the stage version ("You will sing for me!" instead of "you belong to me!" in the masquerade). He might seem nice to her, but it's not like he cares if she's happy. Not a scene in the stage or the movie version has shown that he cares about Christine's feeling. Maybe Christine's kiss has changed him at the end, but it's too late.
@HingYok Why wouldn't she be happy with him? He was kind to her. And he loved her so much!!!! If he hadn't shown her his beloved doll (her in the wedding dress), I do think she'd have slept with him (after the music of the night). 😂😂 Well, Dude is lonely since his birth. I don't think he really knows how to handle with girls (why did she faint? She was so weak 😆)....After the song she had to kiss him... Poor Phantom, a rookie mistake ruined it for him.. ...
To me, the Phantom is not really loving Christine as a person, but a piece of his own lifeless artwork. He wants her to be with him, to be on the stage, and in return to love him, but he often ignores or manipulates Christine's feelings and thoughts. His controlling behaviors (which is stronger on the stage than in the movie) are a true threat. Yet, from the lyrics, we see a deeply traumatized child who just wants to be treated with kindness, who has perhaps been rejected so often that he learned to get what he wants by threatening people. It's sad, but unless the Phantom is willing to change, just like the Beast is willing to change for Belle, Christine will not be happy if she chooses the Phantom.
This is the movie I have always been obsessed since a child. And as a child I was mad at Christine for not choosing the Phantom. For me what he did (grooming and controlling her) wasn't clicking, nor were the words of the songs. I remember it was around high school, when I was doing one of my annual rewatch of the movie that everything started to click. It clicked that the Phantom preyed on a vulnerable, grieving child, that what he felt wasn't love. It also clicked that the song "Point of no Return" was of technically lust and s*x
@Daniel Cox Of course, they are responsible for their bad actions. I don't justify him, but I understand his motive why he did it.... So, the Phantom didn't get a girlfriend, and that was his punishment. But HE deserved someone better than Christine. Despite whoever the Phantom is, he is still a misunderstood man that was not treated fairly. More importantly, his love for Christine is true. He would do anything for her. And that's why, in the end, he let her go...
@Daniel Cox Even intelligent, educated people can commit terrible crimes. And no one can understand why they do it.... What motivates people to do it...
@Ingrid May the phantom is a diagnosable sociopath though and that can be learned through isolation. If any man or woman is rabid and murderous they need to be stopped. That doesn't have to mean killing but someone as dangerous as the phantom I don't know how you would capture him.
In the original book, Raul is actually incredibly toxic. Christine doesn't recognize him at first, but he still feels that he's owed her affection because of their history. He exhibits several stalker habits, including breaking into her dressing room and getting really mad when she rejects him initially. I wish they showed this in the musicals and movie to show just how bad both of Christine's options are.
@Amy Gallo Sorry about that I corrected it because it's often misspelt by Raoul haters. Ofcourse you're entitled to your opinion. While dismissing Christine's concerns could also be because he is a practical person and he's dismissive because she's saying equally unbelievable things and he does believe someone is out there but that's not a ghost but a man so I see him as a voice of reason. I know it's your opinion, but it generally depends on who plays him. He's dismissive when he's played that way. I would've reacted the same way too. I never see him putting his desire above her as he has an entire song focusing on her fears and desires and does his best to comfort her. But we can agree to disagree. I respect your opinion though. If you haven't, check out Hadley's Raoul.He matches your interpretation of Raoul , he's a total manipulative jerk who doesn't give a shit about Christine. He is abusive, even.
@Anisha I realized when I posted the comment that I made a spelling mistake, but I couldn't edit the comment. But, thanks for the dramatic correction. 😂 I'm actually a proofreader by profession, so that spelling mistake was killing me. I also have a different interpretation of the musical version of Raoul than you because he constantly dismisses Christine's concerns and puts his desires ahead of her fears. However, although my opinion may be unoriginal, it's my opinion 🤷♀️
It's RAOUL, actually. I would say you're not sharing any newfound opinion here that Raoul is the worst in the book as vast majority of people already hate him whether it's the Vanilla Raoul in the musical (when played by the right actor coming off as pretty lovable or abusive if played that way ) or the childish Book Raoul. I'd say Book Raoul is toxic because he is a product of his time. I think that was how men were used to be back then. And well, Why would they want to show Raoul's toxicity in the musical when they specifically changed his character to make him a suitable option for Christine? I think Book Raoul and Musical Raoul are world's apart that they seem like 2 different characters. I like this change in the musical to show that she makes the right decision going with Raoul. Because it's not like choosing Raoul would make her loose her career as there were plenty of married opera singers back then.
I think it’s important to note that for most of the story the Phantom loves Christine’s VOICE and not her person. At least at first. When she kisses him at the end, THAT is when his love turns to actually loving HER. Not lustfully but because of the expression of care. And that’s why he’s able to let her go finally at the end. It’s also why he says “It’s over now, the music of the night.” That is a deeper abandonment of his previously held ideals than people realize.
In the book she does kiss him. But I think it’s on the cheek or forehead or something. It was the first time he’d felt compassion from another, as even his mother wouldn’t touch him. He did let her go after the kiss, but there was never anything sexual between them.
It's basically what kills him! He's so overwhelmed by that simple act of compassion that he becomes weak and dies within a few weeks or something like that!
As someone who has fallen prey to a psychologically abusive narcissist in my past... this is the therapy I wish I'd had years ago ^_^' No surprise that this has been one of my favorite films for a long time and I've always been team Phantom like an idiot
This just reminds me of the time I was talking about the musical with a woman who began ranting about how cold and cruel Christine was in rejecting Phantom. I looked at her and said, "But he KILLED PEOPLE." She paused in her rant, tilted her head thoughtfully, and then very softly said, "Oh yeh. There's that."
@Ingrid May I think the issue here that many comments here are getting at is that no matter how mistreated the Phantom/Erik was during his childhood, that does not mean that Christine (or indeed anyone) has any obligation to be in a relationship with him. Nobody should be in a relationship with anybody other than for their own feelings. A person saying no means no. It doesn't matter if there is attraction involved, either --- if they don't want a relationship, or want to end a relationship, that should be the last word. I understand this is a fictional case so the stakes are different, but the line of thought still applies. In addition, the responsibility for saving/preserving a (heterosexual) relationship is frequently disproportionately placed on the woman, often to appease the man's feelings. I don't want to go into details, but this is also the case here. If you say otherwise you are toeing a dangerous line and the argument can be twisted towards sexual assault apologism. Again, I don't think that's what you're consciously trying to do, but hopefully these are some things to think about.
@Phương Anh Nghê (Anna) Why are you so rude? It's just a movie!😆 It's fun to talk about this movie... Yes, people have a choice of how to behave... It's a pity, he let that sorrow/ sadness channel into emotions of malice toward everyone... He's kind of like a child, he doesn't know what else to do so he becomes violent in order to get what he wants.... This is a story about a deformed man, who forgets his own humanity in search of a woman... I can understand his need to control. it comes from his past in controlling the opera through the previous owner and his painful childhood. He's a genius, all the plays that played at the opera are written by him and they're a hit. Christine was an equal in that she was so gifted musically. When he found someone that he loves only to find that she's in love with someone else, it enrages him and think of the best method to own her.... It's just too sad how he never got the one thing he desired. This was his punishment. Plus the fact that everybody hates him ( I mean the people in the film and even many of the viewers )....And I don't believe he would ever purposely hurt her, no matter how many psychological problems he may have... The fact that he let her go shows it was true love, but she couldn't see past his face to the passionate soul beneath......😅
@Phương Anh Nghê (Anna) LOL I know, the Phantom was not a saint, but I forgive him... He's not the worst person in TV history. Dude, imagine yourself in his place. The phantom's story is that he has gone his whole life without love. When he falls in love with Christine, having her reject him for Raoul. Is it any wonder he finally snapped? I mean, no wonder he acted the way he did. All he's seen of others is negativity and abuse... Could you let go of your loved one without a fight? He was never taught how to love someone the right way! He had no contact with other people, so his only understanding of them came from opera. Is it his fault that his understanding of love is twisted? If I were the Phantom, I'd probably go mad with jealousy like he did. Frankly, I am amazed he let Christine go.... And I'm amazed why he didn't kill Raoul before "All I ask of you". Then Christine would have no choice but to be with the Phantom.... The phantom made a big mistake, he killed the wrong people, because only the viscount was the biggest threat to him.... He just needed to get rid of the viscount... So yes, girls prefer rich men. This is the reality!!! So let's be realistic, Christine would never choose a poor, deformed genius when a handsome and rich man is standing next to her.... It's always bothered me that Raoul uses Christine as bait. Plus, she begs him not to do this to her, but he still makes her. In the end, it's his fault that he gets her. It's one reason why is he not a good partner for her…. I think if the phantom was in Raoul's place, he would have dragged her off to a completely different country to his mansion where he lives or to another opera house...
My favorite (character) reading of the Phantom is by Lindsay Ellis, in that POTO is not a story of star-crossed lovers separated by society but a coming-of-age story of a child stuck in a 50-year-old man's body and letting Christine go was him "growing up". Since then, I can no longer see Phantom's interactions with Christine as that of a courting lover, but that of a child trying to impress his mother (kiss notwithstanding). The Phantom wants romantic love but he really needs familial love.
It's worth noting that in the book the musical is based on the phantom actually uses some form of magic influence to seduce her. It's like the effect of drugging her - not just the kreeper vibes, actual manipulation of her mind....
I haven't read the book, but I remember my eldest daughter did while in HS, and when I commented about how dark the movie is, my daughter informed me how much darker the book is!
im shocked you didn't talk about how Christine wanted nothing to do with the police plot (after the note song) and how raoul refused her denial or to listen to her, pushed her, minimized her fears.
@핑엘리 Yeah! Same! I always saw it as a necessary decision on Raoul's part to ensure their future. And it's like there's no win for Raoul. If he's sweet and gentle, he's a wet noodle and if he's bent on defeating the phantom , he's treating Christine as a prize. It's hilarious how Raoul is hated for not believing Christine about an angel of music, I mean would you?
@Anne In Twisted, there's also one bit of Raoul's that I think is particularly essential- "Don't think that I don't care... but every hope and every prayer rely on you now" something along those lines. He doesn't dismiss her fear out of hand. He acknowledges that the situation is horrifying, but assures her that this is something that she CAN do ("You said yourself, he was nothing but a man") while also pointing out that this plan may be their only chance to be free of Erik. He loves her and fears for her but he's also not allowing himself to succumb to that. And, I think this Raoul would have run after Christine when she was abducted had he not been stuck up in a box seat, lol. What's he gonna do, yeet himself over the edge? He's not a stuntman.
I think that "Twisted every way" in the movie is only time Raoul makes a plan behind her back. While in every stage version,everyone is present in Twisted everyone is present managers, opera staff and Raoul is the one who defends her and stands up to the managers in front of everyone and says no one can make her if she doesn't want to."you don't have to they can't make you" He does encourage her to sing a minute later because even he realises that one can't sit around and do nothing and that's adulting.He never forces her just realises that there'll be terror either way as the phantom warns.This further proves Raoul point when the phantom follows her to the graveyard.I think she decides to sing after "wishing".He only encourages her to sing with appropriate sympathy and makes her understand his reasoning to ensure her long term safety. I have seen many Raouls running after Christine when she's taken by the phantom only held back by the mangers When does he minimise her fears?,he is saying "there's no phantom of the opera" because he's right the phantom is a man and Christine is clearly describing him as a supernatural figure.While Raoul thinks Christine is linking the ghost rumours to the crazy guy killing the stagehand.He is saying to not Fear the phantom as a ghost with magical powers but to see him as a man with weaknesses who can be defeated.Which Christine finds by her journey in the end. He does realise her fear is very real. As seen when First, when Christine hears an eerie voice that Raoul may or may not hear as well, he goes searching all over the rooftop for it. When he finds nothing, he then wraps Christine in his arms and comforts her, promising to shelter and protect her. In the end he begs Christine to let him die so she can be free. I know he is flawed and commute mistakes but it really depends on who plays him.Some make him into jerks like you described while some turn him into sweethearts who are lovable and extremely caring towards Christine.
I also think not enough people remember that the Phantom of the Opera from the original book was a Universal horror movie monster for a reason. This is a horror story. Part of Christine's terror is knowing that if and when he comes for her, she'll go, whether she really wants to or not. This is not a YA romantic triangle where both options are appealing, she wants to be with Raoul but knows from experience that she can't escape. "Can I betray the man who once inspired my voice? Will I become his prey? Do I have any choice?" And playing that up is *So much more fun*
Out of the multiple versions i've seen of this musical, one had the Phantom physically pause and react to Raoul's line "Why make her lie to you to save me?" and I thought that was such an amazing touch to see him start to realize he's in the wrong at that point and it eases him into the change of heart at the end. I loved it
@Zara Young Ramin’s performance kills me so much in that. Like there’s only so much he can do with his face because of the makeup, but his hands are doing EVERYTHING the ENTIRE TIME and I love it SO. MUCH!
In the 25th Anniversary version the camera makes a point to capture Ramin's Phantom's reaction, plus the reaction to "the tears I might have shed for your dark fate/grow cold and turn to tears of hate" of sheer heartbreak and realisation
When I saw it on stage The Phantom was about seven feet tall (no joke I met him at the stage door) and Christine was about five foot flat and at a really emotional part of the movie when the Phantom was on his knees the man’s head was at the same level as hers. And that really helps show how overpowering the phantom is in comparison without the creepy age difference.
Okay, but now you HAVE TO react to the 25th anniversary too! Specifically, Raoul in it - there are just slight differences to his character, but they make a huge difference for me, because in stage version it really feels like neither of Christine's choices of relationship are actually good for her. Raoul there seems more arrogant, childish, treats Christine like a doll and dont forget the scene where she literally begs "Raoul dont make me do this" in tears and he still MAKES HER DO THIS! I love this version way more also because of more character depth and details that came later. And, of course, Ramin Karimloo.... I don't need to say anything, we all know. Forget Hugh Jackman, Ramin is literally in this very movie! (playing Christine's father) The fact that they didn't cast him, even though he clearly was going for it... Biggest miss. I think about it and hear Mushu from Mulan screaming in my head "You missed! How could you miss, he was three feet away from you!"
I feel like, after having seen 25th anniversary and 2004 movie multiple times, it feels like they’re telling completely different stories. It’s super cool, although I love the 25th anniversary’s story (and singing) more.
yes, at first I didn't het why there was so much hate for Raoul online until I watched a stage version. I love this Raoul in the movie, not perfect, but who is. And he's really trying. but gosh the stage version.. ist not a great choice either and so annoying depending on production.
Ramin Karimloo was too young to play the phantom at the time. As Broadway actor he wouldn't have been brilliant for a movie. But yes Ramin is a better singer than Hugh Jackman. 😆
I would really love to see you guys tackle Treasure Planet. It’s a deviously underrated Disney film and I feel like you guys might enjoy the humor in it as well.
Request for Everafter. The Step Mother portrayed by Anjelica Huston always confused me with her being horrible to Danielle but then had very small moments of affection for her. I’d love to see that character diagnosed.
I love Butler in this film, but Alan nails the problem with him as the Phantom. I will say, though, that 'Past the Point of No Return', especially the crescendo on the bridge, brings chills to my spine. He has this kind of raw, honest tone that's often missing from professional singers that really shines in that song.
@blissinchains what are you talking about exactly now? I'm just saying that sometimes it's the other way round, not in this case, because the original comment says the term is cemented. But from personal experience I can say, sometimes it's the other way round.
Gerard Butler is a great singer for a movie. He sounds rugged, vulnerable, and also gives some sex appeal. Doing a movie is completely different than doing a Broadway musical. You have the option to show intimacy and emotions by being able to whisper or softly sing versus belting out notes as you would on stage. I think they all did a fantastic job portraying what they needed to in the movie.
I completely agree with you!!!! I really enjoyed Butler's performance in the movie. Some people don't realize that Broadway is not the same as film. I love when musical movies use somewhat amateur singers. Professionals just seem false to me....Don't get me wrong, I like Ramin, Crawford and the other opera guys, but as Broadway actors, they would not have been brilliant for a movie.
I actually thought it was interesting that Erik was not that amazing singer. It brings another color to his character. Like, his charisma and strenght and control over Christine and everyone is so huge that they get into it, and she has such a natural talent that it overcomes her teacher's flaw.
So I know why Madame Giry didn't speak up!!! The novel has a little bit where she explains herself, it's a little fuzzy but he basically promises her that he'll make her daughter Meg an Empress. She believes him and basically lets him do whatever based on that promise. They don't mention it in the film, I think?
It also wouldn't make sense, in the novel, she doesn't actually know who Erik is, that role goes to the Persian, instead she is more like Christine, sincerely and blindly believing in his "magic".
I love how Gerard played Phantom. The fact that so many people say he can't sing. I think he took lessons for the role so considering he wasn't a singer and did it for the role it was great.
I CLAPPED when Alan made the point about the Phantom needing to be a musical (vocal) genius. I always hear the argument about great actors who are maybe mediocre singers being cast in movies: "Oh, but the characters are not supposed to be professional singers, so it's fine." First off, that's not how musicals work- but if ever there was a character who is supposed to be a great singer, it's Phantom!
@Ingrid May No, there's literally a random mute dwarf who kills people for no reason but likes the Phantom and saves him when he's disfigured. It's literally a version of the phantom where none of the deaths mean anything because the killer has no motive, the only plot-relevant thing he does is capture Christine, but the killings have no rime or reason.
@FellinuxVI Honestly, I was shocked by 3096 days... kidnapping of a little girl, captivity, violence, sexual abuse, psychological manipulation.... Not a pleasant movie... But it's a reality and it can happen to any girl..... Did you call the Phantom a dwarf? 😂😂
@Ingrid May Yeah, although in the '62 version a random dwarf kills people for no reason, and the phantom doesn't fall in love with Christine, kind of a boring version tbh. The Raoul stand-in, Harry, is very cool though, one of my favorites, super gentlemanly and actually competent. I'll have to check 3096, though I don't think I'll enjoy it.
"A lot of times the monsters that we're scared of are the ones that we create by our lack of compassion." Jono, you just blew my MIND. Words for these times! Keep kicking tail - you and Alan are amazing!
I remember watching the musical for the first time when I was seven years old. I fell HARD for the Phantom, and I grew up wanting to have someone like him. Today, I am with my Raoul, and I could not be happier. Watching this made me a little sad, but I also laughed all the way through. Thank you guys! ♥️
So I was a teenager when this movie came out and I remembered all these girls in my choir class were really into this movie. The romanticizing of their relationship really left an imprint on many little girls to probably go forward in life and be willing victims to all sorts of weirdness.
I loved this musical growing up. It's what made me decide to become a singer. I remember feeling so sorry for the phantom. I distinctly remember saying to my mom that I wished I could have shown him the love he needed. I definitely didn't understand how controlling he was as a child and I definitely wouldn't run into a relationship with him as an adult, but I still feel the same pity and sadness for him that Kristine did.
@Ingrid May Honestly? Raoul just seems normal for the time he was born in. Probably nicer than many guys were actually. Either way, he's less controlling than the Phantom. He didn't try to kill people to force her into anything.
Why does no one notice how controlling Raoul was? He wanted to capture the Phantom and ordered Christine to lure him in. 😆 The Phantom was just very jealous because he felt the competition. He was desperately in love and did not know how to keep his beloved.
Fun fact: In the Novel The Phantom of the Opera, Erik is described as corpse-like and is referred to as having a "death's-head" (human skull) throughout the story. He has no nose, and his eyes are sunken so deep in his skull that all that is seen are two eye sockets, except when his yellow eyes glow in the dark. His skin is yellowed and tightly stretched across his bones, and only a few wisps of dark brown hair are behind his ears and on his forehead. His mouth is never described in as much detail, but is referred to as a “dead mouth” by Christine, and Erik acknowledges that his mouth is abnormal when lifting up his mask to display ventriloquism. He is described as extremely thin, so much so that he resembles a skeleton. Christine graphically describes his cold, bony hands, which also either feel or smell like death. There is debate among both English and French speakers as to whether the original French word used here, sentir, was intended by Leroux to mean "smells like" or "feels like,” as the French word is used for both feel and smell depending on the context. Erik woefully describes himself to Christine as a corpse who is "built up with death from head to foot." According to the Persian, Erik was born with this deformity and was exhibited as le mort vivant in freak shows earlier in his life. Erik sometimes plays up his macabre appearance, such as sleeping in a coffin as if he is a vampire, he also costumes as the titular character from Edgar Allan Poe's The Masque of the Red Death for the masked ball.[citation needed] Lon Chaney's characterization of Erik in the silent film The Phantom of the Opera (1925) remains closest to the book in content, in that Erik's face resembles a skull with an elongated nose slit and protruding, crooked teeth. In this version, Erik is said to have been deformed at birth.
@Edidin Yes, far too pretty. Even the original makeup for Michael Crawford's Erik/Phantom portrayed him as horribly deformed on one side of his face. Butler's face as Erik/Phantom isn't that much different from or much more shocking than what a man might come back with from a war whereas Erik/Phantom in the book is so deformed that even his mother could not bear to look at him and most people are disgusted or terrified when they see him.
I guess the original writer wanted the phantom to be hideous and terrifying, and less seductive. I guess he liked the version of Phantom of the Opera performed in concert by Tarja Turunen and Marko Hietala, because Marko embodied the rough and demonic nature of the Phantom
@Lemur Lover To be honest, if I'm going to have a threesome, it better have at least one other girl. And if they're dead, uh...yeah, this is getting out of my comfort zone. Can we do like the reanimated dead, like zombies or something? Actually, that'll make my job really awkward in the future if zombies exist canonically in reality. Yeah. Let's not.
yes. In the book, Erik would be a frightening monster even if he were stunning. If he were good-looking, he would probably be Patrick Bateman in American Psycho.
It was with the flashback that I asked myself “Wait was Madame Giry in love with the Phantom when they met as children?” Because I think she might be. She’s protecting him, looking after him, she’s engaging in illegal activities for him, you don’t do that for someone you only pity. Obviously though The Phantom didn’t share those feelings but to stay in/be a part of his life she just continued to maintain the relationship they had. Then when The Phantom identified Christine as someTHING he wanted, Giry proceeded to facilitate that demand, as she always did, and if The Phantom’s demand also allows Giry to live vicariously through Christine, to finally experience The Phantom’s love and affection, so much the better. I’m probably wrong though. It was just a thought.
I always thought that the lyrics in Phantom clearly portray Raul as the good love interest and Phantom as the bad love interest because of its references of the words "light" and "dark". Phantom's lyrics tell Christine to "turn your face away from the garish light of day. Turn your thoughts away from cold, unfeeling light and listen to the music of the night." and to "open up your mind. Let your fantasies unwind in the darkness that you know you cannot fight." He is the embodiment of darkness and just as he's trying to lure Christine into the darkness, he is trying to lure her into loving him, but that isn't what Christine wants. Christine sings that, "All I want is freedom. A world with no more night." She later sings, "turn my head with talk of summertime." This further mentions her desire to be where she can bask in the light. Meanwhile, Raul sings of light. He sings, "no more talk of darkness... I'm here. Nothing can harm you... Let me be your freedom. Let daylight dry your tears... Let me be your shelter. Let me be your light." In the lyrics of the songs, it shows that Raul is the better love interest because he understands her and wants to give Christine what she wants, not what he wants to force on her. He is the embodiment of the light.
Well, who would want to live in a cave with a deformed man? Christine didn't even love him enough to sacrifice her perfect life with the viscount... It is logical that she wanted Raoul, and live in the light of day. The phantom was doomed to a life of loneliness from birth... This man doesn't know love. Like, no one has ever loved him, he has never loved anyone before Christine and no one bothered to explain to him or show him how it works. Also the fact that when Christine kisses him in the"Final Lair" is probably the first time anyone ever kissed this man... I think, it was a mistake to cut his singing of “No One Would LIsten” from the movie because it shows yet another side of The Phantom’s personality. It reveals his tender, lonely, romantic soul... Lots of people say that he’s creepy, but this song shows that he’s really just suffering from his isolation, unrequited love, and rejection.....
Agreed.Raoul and the phantom are definitely the embodiment of light and darkness. To add to that, Raoul unlike the Phantom never uses her childhood memories against her to call Christine out to him and their first reunion is pretty much the only time he ever mentions it. Christine sticks with Raoul on his own terms. Meanwhile, the phantom always manipulates her childhood memories against her until the very end until it's too late. Also, a major difference I've noticed is that in "All I ask of you" Raoul wants to lead Christine out of her solitude showing that he cares for her while the phantom wants her to join him in his solitude "Lead me, save me from my solitude" showing that his love is selfish only realising when it's too late. Just my thoughts!
The first time I watched it, I wasn’t convinced about Gérard Butler, but as I think about the phantoms character as a whole now, I think he was cast right because his role is more than just the singing he hast to act like he’s deranged and Girard Plays that well for a movie
I remember listening to a "making of" or the commentary track and they discussed the casting choice with him. They said this movie was for a wider audience and they needed non theater people to buy into the mysterious bad boy phantom. They needed that Rockstar quality and I think Gerard absolutely delivered.
Right -- like for a wider audience not used to watching musicals maybe having a phantom who can sing virtuosically wouldn't have the same impact vs Gerards raspiness which makes him feel more villainous. But yeah his singing is so bad sometimes
Emmy Rossum, Patrick Wilson, Gerald Butler, Minnie Driver, Miranda Richardson, Jennifer Ellison, Ciaran Hinds & Simon Callow are ALL carried this movie well 👍🏻 The music, the sets, the aesthetics.. just wow ✨
The part that really starts to break the phantom comes right before Raúl arrives when Christine sings “This haunted face holds no horror for me now ... It's in your *soul* that the true distortion lies ...” And Emmy Rossum’s delivery still gives me chills
I absolutely love The Phantom of the Opera. I grew up watching and listening to Michael Crawford's performance of the Phantom. I love Gerard Butler as an actor, and although he did take lessons, he just needed more time or even another actor to dub his singing. I never would have thought of Hugh Jackman for the Phantom in this movie, that would've been awesome! Love your commentaries, so much. Thank you!
Sarah Bright man recommended Michael Crawford to Andrew Lloyd Webber, and Michael Crawford actually made a lot of suggestions for the musical in the rehearsal, including which side of the face the mask should cover. And Andrew Lloyd Webber accepted his suggestions. They are really one of the keys to the musical's success in 1986 not just because of their talents and expertise, but because of their contributions.
Thank you for this video, it's interesting :) If you want to see the healthy and loving relationship in "The Phantom of the Opera", watch the 25 Anniversary record and pay attention to Carlotta and Piangi. This couple is so protective of each other, so attentive to each other's needs, and so comforting. In spite of her death fear of the Phantom, Carlotta confronts him for Piangi in the Don Juan rehearsal scene. Piangi is the most decent guy in the play. He believes in his Carlotta and protects her from everyone. Relationships between the main characters are much more interesting and unusual in this version as well, thanks to perfect acting and an original approach to the roles. Ramin's Phantom is relatively young, inexperienced and completely concentrated on his music and his theatre. He has Asperger's syndrome, which explains his communication problems. For him, Christine was just a perfect new musical instrument till "The Music of the Night" scene, where they both get a huge unexpected but understandable mutual crush. You heard this voice, right? For Christine, it breaks when she removes his mask, simple crush is not a love to survive that, but for Phantom, this crush, this vibrant, pretty, warm and so real girl who looks at him with eyes full of love and adoration, this brief moment of happiness he never felt before becomes his obsession. The guy writes an opera just to feel her in his arms once again. Not to mention killing people. Christine was lucky she fainted and removed the mask after, otherwise she really risked ending up in this relationship, as Phantom is still abusive and manipulative, aggressive and lacks self-control. And he just doesn't know how to communicate differently. And all of this you can see just in the Ramin and Sierra's acting in one scene, it's just amazing, even if it's not a canonical take of characters. Every gesture, every glance and slight movement makes sense and works for the story. And yep, after all, I just can't rewatch the movie even if I saw it at first and liked it. It bears no comparison with the filmed stage version.
I would really love to see you guys react to Tim Burtons Corpse Bride if you haven't already. I think most if not ALL of the characters in that movie need therapy but there are also a lot of great lessons to learn from it. Watching that movie constantly as a kid definitely impacted the way I navigate people and relationships present day :). Corpse Bride is also a very beautiful film as far as the visuals and soundtrack go and I think you guys might (hopefully) enjoy it.
I recommend every movie's fan to read the novel. Erik is truly a hideous psychotic monster because of cruel environment. But what really makes the ending so great is the kiss Christeen gave him, on his ugly face. I think he felt accepted and get some kindness for the first time in his life. I tear up with that part. 😭 Raoul in the book is not that kind, and he suspected Christeen to be in sexual relationship with Erik and really mad at her if my memory serves right. Christeen is a normal girl that loves Raoul. Be honest, who would choose an ugly, insecure murderer as your husband lol. She's scared of his face, but did not hate him for his ugly face. The movie is more of a romantic fiction, not as deep in human nature and emotion.
I been saying this ever since I saw the movie but I adore Patrick Wilson's Raoul. In the plays Raoul usually has a strong loud voice, which is fine, but Patrick Wilson brings such a gentle earnest quality to his musical lines because his voice is much softer. Their version of "All I Ask of You" genuinely has brought me to tears multiple times because it sounds so sincere and leaves me feeling both warm and full but also incredibly lonely because I can't have it for myself(kind of like the Phantom, go figure xD).
@Mystery LovesCompany I think if you like Patrick Wilson's gentle Raoul then you would also like the puppy dog Raoul of Michael Shawn Lewis ,totally a soft boy.His is probably the best interpretation of Raoul I've seen. Completely shielding Christine from the phantom too after just being strangled at even any slightly threatening gesture. It shows that he would 100% die protecting her.
Yes I really love his "All I ask of you" and I agree it is just so comforting and calming though I find Steve Barton's voice even more calming and soothing. It is like his voice is a warm blanket wrapping around Christine always keeping her safe.
Such a good episode! I had a friend in high school who was all into the phantom and didn’t like Raoul! All of my feelings were validated watching this! But it also got me thinking… with you discussing Gerard’s subpar singing voice and mentioning Hugh Jackman, would you ever do the 2012 Les Miserables? A lot of people felt the same way about Russel Crowe’s casting.
I legit had to pause the video and calm down, I was laughing so so hard when you two made the tongue joke 🤣🤣🤣🤣 Amazing video as usual, I was so excited to see it! I totally agree with Allan about that Phantom should have bigger range but I still love this movie, it introduced me to the musicals as before I didn't even know there are movies or plays where people sing 😂🙏💙💙
Christine realizing he's not the Angel of Music when he shows his anger/violence always spoke to me because I didn't realize I was in an emotionally abusive relationship until he blew up like that and actually physically hurt me (shoved me down and slammed my foot in the door). The physical violence made me realize what I had been putting up with, and that none of it was OK.
@pinkmoonrabbit True-I pretty much completely agree with you, on all of that. (Although puberty actually can start years earlier, or even years later, all depending on the individual-so it's not even that simple.) And I'm aware that just because some 13yr olds know certain things, not all 13yr olds do; I just meant that usually what 13yr olds do or don't know has a lot more to do just with whatever they do or don't yet actually happen to know or not, and why, (like individual circumstances &/or experiences -wise) moreso than with a literal physical or psychological incapability at that point to have comprehended or understood it if only they had known it. But even though the brain is still physically developing even into the 20s, it's not completely unreasonable by 18 to expect most if not all people to be perfectly capable of understanding when they shouldn't be doing certain things and why they shouldn't be doing certain and to also be perfectly of choosing to control their own actions/impulses at a pretty much grown-up[ if still perhaps relatively less experienced] level-they might not actually reliably choose to do so yet, at that point; but they are definitely capable of doing so, whether they always do yet or not. (If that makes sense^^) But I also never suggested that abusive children should be treated exactly the same as abusive adults, just that we should be able to hold them accountable for it and not simply brush it off as them just being kids incapable of being responsible for anything they do. And an abusive 13yr old, I don't think should necessarily really be treated entirely the same as like an even younger child or anything either, because they are way more capable by that point of understanding what they're doing and why it was wrong than much younger children are[ whether they actually did understand it before doing it or not]. That's all I was saying. A person at age 18 is way closer to fully-developed[ physically speaking] than it is to the barely-even-developed state of a baby or actual child. And 13 isn't as terribly far off from it as it can sometimes seem, even if 13 is also legit still a fair bit off from it yet too. But, much like how The Phantom doesn't get a total handwave/pass or anything horrible that he does to a Christine nor to anyone else just because if the lack of education and psych-treatment that he was getting-neither can 13 yr olds just get a total handwave/pass either. Lines beyond which certain things can not and will not be tolerated and/or must be addressed do have to be drawn too, even if they shouldn't necessarily always be handled in the exactly same way with younger people as with adults. But I think you're not really disagreeing on that, so really I'm just agreeing with you here.🙂
@pinkmoonrabbit The starkness of the example of murder was the point, because I wasn't arguing full culpability for the abuse, but rather that the stark outcome (Emotional abuse) is comparable to the stark outcome of murder (Loss of life), regardless of the intentionality behind it. Abuse and murder both can come from well intentioned places, but that doesn't change what they are on their faces, which is why I used the comparison to challenge Dog God's point in that "Children can certainly bully and exhibit abusive speech and behaviors, but they are not "abusers" in the same sense that adults are and it's not a good idea to "adultify" them. Children simply don't have the same capacity or responsibility for abuse. " Youths (Making a binary of children as 0-18 and adults as 18+ is insanely reductive of young individuals capacity for moral and emotional understanding, empathy, and learning. Acknowledging them as young is fine, dismissing them intellectually as 'children' is a disservice to them) absolutely have capacities to bring these behaviours to bear in ways that are most certainly beyond the scope of "bullying", especially considering the context of the person being replied to's abuse was emotional abuse through su**ide baiting and blackmail (Censored in part for YT flagging sake and in part for legitimate trigger concerns) I think that most people will have experienced growing and moving beyond the person they were as a learning youth-- How to better navigate situations, how to better express oneself in ways that aren't potentially damaging for others, or even how to express care for others in ways that are ultimately healthy. I do some essential babysitting of some 13 year olds right now and their emotional intelligences floor me sometimes, and other times I'm just helping them navigate those kinds of pitfalls, and they can recognize when their behaviours toward one another are unhealthy even if they don't know how to effectively communicate the root causes for those things in a very healthy way yet. Extended behaviour along those lines or extreme individual examples still would qualify as abusive. I'm out of time for now but I get your point and I don't disagree with it, but within the full context of the message I was replying to, I was specifically trying to debase this idea of the actions as not qualifying as abuse because they originate from youths, not to give some impression that abusive youths are in some form or fashion irredeemable. I don't think well-intentioned abusive adults are necessarily irredeemable either-- It depends on the state of mind, willingness to introspect and change, and their emotional maturity with respect to the events at issue because a lot of people are surprisingly immature emotionally regardless of the age range you look at I'll expand more later, apologies for brevity
@Jaginaia Electrizs i think legal adulthood is a strange goalpost. 18 year olds are still teens with developing brains. 13 is just beginning puberty and certainly still developing prefrontal cortex. So yes, there are physiological factors at play. Just because you could understand something at 13 doesnt mean all do. I didnt understand at 13 i was being groomed, but there are plenty of kids that age now calling out pedos. You dont know that kids home life, you dont know what mental illnesses they have and may not be getting any education for or treatment for, you dont know if any adults are reinforcing that behavior for that kid. I agree wth you though, theres definitely not "Zero responsibility", and, we still shouldnt treat children who abuse like an adult abusing a child or peer. pamber if youre reading this, i just want to reassure you that its not your fault, and you do not have to give you abuser this level of understanding ever, if you dont want. its important for people to support you as a victim, and, im glad people are here. i hope you can get all the support an treatment you need and im sorry this girl abused you. i wish you all the best in recovery.
@Nudgarrobot i dont want to invalidate the kids experience. it was still abuse and it very clearly traumatized them. but stating "we shouldnt treat children abusers the same as adult abusers" is a valid take on its own imo. dont think it was appropriate to bring up to pamber, however. just wasnt even relevant and seems dismissive of their abuse in context. also, i dont find the murder/abuse comparison effective, murder is a very stark and clear thing and seems it would be pretty easy to understand when youre about to do it or have done it or it has happened. abuse can be very covert and complex, especially emotional manipulation and if a kid has been abused and has internalized it and repeats it, they may not fully understand what theyre doing. some kids cannot fully understand when they are being abused or how to cope with the pain from it, yet we expect them to understand when theyre doing it to someone else , without any guidance? like u gotta understand if a parent or adult or someone else abuses you as a kid, and we have no frame of reference for whats happening to us, we accept that as normal because we literally do not have the ability to understand it any other way, even if deep down we know it hurts. we trust our caregivers and adults. thats part of what makes adult abuse different, that sheer level of power they have over you (due to experience and brain development etc) im of the belief we should never tell a victim how to feel about their abuser. and thats not what i want to do. just want to add to discussion about children who commit abuse. i hurt others in my childhood, i can say i did not have full comprehension that what i was doing was harmful. but i know now and try to do better. but theres definitely a difference between that and kids who know theyre hurting someone and keep doing it, and they usually do go on to keep doing harm, unfortunately.
@Dog God This is exactly the kind of logic that enables rather than holds younger persons accountable for what they do and who they are growing up to be. She was 13, that's more than halfway to legal adulthood-she wasn't a 5 year old. If she didn't understand what she was doing at that time, it was either because somebody failed to teach her or because she had failed to care enough to learn anything she was being taught; it wasn't because she was physiologically incapable of comprehending it yet. When I was 13, I definitely understood that kind of behavior was wrong. Children might be less likely to choose responsibly against doing something wrong, but that doesn't mean that they have zero responsibility or culpability for it altogether if or when they don't.
I actually agree about the casting of the Phantom but only because I have seen the play and seen just how much of a musical genius the phantom is supposed to be. There has been some FANTASTIC opera singers that have done the Phantom role justice. For instance, Ramin Karimloo was an excellent phantom. So was Simon Bowman.
I think the mask does have a strap, it's just made of a clear material that's virtually invisible to the camera in the dim set lighting. I think so because I'm pretty sure I see an indentation line in his hair if I look closely.
I also feel behind all the complex dark parts of their relationship you pointed out, they also have that musical affinity with each other 🎶 I can imagine it’s really rare and special to find someone on your creative wavelength in that kind of way, and I guess that just made it all the more emotionally difficult for Christine to truly disentangle herself from him (in the book I think Christine is already 20 when he decides to help her voice? Even so, the book is still so much darker 😅🥀 )
I've just started watching your videos and I've gotta say they are really balanced and you guys are so different but it works as we get such varied perspectives on the movies you review. Proud you covered Phantom, it's a complex movie that covers a complex topic and does it soo well!
"I gave you my music and this is how you repay me" is exactly the 'entitled nice guy' trope. He was nice to her (by giving her music, of his own volition) and therefore she owes him a relationship.
@Imperator Dei Thank you. Because Christine/her career should be the only ship. Both men weren't fit to be anyone's partner at the time. Erik, sadly, would've needed modern therapy and years' worth of it to even begin approaching it. But fandom loves to hate him and expects him to magically know how to treat people when he cannot possibly. His own mother doomed him to be alone for life, and that's horrendous. What everyone above is snarking at is me just saying he was set-up so that he could not possibly hope to enter into a healthy relationship with anyone. Now he displayed interest in learning, at least in the musical--but the musical had also kept them from having any meaningful conversation at all so by the time she could tell him to stop behaving poorly, it was obviously well past too late.
@Pokaay But this isn’t either, yet both. It’s “My story is nothing but sad so I can be nothing but awful” That’s no excuse: it’s a reason. You can heed the red flags without ignoring the reasons. If the person is toxic, stay away, absolutely. But it’s out of concern for your own well being, not hatred for the other person (unless they go that far). You can pity someone who was poisoned by life and distance yourself so you won’t get poisoned
@blissinchains Oh yes, A man was abused and neglected in his childhood so a Woman ,more than decades younger than him should SHOWER him with Love ,leave her normal life and live in the sewers with him. SHE'S NOT HIS MOM!!
I lovvvvve Gerard as the phantom. He’s got a great voice for this character. I love his voice here as it makes sense for the book character (not the musical)
I roughly storyboarded The Angel of Music and thumbnailed several sequences because I would love one day to direct this as 2D animated feature or mini-series and fix what I feel needs fixing in the story. First, I want to show that Christine genuinely believes that she is being taught by an Angel and is surprised and intrigued when she discovers that her Angel is Phantom. However, she never loves Phantom as a partner, but as her mentor. I also want to make it clearer that there is childhood love that grows into mature love between her and Raoul - whom I want to be a genuinely lovely man (I detested what they did to Raoul’s character in Love Never Dies). Big one for me for the story to work is to make Phantom not a murderer. I would make the struggle result in the death of the stage hand - accidental death. I would also have him knock-out and tie up Piangi for The Point of no Return. Him being a murderer does not work for me. There is more, and maybe one day I’ll get my version out there. 🙃 I personally would cast Josh Groban to sing Phantom. As far as the sequel, I would give Phantom a happy ending with an American heiress, who is too smart for her own good to just become a rich man’s wife. 🥀
Another detail I noticed in the movie was the candelabras (i think that's what they're called). The first time the phantom takes her down to his holy-pneumonia-batmancave, they're all gold and held by golden arms that move the light with her. After that they're just plain iron, wall-mounted, and there's cobwebs everywhere. Because she could see through the illusion then.
I would Love to see a Video with the sequel "Love never dies" 😁 It would be worth It even for the faces of both, recognizing in which direction the Story went
With the final point of "he'd cling to her like a life preserver", it was like that in the book! Erik kept Christine with him for over a month. I forget how long exactly. That was how long it took him to realize she was wilting in his company and the freedom to choose was what was necessary to make her happy.
I actually really like, that Phantom doesn't have a perfect voice. It brings a little extra edge to the character and it makes it more obvious how different he is to Raul. You can still be a musical genius and a great vocal teacher without having a great voice. Btw. as a teen I fell in love with a boy, who could sing "Music of the Night" perfectly. It just blew me away.
No one can change my mind about All I Ask of You being one of the best love songs. Also, I really like Patrick Wilson’s Raoul so much. I’m getting personal here but I suffered depression last year and every time I broke down crying (whenever I had headphones) I would put on the song and pretend he was singing to me to calm me down. I know it sounds so silly but it really helped me. So what if Raoul has a few flaws (not counting the book because the only Raoul I genuinely like is Wilson’s). I think he also was the better choice for Christine.
First of all: love your videos! As a psychology nerd, I loved the movie "speed" and I was wondering if you would ever do a video on that (handling emotion and reason in stressful situations for example...) Thanks for the combo of fun and actual education in both psychology and cinematography! :)
Even though I grew up with this movie, I hadn't made the connection that this is basically be a perfect mirror of my abusive ex, complete with the nearly twice my age, grooming, possessiveness, and controlling behavior. I'm still learning to give myself grace for not seeing the signs, but sometimes the Phantoms out there play the part of Raoul quite convincingly. I'm really grateful that CT made a video on this dynamic. Love isn't supposed to hurt or feel scary. Know that you aren't alone, and that you're far more resilient than you may realize. It's possible to build a peaceful and joyous life and surround yourself with people who want to celebrate your happiness and lift you up. It's never, ever too late to take your life back.
Yeah ik that feeling AND know how it is...without the part of being twice my age. i'm still learning to forgive myself as well, so we're all in this together! (:
I have a deep abiding love for "music of the night" being controlling and terrible but THEN in contrast with "no more talk of darkness... let daylight dry your tears" like Phantom and Raoul are LEGIT day and night and it's in the lyrics of their love songs and everything just HHHHH
I watched phantom in an opera house when I was like, 8. I actually thought it was a horror opera, and not a romance. I remember having nightmares about it For a kid who had been warned extensively about things like kidnapping and grooming, this was just like the things I feared. Even 8 year old me knew Christine, for the most part, never had a say in what would happen to her.
What I love about the end of Phantom is the implication (for me, anyway) that he's gotten what he wants and realizes how hollow it is. Yes, Christine is showing genuine compassion, but it's not the love he wants and it never will be. I like to think that's the impetus for his turnaround. Also I genuinely want All I Ask Of You to be adapted into my wedding vows if I ever get married. "Say you'll share with me one love, one lifetime...share each day with me, each night, each moment, anywhere you go, let me go too"
“There’s a difference between ‘my story is sad’ and ‘now I get to be awful’”. I have noticed that there are a lot of characters in drama that have this problem, and even people in real life that have this problem.
I love this musical..I watched it..on stage 14 months after my father passed..i was 17..I really adored Wishing Somehow Here Again..I sobbed. I didn’t even remember how it ended until I saw the movie. I love Gerry’s voice and Emmy and Patrick voices are so beautiful. He’s Gerry…so your points are moot to me, Alan 😂 I hope one day Gerry sings All I Ask of You like Michael Crawford has but that’s just me being a Gerry fangirl lol
Christine in the movie sorta gives Tohru Honda vibes, in that her sincerity, acceptance, and love heals and brings out the best in people. Even characters that are considered messed up and nasty
*Note:* The "flashback" scene that "humanises" Erik, by showing his tortured childhood, is a really nice nod to the past he was given in the novel _'Phantom'_ by Susan Kay… I 100% recommend the novel, if you haven’t already read it! 🤓👍🏻
I would absolutely love to see you guys do Whiplash, on Obsession, Abuse, and Anxiety. Probably my favorite movie of all time with an extreme relationship to boot.
What's wild is that Emmy Rossum has said that she looks back on her performance and singing in this movie and is basically disappointed with herself and thinks she could have done so much better 🤯 what?! This was the first play I ever saw on stage and it was incredible. So this movie definitely has a special place in my heart.
@Marissa Wilson 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼 Lisa Vroman is one of my favorites. The old school Christines are the greatest, the casting went down the drain at some point.
@Jennifer Hiemstra I absolutely agree with you. She has a sweet voice, but there’s no comparison. I grew up listening to Rebecca Caine (as I was never a fan of Sarah Brightman’s version) and so watching the movie surprised me that they didn’t go with a more trained performer. I will say that for her age and training, Emmy did a lovely job. Vocally women don’t have fully mature voices until at least their twenties if not thirties. That’s why the range of professional Christines run from 20s to 40s.
@Humble Sparrow Her voice is supposed to fill what was the most famous opera house in the world at the time. Juvenile doesn't cut it. Her voice is thin and toneless, and we're supposed to believe she was highly trained by a musical genius? Listen to the ladies who've done this role on stage and come back and tell me Emmy can do that...she can't.
That's wild! I know that she was classically trained at the Met from a young age, so her standards are high for sure. I think it really works for this movie because she has a youthful sound while still having incredible vocal ability
I also went to see the Phantom in Sydney Opera House, in september. My husbend and I were on our honeymoon and spontaneously decided to go (his first opera experience). That production was amazing! I haven't watched the movie for a long time... I must say I agree with you on the vocal performence. Such a shame the movie did not get an actor with the right vocal range. Being a singer myself (just a hobbie), this feels like such a miss!!! Love your content!!!
So I found a little explanation online about the “you little lying Delilah” part and I thought it was interesting enough to share here because I was a tad confused as to what it meant. “Okay in the Bible there's the tale of Samson and Delilah. Delilah was really someone from the enemy sent to find out the secret of Samsons strength. She lied to him to find that out which was his hair. Once she cut his hair he was as weak as anyone else.” So because Christine exposed herself to the Phantoms true form, he became weak and reacted out of anger. And I just feel like if he just had one person give him a few words of affirmation, he wouldnt have turned into such a horrible person, and he probably wouldn’t have hidden as much from everyone. I also feel like his isolation feeds his frustration when he is finally exposed. Just something I thought was interesting.
Because of watching CinemaTherapy, the phrase "Staying means nothings if you don't have the option to leave." Has entered my consciousness and I have said it to several people in bad situations.
It has been burned into my skull
@msk Oh I didn’t just get the reference, I sang the reference. Well, how could I refuse?
@Kim Thank you for your lovely compliment. ❤ I agree that having real life experiences help a lot. I have 2 support workers myself, who are both ADHDers. They are great! I never need to explain myself in greater detail. My psychologist is an ADHDer herself, and her child is Autistic. She's very pro Neurodiversity. So I never need to worry that my psychologist will try to teach me in NT ways, or try to make an NT out of me, or try to problematise my way of thinking.
@ChibiYotsuba just wanted to say thats very awesome of you to have real life experience behind the advisement, direction, & logistics for this couple. so often you find mental health/& other professional specialists that dont have the real life experiences so they can’t relate so how can they when they dont have the real life tools & experiences to counsel
@Coochie flip flops That's not real life though. In real life, people don't have the option to change everything that happens outside their control, nor the consequences AFTER consenting to a free choice. Nobody is forced into marriage except in criminal situations - mutual consent has been an absolute legal requirement for marriage in the Western world since the Middle Ages. After making a free decision, there are consequences, and no one is free to avoid those. If you sign a contract on a house or a job, staying still means something because you didn't HAVE to sign the contract. You do not have the option to leave; you had the option to not sign up in the first place. Same goes for a marital contract. If people knew they couldn't change the consequences of a stupid choice of partner, they would take more care not to get into bad relationships and get hurt in the first place - plenty of people get abused in relationships where they never committed to a marriage and still don't leave; that's what this is referring to here.
Because Christine doesn't marry the Phantom. Unlike so many young girls today, she can at least recognize the obvious red flags of his control (although she misses Raoul's more subtle manipulations). If the person who wants you to marry them claims you don't have the option to leave them when they have no mutually consensual contract, then staying with them would indeed mean nothing. But if you had the option to leave during courtship and freely chose to stay and committed, people should honour that comittment. It's called loyalty, honesty and keeping promises, not force. They had a choice beforehand; Christine did not so she had to leave.
One of the biggest points that wasn't pointed out but that was really notable for me was how Raoul gaslit Christine for so long telling her the phantom didn't exist when she KNEW he was real, and then used her as bait to catch him during the musical later even though she's scared and doesn't want to do it. Phantom is toxic, but don't put Raoul on a pedestal either😂
@EJohnston I went through a phantoms of the opera phase. I read the book and watched probably all the different phantom of the opera versions. There is one version where she rejects both lovers. I can’t remember it well but I think the phantom was really down played. And she chooses her singing career
@KitsuneMoon I always thought Raoul always felt like he was always in charge in everything. He underestimated the phantom and didn’t realize who he was dealing with
To gaslight someone it has to be intentional. Raul was misguided but ultimately was trying to protect and help Christine.
she shouldve just rejected both in my opinion.
Loving all the discourse here and I have an interesting fact to put into it. I saw Phantom on tour a few years ago and it was the restaged version, and in this version Christine actually physically slapped Raoul when he wanted her to be bait in Don Juan! There certainly were some interesting parts in that production that have changed some of my views on the show as a whole.
I watched this when I was younger, and I remember thinking and asking my mom "wait, why's she kissing him?" When Christine kissed the phantom. I was a confused little child. I think my mom explained it as an apology. I think her word were "she's saying I love your music, but not you." Doesn't really hit the nail on the head, but it made sense to like, six year old me.
In the book she gives him peck on the forehead, more an act of compassion.
@Daniel Cox Tell your wife to read the book, see if she still likes Eric. ;)
@Madeline R Never feel bad about learning something.
Be proud you now "get it".
Some people get it age 2, others get it age 22, some at age 72 and some of us never do...
Just never stop learning :) keep growing.
I learned human behaviour with a detour: I just was reading up on all those great biologists that studied animal behaviour: they observed as best as they could, and had to be very very carefully with their conclusions (since animals in those days were not suposed to "feel" of have "emotions" etc.).
It is easy to get an impression of things (for most people anyway) but it is very hard to describe what is going on.
So they (esp neurotypicals) will be generalizing, filling in the blank spaces they missed with ?experience/ wishfull thinking/ fuzzy bullshit that looks good to them etc.?, and they will never be able to explain afterwards what and why they were thinking something.
And of course they will be pissed off if you ask them to explain...
I loved the old Star Trek, Spock was a breath of fresh air: he needed to have a good logical explanation for almost anything, and the other people actually liked/ appreciated him a lot!
But I will look into that Kylo Ren, it sounds like a good character to meet. :)
@muurrarium interesting point.
I guess part of why I usually don't have an emotional read on almost any movies is because my parents would tell me verbally how I was supposed to feel about it and they were never right, so now I just kinda get this gray wash of "eh, how the fuck am *I* supposed to know?"
Which is another factor in why I like Kylo Ren so much, because The Last Jedi was the movie that finally got the message across to me that people do things for reasons. That realization also happened at an embarrassingly late age, and in my defense the way people behave can still seem a little nonsensical even now, but it helped a lot and its effect on my world view still has aftershocks today
The phrase that resonated with me the most out of this whole episode was "A lot of times the monsters that we're scared of are the ones that we create by our lack of compassion".
It's an incredibly thoughtful view, full of empathy and responsibility.
replayed it 3 times to really think about it as well
Agree 100%
That phrase Made me think about bullying... Is sad. (Sorry if I have gramatical mistakes, English is not my native language)
@blissinchains
God yeah, it’s also why I am so attached to the character of The Phantom tbh. Like, while I didn’t end up like him (fiction is a fun house reflection of reality), I can certainly see ways in my past that could’ve turned such. Hell I still cry like a baby at his fate, especially if I’m listening to the 25th anniversary soundtrack! It’s so good. Stab me in the heart more, ALW!
Unpopular opinion:
Whatever I do, I just can't get myself to like Raoul. I feel like in a strange way, he's just as controlling as the phantom except he disguises it. He's always telling her that he'll follow her wherever she wants to go, but also kind of assumes that she will choose him and doesn't respect her boundaries either. My grandfather always used to say that actions speak more than words and that's how I see it. He tells her what she wishes to hear from the phantom, but expects her to be with him in return. I believe Christine just needs to grab her dancer gal-palls and go on a girl trip to reassess her life choices bc neither of these men are good news.
Maybe that's just me.
Respect her boundaries? Love, it's set in 1880. Raoul wasn't exactly going to wear a 'smash the patriarchy' t shirt and take joint parental leave ;).
But yeah he's definitely cloying and controlling. The men in Christine's life totally suck except her dead father. I love your idea for a lesbian sequel. I'd watch that.
@AverageAnimeFan The book is so delightfully batshit lol
@Dear Luciella yeah, I read the book when I was around 15~16 years old, and while I pittyed Eric (phantom), I despises Raul even more. I just could not see why she liked him so much. Eeh. At the end this story is about compassion for one another.
I really don't see how and from where you got the impression because Raoul has nothing to disguise, and Raoul is definitely nothing compared to the phantom, though Raoul has his flaws. He says, "Anywhere you go ,let me go too" because Christine explicitly says she wants to be with him (not because he assumes she'd choose him) and when did he repeatedly say that he wants to be wherevershe is all the time it was just one time and when your stalker is on the loose , Is it really Raoul's fault that he wants to protect her? and it sounds like a heartfelt request to protect her than anything disguised as controlling.
Raoul has his flaws, which make him human, and he is leagues better than his book counterpart. And also Raoul had no idea that phantom existed for most of the time in the musical to really actually know what Christine would want to hear from the Phantom , hell Raoul didn't even know that the phantom loved Christine , like no one thinks kidnapping and manipulation is loving someone so, ofcourse Raoul would try to protect her from the Phantom.
I think what makes Raoul a likeable is that he is literally willing to die to ensure her freedom, he remembers a peasent girl and gives a standing ovation for her, tries to protect her every way he can, he also saves her from the falling Chandelier and in the movie, even sleeps 24×7 outside her room to ensure her safety etc.
I would say try watching loveable Raouls like Michael Shawn Lewis, John Cudia, Christian Lund, Jordan Donica .
Compared to his book counterpart musical Raoul is leagues better.
I always interpreted the ending a little differently: when Christine chose to stay with the Phantom to save Raoul, Erik saw in her eyes how much she truly loved Raoul. Whether or not he was going to break the trust and to kill Raoul anyway, he realized doing so would only hurt Christine and make her miserable. I think it was that moment for the first time in his life, Erik felt compassion for someone else. Because he once lived miserably, and experienced cruelty against him. Coercing Christine to stay here with him would be repeating what happened to him as a child. And I think that's what finally made Erik break, and he let her go. I wouldn't call it a redemption arc by any means (he did commit murder after all) but it's the closure he needed all these years.
I also loved the contrast between Erik's lair and the rooftop where he watched Christine and Raoul make out. The Phantom's hideout is dark, murky, and cluttered, and it feels almost claustrophobic and hard to breathe in especially with the Phantom's menacing aura. The rooftop, despite the cold and snow, has open air and space allowing Christine to breathe and be vulnerable. I don't think Erik realized it then, but I think after the kiss was when he also realized that Christine needed to be free to be alive, something he never had. Because even with the help of Madame Giry, all he was able to do was move from one cage and live in another.
@nicolina1987 Becayse they changed Raouls character and behaviour during the song in newer productions to “fit” his loser character in LND. He literally rolls his eyes at the end as he exists the stage like he’s fed up and exasperated with her whining.
@N. K. How do you feel it nullified that song?
I mean, it's subjective what is considered a redemption arc for murder 🤷🏽♀️
Wow this is an excellent interpretation. I love this
And then we get the "masterpiece" that is LND and all that character growth is tortured in Erik's lair, strangled to death, drowned in murky lake water, and set on fire to make sure is dead for good 😶
Oh and it's bones are brought to the circus
Ta-da 🎪🤩
The movie’s relationship ❌
:
The movie’s aesthetic ✅
Well, Raoul and Christine's relationship was good
The movie's esthetic: ♾️ *CANDLES*
@Chilibemine Conversations I know. It makes me cry every time.
@pocahontasgirl1 This song embodies the feeling of missing the dearly departed.
The movie’s singing: 👍❤
The movie's acting: 👍❤
The movie’s relationships: 💔🔥
Am I the only person who love Gerard.B singing in the movie? I loved it because it does not sound manufactured, it sounds real and passionate.. Gerald if you see this I am a fan, I think you did excellent!
He sounds like Quasimodo from the hunchback of notre dame 😂 I like his acting but a phantom of the opera he is not
So true, honestly, maybe I’m just so messed up, but I often find other Eriks’ to be way too bland and uninteresting. Gerard Butler might not bring years of the musical education to the table or hit all the notes perfectly (imo that’s not the point of the performance), but he brings his soul, charisma, and amazing voice. Gerard will always be my Phantom 🥹❤️🔥
I played his version of Music of the Night many times..I love it ❤
@Tania Scheid de Oliveira agreed 👍
I agreed, He is the Best Phantom.
The relationships in the book are even more problematic.
Also now you've said it Hugh Jackman as the Phantom is something strikes me as a real missed opportunity I wish I could see.
@Dannalee Mosteller I know Raoul is flawed but he didn't gaslight Christine. Not believing someone isn't gaslighting. Gaslighting is intentional and it doesn't fit with what Raoul does in the musical.
@Welbeck Manor Have you read the book? In the book the Phantom is much more psychotic. He forces Christine to choose between him and the entire opera house. At that same time, he puts Raoul in a torture chamber. In the book, Raoul does believe in her more quickly and there’s a little less gaslighting, but there’s a lot of jealousy between him and the Phantom.
That one note when he screeches the "pit as dark as HEeeEEeElL!!!!" (Shudder)
Interesting. In what way do you think they are more problematic in the book than in this grooming-filled film?
24:14 I think Raoul wasn't tearing up because he thought she was being sincere. I think he was heartbroken because he had promised to protect her and she ended up in danger. Raoul didn't even realize the phantom was on the stage with her until she was practically in his arms, and there was nothing he could do without putting her in more danger.
@Anne I feel the same way about Raoul and Christine. I've always thought that Christine and Raoul's relationship seem like they'd be a healthy couple in the original musical. I've always thought that their relationship was a counter to how their formation of a bond through genuine care and being friends as kids made it seem wholesome when they are happy together, where as Erik was trying to manufacture something real built on gaslighting and manipulation and threats.
@MyStringSnapped Ikr? I think Raoul in the musical has no irredeemable flaws whatsoever.I personally think much of the hate on Raoul is bad faith.And it could be interpreted differently depending on the actors. My absolute favourite Raoul is Michael Shawn Lewis.I mean it is physically impossible to hate Raoul after seeing him.Agreed.Raoul/Christine scenes are so sweet and Raoul reminds of Prince Philip personally (I love how both of them are mostly driven by their desire to protect the one they love even if they're facing a formidable adversory and both are ultimately rescued by other female characters, Philip by the fairies and Raoul by Christine yet I think their bravery and their depth of love shine through) and Raoul/Christine totally are like a Disney couple especially in the musucal. Also people can say whatever they want,but "All I ask of you" is sweetest love duet.
@Annepeople want to rag on Raoul because they want to assume badly about him even when it’s kind of a stretch to say the musical version of the character is unpleasant, but I always thought he was just earnestly trying to protect Christine and did love her. I think the scenes between Christine and Raoul are cute.
disagree. you can see her clothes falling on the side of the phantom on the side of the phantom and staying up on the side of raoul. unless he was thinking "oh wow she really is a good actress" his eyes watering realised there was in fact something there, and a side of christine that he never got to know
@R S loving someone doesnt exclude you atraction/desire/chemistry by someone else
This is why Ramin Karimloo will forever be the most amazing Phantom to ever grace the screen or stage. Man has the range needed to play The Phantom and you feel like you're ascending when he hits the money notes
All the Phantoms are wonderfully cast but Gerry…Gerry will always be my favorite.
@BellV mooooooood XD
Ramin's voice make me feel sorry for not doing all that the phantom asked of me
who cares about girly stage singers
@Rachel Hughes Whoa. That’s a pretty cool take.
You guys should react to Labyrinth! Jareth’s possessiveness over Sarah is crazy to think about. And it’s deeply romanticized in an almost identical way to Phantom of the Opera
@Isobel Duncan This, also on the start of the book adaptation is explicit (in the movie is hinted on the photos in her mirror but can be lost) that Jareth pretty much looks like the new partner of her mother, both an actor and actress. She kind of is infatuated with him and even dances with him on her fifthteen birthday which is also used later against her on the ballroom dance scene. I didn´t read the whole book which is based on the script, I don´t know other facts but this one is cleary hinted on the actual movie but is more show don't tell I guess.
Labyrinth is very much about Sarah's coming of age. Brian Froud even stated that Jareth was a figment of her imagination and fantasies but he also represents temptation, hence the tight pants and why he looks more like a glamorous rockstar rather than a goblin.
Ooh, that would be interesting! I was obsessed with both as a teenager around the same time.
+1 for a Labyrinth episode please
@MossyMozart Similar only in that they're about young girls getting lost in a scary labyrinth and finding their personal agency. Otherwise, very different! Labyrinth skews dark, but is also funny, musical, and campy. It has David Bowie as the antagonist and musical piece, and very intricate Jim Henson puppets as the labyrinth's inhabitants. Definitely recommend, it's a great movie.
I remember when I first watched this as a teenager and I was so upset that Christine and Phantom didn't end up together. Now as an adult I rewatched it and realized what the movie was trying to do and all of the messages it was trying to get across. Definitely can't blame Christine since me too as a teenager thought Phantom was dreamy
@Nat domt worry my comment is a sarcasm. Of course i know that shitstorm "sequel" is though i pretend it never exist. It shouldnt and wasnt supposed to be canon anyways since it wasnt made by gaston himself not to mentioned the motivation behind that dumpster fire is very questionable
@rei It's a sequel ALW created a long time after the original musical lol. It follows Phantom, Christine, Raoul, Meg, and Madame to Coney Island. ...it's...a journey haha
@Dutchie_tulip ALWAYS CHRISTINE!!!!
@Anne ah i also love a i ask of you its romantic. Also not gonna lie i donr hate raoul in the book i just find him eitger annoying or forgetabble but after having discussion with decent poto fans i realized hes at least a bit more interesting than he seemed and i can definitely see why hes more fit as christine's spouse than erik
It enraged me this crazy erik fans go all lengths to either hate or belittle christine or raoul and this fans forgot erik did much owrse things than raoul for examole kidnapping christine, dropped a chandelier, dragging people into the lake if they ride a boat(in the book) and tried to choke raoul using lasso like all that evidence is more than enough proof that erik is dangerous of his approach of love and an unstable person even if he did learned his lesson in the end
Even if raoul is annoying he checked on christine's situation and lets not forget hes willing to risk his life to save christine from erik
@rei Same ! I really find it baffling too that people go to great lengths to justify their love for Erik( which is fine,he's a great character).But we're not even allowed to love Raoul ?(like it's some kind of a justified fact carved on a stone that Raoul is some kind of jerk) I mean it's subjective,right?Like I get Raoul wasn't the best in the book(far from it) but we're not allowed to like Raoul in any adapted version of it( some try to justify their hate for him even there by saying "oh Raoul is toxic in the book so blindly he's toxic in every adaptatios of it"? I mean it depends in the musical who plays him, y'know. Like Movie Raoul is a good guy while I would say there are many good and loving Raouls in the musical too like see Raouls of John Cudia,Michael Shawn Lewis,Christian Lund to name a few.These are impossible to hate.
And y'know I find Raoul very appealing personally, sweet,protective , comforting and ready to die for Christine in the musical, Who wouldn't want that?. All the qualities you'll find in a classic romantic hero. Steve Barton' s "All I ask of you" and in general is my favourite love duet too.
When Jonathon mentioned seeing the show in Sydney and the Phantom singing “music of the night” and “I thought I think I just got impregnated” I FELT that. When I saw Phantom live, during “music of the night” and “past the point” I thought the same thing 😂
Truely amazing Sydeny production! I really hope to see it again in Melbourne if i can get there
Welcome to the world of every second k-pop fan
That was me watching Peter Jöback in NYC as the Phantom in 2013. He's a Swedish pop star but hearing him do a Broadway musical live was such a treat. He was amazing.
A revelation in my brain was that Christine creaved a fatherfigure and Erik craved a motherfigure. I feel like it might even be designed with that thought, since Erik also kind of raised Christine liek a fatherly person but as a grown woman for his subnconcious she fit the role of mother because of her compassion. The Phantom desperately clinged to her as he couldn't cling to his own mother and Christine has a hard time letting go of him because he was there for her when her father couldn't.
Honestly I love Gerard as the phantom. His voice carries so much weight and intensity. Sure he wasn't a trained singer, but that makes it all the more impressive to me. It's so rough and edgy and carries the heaviness of his soul.
I like to make excuses for "bad" things in movies, The Phantom lives in the sewers and only ever sings to Christine when she is alone. That and the probably badly ventilated living space could have made his voice sound so rough xD
Well said!
If he where a perfect singer it would be harder to like his character. In this version of the phantom feelings actually go into his singing and you feel his pain and can enjoy a character who isn't a healthy character emotionally. If he where completely calculated and controlled in everything with no sense of that emotion he would come off as a narcissist. Cool, calculated, and void of any emotion. This character would be much more difficult to romanticize or for the audience to enjoy. His voice shows he has a broken heart, even if he's controlling and a murderer the raw emotion allows for you to empathize with his character giving him in a sense a redeeming quality that makes him almost likeable.
Agreed! So tormented and rugged. The book character i think was more self taught by eavesdropping.
Yeah, I also liked his voice in the film. It could be due to my being completely new to any Phantom of the Opera production, but there is a lot of power in there even without special opera skills.
I loved this movie when I was like 14. I really wanted Phantom to be with Christine, but I left it for a few years and re-watched it recently and all I could see was how afraid Christine must have been.
It's amazing the difference some growth can make.
@Ingrid May Because the Phantom has this "do-as-I tell-you-or-else" thing to everyone, even to Christine in the stage version ("You will sing for me!" instead of "you belong to me!" in the masquerade). He might seem nice to her, but it's not like he cares if she's happy. Not a scene in the stage or the movie version has shown that he cares about Christine's feeling. Maybe Christine's kiss has changed him at the end, but it's too late.
@HingYok Why wouldn't she be happy with him? He was kind to her. And he loved her so much!!!! If he hadn't shown her his beloved doll (her in the wedding dress), I do think she'd have slept with him (after the music of the night). 😂😂 Well, Dude is lonely since his birth. I don't think he really knows how to handle with girls (why did she faint? She was so weak 😆)....After the song she had to kiss him... Poor Phantom, a rookie mistake ruined it for him..
...
To me, the Phantom is not really loving Christine as a person, but a piece of his own lifeless artwork. He wants her to be with him, to be on the stage, and in return to love him, but he often ignores or manipulates Christine's feelings and thoughts. His controlling behaviors (which is stronger on the stage than in the movie) are a true threat. Yet, from the lyrics, we see a deeply traumatized child who just wants to be treated with kindness, who has perhaps been rejected so often that he learned to get what he wants by threatening people. It's sad, but unless the Phantom is willing to change, just like the Beast is willing to change for Belle, Christine will not be happy if she chooses the Phantom.
I still want them to be together. For me, they are the most beautiful duet in tv history.😅
This is the movie I have always been obsessed since a child. And as a child I was mad at Christine for not choosing the Phantom. For me what he did (grooming and controlling her) wasn't clicking, nor were the words of the songs. I remember it was around high school, when I was doing one of my annual rewatch of the movie that everything started to click. It clicked that the Phantom preyed on a vulnerable, grieving child, that what he felt wasn't love. It also clicked that the song "Point of no Return" was of technically lust and s*x
@Daniel Cox Of course, they are responsible for their bad actions. I don't justify him, but I understand his motive why he did it.... So, the Phantom didn't get a girlfriend, and that was his punishment. But HE deserved someone better than Christine. Despite whoever the Phantom is, he is still a misunderstood man that was not treated fairly. More importantly, his love for Christine is true. He would do anything for her. And that's why, in the end, he let her go...
@Ingrid May and they are just as responsible if not more for those acts.
@Daniel Cox Even intelligent, educated people can commit terrible crimes. And no one can understand why they do it.... What motivates people to do it...
@Ingrid May the phantom is a diagnosable sociopath though and that can be learned through isolation. If any man or woman is rabid and murderous they need to be stopped. That doesn't have to mean killing but someone as dangerous as the phantom I don't know how you would capture him.
In the original book, Raul is actually incredibly toxic. Christine doesn't recognize him at first, but he still feels that he's owed her affection because of their history. He exhibits several stalker habits, including breaking into her dressing room and getting really mad when she rejects him initially. I wish they showed this in the musicals and movie to show just how bad both of Christine's options are.
@Anisha haha, Hadley actually plays Raoul in my favourite version of the musical!
@Amy Gallo Sorry about that I corrected it because it's often misspelt by Raoul haters.
Ofcourse you're entitled to your opinion.
While dismissing Christine's concerns could also be because he is a practical person and he's dismissive because she's saying equally unbelievable things and he does believe someone is out there but that's not a ghost but a man so I see him as a voice of reason.
I know it's your opinion, but it generally depends on who plays him. He's dismissive when he's played that way. I would've reacted the same way too. I never see him putting his desire above her as he has an entire song focusing on her fears and desires and does his best to comfort her. But we can agree to disagree. I respect your opinion though.
If you haven't, check out Hadley's Raoul.He matches your interpretation of Raoul , he's a total manipulative jerk who doesn't give a shit about Christine. He is abusive, even.
@Anisha I realized when I posted the comment that I made a spelling mistake, but I couldn't edit the comment. But, thanks for the dramatic correction. 😂 I'm actually a proofreader by profession, so that spelling mistake was killing me.
I also have a different interpretation of the musical version of Raoul than you because he constantly dismisses Christine's concerns and puts his desires ahead of her fears. However, although my opinion may be unoriginal, it's my opinion 🤷♀️
It's RAOUL, actually. I would say you're not sharing any newfound opinion here that Raoul is the worst in the book as vast majority of people already hate him whether it's the Vanilla Raoul in the musical (when played by the right actor coming off as pretty lovable or abusive if played that way ) or the childish Book Raoul. I'd say Book Raoul is toxic because he is a product of his time. I think that was how men were used to be back then.
And well, Why would they want to show Raoul's toxicity in the musical when they specifically changed his character to make him a suitable option for Christine? I think Book Raoul and Musical Raoul are world's apart that they seem like 2 different characters. I like this change in the musical to show that she makes the right decision going with Raoul. Because it's not like choosing Raoul would make her loose her career as there were plenty of married opera singers back then.
@Mercy Fae love never dies isnt canon so its not count
I think it’s important to note that for most of the story the Phantom loves Christine’s VOICE and not her person. At least at first. When she kisses him at the end, THAT is when his love turns to actually loving HER. Not lustfully but because of the expression of care. And that’s why he’s able to let her go finally at the end. It’s also why he says “It’s over now, the music of the night.” That is a deeper abandonment of his previously held ideals than people realize.
In the book she does kiss him. But I think it’s on the cheek or forehead or something. It was the first time he’d felt compassion from another, as even his mother wouldn’t touch him. He did let her go after the kiss, but there was never anything sexual between them.
It's basically what kills him! He's so overwhelmed by that simple act of compassion that he becomes weak and dies within a few weeks or something like that!
The last scene where Christine kisses the phantom and overwhelms him with her kindness always brings tears to my eyes. 😢
I know!!! Same here!!!
As someone who has fallen prey to a psychologically abusive narcissist in my past... this is the therapy I wish I'd had years ago ^_^' No surprise that this has been one of my favorite films for a long time and I've always been team Phantom like an idiot
I have always been on Erik's side. Now that i am a way older woman!
“A lot of the times, the monsters that we’re scared of are the ones we create by our lack of compassion.” That’s a quote to think about.
This just reminds me of the time I was talking about the musical with a woman who began ranting about how cold and cruel Christine was in rejecting Phantom. I looked at her and said, "But he KILLED PEOPLE." She paused in her rant, tilted her head thoughtfully, and then very softly said, "Oh yeh. There's that."
@Ingrid May I think the issue here that many comments here are getting at is that no matter how mistreated the Phantom/Erik was during his childhood, that does not mean that Christine (or indeed anyone) has any obligation to be in a relationship with him. Nobody should be in a relationship with anybody other than for their own feelings. A person saying no means no. It doesn't matter if there is attraction involved, either --- if they don't want a relationship, or want to end a relationship, that should be the last word.
I understand this is a fictional case so the stakes are different, but the line of thought still applies. In addition, the responsibility for saving/preserving a (heterosexual) relationship is frequently disproportionately placed on the woman, often to appease the man's feelings. I don't want to go into details, but this is also the case here.
If you say otherwise you are toeing a dangerous line and the argument can be twisted towards sexual assault apologism. Again, I don't think that's what you're consciously trying to do, but hopefully these are some things to think about.
@Phương Anh Nghê (Anna) Why are you so rude? It's just a movie!😆 It's fun to talk about this movie... Yes, people have a choice of how to behave... It's a pity, he let that sorrow/ sadness channel into emotions of malice toward everyone... He's kind of like a child, he doesn't know what else to do so he becomes violent in order to get what he wants.... This is a story about a deformed man, who forgets his own humanity in search of a woman...
I can understand his need to control. it comes from his past in controlling the opera through the previous owner and his painful childhood. He's a genius, all the plays that played at the opera are written by him and they're a hit. Christine was an equal in that she was so gifted musically. When he found someone that he loves only to find that she's in love with someone else, it enrages him and think of the best method to own her.... It's just too sad how he never got the one thing he desired. This was his punishment. Plus the fact that everybody hates him ( I mean the people in the film and even many of the viewers )....And I don't believe he would ever purposely hurt her, no matter how many psychological problems he may have... The fact that he let her go shows it was true love, but she couldn't see past his face to the passionate soul beneath......😅
@Phương Anh Nghê (Anna) LOL I know, the Phantom was not a saint, but I forgive him... He's not the worst person in TV history. Dude, imagine yourself in his place. The phantom's story is that he has gone his whole life without love. When he falls in love with Christine, having her reject him for Raoul. Is it any wonder he finally snapped? I mean, no wonder he acted the way he did. All he's seen of others is negativity and abuse...
Could you let go of your loved one without a fight? He was never taught how to love someone the right way! He had no contact with other people, so his only understanding of them came from opera. Is it his fault that his understanding of love is twisted? If I were the Phantom, I'd probably go mad with jealousy like he did. Frankly, I am amazed he let Christine go.... And I'm amazed why he didn't kill Raoul before "All I ask of you". Then Christine would have no choice but to be with the Phantom.... The phantom made a big mistake, he killed the wrong people, because only the viscount was the biggest threat to him.... He just needed to get rid of the viscount... So yes, girls prefer rich men. This is the reality!!! So let's be realistic, Christine would never choose a poor, deformed genius when a handsome and rich man is standing next to her....
It's always bothered me that Raoul uses Christine as bait. Plus, she begs him not to do this to her, but he still makes her. In the end, it's his fault that he gets her. It's one reason why is he not a good partner for her…. I think if the phantom was in Raoul's place, he would have dragged her off to a completely different country to his mansion where he lives or to another opera house...
My favorite (character) reading of the Phantom is by Lindsay Ellis, in that POTO is not a story of star-crossed lovers separated by society but a coming-of-age story of a child stuck in a 50-year-old man's body and letting Christine go was him "growing up". Since then, I can no longer see Phantom's interactions with Christine as that of a courting lover, but that of a child trying to impress his mother (kiss notwithstanding).
The Phantom wants romantic love but he really needs familial love.
It's worth noting that in the book the musical is based on the phantom actually uses some form of magic influence to seduce her. It's like the effect of drugging her - not just the kreeper vibes, actual manipulation of her mind....
I haven't read the book, but I remember my eldest daughter did while in HS, and when I commented about how dark the movie is, my daughter informed me how much darker the book is!
If I remember correctly, it was a type of gas because it had a certain scent. I think it was even used on the Persian and Raoul at one point. 🤔
im shocked you didn't talk about how Christine wanted nothing to do with the police plot (after the note song) and how raoul refused her denial or to listen to her, pushed her, minimized her fears.
@핑엘리 Yeah! Same! I always saw it as a necessary decision on Raoul's part to ensure their future. And it's like there's no win for Raoul. If he's sweet and gentle, he's a wet noodle and if he's bent on defeating the phantom , he's treating Christine as a prize. It's hilarious how Raoul is hated for not believing Christine about an angel of music, I mean would you?
@Anne In Twisted, there's also one bit of Raoul's that I think is particularly essential- "Don't think that I don't care... but every hope and every prayer rely on you now" something along those lines. He doesn't dismiss her fear out of hand. He acknowledges that the situation is horrifying, but assures her that this is something that she CAN do ("You said yourself, he was nothing but a man") while also pointing out that this plan may be their only chance to be free of Erik. He loves her and fears for her but he's also not allowing himself to succumb to that.
And, I think this Raoul would have run after Christine when she was abducted had he not been stuck up in a box seat, lol. What's he gonna do, yeet himself over the edge? He's not a stuntman.
I think that "Twisted every way" in the movie is only time Raoul makes a plan behind her back.
While in every stage version,everyone is present in Twisted everyone is present managers, opera staff and Raoul is the one who defends her and stands up to the managers in front of everyone and says no one can make her if she doesn't want to."you don't have to they can't make you" He does encourage her to sing a minute later because even he realises that one can't sit around and do nothing and that's adulting.He never forces her just realises that there'll be terror either way as the phantom warns.This further proves Raoul point when the phantom follows her to the graveyard.I think she decides to sing after "wishing".He only encourages her to sing with appropriate sympathy and makes her understand his reasoning to ensure her long term safety.
I have seen many Raouls running after Christine when she's taken by the phantom only held back by the mangers
When does he minimise her fears?,he is saying "there's no phantom of the opera" because he's right the phantom is a man and Christine is clearly describing him as a supernatural figure.While Raoul thinks Christine is linking the ghost rumours to the crazy guy killing the stagehand.He is saying to not Fear the phantom as a ghost with magical powers but to see him as a man with weaknesses who can be defeated.Which Christine finds by her journey in the end.
He does realise her fear is very real.
As seen when First, when Christine hears an eerie voice that Raoul may or may not hear as well, he goes searching all over the rooftop for it. When he finds nothing, he then wraps Christine in his arms and comforts her, promising to shelter and protect her.
In the end he begs Christine to let him die so she can be free.
I know he is flawed and commute mistakes but it really depends on who plays him.Some make him into jerks like you described while some turn him into sweethearts who are lovable and extremely caring towards Christine.
I also think not enough people remember that the Phantom of the Opera from the original book was a Universal horror movie monster for a reason. This is a horror story. Part of Christine's terror is knowing that if and when he comes for her, she'll go, whether she really wants to or not. This is not a YA romantic triangle where both options are appealing, she wants to be with Raoul but knows from experience that she can't escape. "Can I betray the man who once inspired my voice? Will I become his prey? Do I have any choice?" And playing that up is *So much more fun*
Can we just take a second to appreciate Jonathan's singing voice?
Now THAT caught me off guard 😅😅
Absolutely loved it!
Out of the multiple versions i've seen of this musical, one had the Phantom physically pause and react to Raoul's line "Why make her lie to you to save me?" and I thought that was such an amazing touch to see him start to realize he's in the wrong at that point and it eases him into the change of heart at the end. I loved it
@Zetta Got Bored I liked that they got Ramin to play Christine's father in this movie.
@MonkeyJedi99 This version of the movie is on KZclip and it's free to watch (last I checked)!
I've never seen any version of this play/movie in its entirety.
I have only a rough idea of the general story, thanks to comedy riffs on the plot.
@Zara Young Ramin’s performance kills me so much in that. Like there’s only so much he can do with his face because of the makeup, but his hands are doing EVERYTHING the ENTIRE TIME and I love it SO. MUCH!
In the 25th Anniversary version the camera makes a point to capture Ramin's Phantom's reaction, plus the reaction to "the tears I might have shed for your dark fate/grow cold and turn to tears of hate" of sheer heartbreak and realisation
When I saw it on stage The Phantom was about seven feet tall (no joke I met him at the stage door) and Christine was about five foot flat and at a really emotional part of the movie when the Phantom was on his knees the man’s head was at the same level as hers. And that really helps show how overpowering the phantom is in comparison without the creepy age difference.
Okay, but now you HAVE TO react to the 25th anniversary too! Specifically, Raoul in it - there are just slight differences to his character, but they make a huge difference for me, because in stage version it really feels like neither of Christine's choices of relationship are actually good for her. Raoul there seems more arrogant, childish, treats Christine like a doll and dont forget the scene where she literally begs "Raoul dont make me do this" in tears and he still MAKES HER DO THIS! I love this version way more also because of more character depth and details that came later. And, of course, Ramin Karimloo.... I don't need to say anything, we all know. Forget Hugh Jackman, Ramin is literally in this very movie! (playing Christine's father) The fact that they didn't cast him, even though he clearly was going for it... Biggest miss. I think about it and hear Mushu from Mulan screaming in my head "You missed! How could you miss, he was three feet away from you!"
I feel like, after having seen 25th anniversary and 2004 movie multiple times, it feels like they’re telling completely different stories. It’s super cool, although I love the 25th anniversary’s story (and singing) more.
yes, at first I didn't het why there was so much hate for Raoul online until I watched a stage version. I love this Raoul in the movie, not perfect, but who is. And he's really trying. but gosh the stage version.. ist not a great choice either and so annoying depending on production.
@Ingrid May He was already onstage as Raoul at the time. He easily could have played Erik.
Ramin Karimloo was too young to play the phantom at the time. As Broadway actor he wouldn't have been brilliant for a movie. But yes Ramin is a better singer than Hugh Jackman. 😆
I would really love to see you guys tackle Treasure Planet. It’s a deviously underrated Disney film and I feel like you guys might enjoy the humor in it as well.
I would LOVE them to analyze Treasure Planet! It’s sooo underrated and a beautiful film.
I’d love that!!!!
Request for Everafter. The Step Mother portrayed by Anjelica Huston always confused me with her being horrible to Danielle but then had very small moments of affection for her. I’d love to see that character diagnosed.
OH MY GOSH YES! That’s one of my favorite films of all time.
A good thing I am only here for the food ;)
And also one of the stepsisters having a change of heart
I honestly think she really loved Danielle's father and that bled through sometimes.
I love Butler in this film, but Alan nails the problem with him as the Phantom. I will say, though, that 'Past the Point of No Return', especially the crescendo on the bridge, brings chills to my spine. He has this kind of raw, honest tone that's often missing from professional singers that really shines in that song.
This story just cements in my head the term "Hurt people hurt people" while adding the caveat "Loved people love people"
@blissinchains what are you talking about exactly now? I'm just saying that sometimes it's the other way round, not in this case, because the original comment says the term is cemented. But from personal experience I can say, sometimes it's the other way round.
@sil pogs When one is put on display as a sideshow freak and sexually abused by their jailer... it hardly promotes a healthy view of humanity. Sorry.
He let her go because he didn't want her to live the way he lived. It is clear that he realized his mistakes.
I can see that
Sometimes hurt people love people because they don't want others to suffer the same pain they know
Gerard Butler is a great singer for a movie. He sounds rugged, vulnerable, and also gives some sex appeal. Doing a movie is completely different than doing a Broadway musical. You have the option to show intimacy and emotions by being able to whisper or softly sing versus belting out notes as you would on stage. I think they all did a fantastic job portraying what they needed to in the movie.
I completely agree with you!!!! I really enjoyed Butler's performance in the movie. Some people don't realize that Broadway is not the same as film. I love when musical movies use somewhat amateur singers. Professionals just seem false to me....Don't get me wrong, I like Ramin, Crawford and the other opera guys, but as Broadway actors, they would not have been brilliant for a movie.
I do love that at the end it shows that the Phantom never stopped loving Christine but he respected her and Raoul's relationship.
I actually thought it was interesting that Erik was not that amazing singer. It brings another color to his character. Like, his charisma and strenght and control over Christine and everyone is so huge that they get into it, and she has such a natural talent that it overcomes her teacher's flaw.
So I know why Madame Giry didn't speak up!!! The novel has a little bit where she explains herself, it's a little fuzzy but he basically promises her that he'll make her daughter Meg an Empress. She believes him and basically lets him do whatever based on that promise. They don't mention it in the film, I think?
Never admit you are the one that opened the tigers cage...
It also wouldn't make sense, in the novel, she doesn't actually know who Erik is, that role goes to the Persian, instead she is more like Christine, sincerely and blindly believing in his "magic".
I love how Gerard played Phantom. The fact that so many people say he can't sing. I think he took lessons for the role so considering he wasn't a singer and did it for the role it was great.
I CLAPPED when Alan made the point about the Phantom needing to be a musical (vocal) genius. I always hear the argument about great actors who are maybe mediocre singers being cast in movies: "Oh, but the characters are not supposed to be professional singers, so it's fine." First off, that's not how musicals work- but if ever there was a character who is supposed to be a great singer, it's Phantom!
@Ingrid May you seen Repo the Genetic Opera? Cause Anthony Stewart Head is not soft in there.
@FellinuxVI You're right, that phantom was strange... He even slapped her in the face because she didn't want to sing. This scene made me laugh...😆
@Ingrid May No, there's literally a random mute dwarf who kills people for no reason but likes the Phantom and saves him when he's disfigured. It's literally a version of the phantom where none of the deaths mean anything because the killer has no motive, the only plot-relevant thing he does is capture Christine, but the killings have no rime or reason.
@FellinuxVI Honestly, I was shocked by 3096 days... kidnapping of a little girl, captivity, violence, sexual abuse, psychological manipulation.... Not a pleasant movie... But it's a reality and it can happen to any girl..... Did you call the Phantom a dwarf? 😂😂
@Ingrid May Yeah, although in the '62 version a random dwarf kills people for no reason, and the phantom doesn't fall in love with Christine, kind of a boring version tbh.
The Raoul stand-in, Harry, is very cool though, one of my favorites, super gentlemanly and actually competent. I'll have to check 3096, though I don't think I'll enjoy it.
I may have never experienced the theatre portrayal of the Phantom, but I personally like the way GB sang. His voice sounds sensual and ghostly.
"A lot of times the monsters that we're scared of are the ones that we create by our lack of compassion." Jono, you just blew my MIND. Words for these times! Keep kicking tail - you and Alan are amazing!
I remember watching the musical for the first time when I was seven years old. I fell HARD for the Phantom, and I grew up wanting to have someone like him. Today, I am with my Raoul, and I could not be happier.
Watching this made me a little sad, but I also laughed all the way through. Thank you guys! ♥️
So I was a teenager when this movie came out and I remembered all these girls in my choir class were really into this movie. The romanticizing of their relationship really left an imprint on many little girls to probably go forward in life and be willing victims to all sorts of weirdness.
I loved this musical growing up. It's what made me decide to become a singer. I remember feeling so sorry for the phantom. I distinctly remember saying to my mom that I wished I could have shown him the love he needed.
I definitely didn't understand how controlling he was as a child and I definitely wouldn't run into a relationship with him as an adult, but I still feel the same pity and sadness for him that Kristine did.
@Ingrid May Honestly? Raoul just seems normal for the time he was born in. Probably nicer than many guys were actually. Either way, he's less controlling than the Phantom. He didn't try to kill people to force her into anything.
Why does no one notice how controlling Raoul was? He wanted to capture the Phantom and ordered Christine to lure him in. 😆 The Phantom was just very jealous because he felt the competition. He was desperately in love and did not know how to keep his beloved.
Fun fact: In the Novel The Phantom of the Opera, Erik is described as corpse-like and is referred to as having a "death's-head" (human skull) throughout the story. He has no nose, and his eyes are sunken so deep in his skull that all that is seen are two eye sockets, except when his yellow eyes glow in the dark. His skin is yellowed and tightly stretched across his bones, and only a few wisps of dark brown hair are behind his ears and on his forehead.
His mouth is never described in as much detail, but is referred to as a “dead mouth” by Christine, and Erik acknowledges that his mouth is abnormal when lifting up his mask to display ventriloquism. He is described as extremely thin, so much so that he resembles a skeleton. Christine graphically describes his cold, bony hands, which also either feel or smell like death. There is debate among both English and French speakers as to whether the original French word used here, sentir, was intended by Leroux to mean "smells like" or "feels like,” as the French word is used for both feel and smell depending on the context.
Erik woefully describes himself to Christine as a corpse who is "built up with death from head to foot." According to the Persian, Erik was born with this deformity and was exhibited as le mort vivant in freak shows earlier in his life. Erik sometimes plays up his macabre appearance, such as sleeping in a coffin as if he is a vampire, he also costumes as the titular character from Edgar Allan Poe's The Masque of the Red Death for the masked ball.[citation needed]
Lon Chaney's characterization of Erik in the silent film The Phantom of the Opera (1925) remains closest to the book in content, in that Erik's face resembles a skull with an elongated nose slit and protruding, crooked teeth. In this version, Erik is said to have been deformed at birth.
@Edidin Yes, far too pretty. Even the original makeup for Michael Crawford's Erik/Phantom portrayed him as horribly deformed on one side of his face. Butler's face as Erik/Phantom isn't that much different from or much more shocking than what a man might come back with from a war whereas Erik/Phantom in the book is so deformed that even his mother could not bear to look at him and most people are disgusted or terrified when they see him.
I guess the original writer wanted the phantom to be hideous and terrifying, and less seductive. I guess he liked the version of Phantom of the Opera performed in concert by Tarja Turunen and Marko Hietala, because Marko embodied the rough and demonic nature of the Phantom
@Lemur Lover To be honest, if I'm going to have a threesome, it better have at least one other girl. And if they're dead, uh...yeah, this is getting out of my comfort zone. Can we do like the reanimated dead, like zombies or something? Actually, that'll make my job really awkward in the future if zombies exist canonically in reality.
Yeah.
Let's not.
@Nylak Otter How about a trio (get two cadavers), one for Raul and one for Phantom? Like in The Final Lair.
yes. In the book, Erik would be a frightening monster even if he were stunning. If he were good-looking, he would probably be Patrick Bateman in American Psycho.
It was with the flashback that I asked myself “Wait was Madame Giry in love with the Phantom when they met as children?” Because I think she might be. She’s protecting him, looking after him, she’s engaging in illegal activities for him, you don’t do that for someone you only pity. Obviously though The Phantom didn’t share those feelings but to stay in/be a part of his life she just continued to maintain the relationship they had. Then when The Phantom identified Christine as someTHING he wanted, Giry proceeded to facilitate that demand, as she always did, and if The Phantom’s demand also allows Giry to live vicariously through Christine, to finally experience The Phantom’s love and affection, so much the better. I’m probably wrong though. It was just a thought.
Interesting theory! I've loved this movie deeply for years and never thought about that.
I always thought that the lyrics in Phantom clearly portray Raul as the good love interest and Phantom as the bad love interest because of its references of the words "light" and "dark". Phantom's lyrics tell Christine to "turn your face away from the garish light of day. Turn your thoughts away from cold, unfeeling light and listen to the music of the night." and to "open up your mind. Let your fantasies unwind in the darkness that you know you cannot fight." He is the embodiment of darkness and just as he's trying to lure Christine into the darkness, he is trying to lure her into loving him, but that isn't what Christine wants. Christine sings that, "All I want is freedom. A world with no more night." She later sings, "turn my head with talk of summertime." This further mentions her desire to be where she can bask in the light. Meanwhile, Raul sings of light. He sings, "no more talk of darkness... I'm here. Nothing can harm you... Let me be your freedom. Let daylight dry your tears... Let me be your shelter. Let me be your light." In the lyrics of the songs, it shows that Raul is the better love interest because he understands her and wants to give Christine what she wants, not what he wants to force on her. He is the embodiment of the light.
Well, who would want to live in a cave with a deformed man? Christine didn't even love him enough to sacrifice her perfect life with the viscount... It is logical that she wanted Raoul, and live in the light of day. The phantom was doomed to a life of loneliness from birth... This man doesn't know love. Like, no one has ever loved him, he has never loved anyone before Christine and no one bothered to explain to him or show him how it works. Also the fact that when Christine kisses him in the"Final Lair" is probably the first time anyone ever kissed this man... I think, it was a mistake to cut his singing of “No One Would LIsten” from the movie because it shows yet another side of The Phantom’s personality. It reveals his tender, lonely, romantic soul... Lots of people say that he’s creepy, but this song shows that he’s really just suffering from his isolation, unrequited love, and rejection.....
Agreed.Raoul and the phantom are definitely the embodiment of light and darkness. To add to that, Raoul unlike the Phantom never uses her childhood memories against her to call Christine out to him and their first reunion is pretty much the only time he ever mentions it. Christine sticks with Raoul on his own terms. Meanwhile, the phantom always manipulates her childhood memories against her until the very end until it's too late.
Also, a major difference I've noticed is that in "All I ask of you" Raoul wants to lead Christine out of her solitude showing that he cares for her while the phantom wants her to join him in his solitude "Lead me, save me from my solitude" showing that his love is selfish only realising when it's too late.
Just my thoughts!
The first time I watched it, I wasn’t convinced about Gérard Butler, but as I think about the phantoms character as a whole now, I think he was cast right because his role is more than just the singing he hast to act like he’s deranged and Girard Plays that well for a movie
I remember listening to a "making of" or the commentary track and they discussed the casting choice with him. They said this movie was for a wider audience and they needed non theater people to buy into the mysterious bad boy phantom. They needed that Rockstar quality and I think Gerard absolutely delivered.
Right -- like for a wider audience not used to watching musicals maybe having a phantom who can sing virtuosically wouldn't have the same impact vs Gerards raspiness which makes him feel more villainous. But yeah his singing is so bad sometimes
Emmy Rossum, Patrick Wilson, Gerald Butler, Minnie Driver, Miranda Richardson, Jennifer Ellison, Ciaran Hinds & Simon Callow are ALL carried this movie well 👍🏻
The music, the sets, the aesthetics.. just wow ✨
No matter how much I love POTO, I can’t deny the toxic nature of the Phantom and Christine’s relationship.
The part that really starts to break the phantom comes right before Raúl arrives when Christine sings
“This haunted face holds no horror for me now ...
It's in your *soul* that the true distortion lies ...”
And Emmy Rossum’s delivery still gives me chills
I didn't know that's what the line was, helps. Thank you
always loved that part as well, especially as it shows that true horrors come from actions and not appearances.
I can hear that line in my mind reading this. She delivers it so perfectly!!!
I absolutely love The Phantom of the Opera. I grew up watching and listening to Michael Crawford's performance of the Phantom. I love Gerard Butler as an actor, and although he did take lessons, he just needed more time or even another actor to dub his singing. I never would have thought of Hugh Jackman for the Phantom in this movie, that would've been awesome! Love your commentaries, so much. Thank you!
Sarah Bright man recommended Michael Crawford to Andrew Lloyd Webber, and Michael Crawford actually made a lot of suggestions for the musical in the rehearsal, including which side of the face the mask should cover. And Andrew Lloyd Webber accepted his suggestions. They are really one of the keys to the musical's success in 1986 not just because of their talents and expertise, but because of their contributions.
This was my absolute favorite movie as a kid, and yes, I did have a lot of issues growing up 😂
Thank you for this video, it's interesting :)
If you want to see the healthy and loving relationship in "The Phantom of the Opera", watch the 25 Anniversary record and pay attention to Carlotta and Piangi. This couple is so protective of each other, so attentive to each other's needs, and so comforting. In spite of her death fear of the Phantom, Carlotta confronts him for Piangi in the Don Juan rehearsal scene. Piangi is the most decent guy in the play. He believes in his Carlotta and protects her from everyone.
Relationships between the main characters are much more interesting and unusual in this version as well, thanks to perfect acting and an original approach to the roles. Ramin's Phantom is relatively young, inexperienced and completely concentrated on his music and his theatre. He has Asperger's syndrome, which explains his communication problems. For him, Christine was just a perfect new musical instrument till "The Music of the Night" scene, where they both get a huge unexpected but understandable mutual crush. You heard this voice, right? For Christine, it breaks when she removes his mask, simple crush is not a love to survive that, but for Phantom, this crush, this vibrant, pretty, warm and so real girl who looks at him with eyes full of love and adoration, this brief moment of happiness he never felt before becomes his obsession. The guy writes an opera just to feel her in his arms once again. Not to mention killing people.
Christine was lucky she fainted and removed the mask after, otherwise she really risked ending up in this relationship, as Phantom is still abusive and manipulative, aggressive and lacks self-control. And he just doesn't know how to communicate differently.
And all of this you can see just in the Ramin and Sierra's acting in one scene, it's just amazing, even if it's not a canonical take of characters. Every gesture, every glance and slight movement makes sense and works for the story.
And yep, after all, I just can't rewatch the movie even if I saw it at first and liked it. It bears no comparison with the filmed stage version.
I would really love to see you guys react to Tim Burtons Corpse Bride if you haven't already. I think most if not ALL of the characters in that movie need therapy but there are also a lot of great lessons to learn from it. Watching that movie constantly as a kid definitely impacted the way I navigate people and relationships present day :). Corpse Bride is also a very beautiful film as far as the visuals and soundtrack go and I think you guys might (hopefully) enjoy it.
I recommend every movie's fan to read the novel.
Erik is truly a hideous psychotic monster because of cruel environment. But what really makes the ending so great is the kiss Christeen gave him, on his ugly face. I think he felt accepted and get some kindness for the first time in his life. I tear up with that part. 😭
Raoul in the book is not that kind, and he suspected Christeen to be in sexual relationship with Erik and really mad at her if my memory serves right.
Christeen is a normal girl that loves Raoul. Be honest, who would choose an ugly, insecure murderer as your husband lol. She's scared of his face, but did not hate him for his ugly face.
The movie is more of a romantic fiction, not as deep in human nature and emotion.
I been saying this ever since I saw the movie but I adore Patrick Wilson's Raoul. In the plays Raoul usually has a strong loud voice, which is fine, but Patrick Wilson brings such a gentle earnest quality to his musical lines because his voice is much softer. Their version of "All I Ask of You" genuinely has brought me to tears multiple times because it sounds so sincere and leaves me feeling both warm and full but also incredibly lonely because I can't have it for myself(kind of like the Phantom, go figure xD).
@Mystery LovesCompany I think if you like Patrick Wilson's gentle Raoul then you would also like the puppy dog Raoul of Michael Shawn Lewis ,totally a soft boy.His is probably the best interpretation of Raoul I've seen.
Completely shielding Christine from the phantom too after just being strangled at even any slightly threatening gesture. It shows that he would 100% die protecting her.
Yes, I love that, too. Raoul soft boi makes just as much dramatic sense, given the specific narrative device his character serves as, if not more so.
Yes I really love his "All I ask of you" and I agree it is just so comforting and calming though I find Steve Barton's voice even more calming and soothing.
It is like his voice is a warm blanket wrapping around Christine always keeping her safe.
Emmy Rossum just totally nailed the musical numbers, especially "Think of me".
Y’all best friend interactions are the core of Cinema Therapy! ❤
Y’all crack me up! 🤣🤣🤣
Devils Wear Prada. I'd love to see a video on your thoughts and dissection of the movie and characters.
Miranda and Andrea are such great characters
Such a good episode! I had a friend in high school who was all into the phantom and didn’t like Raoul! All of my feelings were validated watching this!
But it also got me thinking… with you discussing Gerard’s subpar singing voice and mentioning Hugh Jackman, would you ever do the 2012 Les Miserables? A lot of people felt the same way about Russel Crowe’s casting.
I legit had to pause the video and calm down, I was laughing so so hard when you two made the tongue joke 🤣🤣🤣🤣 Amazing video as usual, I was so excited to see it! I totally agree with Allan about that Phantom should have bigger range but I still love this movie, it introduced me to the musicals as before I didn't even know there are movies or plays where people sing 😂🙏💙💙
Christine realizing he's not the Angel of Music when he shows his anger/violence always spoke to me because I didn't realize I was in an emotionally abusive relationship until he blew up like that and actually physically hurt me (shoved me down and slammed my foot in the door). The physical violence made me realize what I had been putting up with, and that none of it was OK.
@pinkmoonrabbit True-I pretty much completely agree with you, on all of that. (Although puberty actually can start years earlier, or even years later, all depending on the individual-so it's not even that simple.) And I'm aware that just because some 13yr olds know certain things, not all 13yr olds do; I just meant that usually what 13yr olds do or don't know has a lot more to do just with whatever they do or don't yet actually happen to know or not, and why, (like individual circumstances &/or experiences -wise) moreso than with a literal physical or psychological incapability at that point to have comprehended or understood it if only they had known it. But even though the brain is still physically developing even into the 20s, it's not completely unreasonable by 18 to expect most if not all people to be perfectly capable of understanding when they shouldn't be doing certain things and why they shouldn't be doing certain and to also be perfectly of choosing to control their own actions/impulses at a pretty much grown-up[ if still perhaps relatively less experienced] level-they might not actually reliably choose to do so yet, at that point; but they are definitely capable of doing so, whether they always do yet or not. (If that makes sense^^) But I also never suggested that abusive children should be treated exactly the same as abusive adults, just that we should be able to hold them accountable for it and not simply brush it off as them just being kids incapable of being responsible for anything they do. And an abusive 13yr old, I don't think should necessarily really be treated entirely the same as like an even younger child or anything either, because they are way more capable by that point of understanding what they're doing and why it was wrong than much younger children are[ whether they actually did understand it before doing it or not]. That's all I was saying. A person at age 18 is way closer to fully-developed[ physically speaking] than it is to the barely-even-developed state of a baby or actual child. And 13 isn't as terribly far off from it as it can sometimes seem, even if 13 is also legit still a fair bit off from it yet too.
But, much like how The Phantom doesn't get a total handwave/pass or anything horrible that he does to a Christine nor to anyone else just because if the lack of education and psych-treatment that he was getting-neither can 13 yr olds just get a total handwave/pass either. Lines beyond which certain things can not and will not be tolerated and/or must be addressed do have to be drawn too, even if they shouldn't necessarily always be handled in the exactly same way with younger people as with adults. But I think you're not really disagreeing on that, so really I'm just agreeing with you here.🙂
@pinkmoonrabbit The starkness of the example of murder was the point, because I wasn't arguing full culpability for the abuse, but rather that the stark outcome (Emotional abuse) is comparable to the stark outcome of murder (Loss of life), regardless of the intentionality behind it.
Abuse and murder both can come from well intentioned places, but that doesn't change what they are on their faces, which is why I used the comparison to challenge Dog God's point in that "Children can certainly bully and exhibit abusive speech and behaviors, but they are not "abusers" in the same sense that adults are and it's not a good idea to "adultify" them. Children simply don't have the same capacity or responsibility for abuse. "
Youths (Making a binary of children as 0-18 and adults as 18+ is insanely reductive of young individuals capacity for moral and emotional understanding, empathy, and learning. Acknowledging them as young is fine, dismissing them intellectually as 'children' is a disservice to them) absolutely have capacities to bring these behaviours to bear in ways that are most certainly beyond the scope of "bullying", especially considering the context of the person being replied to's abuse was emotional abuse through su**ide baiting and blackmail (Censored in part for YT flagging sake and in part for legitimate trigger concerns)
I think that most people will have experienced growing and moving beyond the person they were as a learning youth-- How to better navigate situations, how to better express oneself in ways that aren't potentially damaging for others, or even how to express care for others in ways that are ultimately healthy. I do some essential babysitting of some 13 year olds right now and their emotional intelligences floor me sometimes, and other times I'm just helping them navigate those kinds of pitfalls, and they can recognize when their behaviours toward one another are unhealthy even if they don't know how to effectively communicate the root causes for those things in a very healthy way yet. Extended behaviour along those lines or extreme individual examples still would qualify as abusive. I'm out of time for now but I get your point and I don't disagree with it, but within the full context of the message I was replying to, I was specifically trying to debase this idea of the actions as not qualifying as abuse because they originate from youths, not to give some impression that abusive youths are in some form or fashion irredeemable. I don't think well-intentioned abusive adults are necessarily irredeemable either-- It depends on the state of mind, willingness to introspect and change, and their emotional maturity with respect to the events at issue because a lot of people are surprisingly immature emotionally regardless of the age range you look at
I'll expand more later, apologies for brevity
@Jaginaia Electrizs i think legal adulthood is a strange goalpost. 18 year olds are still teens with developing brains. 13 is just beginning puberty and certainly still developing prefrontal cortex. So yes, there are physiological factors at play. Just because you could understand something at 13 doesnt mean all do. I didnt understand at 13 i was being groomed, but there are plenty of kids that age now calling out pedos. You dont know that kids home life, you dont know what mental illnesses they have and may not be getting any education for or treatment for, you dont know if any adults are reinforcing that behavior for that kid.
I agree wth you though, theres definitely not "Zero responsibility", and, we still shouldnt treat children who abuse like an adult abusing a child or peer.
pamber if youre reading this, i just want to reassure you that its not your fault, and you do not have to give you abuser this level of understanding ever, if you dont want.
its important for people to support you as a victim, and, im glad people are here. i hope you can get all the support an treatment you need and im sorry this girl abused you. i wish you all the best in recovery.
@Nudgarrobot i dont want to invalidate the kids experience. it was still abuse and it very clearly traumatized them. but stating "we shouldnt treat children abusers the same as adult abusers" is a valid take on its own imo. dont think it was appropriate to bring up to pamber, however. just wasnt even relevant and seems dismissive of their abuse in context.
also, i dont find the murder/abuse comparison effective, murder is a very stark and clear thing and seems it would be pretty easy to understand when youre about to do it or have done it or it has happened.
abuse can be very covert and complex, especially emotional manipulation and if a kid has been abused and has internalized it and repeats it, they may not fully understand what theyre doing. some kids cannot fully understand when they are being abused or how to cope with the pain from it, yet we expect them to understand when theyre doing it to someone else , without any guidance? like u gotta understand if a parent or adult or someone else abuses you as a kid, and we have no frame of reference for whats happening to us, we accept that as normal because we literally do not have the ability to understand it any other way, even if deep down we know it hurts. we trust our caregivers and adults. thats part of what makes adult abuse different, that sheer level of power they have over you (due to experience and brain development etc)
im of the belief we should never tell a victim how to feel about their abuser. and thats not what i want to do. just want to add to discussion about children who commit abuse. i hurt others in my childhood, i can say i did not have full comprehension that what i was doing was harmful. but i know now and try to do better. but theres definitely a difference between that and kids who know theyre hurting someone and keep doing it, and they usually do go on to keep doing harm, unfortunately.
@Dog God This is exactly the kind of logic that enables rather than holds younger persons accountable for what they do and who they are growing up to be. She was 13, that's more than halfway to legal adulthood-she wasn't a 5 year old. If she didn't understand what she was doing at that time, it was either because somebody failed to teach her or because she had failed to care enough to learn anything she was being taught; it wasn't because she was physiologically incapable of comprehending it yet. When I was 13, I definitely understood that kind of behavior was wrong. Children might be less likely to choose responsibly against doing something wrong, but that doesn't mean that they have zero responsibility or culpability for it altogether if or when they don't.
I actually agree about the casting of the Phantom but only because I have seen the play and seen just how much of a musical genius the phantom is supposed to be. There has been some FANTASTIC opera singers that have done the Phantom role justice. For instance, Ramin Karimloo was an excellent phantom. So was Simon Bowman.
@Bess Him too. I knew I was forgetting one.
What about the original?...Michael Crawford...
Jonathan nailed it at the end there!!! Man, I love you two. A perfect partnership of laughs, cinematic brilliance, and relationship wisdom.
I think the mask does have a strap, it's just made of a clear material that's virtually invisible to the camera in the dim set lighting. I think so because I'm pretty sure I see an indentation line in his hair if I look closely.
I also feel behind all the complex dark parts of their relationship you pointed out, they also have that musical affinity with each other 🎶 I can imagine it’s really rare and special to find someone on your creative wavelength in that kind of way, and I guess that just made it all the more emotionally difficult for Christine to truly disentangle herself from him (in the book I think Christine is already 20 when he decides to help her voice? Even so, the book is still so much darker 😅🥀 )
I've just started watching your videos and I've gotta say they are really balanced and you guys are so different but it works as we get such varied perspectives on the movies you review. Proud you covered Phantom, it's a complex movie that covers a complex topic and does it soo well!
"I gave you my music and this is how you repay me" is exactly the 'entitled nice guy' trope. He was nice to her (by giving her music, of his own volition) and therefore she owes him a relationship.
@Imperator Dei Thank you. Because Christine/her career should be the only ship. Both men weren't fit to be anyone's partner at the time. Erik, sadly, would've needed modern therapy and years' worth of it to even begin approaching it. But fandom loves to hate him and expects him to magically know how to treat people when he cannot possibly. His own mother doomed him to be alone for life, and that's horrendous.
What everyone above is snarking at is me just saying he was set-up so that he could not possibly hope to enter into a healthy relationship with anyone. Now he displayed interest in learning, at least in the musical--but the musical had also kept them from having any meaningful conversation at all so by the time she could tell him to stop behaving poorly, it was obviously well past too late.
@Pokaay But this isn’t either, yet both. It’s “My story is nothing but sad so I can be nothing but awful” That’s no excuse: it’s a reason.
You can heed the red flags without ignoring the reasons. If the person is toxic, stay away, absolutely. But it’s out of concern for your own well being, not hatred for the other person (unless they go that far). You can pity someone who was poisoned by life and distance yourself so you won’t get poisoned
@blissinchains Oh yes, A man was abused and neglected in his childhood so a Woman ,more than decades younger than him should SHOWER him with Love ,leave her normal life and live in the sewers with him.
SHE'S NOT HIS MOM!!
I am *cackling* at "Just the tip" 😂You two are amazing.
I lovvvvve Gerard as the phantom. He’s got a great voice for this character. I love his voice here as it makes sense for the book character (not the musical)
I roughly storyboarded The Angel of Music and thumbnailed several sequences because I would love one day to direct this as 2D animated feature or mini-series and fix what I feel needs fixing in the story. First, I want to show that Christine genuinely believes that she is being taught by an Angel and is surprised and intrigued when she discovers that her Angel is Phantom. However, she never loves Phantom as a partner, but as her mentor. I also want to make it clearer that there is childhood love that grows into mature love between her and Raoul - whom I want to be a genuinely lovely man (I detested what they did to Raoul’s character in Love Never Dies). Big one for me for the story to work is to make Phantom not a murderer. I would make the struggle result in the death of the stage hand - accidental death. I would also have him knock-out and tie up Piangi for The Point of no Return. Him being a murderer does not work for me. There is more, and maybe one day I’ll get my version out there. 🙃 I personally would cast Josh Groban to sing Phantom. As far as the sequel, I would give Phantom a happy ending with an American heiress, who is too smart for her own good to just become a rich man’s wife. 🥀
Another detail I noticed in the movie was the candelabras (i think that's what they're called). The first time the phantom takes her down to his holy-pneumonia-batmancave, they're all gold and held by golden arms that move the light with her.
After that they're just plain iron, wall-mounted, and there's cobwebs everywhere. Because she could see through the illusion then.
I would Love to see a Video with the sequel "Love never dies" 😁 It would be worth It even for the faces of both, recognizing in which direction the Story went
It's the worst 😂
Yes!!
With the final point of "he'd cling to her like a life preserver", it was like that in the book! Erik kept Christine with him for over a month. I forget how long exactly. That was how long it took him to realize she was wilting in his company and the freedom to choose was what was necessary to make her happy.
@TRONandFlynn82 Absolutely hated it. One of the few books I have tossed afaik remember. (Instead of getting them to the second hand shop)
@TRONandFlynn82 I own the book! It's amazing! 😍😍😍
@blissinchains Precisely why I disliked her! She was fine at first, but then she did that crap to them. Ugh!
@Janeen Schultz She manipulated both men in her life with that "if you love me..." crap. Horrible character.
Have you read "Phantom" by Susan Kay? I HIGHLY recommend it. It's a phenomenal read!
I ALWAYS laugh when the horse appears in the tunnels and Christine rides it for like 10 seconds 😂
I actually really like, that Phantom doesn't have a perfect voice. It brings a little extra edge to the character and it makes it more obvious how different he is to Raul. You can still be a musical genius and a great vocal teacher without having a great voice.
Btw. as a teen I fell in love with a boy, who could sing "Music of the Night" perfectly. It just blew me away.
No one can change my mind about All I Ask of You being one of the best love songs. Also, I really like Patrick Wilson’s Raoul so much. I’m getting personal here but I suffered depression last year and every time I broke down crying (whenever I had headphones) I would put on the song and pretend he was singing to me to calm me down. I know it sounds so silly but it really helped me. So what if Raoul has a few flaws (not counting the book because the only Raoul I genuinely like is Wilson’s). I think he also was the better choice for Christine.
First of all: love your videos! As a psychology nerd, I loved the movie "speed" and I was wondering if you would ever do a video on that (handling emotion and reason in stressful situations for example...)
Thanks for the combo of fun and actual education in both psychology and cinematography! :)
Even though I grew up with this movie, I hadn't made the connection that this is basically be a perfect mirror of my abusive ex, complete with the nearly twice my age, grooming, possessiveness, and controlling behavior. I'm still learning to give myself grace for not seeing the signs, but sometimes the Phantoms out there play the part of Raoul quite convincingly. I'm really grateful that CT made a video on this dynamic. Love isn't supposed to hurt or feel scary. Know that you aren't alone, and that you're far more resilient than you may realize. It's possible to build a peaceful and joyous life and surround yourself with people who want to celebrate your happiness and lift you up. It's never, ever too late to take your life back.
Yeah ik that feeling AND know how it is...without the part of being twice my age. i'm still learning to forgive myself as well, so we're all in this together! (:
"The Phantoms out there play the part of Raoul quite convincingly." Beautifully said.
I’m glad you forgave yourself and realized the red flags in this movie.
As somebody who sings opera, I always sing along with Christine when she does the chords all the way up. I use it as a warm up.
I have a deep abiding love for "music of the night" being controlling and terrible but THEN in contrast with "no more talk of darkness... let daylight dry your tears" like Phantom and Raoul are LEGIT day and night and it's in the lyrics of their love songs and everything just HHHHH
I watched phantom in an opera house when I was like, 8. I actually thought it was a horror opera, and not a romance. I remember having nightmares about it
For a kid who had been warned extensively about things like kidnapping and grooming, this was just like the things I feared. Even 8 year old me knew Christine, for the most part, never had a say in what would happen to her.
I'm surprised you didn't show the last scene with the phantom when he breaks the mirrors. That really is a great ending voice-wise
What I love about the end of Phantom is the implication (for me, anyway) that he's gotten what he wants and realizes how hollow it is. Yes, Christine is showing genuine compassion, but it's not the love he wants and it never will be. I like to think that's the impetus for his turnaround.
Also I genuinely want All I Ask Of You to be adapted into my wedding vows if I ever get married. "Say you'll share with me one love, one lifetime...share each day with me, each night, each moment, anywhere you go, let me go too"
“There’s a difference between ‘my story is sad’ and ‘now I get to be awful’”. I have noticed that there are a lot of characters in drama that have this problem, and even people in real life that have this problem.
catra..
Art & Life imitating each other
Phantom of the Opera is my Favourite ! ❤ Gerard Is fantastic! He’s also really amazing in Dear Frankie!
I love this musical..I watched it..on stage 14 months after my father passed..i was 17..I really adored Wishing Somehow Here Again..I sobbed. I didn’t even remember how it ended until I saw the movie.
I love Gerry’s voice and Emmy and Patrick voices are so beautiful. He’s Gerry…so your points are moot to me, Alan 😂
I hope one day Gerry sings All I Ask of You like Michael Crawford has but that’s just me being a Gerry fangirl lol
Christine in the movie sorta gives Tohru Honda vibes, in that her sincerity, acceptance, and love heals and brings out the best in people. Even characters that are considered messed up and nasty
*Note:* The "flashback" scene that "humanises" Erik, by showing his tortured childhood, is a really nice nod to the past he was given in the novel _'Phantom'_ by Susan Kay…
I 100% recommend the novel, if you haven’t already read it! 🤓👍🏻
I would absolutely love to see you guys do Whiplash, on Obsession, Abuse, and Anxiety. Probably my favorite movie of all time with an extreme relationship to boot.
What's wild is that Emmy Rossum has said that she looks back on her performance and singing in this movie and is basically disappointed with herself and thinks she could have done so much better 🤯 what?! This was the first play I ever saw on stage and it was incredible. So this movie definitely has a special place in my heart.
@Marissa Wilson 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
Lisa Vroman is one of my favorites. The old school Christines are the greatest, the casting went down the drain at some point.
@Jennifer Hiemstra I absolutely agree with you. She has a sweet voice, but there’s no comparison. I grew up listening to Rebecca Caine (as I was never a fan of Sarah Brightman’s version) and so watching the movie surprised me that they didn’t go with a more trained performer.
I will say that for her age and training, Emmy did a lovely job.
Vocally women don’t have fully mature voices until at least their twenties if not thirties. That’s why the range of professional Christines run from 20s to 40s.
@Humble Sparrow Her voice is supposed to fill what was the most famous opera house in the world at the time. Juvenile doesn't cut it. Her voice is thin and toneless, and we're supposed to believe she was highly trained by a musical genius? Listen to the ladies who've done this role on stage and come back and tell me Emmy can do that...she can't.
@Lindsay She was in the children's chorus...that hardly counts as classical trained. If she really were, it would show way more.
That's wild! I know that she was classically trained at the Met from a young age, so her standards are high for sure. I think it really works for this movie because she has a youthful sound while still having incredible vocal ability
I also went to see the Phantom in Sydney Opera House, in september. My husbend and I were on our honeymoon and spontaneously decided to go (his first opera experience). That production was amazing!
I haven't watched the movie for a long time... I must say I agree with you on the vocal performence. Such a shame the movie did not get an actor with the right vocal range. Being a singer myself (just a hobbie), this feels like such a miss!!!
Love your content!!!
So I found a little explanation online about the “you little lying Delilah” part and I thought it was interesting enough to share here because I was a tad confused as to what it meant.
“Okay in the Bible there's the tale of Samson and Delilah. Delilah was really someone from the enemy sent to find out the secret of Samsons strength. She lied to him to find that out which was his hair.
Once she cut his hair he was as weak as anyone else.”
So because Christine exposed herself to the Phantoms true form, he became weak and reacted out of anger. And I just feel like if he just had one person give him a few words of affirmation, he wouldnt have turned into such a horrible person, and he probably wouldn’t have hidden as much from everyone. I also feel like his isolation feeds his frustration when he is finally exposed. Just something I thought was interesting.
You guys NEED to do more musical movie adaptations!!! This is a brilliant video, please consider doing RENT and Sweeny Todd next!
Toxic realtionships in movies and tv shows could be their own category, because there are just sooo many out there 😵😂 Love your videos 😍