Q & A ABOUT PHANTOM & TRIVIA

I was sure the fiery head actually was the rat-catcher. I think we already talked about this though. I know Erik was an illusionist, but could he actually make himself invisible. But I agree about the cat theory in the sense that it would have made some kind of noise if it were shot, any animal would. But if it were Erik, I would think Leroux would have mentioned at some point that Erik was wounded. Maybe this is just a little fact that Leroux left open for people to discuss and ponder over.

Speaking of the masquerade scene, in the 2004 movie, I absolutely adore Mr. Reyer conducting from his perch! Too funny!!!

Yes, we did discuss the Rat Catcher. I didn't mean to infer that Erik made himself invisible, but rather he could make Raoul think he saw two eyes watching him. Maybe Erik was not really wounded, but grazed.

If so, there may not be any wound to mention and I don't think he was the short sleeved kinda guy. Therefore no one would see where the bullet grazed the flesh, yellow and decay-like as it were.

Could you see Erik in short sleeves, perhaps a T-shirt saying "Nothing you say will convince me of your innocence. Punjab!" Okay, just being silly. Hope it brought a smile to your face.

********************************

Yes, Mr. Reyes does bring a smile to my face as he conducts from his perch. So does La Carlotta as she makes face when Christine and Raoul pass her. In fact, Carlotta is pretty funny through the entire film, except when she finds Piangi's body.

*********************************

Here's something to ponder. We discussed why the Phantom in the 2004 film killed Buquet, but why Piangi? Why did he knock off poor Piangi? Couldn't he have just knocked him out like he did the stableman?

Love the t-shirt idea. Can't you just picture it! Lol

***********************************
You're right, Carlotta is pretty funny. I love the part during Hannibal where she freaks out the second time, after the backdrop comes down. She makes me laugh. That, and the look on her face when she starts croaking! Priceless

***********************************
I've often wondered why he killed Piangi. Was it maybe to keep him from running off and telling everyone that the phantom was there? But like you said, he could have just knocked him out long enough to do what he had to do. Speaking of this part, in the movie, tell me that they (and by they I mean the managers, Raoul, the performers) knew that when "Don Juan" came out, that it was the Phantom! Kind of hard to miss (yum yum).

**********************************
Speaking of Buquets death, we see the Phantom after Buquet is hanged, but does anyone else? Do they actually know that the Phantom killed him, or are they simply speculating?

Everyone knew when the Phantom switched places with Piangi. Remember Raoul's speech to the mangers? He said if Christine sings the Phantom will be there. Surely if he wrote the score, etc. he would want to perform it himself. We all know what he thought of Piangi and La Carlotta from the Phantom's little speech during the Masquerade. I assume he killed Piangi in haste. For a man like Opera Ghost, it was easier to kill him than to knock him out. *shudder* I don't like to think of that. I would only kill in self defense.

****************************************
Regarding Buquet, because the body was first discovered dangling at the end of the Punjab lasso, they were pretty sure it was the Phantom. Later, the lasso disappeared and they found the body on the floor. He probably reteived his property and left. Make sense?

Ok, I'm with you on the first part! No worries there. What I meant about Buquet was in the movie. I know in the book that the rope mysteriously disappears, but in the movie, he just falls to the floor with the noose still around his neck. Now, the camera flashed to the Phantom for us to see, but do they know that it was him for sure? We know Christine assumes it's him because she hauls Raoul up to the roof where she thinks they'd be safe.

Whether Raoul wants to admit it or not, he and everyone else knows it was the Phantom. All accidents were blamed on the Phantom.

You never know when you're watching a movie how much is being shown for our benefits, and how much the actual characters see.

If the director and camera person knows what they're doing you would.

I wonder how the Phantom spent the holidays? Much like Scrooge?

I've been thinking about that lately, and I was wondering if he spend most of his time on his opera during holidays and such. It would be a good way to get his mind off of things.

You mean, you can't picture the Christmas tree all lit up down in his lair?

I have a question for everyone who wants to talk about it. What is your favorite version of the book Phantom of the Opera. Obviously written by Gaston Leroux, but there are many different interpretations, and I'm curious which ones may be more popular than others! Also, has anyone read the original novel in french, the way it was originally published?

The Lowell Baird translation was my favorite, but not sure if that's still true until I finish Jean-Marc's.

I have the French version as a pdf file, but not as a book and have not yet read it.

I have Jean-Marc's version, but I haven't read it yet either. I've heard that it is quite good though.

One thing about Jean-Marc's version is the pictures. They are interesting. So many different concepts of what the Phantom looked like.

Because of his horrific looks and sleeping in a coffin, most people thought of the story as horror rather than love. But then, isn't this true of real life? A physical disfigurement does not have to be involved. Many people commit hideous acts or maybe scary ones, and yet there is a type of love in them. So many crimes have been committed in the name of love and God. Not saying they were justified, but merely stating a fact.

At one time or another we all hide behind a mask and do things we don't really want the world to see. There's evidence it occurred but none to prove who did it. This is what the illustrations in Jean-Marc's book reminds me of. Perhaps I'm taking it too deep, but it strikes me like that.

I've leafed through and seen some of the pictures. You're right, it's amazing how different people see the Phantom.

It's so funny. I was introduced to Phantom through the stage production, and ALW played up the love story. To me, Phantom has always been about love. It's not a horror story to me at all. Even Leroux's novel, yes, there are some scary things in it, as you mentioned, but in the end, it's all about love. And you're right, love can make people do many things, including bad things.

The whole mask thing is something I've encountered much in my life. I'm a psychology major, and we studied that so much, how most people at one point or another put a mask on for the world. I know exactly what it's like, cause I'm going through it. I don't have a physical deformity that I want to hide, but so many people don't understand depression, it's just easier to pretend everythings fine. And it takes a lot out of you to put that mask on all the time.

And with this mask, it's very difficult to be who you really are and actually feel happiness. A certain individual I have spoken about to you in private emails wears such a mask. The scars run deep yet on the surface the masks shows a facade of normalcy. And as the Phantom fought to have a life like other people, so does this person.

In the long run, Erik saw that he could not give Christine what she deserved. It would have been very difficult for him to adjust to a life shared with another. For years he'd used his deformity as an excuse for what he'd become; a creature of shadows which sought the souls of the living should they provoke his anger.

In the case of the person I've known for so long, I pray they will not give up as Erik did. For in reality, the toughest part of this life is living. We can't hide behind a mask or make excuses. The best thing to do is grab the bull by the horns and stare him in the face; a little harsh in comparison, but true none the less.

We can survive. We can have a fairytale ending to "live happily ever after" if we only allow God to guide us and remove the mask we so freely use as a crutch or excuse. As much as we feel for the Phantom, we really don't want to have a sad ending as Leroux states occurred to "poor unhappy" Erik.

You know, it's funny. When I went off work, and some people found out about the demons I was fighting, they were shocked. Most people had no idea that I was dealing with depression and anxiety, or how close I could have come to death. They were completely shocked. And that's because every time I walked out of my house, the last thing I did was put on my own mask. And as I've said, putting on that mask all the time was draining. I put in so much effort to display a front of normalcy that by the end of the day, I had no more energy to put into fighting those demons. I'm sure your friend deals with the same thing. And I continue to pray for her every day.

Though Erik's mask was physical, real, he was still hiding behind it. He used it to hide from the world, it was his excuse to not being "normal". His deformity was not what made him who he was. He made him who he was, but used his face as the excuse.

I often wonder what would have happened to Erik were he born in this day and age. For example, I have an uncle who is mentally challenged. When he was born and growing up, he was kept at home. He never received any schooling, and was quite sheltered. Nowadays, there are education programs for people with mental disabilities. They are able to be educated, and mostly accepted in society. Physical deformities are similar. We are much more accepting today of physical anomalies than would have been over a hundred years ago. I wonder if Erik could have had a more "normal" life had society been more accepting of him?

*I use the term "normal" loosely. There is no real "normal", just what society wants to label as "normal".

You are right. Many children not deem as "normal" were shut away and this made things worse. Look at Helen Keller. As a child her parents said she was a blind dummy and had to be treated like a pet and animal. They did not allow her a formal education, to learn to communicate or even to sit at the table and eat with a fork, etc. Sad, but true.

Normal is what society has defined it. Had Erik been born in our time he would have been looked about as a miracle and genius for all his skills and accomplishments, not withstanding, assignation skills. I don't think he would have become the master of killing and giver of death if he hadn't been pushed into it.

True, our day and age we don't shun the physically or mentally challenged. We provide special programs to educate and help them to communicate.

Still and all, not everyone in the 19th Century with any type of challenge became an executioner and political assassin. With all this sexual frustration, I think he must have released it through his killing. There must have been more to his psyche than Leroux knew and had written in the novel. For this reason, the Persian stalked Erik; knowing at any moment something could set him off and PUNJAB!

It is a shame how Erik was regarded in his own time. He was a genius, a master of many things. He should have been applauded, instead he was shunned. There was no true reason that he became the murderous assassin. He could have chose differently, but instead, he made the choice to live as he did.

I don't know exactly which stories discuss Erik using prostitutes to relieve his sexual frustrations. I believe at least in Robert Englunds version, this was mentioned. I don't believe it's mentioned in the novel, but, as bad as using prostitutes is, wouldn't that be a better way to relieve his frustrations that killing people? Do we know in the novel who his first victim was? I wonder how much he changed from before the first killing to after. Did it have a dramatic effect on his personality?

Of course Leroux could not have known all there was to know about Erik. No one could have, not even the Persian, though he knew much more than anyone else. There are probably many, many things about Erik that we will never know.

I agree. Erik should have been recognized as a genius and not an insane monster. True, he didn't have to choose a life of killing, but the choice was easier than begging or living in an mental institute. I didn't say better, just easier.

True, the Persian knew him better than anyone we knew of and then, he didn't know everything.

You're right, it was Robert Englund's version of Phantom which indicated the use of a scarlet lady. He had her pretend she was Christine. Leroux never said that, however, Mme. Giry did say the Phantom asked for a foot stool for his lady friend. Did he entertain someone before Christine? Was it Christine to whom he referred? Or was he just pulling her leg? Here's something to contemplate? The Phantom's lady friend needing a foot stool at the opera. Hum, who was she?

I can't quite remember if in Leroux's novel, Mme Giry heard the lady speak. My assumption was that it was his imagination. I never thought there was actually a woman there with him. But, perhaps there was. Maybe he too partook in some interesting company before he fell in love with Christine. We will never know!

Leroux's account never mentioned Mme. Giry hearing the Phantom's lady friend. Remember at one time Mme. Giry found a program and lady's fan. I assume one of two things, it was either Christine, though she never mentioned it at all, or Erik just wanted to see Giry's reactions so he made up the lady friend.

It is possible that Erik may have enlisted the services of a lady of the evening, but personally, I don't think so. Why? Because he wanted a respectable woman. Not all men succumb to their animal instincts with just any female.

Q - Why does Firmin Richard where a pink tophat?

Q - (picture masquerade)....Why do you think ALW changed his time frame. In the stage production "...Six months of relief of delight of elysian peace....", to three months in the movie "....Three months of relief of delight of elysian peace...."?

Q - In the novel, why doesn't there seem to be any young ballerinas training in the opera house?

Q - Why does Firmin Richard where a pink tophat?

A - For the same reason La Carlotta wears a pink fur wrap - director's choice.

Q - (picture masquerade)....Why do you think ALW changed his time frame. In the stage production "...Six months of relief of delight of elysian peace....", to three months in the movie "....Three months of relief of delight of elysian peace...."?

A - For the same reason the graveyard scene changed to dueling swords and the lyrics to "Music of the Night", "All I Ask of You" were changed and leaving out the last verse of the title song "The Phantom of the Opera", because he felt they worked better in the film, just like the chandelier. This was his artistic view. Personally, I don't think the swords worked for me as well as making the Phantom more mystical with Punjab Lasso and not a rope with a hangman's noose.

Changing the lyrics or leaving out a verse was just hurtful to me. Ah well, so much for artistic views.


Q - In the novel, why doesn't there seem to be any young ballerinas training in the opera house?

A- It appeared they did with Little Jammes and Meg being eleven or twelve. They were very young. What age were you looking for?

So, my last question I must have been having a moment. In the novel, we do see young ballerinas, however, in the movie, we do not. Is this just another artistic move? More attractive to have half dressed young women than little girls I suppose.

I wish I could get inside ALW's head. I know you say these changes are his artistic view, but I would love to know how and why he makes certain decisions to change things. I mean, the original stage production is quite different from the novel. He has one hell of an imagination, but that remains to be seen with everything he does (jury's still out on POTO 2). I'm fascinated by how the mind works (hence why I'm a psychology major, ironically). Physically we are so similar, yet mentally and artistically we are so vastly different it's difficult to comprehend. I just love it!