Q & A ABOUT PHANTOM & TRIVIA

Well, your explanation of Mme. Giry seems valid, however, I've heard that this is Meg and not her mother. Because she is not yet married, her title would be like her mother, Mme. Giry. Remember, this is the 2004 film and not the novel. Leroux says Meg married a baron. The film actually said nothing about Meg or her mother after the fire.

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

Your comparison of the lair and the rooftop, Erik and Raoul, is what I was looking for. Erik symbolizes evil, tempting Christine when he takes her to his lair in the deep, dark recesses below the Opera House. Raoul symbolizes goodness and light as does the rooftop.

This is no wonder most feel sorry for Erik and say they'd choose him over Raoul. Erik takes us to the edge. He is dark and dangerous, which leads us back to him not only being a father figure to a grieving young woman, but the darkness must have latched on to Christine and kept her from running off with Raoul when the many opportunities presented themselves.

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

Twice Christine unmasks the Phantom, leaving him naked in away and vulnerable to the world. Only she could do this to him. In so many ways she tortured the poor man and left his soul bare to the world. Not making a clean break from him, alway left the Phantom with false hope that she would someday love him and be his "living wife".

Most would say Christine was victimized by Erik, but in truth, he was the victim. No matter the strength, height, or monetary wealth, Erik proved to be no match for a woman. Another evidence that a woman can make or brake a man.

For Erik, he had no way out. Should Christine no love or marry him, he would die, plain and simple. Poor unhappy Erik!


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

Next time you look at the 2004 film, watch for the crest at the rear of old Raoul's carriage and compare it to the one in the Phantom's lair near the small figure of the horse and rider. Are they the same?

Well, I'm glad to see that I finally seemed to have gotten something right In the film, and in that day and age, to me, Mme Giry would be about mid-30's to 40's in the film. Yes, this would make her quite old during the auction, but for a woman who would likely have remained a dancer her whole life, she would have aged well. Also, in the movie we don't see any interactions between Raoul and Meg, so it makes more sense for this to be Mme Giry.

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

Glad I got the rooftop/lair symbolism right I used to be really good at symbolism. You're right to say that most women would choose Erik over Raoul, because we fell empathy for him, we want to console him, love him, show him what life would be like. Raoul had been born with a silver spoon, and not saying he was a bad man, but in comparison, we gravitate to Erik.

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

I didn't realize that Christine unmasked the Phantom twice. My brain is not computing this together.....wait.....there it is. She unmasks him in the lair, and again on stage. When he sings that "stranger than you dreamt it" it just makes my heart melt to pudding. It's then that we are seeing the vulnerable side to the Phantom, the side that we're not supposed to see, that is guarded oh so well. I do think you're right though. The Phantom was so tortured in his love for Christine, and she never made a "real" break from him. The scene at the end of the movie where he's singing along to the music box, where he gets that glimmer of hope when he sees Christine, when the shadow passes over his eyes as he realizes it's over. Oh, that tortured soul!

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

I was hoping to watch the movie this weekend, but with my cousins wedding my leisure time was drastically cut this weekend. Next weekend for sure. I know about the crest on Raoul's carriage, but I'm not sure where the one is in the Phantom's lair. Where in the movie would I get the best view of this horse and rider? I will definately, DEFINATELY be watching this next weekend! I listen to the soundtrack like 10 times a week If you find out first.....let me know!

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

One last thing before I go. Obviously for the sake of the movie, Raoul came back into Christine's life and that caused the Phantom to take action. If Raoul had never shown up, would the Phantom have taken the next step in the relationship he had with Christine???

Not sure it would make sense for Mme. Giry to be at the auction or not. In my opinion, she'd be too old. I believe it was Meg and not her mother at the auction with old Raoul

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

I believe the Phantom would have not only made his move without Raoul's interaction, but he would have had a wife as well.

Christine's indecision became prominent when Raoul came into her life. Had he not appeared, she would have belonged to the Phantom exclusively. Erik had her in a trance most of the time.

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

In the 2004 film, Christine displays a lot of feeling for the Phantom, but yet she unmasks him in front of the world. Why? To humiliate him?

You're comment intrigues me. Can you imagine what the story would have been like without Raoul coming into the picture? Would we have had little Phantoms running around? It's an interesting thought. I know it wouldn't be The Phantom of the Opera then, but thought provoking, nonetheless.

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

As for the 2004 movie unmasking, I just don't know. It's true that Christine has feelings for him, but she is also confused about her feelings. I know if it were me, I wouldn't want to humiliate him, but I also know that I would have chosen him over Raoul. She may have wanted the world to see the real Phantom. As far as we're aware, she's the only one, save Mme Giry, who had ever seen him unmasked. She may also have wanted to make him vulnerable, as I assume she felt.

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

In the stage performance of Phantom, the chandelier crash happens at the end of Act 1, yet in the movie it is at the end. Any ideas why?

Not sure about little Phantoms running around, but without a doubt Christine would have been Mrs. Phantom. I still feel that with whatever caused Erik's deformity may prove him unable to produce a child. But that's just me.

***********************************
Christine really didn't want to trap the Phantom, was pushed into it by Raoul, mainly. Knowing the trap may mean certain death, the only thing to make him (the Phantom) react to protect himself and her would be to unmask him in front of everyone.

Of course the Phantom knew the gendarme lay in wait for him and that Raoul would have him gunned down like a rabid animal, but because he loved Christine so much, he would take the risk. He did have an escape plan anyway, but without the surprise (the unmasking of the beast) the Phantom stood a chance of being killed before he could execute his escape. Therefore, Christine unmasked him to save his life.

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

The order of events, such as the crashing of the chandelier was changed in the film for the drama. Having it crash at the end rather than the end of the second act, would have made the viewer feel the film was over. Rather, allowing it to crash at the end of the movie felt more dramatic and climatic.

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

By the by, why did the Phantom crash the chandelier anyway? Did he really want to kill someone or merely frighten everyone? Consider the reason in view of both the novel and 2004 film.

To be honestly here, Fay and I have done some discussing about this cause my memory sucks, and well, I couldn't completely remember the circumstances around the book. I think the Phantom crashed the chandelier in the movie as part of his escape plan. We see him before the production loosening the ties that bind. He knew about the police surrounding the place. He wasn't ignorant. Whether or not he realized why Christine unmasked him is irrelevant, he needed to cause enough of a commotion to get away. And dropping a massive chandelier definately did that. As well as general confusion, it would make moving around the stage hard, and make it harder for the gendarme to get to him.

As for the book, this is where my memory needed to be jogged. We had found out shortly before hand that the new owners had planned on firing Mme Giry, and were replacing her. It just happened that the chandelier killed 1 person, only 1, and it was the woman who was supposed to replace Mme Giry. This could not have been an accident.

Both falls show that the Phantom is not stupid, and will get what he wants. In the movie, he wants to get away with Christine. In the book, he wants Mme Giry's replacement dead so that Mme Giry can continue at her post. Erik's definately not shy about taking what he wants.

*********************************************
I have to ask......if the story ended differently, if Christine has chosen the Phantom (she should have anyway), where do you see the story going from there? I know you said married but no kids, but taking it even further than that. What do you think?

Had Christine and Erik married this would have been a big deal for both. Not being with anyone and or having lived with anyone but himself, the Phantom would have many adjustments to make, mentally mostly. Compromise becomes a chore when one is not used to it. In all that Leroux tells us, compromise was not a Phantom trait. Certainly he expressed his feelings for Christine and vowed to care for her and make her happy, but would he?

Even in intimacy, would he be able to make her happy? There's another thought? As we read the original novel, we clearly see how volatile his temper could be.

Christine cared for Erik with all her heart, but their union would be more miserable than their relationship of mentor/protégé. I don't see Erik honestly being the husband he wanted to, simply because he didn't know how. Christine needed a normal life, no matter what she felt for him.

Actually, Erik did her a great favor in letting her go. He could keep her in a trance, in fear or pity. He knew without a doubt, that for these reasons she remained with him; therefore, he released her.

'Tis a far better thing that he do, then he's ever done before.' Wait! Wrong quote. That was close to Dickens' A Tale of Two Cities. Yet it seemed to fit. No matter what we think of Gerik and Christine, Leroux's Erik would not know how to be a true, loving husband the way Christine would have wanted.

You're thoughts?

You're very right. I had read a short story once where Erik and Christine lived together, not married but together for a pre-determined length of time. And it emphasized how uncivilized Erik was, starting with his poor eating habits! You're right though. I don't think he would be able to be a husband, not without keeping Christine in a trance to block out his blow ups and such.

I had never actually thought about his letting her go being a favour to her. But you're right. And he was very aware of it. Erik was not a stupid man. He knew what he was doing was wrong, but he was following his primevil emotions instead of reality. He did love her, but he could never give her what she wanted/needed. And I think for that reason it was the hardest thing he ever had to do. Not just because he loved her and let her go, but he let her go because he was not the man for her. Poor, poor Erik.

Ok, here's an actual question for you, and I pray that this isn't something completely stupid that my mind just isn't grasping

I'm rereading Leroux's novel, and in chapter 3 he talks about the Opera Ghost showing up at the managers going away party. It's here that he tells them of Buquets death. Further on, in Moncharmin's memoirs, it says, "They told us that they never would have spoken to us of the ghost, if they had not received formal orders from the ghost himself to ask us to be pleasant to him and to grant any request that he might make. However, in their relief at leaving a domain where that tyrannical shade held sway, they had hesitated until the last moment to tell us this curious story, which our skeptical minds were certainly not prepared to entertain. But the announcement of the death of Joseph Buquet had served them as a brutal reminder that, whenever they had disregarded the ghost's wishes, some fantastic or disastrous even had brought them to a sense of their dependence."

Now, here's my question : I was always under the impression that Joseph Buquets death had to do with him describing the Opera Ghost to others. Is it possible, that part of the reason for his death, was that the managers had not immediately obeyed him by talking to the new managers about him and his rules in the opera house? The last sentence above to me makes me think that perhaps that may be a valid point. Please....thoughts????

Hope you don't mind that I edited your post. Fonts with color I can barely see, so I changed it to "bold". I this did not offend you.

Valid point indeed. Buquet's death served more than one purpose. Erik had to make people fear him. Accidents with no injury are one thing, but accidents with a death delivers an entirely different message. The crash of the chandelier is a good example. However, as mentioned in another thread, Buquet took up following the Phantom. Curiosity got the better of him and now he'd death for another reason. Poor man can't win for loosing.

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

When Gerik sings part of a verse from "All I ask of You", he says, "Anywhere you go, let me go too. Love me, that's all I ask of ..." what do you think he was really doing?

Watching and listening to the stage production, I first thought he was just mimicking what he heard Raoul say to Christine upon the roof near Apollo's Lyre, but not so. In front of a theatre full of people, regardless of his knowledge of gendarmes waiting in the wings to haul him off to prison, what was he really doing in repeating the words of said verse?

No worries about changing the quote. I think I knew that about the colour, but forgot. Bold it is, that works for me

I'm happy that during my reread I'm picking up on things that I never noticed before. This fact (above) had me so excited I couldn't wait to share it (and prayed that I hadn't stated an obvious fact). I'm sure I just read that you mentioned Buquet likely killed himself in the torture chamber (maybe in the movie vs book thread?). To me, that wouldn't be a stretch, after reading about the torture chamber from the Persian and Raoul. And of course the Phantom would move Buquet's body for others to find. What's the point of him "killing" someone if no one in turns fears it?

******************************************
That scene on the rooftop gets me every time. I was like you, I just assumed at first he was repeated what he heard from Raoul and Christine. But to me, he's begging her. He's letting his guard down. He's not just the scary monster we think he is. He shows his soft side and his complete love for Christine as he begs her to love him and be with him. Assuming that I'm not far off base, when he repeated the lyrics again in front of the audience, he again was putting his heart out there, and showing her how much he loved her by speaking this to her in public. He loved her with a love that perhaps frightened him. A love he had never known, and wanted nothing but to hang onto it and for her to feel the same way about him. Sigh. Gerik just makes my heart break. For this reason, he didn't care about the gendarmes, he was confessing his love to Christine for all to hear, and he didn't care what happened to him.

I don't know which scene in this movie is more heart-wrenching for me. First, the scene on the roof, then the unmasking on stage (ugh, the look on his face of pure hurt) or the final scene with the music box when she returns and you can just see that glimmer of hope that she may have come back for him. Then the hurt when she returned the ring. Sigh. I will debate anyone who says to me that Gerard Butler did not do a good job on this movie.

You have no quarrel with me. Gerry rocked as the Phantom. His emotions were better then any I've seen.

Everything you said as a reason for Gerik to repeat that particular verse of "All I ask of You" is good. However, there was one phrase I was looking for. Raoul did the same when he sang the song. By singing this song to her, the men proposed marriage. Notice Raoul's expression and why he stood up. In front of God, angles and the entire world, the Phantom openly expressed his undying love for her by proposing marriage.

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

If you've read some of the companion book, it tells of a scene where the Phantom leads an entranced Christine acrosed the roof. Yet, we know that scene was never in the film. Why do you think they cut it out?

Firstly, I may have had the thought of marriage proposal, but it never occurred to be last night while I was writing. But what you say is very true. On one hand, she's a very lucky girl to have two men so deeply in love with her. On the other hand, well, that's the whole story now isn't it

*******************************************
I will honestly tell you that I just realized I don't believe I've read anything in the companion book. I must have. I don't know. I will take a look in the next few days. So, I have no idea about the scene, and I'm not sure I can even venture a guess as to why. I don't even know the circumstances around the scene. Let's save that one for later.

However, Gerry singing "No One Would Listen", how did that get cut? The world needed to see that scene. Thank goodness for special edition dvd's. I know it's not important to the plot, or involved in furthering it either, but *sigh*, yum yum! What a beautiful moment!

Ok, so I checked, and I've read up to and including Act II in the companion book. I'll probably restart it anyway cause I don't remember anything.

Here's a question, and maybe I would know the answer if I knew more about the time period. In the graveyard, there are skulls and bones piled up the church walls. Why is that? Is there a valid reason behind it?

The "No One Would Listen" was probably cut because it made the Phantom look vulnerable and less threatening. It didn't fit with mood of the story anyway. The song made Christine appear more loving and caring than she really was., as least in my opinion.

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

In the 19th Century the government in Europe had not created laws for sanitation or care for the dead as we have in modern times. A graveyard was usually next to a church while a cemetery was a plot set away from church and town for the purpose of burials. If the graveyard became too full, they may have heaped up some of the over flow, as they did in the catacombs. Many of the plagues and diseases caused so many deaths, there was no place to bury the dead. Grim, but true.

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

In the 2004 film, after Christine faints, the Phantom carries her to the Swan bed and lays her down, then draws the curtain. What was the significance in him drawing the curtain?

Interesting about the graveyard and the bones. Very sad really, to think of a loved one piled up next to a church. I'm glad things have changed since then.

****************************
It's funny that you mention that "No One Would Listen" was cut because it made the Phantom look vulnerable. In my eyes, he always was vulnerable, but in watching the movie as it were without watching it 6 million times, it's true....up until the scene on the rooftop, you don't see any vulnerability. And from there he recovers until PONR. It's hard for me to kind of step back and try to see the movie the way most people would.

*****************************
Ok, I'm probably way off on this, but I assumed he pulled the curtain to give her privacy, to show he respected her privacy. It'd be kind of creepy if she woke and he was leaning over the bed staring at her! At least that's what I think.

*****************************
In the 2004 movie, the Phantom does not possess any "magical" skills, he is simply brilliant with trap doors and such. In the novel, Raoul is hiding in Christines dressing room when Erik comes for her. He follows her as she walks towards the mirror. She passes through the mirror, then Raoul is hit with an icy blast of air, and he can't pass through the mirror. How is this done???

Yes, it is sad to think that the bodies were not cared for at that time. Can you imagine how many nameless ones are stacked up in graveyards and in the catacombs? Morbid, much.

***************************
The Phantom not only respected her privacy, but it signified that he had not touched her. When you read the companion book, the script reads just the opposite.

Therefore, keep in mind the script in the companion book was not the shooting script. Since you and I have watched the movie a zillion times, we will readily pickup what was changed. This may have been changed for several reasons, one to keep a G rating and two, because Emmy was only 16 years old at the time.

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

If you read the novel carefully, the mirror swung out on a pivot, opening up a secret passage. This caused the gust of air which Raoul felt. Christine didn't actually go through the mirror, she stepped into a secret passage with led the Phantom's lair.

Ok, for now, all I have to say is this: I would have given anything to be the Christine with Gerry in the companion book scene during "Music of the Night"!!!

is all I can say for you. Naughty, naughty.

Did you ever wonder why Leroux's Erik nestled himself beneath the Opera House? We all know he wanted to get away from people, but why the Opera House? And why did the Persian feel the need to follow him to stop him from killing? All this can be drawn from the novel.

I know, I'm naughty. But don't tell me you haven't thought about it As for your question, I'm not far enough into the book to give a good answer. I haven't even encountered the Persian yet, save for Leroux visiting him at the beginning of the novel. However, reading the chapter "Apollo's Lyre", I may have answered a question I always had. Christine was so sure on the roof that Erik would not have followed them. She was convinced of it, because she believed that he never came up, that he always lived down in the dark. I still think that she was being naive, and how many clues do they need that there may be someone there with them?

Christine had to have known Erik was upon the roof. You are right. That's why I said she may have been pushing him to see how far she could go without invoking his wrath. Maybe she wanted to see what he would do.

With all the clues to Erik's presence, she have tried to convince herself that he was not there. You know, in denial. Hoping against hope that he doesn't come after her, but knowing he will. Crazy, but sometimes true.

Did I ask you about this once before? Your response is reminding me of something, about how she pushed the limits with him. Maybe it was something else. I know we saw that a lot with this kids at the group home! And I'm sure we all did that when we were younger, push to see how far we could get. I'm stuck on questions for the moment. I didn't get to read much last night, and try as I might, I can't think of a question about the movie. I will say, however, that ALW does a wonderful job with the love/hate relationship with the Phantom. One minute you see the tender moment with Christine in "Music of the Night", then he freaks when she takes off his mask, yet he words make you feel sorry for him. Literally the whole movie is one to the other. I tried really hard to watch it as someone who hasn't seen it a million times. Yet the end can still make me cry!

Here's a little trivia about the 2004 film. Two lyricist wrote the songs for the stage production. Richard Stilgoe wrote "Notes", but could not write the more serious, romantic ones, so Charles Hart stepped in. In my opinion, "Music of the Night" (title came from Richard Stilgoe but lyrics by Charles Hart) was one of Harts greatest accomplishments.

Let's hear it for the man!

I didn't know that! I must agree though, "Music of the Night" is probably my favorite song. Just the passion and feeling behind it, it's just wonderful. Masquerade is one of my other favorites.

Here's a question, and I hope I haven't asked it before. Last night I read about Raoul seeing the eyes at the foot of his bed and in turn shooting something on the balcony. What did he shoot? He turned the lights on and saw nothing. Though Erik's eyes glow in the dark, he couldn't be invisible in the light. Did he actually shoot a cat? But something climbed up the drain pipe. I just don't know. Poor Raoul!

Most people say it was a cat because of the trail of blood and the fact that Leroux did not mention Erik bleeding or having a wound after the incident. Personally, I belief it was Erik watching Raoul. Why? For one thing, the level of the glowing eyes; they were as tall as a man. Another, if the cat had been hit, it would have cried out and there was no mention of a sound of any sort. Remember, Erik having the skills of an illusionist could create a scene any where, any time to scare his victim. Who's to say this wasn't one of Erik's illusions?

Just like the fiery, flying head. At one point we see the Rat Catcher, but the other times is was the Phantom. Because he was so lonely and bored, what better way to muse ones self than to toy with people you like or respect.


*************************************
Here's the answer to the question about the women dressed as cats in the Masquerade scene. This was a tribute to ALW's long running stage production "Cats", whose record of the longest running play on Broadway was beaten by his own "The Phantom of the Opera". Whoo hoo!