Leroux's novel vs 2004 movie

Well, I'm going to admit, my memory is poor and I can't completely remember what happens at the end of Leroux's novel, but he believed in him whole-heartedly. And, per the 2004 movie, I'd say he's not far

There are still more things I can put up to prove Erik exited, but I haven't had the time.

After you read the novel a few more times, it will all come back to you. Just know there was no mob scene in the book.

It's stupid cause I should remember the ending, but with the memory loss, I just can't remember. I remember most of it leading to that, the torture chamber, all that. Stupid memory!

From the torture chamber to the barrels of gunpower, then the water flows in and fills up the cellar with the barrels.

Erik first sets the Persian up against is own front door so Darius could find and care for him. Then Raoul is tied up in the dungeons of the Communard prison.

When Christine and Erik start crying and their tears mingle, he releases her and Raoul.

Finally, Erik visits the Persian and then up comes the end. Does this ring a bell?

Yes, yes, now I can remember the grasshopper and the scorpian. As soon as something jogs my memory, I'm ok, it usually comes back. But it's so frustrating! And I haven't been able to read much in the past few days because I've had a stupid migraine that won't go away! I have to get the book done before I fly south. I'm not sure what book I'll be bringing with me...either Phantom of Manhattan (which I know, no one likes, but I still have to read it!) or Susan Kay's Phantom.

Read Susan Kay's first. I'm not a Phan of it (get it, Phan instead of fan... ) but at least it's not as bad as The Phantom of Manhattan.

When you read this one, don't try to compare it to the original until you get to the Erik and Christine parts and then you'll see why I complain. Most people like this book because it's the only one Phan fic which talks of Erik's life as a child and in Persia. I don't like the events which occurred in each one. Could have happened, but I don't feel it matches what I see in Leroux's telling. But that's just me. Most folks just adore this poorly written, jumbled account.

Yes, I've done the "phan" thing before. People laugh when I do, when I'm not on this forum

I've heard a lot of people who really liked Susan Kay's book. It's hard, because of course we will always compare anything written to the original. However, there seems to be a consensus that Phantom of Manhattan is awful. I know a lot of the events in that one, and I can't say I'm overly thrilled about some of it, but like I said, I need to read it. I still have Jean-Marc's translation too, but I think I may read one of the first two I mentioned. Just to give a bit of a break. My poor parents are going to be dealing with a lot of Phantom while I'm down there My mom's laughing at me, because I'm bringing my DVD of Phantom with me. Like I could travel without it!!!

That's the problem I have with traveling for business; there is no time for Phantom and that in itself is torture.

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

Here's a question from the novel. The 2004 film casts La Carlotta as Italian. In the book, Leroux describes her as Spanish. Does it make a difference? Why do you suppose ALW made the change?

Oooh, that interesting. I never picked up on that. Curious. I don't know why the difference. Both are very similar in language, but I'm not sure why he would have made the switch.

**********************************
I think we may have touched on this once before, but I don't remember. In the book, before the Persian and Raoul drop into the torture chamber, they meet someone in the cellars, that the Persian describes as someone worse than the theater police, that has twice sent him to the managers office. Both the Persian and Leroux do not give further explaination of who this is, but who could this be? We know it's not Erik, but this is what it says in my version. "....I promised M. Pedro Gailhard, the former manager of the Opera, to keep his secret regarding the extremely interesting and useful personality of the wandering, cloaked shade which, while condemning itself to live in the cellars of the Opera, rendered such immense services to those who, on gala evenings, for instance, venture to stray away from the stage. I am speaking of state services; and , upon my word of honor, I can say no more." Who would condemn themselves to the cellars? Or is this one of those things that we'll just never know?

First of all, I believe ALW change the nationality of La Carlotta from Spanish to Italian because Italy was more known for their operas and divas than Spain. As far the story goes, I don't think it really mattered.

***********************************************************
I think you read this passage incorrectly. The person much worse than the theatre police is Erik.

Look at this passage again: The two men lay flat on the floor.

They were only just in time. A shade, this time carrying no light, just a shade in the shade, passed. It passed close to them, near enough to touch them.

They felt the warmth of its cloak upon them. For they could distinguish the shade sufficiently to see that it wore a cloak which shrouded it from head to foot. On its head it had a soft felt hat....

It moved away, drawing its feet against the walls and sometimes giving a kick into a corner.

"Whew!" said the Persian. "We've had a narrow escape; that shade knows me and has twice taken me to the managers' office."

"Is it some one belonging to the theater police?" asked Raoul.

"It's some one much worse than that!" replied the Persian, without giving any further explanation.[5]

Note the Persian said "the shade knows me and as twice taken me to the managers' office".

....I promised M. Pedro Gailhard, the former manager of the Opera, to keep his secret regarding the extremely interesting and useful personality of the wandering, cloaked shade which, while condemning itself to live in the cellars of the Opera

This is without a doubt Erik.

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

Within the same chapter is the part of the fiery head which did not belong to the Rat Catcher:

The Persian had hardly finished speaking, when a fantastic face came in sight...a whole fiery face, not only two yellow eyes!

Yes, a head of fire came toward them, at a man's height, but with no body attached to it. The face shed fire, looked in the darkness like a flame shaped as a man's face.

"Oh," said the Persian, between his teeth. "I have never seen this before!...Pampin was not mad, after all: he had seen it!... What can that flame be? It is not HE, but he may have sent it! ...Take care!...Take care! Your hand at the level of your eyes, in Heaven's name, at the level of your eyes!...know most of his tricks... but not this one....Come, let us run....it is safer. Hand at the level of your eyes!"

This was one of Erik's illusions and the passage I was looking for;Chapter 20.

Here's what doesn't make sense. If this were Erik, why the secrecy? I mean, the rest of the book is devoted to him, why all of a sudden would Leroux promise not to say anymore about it? Or the Persian for that matter?

********************************
The passage about the fiery head continues on after that, they run, it follows, then the rats and the rat catcher are revealed.

Yes, Raoul and the Persian were ready to faint, like Pampin the fireman. But the head of fire turned round in answer to their cries, and spoke to them:

"Don't move! Don't move!...Whatever you do, don't come after me!...I am the rat-catcher!...Let me pass, with my rats!..."

And the head of fire disappeared, vanished in the darkness, while the passage in front of it lit up, as the result of the change which the rat-catcher had made in his dark lantern. Before, so as not to scare the rats in front of him, he had turned his dark lantern on hinself, lighting up his own head; now, to hasten their flight, he lit the dark space in front of him.

I don't think you understand. It was not the secret of Erik's existence beneath the opera house, but who knew he was there and what the relationship was which Leroux would help keep hidden.

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

I know you still insist that the Rat Catcher was solely the fiery head and that's fine. The Rat Catcher was mentioned only to throw you off the Phantom's trail. One sighting was an illusion and the other a similar fright confused with the Rat Catcher. He was only mentioned once; in this section. Not trying to be difficult, but for some reason no matter what I say you still don't see it. So I won't mention it again.

I just thought it was clear in the section I pointed out. But, guess it's not. Besides, it's not important to the story. Just another skill acquired by Erik.

Apparently I'm just thick and don't get it. No worries

************************************
In Leroux's novel, the Persian plays a relatively large role. So far, none of the Phantom movies I've seen have included the Persian (if there are some, please correct me I can understand why ALW left him out, because it might have been difficult and time consuming to include him. But, do you think it would be possible? Could he be included and make sense without making the movie uber-long, or is his just a character that will always be left on the wayside?

The only film which had the Persian was the silent one with Lon Chaney as the Phantom. This one was closest to the book only because Leroux was still alive and probably made himself available for consultation.

All films after that leave out the Persian because they don't feel he's necessary. These filmmakers just want the idea and since this is now public domain, they can take creative license with it.

Most people only the triangle of masked Erik, Christine and Raoul. Personally, I like the Persian and so included him in my Phan fic, but most don't share my opinion.

I felt the Persian added to the air of mystery and more depth to Erik's insanity. Without him, the book would have been lacking. He showed us what Erik was really like when not in the presence of his beloved Christine.

It would not be difficult to put in the Persian depending on the way you want the story to go.

I absolutely love the persian. That's why I asked. And since I haven't seen the whole of Lon Chaney's version, I didn't know he was in that movie. I totally agree that he plays a large role in the book in showing us what Erik is really like, not just what Christine sees in him. I figured that with the right writing, you could incorporate the Persian into a movie (as you said with Lon Chaney's version). I suppose with ALW he wanted to play up the love triangle story, which he did quite well. I still love his adaptation of course. Sigh.....Gerik!

Had ALW left the Persian in the story, Mme. Giry's tale would have to be changed. He didn't want the Phantom to be as scary as the original. Gerik was more sexually frustrated than humiliated by his looks. Not to say his disfigurement wasn't a major pain to him, but the lust for Christine was what drove him to kill. Leroux's Erik had already reached that point a long time ago without Christine.

ALW only had the Phantom responsible for two deaths, Joseph Buquet's and Piangi's. All this was driven by keeping his lair a secret and his intense feelings for Christine. Of course, as I've mentioned before, some kill for the adrenal rush which some liken to an intimate climax. Personally, I wouldn't know. Here we must assume this was another reason for the Phantom to "wallow in blood".

Again, some interpret that part of the song to be sexual, however, I don't see it as such. "To wallow in blood" means the murders committed.

Analyze this part of the song:

CHRISTINE:
Have you gorged yourself at last, in your lust for blood?
Am I now to be prey to your
lust for flesh?

PHANTOM:
That fate, which condemns me to wallow in blood has also denied me
the joys of the flesh ...
this face - the infection
which poisons our love ...
This face, which earned a mother's fear and loathing ...
A mask, my first unfeeling scrap of clothing ...
Pity comes too late - turn around
and face your fate: an eternity of this before your eyes!


From these verses I feel that clearly his lust for blood and for him to wallow in blood were from the lives he's taken.

Your views mon amie?

You're very right about ALW version of the story.....including the Persian would have made Mme Giry useless. She plays such a different role in the movie that in the novel, yet without her story, the movie would make less sense. One thing I believe I mentioned before, but I can't remember the answer to....In ALW's movie, we as the audience know that the Phantom killed Joseph Buquet, the camera shows him on the catwalk. But, do the characters know for sure that it was him? I mean, they were likely able to figure it out, since earlier on he made his scene about box 5 being taken. Then Carlotta and her infamous croak, then Buquet hanging from the rafters. But, did they know for sure? As for Piangi, I don't know why he killed him. Like you said, he could have simply knocked him out as he did with the carriage driver.

The lyrics you quoted.....I do see a sexual component to them, but I see the other side as well. It's true, his deformity has left him to be sexually frustrated. But, his lust for blood and wallowing in blood to me definately refers to the lives he's taken. I don't believe his deformity has forced him to wallow in blood, that is simply a choice that he made. Yes, he was defending his home, but he could have chosen differently. That part of the song is very interesting to me. It starts out kind of harsh, where he states that his deformity is the reason behind his actions. Then, you feel sorry for him as he talks about his mothers reaction to him. Then at the end again he becomes harsh and wishes to force Christine to wed him. So much information in so few lines of song.

Similar accidents had occurred for the last three years, so any accident would have been blamed on O. G. whether they saw him or not.

As for Piangi, it was easier to kill him then not. Had he awaken from being struck unconscious he would have spoiled the tender moment that might have been and ruined the escape.

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

With the following lyrics we do feel sorry for the Phantom:

Phantom:
This face, which earned a mother's fear and loathing
A mask, my first unfeeling scrap of clothing
(He places the veil on her head)
Pity comes too late
Turn around and face your fate
An eternity of THIS before your eyes (Puts the ring in her hand)


Which forces Christine to admit...

Christine:
This haunted face holds no horror for me now
(Raoul comes to the gate)
It's in your soul that the true distortion lies.

The choice to do evil is a choice indeed. One may feel they are being pushed into it, but we cannot blame society because we choose to do a bad thing.

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

Let's take a look at "All I Ask of You. It's a marriage proposal and acceptance of one.

RAOUL
No more talk
of darkness,
Forget these
wide-eyed fears.
I'm here,
nothing can harm you -
my words will
warm and calm you.
Let me be
your freedom,
let daylight
dry -your tears.
I'm here,
with you, beside you,
to guard you
and to guide you . . .

CHRISTINE
Say you love me
every
waking moment,
turn my head
with talk of summertime . . .
Say you need me
with you,
now and always . . .
promise me that all
you say is true -
that's all I ask
of you . . .

RAOUL
Let me be
your shelter,
let me
be your light.
You're safe:
No-one will find you
your fears are
far behind you . . .

CHRISTINE
All I want
is freedom,
a world with
no more night . . .
and you
always beside me
to hold me
and to hide me . . .

RAOUL
Then say you'll share with
me one love,
one lifetime . . .
Let me lead you
from your solitude . . .
Say you need me
with you
here, beside you . . .
anywhere you go,
let me go too -
Christine,
that's all I ask
of you . . .

CHRISTINE
Say you'll share with
me one love,
one lifetime . . .
say the word
and I will follow you . . .

BOTH
Share each day with
me, each
night, each morning . . .
CHRISTINE
Say you love me . . .
RAOUL
You know I do . . .
BOTH
Love me -
that's all I ask
of you . . .
(They kiss)
Anywhere you go
let me go too . . .
Love me -
that's all I ask
of you . .

(CHRISTINE starts from her reverie)

CHRISTINE
I must go -
they'll wonder where I am . . .
wait for me, Raoul!

RAOUL
Christine, I love you!

CHRISTINE:
Order your fine horses!
Be with them at the door!

RAOUL
And soon you'll be beside me!

CHRISTINE
You'll guard me, and you'll guide me . . .
(They hurry off. The PHANTOM emerges from
behind the statue

We also see they plan to elope as well, but why didn't they?

See, that was point from earlier. It sounds like they were going to elope. But then, at the Masquerade ball, it's been 3 months, and it appears they have just recently gotten engaged! What happened?

Another thing, in Leroux's novel, it is often mentioned how Christine is not "good" enough to marry Raoul, due to their posititions in society. This is never mentioned in ALW version. Interesting.....

True, ALW never quite patches up that hole in the script. Earlier I mentioned the script being like Swiss cheese and this is one of the reasons. Having said that, Raoul could have had something to detain the wedding since he was in the French Navy even in the film. Just a thought.

Many things about tradition and culture in France at that time was changed in the 2004 film. Much of it reflected the culture of England instead. For example, when the mangers sing "Notes". They act like they are surprised and concerned about Christine's sudden disappearance. In truth, many women went off with men and didn't return for days or weeks and sometimes not at all, but the French would think nothing of it. This was the fashion of the day. Women performers were considered women of questionable reputation and since no man claimed them, relative, lover, or husband, it was not unlike them to go off with just any man who offered.

This was why Raoul thought this of Christine when heard Erik speak to her in her dressing room. Remember when he eavesdropped on her at the door?

Again, Philippe tells his younger brother this. Basically, he told him he could play with the performers but marriage was out of the question. Philippe opposed Raoul wanting to marry Christine. All this is the reason society of France in the late 1800's looked down on the marriage between a noble and a performer of any kind.

Out of curiousity, what is the most annoying mistake for you in the movie? Aside from the obvious time lapse above? I have 2. Firstly, after performing "Think of Me", she goes down to the chapel to light a candle for her father. She lights it off another candle, yet there aren't any more lit. Secondly, at the end when Meg makes her way into the Phantom's lair (against her mother's orders btw...naughty ), she wades through water to get there, and poof, next scene her pants are dry! Lol. I know it's just pulling hairs, but it's interesting nonetheless that things like that are left in.

I hate it when there are seperations do to class, or anything for that matter. Your job doesn't define you, and neither should your social status.

Here's a though.....in Leroux's novel, he described Joseph Buquet as a man of upstanding character. In ALW version however, we see him as a drinking peeping tom. Any ideas why?

In your post before last what you speak of is continuity. Indeed. some of those things slip by.

The main thing that annoyed me was not so much a mistake in the shooting, but the script itself. How can a man be as educated academically and otherwise as the Phantom, yet he never had any teachings or experience except from living within the Opera House? He's been there since he was nine years old? Then Giry tells Raoul what a genius he is. Huh?

*************************
Due to Joel Schumacher's vision of Buquet, he became a lush in the 2004 film. That's called directing.

The one thing about the script that is bothering me lately is, if the Phantom has been visiting Christine since she was 7 years old, wouldn't he feel like a father to her, instead of being in love with her?

As for the education thing, I've often wondered about that. I mean, people can be self educated and all, but to have that kind of genius?

I agree. If the Phantom had known her since she was seven years old, that would seem odd for her to feel more for him than a father. However, do you recall "The Thornbirds"? Meggie and Father Ralph had the same type of relationship and look where that went.

The ages in the novel made more sense along with Erik coaching her for three months instead of seven years. Hey! There's an idea for another Phan fic. We could see how seven year old Christine reacted to say a nineteen year old Erik. Mmm...kinda weird, huh? NC-17...yikes!

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

As for the education, Mme. Giry said the Phantom was an architect, designer, composer...a genius. The Opera house was his artistic domain. Who taught him all of this? Who taught him music? If he picked all this up by ear, all I can say is that he's got a mighty good ear.

Who taught him design? Design as in what? Interior design? Yes, his lair was done in early discarded props. Mmm, got have my room looking like that.

Now there was one Phan fic that said he learned everything from the vast library in the Opera House. Okay, how vast was that library? Obviously it contained more that music stuff.

Who taught him to dress? He looked like a fine gentleman. Well, Gerry looks fine no matter what. *sigh*