Leroux's novel vs 2004 movie

Actually, Erik killed Buquet because he was following him. In order to protect him lair, and identity, he killed the only witness to his abode.

Leroux tells us Buquet followed the Phantom through some trapdoors. Later we find him in the third cellar, swinging from the rafters by the Punjab Lasso. Then the lasso is gone and corpse is on the floor.

In the 2004 film, Buquet is on the catwalk at first following a shadow, then he comes face to face with the Phantom. This is when Gerik hunts him down and Punjabs him. All to keep his lair a secret.

Now to Punjab the boy, Raoul.

See, this is why I'm shy about answering on the forums. I knew that about Buquet. How many times have I seen the movie? Stupid memory! Sounds to me, though, that Gerik was maybe a little over sensitive to Buquet following him. In Leroux's novel, Buquet made it much further than in the movie, though still a long ways away. I'd be curious to know what kind of warning signals Erik/Gerik must have located throughout the Opera House to alert him of when people are getting too close for comfort!

I just lost whatever I was typing. Can't remember all of it. In the novel, Leroux leads us the believe Buquet followed the Phantom all the way to his lair and fell into the torture chamber. Because of the intense heat and illusions it created, we assume he took his own life. Presumably the Phantom carried the body all the way to the third cellar and hung it there as a warning to all. Later, he removed the lasso and left the body on the floor.

In the 2004 film Buquet is generally on the catwalk and chases shadows. If you noticed, the Phantom watched him from a distance without him knowing.

Having said all this, it's no wonder that I say it doesn't make sense to say a mob invaded the lair. For one thing a labyrinth is not easy to way your way through and with all the trapdoors, how could they?

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

In comparing the 2004 film to the original novel, do you feel making Raoul a bit more mature made the story better or not?

I think for the 2004 movie, making Raoul as they did worked for that story. In the novel, I'm at the part where they're in Perros, and Raoul just blew up at her for no apparent reason, to me showing his immaturity. We know that he has been coddled by woman his whole life, and continues to be by his brother. To me, he's just a spoiled brat in the book and I want to smack him. In the movie I think it's done so that it's more clear why she wanted to marry him. It would be hard for an audience to sympathize with an overgrown child. I'm not sure that if the roles were reversed, either would work well in the other story. Can you picture Gerik putting up with a snivelling Raoul? Not so much

You know, most people see Leroux's Raoul as childish fop, but I didn't. Immature, yes, but he had cause to demand an answer from Christine.

I agree, Raoul in the 2004 film worked for me, but I still like the one in the novel. I felt sorry for the poor man.

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

Whether from the 2004 film or original novel, did you feel that whatever the Phantom did, Christine had felt like doing the same thing, as if they were one? Such as dropping the scenery on La Carlotta's head or making her croak like a frog...what do you think?

In the 2004 movie, the Phantom had been part of Christine's life for 9 years. After that amount of time, I'm sure they would have come to often have the same thoughts. For sure he would know how La Carlotta treated Christine, and did something about it. Surprisingly, he never killed her. though some may argue that the croaking was just as bad, and may have killed her career. It's not hard to believe that the Phantom could read Christine, not her mind exactly, but he knew her after that long. On the flip side, not so much, since she had physically never seen the Phantom until we did, so it would be hard to read body language without a body What do you think?

Whether the original novel or 2004 film the Phantom could always see Christine through he mirror. Thought I was getting at is since everything he did, Erik did for Christine, from the treats and accidents pointing involving La Carlotta to the crashing of the chandelier, they were all for Christine. Perhaps she desired these things to happen and Erik just carried them out. The image I'm creating here is that they had become as one. No matter how dark the deed, Christine committed it mentally while the Phantom did it literally. Perhaps she was just as guilty as he. Does that make sense?

Erik only killed when he had to. La Carlotta was a nuisance but not a threat to life or career. He knew she could be easily frightened.

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

When you first read Phantom or even see an earlier film of the story, did you think of it as a horror or love story?

I agree with what you said about Erik and Christine. She may be just as guilty as he is, like you said, she commited things mentally while Erik did them literally. I suppose killing Carlotta would have been a waste of energy, because she was simply a nuisance. Good call!
******************************************

The first I ever saw of "Phantom" was years ago, probably 15+ years or so, I saw the Canadian cast production performed in Regina, Sask. I fell in love with the story, but never obsessed about it until recently. It's funny, but to me, this is a love story. A twisted, morbid one, but a love story nonetheless. I never thought of it as a horror, though I can see why people might consider it so. This story is probably one of the most terrific yet tragic love triangles I've ever encountered. I see this as a tragic love story, a heart-wrenching story that will live on for generations to come.

I just had a thought. We've mentioned Raoul's immiturity, more specifically in the novel. But, he was only 20 years old. I realize that back then people tended to be more mature at younger ages. However, I think I mentioned that likely Raoul was very coddled, mainly by his brother, so that likely played a role. However, I can speak for myself that at 20, in regards to love, I wasn't all that mature either. That's at the age where we are just discovering what love really is all about. Now I'm not saying that gives him the right to speak to her the way he did at the Masquerade ball, but some immaturity on his part is not unusual in my mind. Just a thought

Firstly, my first exposure to Phantom was through film and not Gerry portraying the Phantom. I recall Claude Rains and Herbert Lom, the 1963 film nobody likes. These all seemed like horror films to me.

Then I recalled Lon Chaney playing the Phantom. As a child I had not seen the silent version, but I'd seen photos of his makeup and that was scary.

For me, Phantom was a horror story before I say Gerry. *sigh*

***********************************
True Raoul in the novel was immature. He didn't consider any other way of going after Christine except barging in like "gang busters". That's one of the reasons he and Persian took a wrong turn into the torture chamber.

Not sure if I could say Raoul was wrong in the way he addressed Christine at any time. She was very immature in her own way and not at all street smart, or she would have known what Erik was doing to her.

Actually I felt sorry for Raoul, but not as much as I did FOR poor unhappy Erik.

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

Leroux's original novel made me think of the a horror story with the description of Erik as it were. Erik seemed to have many traits like a vampire. He dressed all in black with a long flowing cloak, slept in a coffin, lurked in the shadows and darkness and roamed about at night. The way he treated Christine was as if he were sucking the life out of her when he kept her in a trance, which was very vampire-like, until the day he set her free.

Having said all that, would you say that the Persian, rather than Raoul was most like Van Helsing? Think about the story of Dracula. Do see a similar story here?

I guess the way you view this story has to do with how you were first introduced to it. Like you said, some of the earlier movies look pretty scary to me. I haven't seen the silent version, but I've seen pictures and clips and Lon Chaney looks scary as hell! Lol

***************************************
Both Christine and Raoul were immature in their own ways. They are young, unexperienced and headstrong. In the book, I'm at the part where Christine has finally realized what Erik is doing to her and now she wants Raoul to whisk her away. Took her long enough As for Raoul and Erik, I do feel sorry for them in their own way. They both loved Christine so much and wanted nothing more than to be with her. I'm sure we've all known the heartache of love at one time or another.

***************************************
Until now, I never connected Erik to a type of vampire, save for the sleeping in the coffin thing. I didn't really take it any farther than that. But it is a good comparison. That would make the story a little more horror-like. I will admit to you know, I know nothing of Van Helsing. I just wiki'd it, and it said he was a vampire slayer? If that's the case, then you're right: the Persian does fit into this role. He has studied Erik and knows more about him than anybody else. He doesn't slay him, but he basically stalks him, which in the end I think turned out to be a good thing. I mean, he and Raoul did make it out alive You might want to fill me in on the Van Helsing thing a little more!

**************************************
I'm really curious to know how someone like ALW can take Leroux's novel, and adapt it to the musical/movie. It baffles me to no end how he takes what he wants and leaves out parts that he doesn't, but still retains the body of the story.

Van Helsing was a doctor who knew Dracula's habits and so dedicated his life to hunting down and killing vampires. The the story seems to parallel Phantom in many ways. He saved Jonathan Harker (who is much like Raoul) from becoming another victim of Dracula and so saved Mina (Christine) in the bargain.

Van Helsing seemed like the only one who could stand up to Dracula and not get bitten as the Persian did the Phantom. Although I have no pity for Dracula, he gathered his female companions, like the three sisters he turned into creatures of the night like himself. He really didn't want to be alone, so the incessent urge to make more vampires grew.

In the end, Van Helsing did chase Dracula back to Translylvania where Jonathan Harker and Quincy Morris decapitated Dracula and impaled his heart. Not very Phantomy. Erik does have redeeming qualities whereas Dracula doesn't.

Interesting comparison, wouldn't you say?

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

Adapting a story is a unique talent, however, I can do the same. You can give me any topic or give me a story you have written a chapter or two for and I can write a book (and I have on another forum).

When I read a story I try to get the feel what each character is like, and then try to capture their essence as the plot progresses. If you are not a writer, then it will be difficult for you to understand.

ALW took the essences of the story and tailored it to suite his needs. The man is a genius with music and business. Turning Phantom into high romance grossed more money that sticking with the horror genre.

It is really interesting the parallels between "Phantom" and "Dracula". I wonder if Leroux actually thought about that while he was writing?

As for adapting a story, I am a writer, but I do mostly poetry, sometimes short stories. I can take pieces of a story and write from it, but to do what ALW does is just beyond my comprehension. That's a wonderful talent that you have to be able to take a small amount of work, like 1 chapter, and develop an entire story from it. I've never tried to do that, and that's not really in my comfort zone. It'd be interesting for me to try someday!

***************************************
As I said, I'm about 1/2 way through Leroux's book again. I've just read the chapter "Apollo's Lyre", where Christine tells Raoul of meeting with Erik. And for the life of me, I'm having a hard time picturing how Leroux wanted Erik to look like. I have an image in my head, but I'm not sure it's accurate. I'm going to have to go back to that part and reread it, to try and get the real image. Sigh. Sometimes I'm so thick!

Ok, back to this whole sensual "Music of the Night" thing. I've been watching the movie and desperately trying to watch it as someone watching it for the first time. When I came to "Music of the Night" though, I had to change venues. I went and grabbed the companion book to actually go along with the singing. Yes, the version in the book is a little more sexual, but just barely. The movie's already pg-13, and he kind of does cop a feel anyway at one point. I mean, Floating, falling...sweet intoxication! Touch me, trust me....savour each sensation. To me, this scene as is in the movie is highly sexual. The only difference is the end, he doesn't lay with her. This comes in to play at the end where she asks if : Am I now to be prey for your lust for flesh? And he replies : The fate which condemns me to wallow in blood, has also denied me the joys of the flesh. Couldn't say that if we had seen him lay with her earlier. One thing that's interesting to me is that in the companion book, he's pulling her along his lair in the boat as he lights the candles. I think that would have been cool. But I like it the way it is. Sensual, yet respectful Now I have to go back and keep pretending that I've never seen it before

Leroux wrote Phantom from what he had heard and discovered in his investigation. Where he saw the similarities between this and Dracula, it's hard to say. Personally, I don't think so. Nevertheless, it's there.

"Music of the Night" and "Point of No Return" are both very sensual without being vulgar. I dread to think what will happen to that if ALW actually does the sequel we've been hearing about. Sensual is one thing, but smutty is entirely something else.

When Christine and Raoul were upon on the roof by Apollo's Lyre, Erik was still dressed as the Red Death, with his long cloak and plumed hat. Now I know what to get you for Christmas. The you will see what Leroux envisioned Erik to look like.

I'm confused....why was Erik still dressed as Red Death on the roof? That was many days after the masquerade, was it not?

You're right, but I was talking about the silent version and didn't make my self clear. Lon Chaney is dressed like the Red Death at the rooftop scene because they were connected in the silent film and the 2004 movie.

Leroux pretty much describes Erik as a "living corpse", having yellow parchment for his skin, hollow sockets and very sparse hair. His face is much like a skeleton with skin stretched across it. Eww! Creepy much.

Ironically, I have no problem picturing Erik dressed as Red Death. Really, though, this isn't much different from his real appearance, save for the costume. I can only assume that in the book Erik must wear a wig like the Phantom does in the 2004 movie? Whenever I hear Lon Chaney's name now, all I can picture is the unmasking in the silent film. Couldn't tell you what else he acted in, and I have no idea about the rest of the silent film, but I've seen that scene, and it completely creeps me out!!! To me, in the 2004 movie, the Phantom was disfigured, yes, but it wasn't something to be scared of, not like the reaction of the Opera crowd!

The scariest looking Phantom was Lon Chaney. That was why he would not allow any pictures of him in make-up to be released until after the films release. He was right. The audience's reaction did bring in the money and there has not been anything like it.

When you watch the Charles Dance version of The Phantom of the Opera, you will note they did something very different there. We never see the Phantom's face. He wearls a zillion different masks, but not once do you see his disfigured face.

Obviously, the most romantic of all Phantoms is Gerry. His disfigured face was so mild, he still has women drooling. What a hunk of burning love!

Ahhh, I must agree, I love Gerry. I could watch him all day every day!

Here's something that I thought of. In the book, Christine and Raoul decide to run away after the masquerade ball. She's going to stay one night more to let Erik see her perform etc. In the 2004 movie, on the rooftop, Christine says to Raoul "Order your fine horses. Be with them at the door." To me, that would sound like they're taking off together. Yet, we see them, 3 months later, at the masquerade, and they had only just gotten engaged. To me there seems to be a little timeline issue there.

You are right, there is a big difference in the book and the 2004 film in that instance. However, not sure if three months time has lapsed in film. The order of events are certainly different.

Another thing ALW changed was the reason for the sweethearts to keep the engagement a secret. In the film, Raoul had not agreed to the secrecy and so questions. In the novel, he agreed to pretend they were engaged as he would soon be shipped out, remember?

Three months is mentioned during Masquerade ("3 months of relief, of delight, of elysian peace...."). In the stage performance it's 6 months, presumably when the Phantom was tucked away writing his opera.

I find it funny that if 3 months did pass, after that scene on the roof, that Raoul and Christine wouldn't already be married. The movie stays very close to the stage performance, though quite different from the book. (I'd give anything to fly to London to see the stage performance again ) The book and the movie do come back together at that last performance though. Not for long, but still.

**********************************
Ok, we see in the novel the time that Raoul and the Persian have trying to find Erik's lair. In the movie, Mme Giry takes Raoul down, but obviously not very far, and he doesn't appear to have a hard time finding it (though the little snag of the water trap was a little disturbing!). And, even though she was told by her mother to stay, Meg is down there with the mob, and they seem to find his lair pretty easily. I don't think so!

I really to don't get the 3 months. You've got me there. Unless they are trying to make some use of the what's in the novel and say Christine was too afraid to leave, I really don't know.

With Patrick Wilson portraying Raoul, I would think he'd insist on marriage right a way, but that's the way the ALW story goes.

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

By the way, don't know if you read my thread about Phantom coming to Los Angeles, but the stage version will be here for a limited engagement and I have reserved seats to see it again. I am so excited! Whoo hoo!

Here the link to the thread: https://erikofmusic.forumakers.com/alw-s-musical-f3/the-phantom-of-the-opera-coming-to-los-angeles-in-2009-t272.htm?highlight=phantom+coming+to+los+angeles

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

That's what I was saying earlier about the mob coming to the lair. In the novel it was impossible and never happened. No one could easily find their way in a maze. Since Hollywood and filmmakers in general have a flair for the dramatics, they love to conjure up the mob scene. Grab those torches folks and lets chase the monster!

Lol.....yes, we couldn't get through without a mob scene. Heaven forbid! In the book we see the Persian who knows more about Erik and his ways than anyone else in the world, and yet he still ends up in the torture chamber. Once would be luck. Both Raoul and a seperate mob? I don't think so!

I am so jealous about you going to see Phantom. I know it's also either in Las Vegas or going to Las Vegas. I can't remember. If they ever bring it back to the Toronto theater (which was built specifically for Phantom), I will be there if I have to walk the whole way! I just said London because I loved London and want to go back. But I'd love, love, love (did I mention love?) to have it play in Paris, so I can go around and check out all the Phantom stuff

I am anxious to see it again to compare all I've seen before and with what I know now. It's been awhile.

I'd love to see it on Broadway, but what can I say. Los Angeles is good enough. Yes, Phantom is currently playing in Vegas.

Checking out Paris and the Opera House is right up my alley. I wonder if the Opera Ghost yet haunts the place.