|
Random Thoughts on the Movie, Phantom, and "Phans"
This is a cut-and-paste of various random thoughts that I've posted on Phantom discussion boards recently, particularly regarding why fans love Phantom, how we feel about the movie, and what we argue about online. As they are in reply to specific posts, they may appear a little disjointed here - hence random.
Posted on www.phantomfans.net: As I've said before, people who love Phantom passionately feel passionate about Phantom issues. So we tend to take it personally when someone disagrees with us about them. And we tend to project on to the other person hostility which has nothing to do with oneself. Because really, why should you be so angry that I found his acting limited? If he was your brother or father or husband, it would make complete sense. But me saying I found his acting limited in range clearly really pisses you off. I suppose the reason some of us get angry back is that something like this movie feels like an attack on Erik to us, and we care about Erik in a way that makes us angry, in the same way as my being unimpressed by Butler's acting in the role makes you.
Replying to: "I think people dig too far into Erik's character as well... The only thing that makes a fictional character interesting are the various portrayals of a character." Ahh, see, that is somewhere I disagree with you. I agree that it's *one* of the things, but far from the only thing. Other things that make fictional characters interesting are what they have to tell us about ourselves, and about others, on levels from the social to the symbolic. You can take it as deep as you want. There is no "too far." And maybe that's what people are trying to say sometimes - there are certainly different *kinds* of fans, fans who are interested in Phantom for different things. Some people aren't interested in symbols or archetypes or psychology. Some people aren't interested in French architecture. Some people aren't particularly interested in musicals. But I don't think that should be taken to imply that people who are less interested in a particular aspect, whether it's psychology or voice lessons or seeing the show lots of times, are "bad fans."
I think the reason we get so passionate about Phantom is that the character represents a part of ourselves, so it feels as if it's about us. That's one of the reasons that I love Phantom, and think it's something worth talking about in the kind of depth you can sometimes get on forums, mailing lists, and in fan magazines. It is an archetype. It *does* form the same purpose in some people's lives that religion does in others - deep personal mythology for personal growth and understanding of the world. That, I suppose, is why I think it deserves more respect from people like Andrew Lloyd Webber and Joel Schumacher. It has profoundly deep and personal meaning to its fans, as Lord of the Rings does to many of its - if Peter Jackson can respect that, I don't see why ALW and JS can't be expected to. Instead they've just exploited it, because it doesn't matter to them in the way that it matters to us.
Replying to: "if Peter Jackson can respect that, I don't see why ALW and JS can't be expected to. Instead they've just exploited it, because it doesn't matter to them in the way that it matters to us. "How CAN you possibly know? Can you see into their souls?" I mention Peter Jackson because he said, of the LotR fan community, "One of the things that really motivated us was we're absolutely terrified of letting you guys down." How can I possibly know that Andrew Lloyd Webber doesn't feel like that? Experience, of how he and his company have treated fans over the past 15 years. And knowing a number of people who've worked with him, and socialized with him. Joel Schumacher has made it clear enough from his own published comments, but I know enough people who've worked with *him* to not find them hard to believe. Does anyone really think Lloyd Webber cares more about Erik/Phantom than he does about making money and being a Lord? I can't help noticing that the Phantom production company that was the best to the fans was the one that had to screw the books to keep up on the money front, heh.
Posted on Livejournal: Someone said: "You are holding to stage show standards something that has been shucked up, boiled down and reduced to a Hollywood panflash. It is like giving an elephant a paint by numbers Mona Lisa and then being disappointed when you come back with slop." I replied: "Ah yes, but I am going to be disappointed with anything that has been shucked up, boiled down and reduced to a Hollywood panflash. That's exactly why I don't like it. Because it didn't *have* to be. Lloyd Webber *could* have held out for better. There are many films made which aren't chewed through the Hollywood schlock machine, and because Phantom is something that's important to me, I am saddened that people gave it to an elephant to paint my numbers, when they could have found a decent artist even if they weren't going to hold out for a DaVinci. :-) "
In response to a post about the managers and Christine in the Hannibal scene: In the show she falls out of step because she's distracted, she's thinking about the Phantom, she knows he's watching her. She knows there's a link between the Phantom and her Angel of Music. And in the movie, she does a nice little dance and the managers perv over her. Typical bloody Joel Schumacher.
On phantomoftheopera.com: I love the Persephone myth, for some reason it's one of the ones that's always resonated with me (along with some of the similar stories from other cultures). Along with through the lake/pond/well/mirror themes. It's interesting that in Jungian psychology, which makes a great deal of use of myth and symbolism as human templates for psychological journeys and roles, Persephone and her like are the women who delve into the subconscious, are most likely to deal with things magical or supersticious, most likely to be introverted and dreamers and artists, and most likely to suffer from problems with depression too. I think that fits quite a lot of Phantom fans to some degree! Journeys to the underworld are always very deep journeys into our own selves - confronting the dark, hidden and forbidden parts of ourselves which frighten us, but we have to go down there and confront them in order to assimilate them, in order not to be ruled by their influence. So Christine's story is one of dealing with her dark side, the things that frighten her, and becoming whole. When she kisses the Phantom, she transforms herself.
|
