|
Frederick Forsyth's
The Phantom of Manhattan Frederick Forsyth collaborated with Andrew Lloyd Webber on this novel, a sequel to The Phantom of the Opera (a novel in which the lead character dies at the end), published in 1999. At the time I posted my initial review to the Phantom mailing list - only the introduction and first chapter, because after that it became too painful. I present those posts below. They are, needless to say, opinionated.
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 19:54:29 -0700 I have just obtained an advance reading copy of The Phantom of Manhattan, the Phantom sequel by Frederick Forsyth which will form the basis of ALW's sequel to the show, if he ever writes it. This sequel was written working with Andrew Lloyd Webber. So far I've just read Forsyth's preface, and it made me so angry and so sick to my stomach that I have to rant before reading any further. I'll give this post a swear words warning since I doubt I can write it without swearing a lot. If you don't like swearing, you've been warned. Mr Forsyth, in his preface, introduces the reader to the Leroux novel - and then graces us with the information that Leroux was "wrong". He acknowledges it as fiction but clearly feels that the Andrew Lloyd Webber musical is in fact the definitive version, and Leroux is incorrect and stupid. For instance: "He appears also to have made an error with the position, appearance and intelligence of Mme. Giry, an error corrected in the Lloyd Webber musical." Excuse me, fuckhead, but Leroux invented the character. Forsyth also tells us at length how implausible the story as told by the Persian is, as well as: "Prior to the invertention of the Persian, Leroux the writer and most readers might have felt some human sympathy for the Phantom.... The Persian however paints him as a raging sadist, a serial killer and strangler for pleasure" etc, etc. Did we read the same book? According to Forsyth, however, "Fortunately there is one flaw in the Persian's story so glaring as to permit us to disbelieve the whole lot. He claimed that Erik had had a long and fulfulling life before coming to dwell in the cellars of the opera house... [fills in background of Erik from novel]. This allegation has to be nonsense. If the man had enjoyed such a life over so many years he would certainly have come to terms with his own disfigurement." Along with more piffle disputing Leroux's story. Dear me Mr Forsyth, you should have read Susan Kay's version too. She has no difficulty giving us a far more psychologically accurate portrait of the Phantom than this pigcrap. "The only logical step for a modern analyst to take, as Andrew Lloyd Webber has already done with the musical, is to discount the Persian's accounts and allegations in their totality, and never more so than in disbelieving both the Persian and Leroux than the Phantom died shortly after the events narrated." He does not, however, tell us WHY one should assume this. Oh, silly me, the answer to that is obvious - so we can write a sequel and make a bucket of money from it. Can't do that with a dead Phantom. I am so sickened that it's difficult for me to even start reading this book. How DARE Forsyth, and Lloyd Webber, insult and write off Leroux in this manner? ALW should remember that if it wasn't for Leroux's novel he would not have his billions from his most popular and successful show. I sincerely hope that one day someone mutilates one of Forsyth's novels in this manner. I'll review the story itself when I can cope with reading the book. I never expected just a preface to be quite this angering.
Just finished chapter 1 and have to get this out of my system or I'll never be able to get to sleep. It gets worse, and worse, and worse. Mr. Forsyth has taken the liberty of dating the action of the novel (or rather the show, since he ignores the novel) later than usual, in 1893. In 1882, in his version of events, Mme Giry finds and rescues the 16 year old Erik, who has been chained in a cage for 9 years. This makes him 27 during the action of the novel and show. As we know, Leroux's Erik was over 50. Lloyd Webber's original intention for the musical was also clearly to have an older Erik as the casting of Michael Crawford (and Colm Wilkinson in his very first try-out) shows. Yet according to Forsyth, and apparently now ALW, he was just 27. He had never lived in Persia, never travelled the world. He is given the name Erik Muhlheim. He was born not in a village near Rouen, but in the Alsace, to circus folk. His father was a drunk who beat him, his mother a useless fool. He learned his many skills at the circus, or later, at the opera house. Giry rescues him and keeps him in her home for a month, before letting him into the Opera House where he builds himself a home by the lake and learns all about music. Oh yes, and the bath Giry gave him was the first he'd taken in his life. Sorry, but Susan Kay's description of Erik's past is far more accurate to Leroux and far more psychologically convincing. Buquet killed himself, we learn. Erik did not mean to kill Piangi (who is not even in the novel), it was an accident, he just meant to silence him (with a rope??). At the end of the show Giry finds Erik and hides him out, then sends him to New York on a boat. I am summoning up the courage to begin Chapter 2, narratted by Erik Muhlheim himself in New York. I wish there was a law against this. And remember, all ye who felt that ALW would never let Hollywood do anything bad to the show - ALW himself helped Forsyth come up with this trash.
|
