Andrew Lloyd Webber’s “The Phantom of the Opera” has been a
musical-theater blockbuster since its debut in 1986. It has grossed more money
worldwide than any other musical, and continues to pack houses in major cities
and on global tours. That’s all the more remarkable when you consider that —
real talk — the story isn’t really very good.
Apologies
to French author Gaston Leroux, on whose novel the show is based, but the plot
is thin, the characters behave nonsensically even by musical-theater standards,
and the supposed “romance” between the lead characters is actually quite
disturbing. And yet “Phantom” is massively successfully, likely because of
Webber’s signature mix of undeniable, soaring songs and his love of spectacular
set pieces. When you think of “Phantom,” you think of the chandelier, the
“Angel of Music,” the underground boat ride, and “Music of the Night.” The plot
and the dialogue are tertiary at best.
I
first saw “Phantom” nearly 20 years ago at the Pantages Theatre in Toronto, and
even then the show felt dated, even clumsy in parts. But the new touring
production currently playing at the Auditorium Theatre surprised me. Producer
Cameron Mackintosh gave the show an overhaul in honor of its 25th anniversary,
and what resulted is a gorgeous, well paced, and at times even nuanced (yes,
nuance in “Phantom of the Opera”) staging. The major failings of the basic plot
are still there, but almost every other facet of the show has been improved to
make for a much more satisfying experience.
That troublesome plot: Christine Daae
is a member of the ensemble at the Opera Populaire — and possibly an
undiagnosed sufferer of Stockholm Syndrome. Christine has secretly been
training her voice with what she believes to be an angel sent to her by her
dead musician father (oh, Christine…), but which is actually a deformed genius
who lives in an underground lair and has a penchant for sending
passive-aggressive notes. He is also totally insane, and has been wreaking
havoc in the opera house for some time with apparently no attempts to stop him
— in fact, he pulls in a cushy salary for his life-threatening shenanigans.
One
of those stunt-queen antics leads the opera’s prima donna, Carlotta, to walk
out ahead of a big performance, and Christine takes her place. Christine is
beloved by everyone, especially her recently rediscovered childhood sweetheart,
Raoul, and that crazy guy from the sewers, referred to as The Phantom. A love
triangle of sorts emerges, but only if you consider “love” to be a
guy kidnapping a young woman, physically assaulting her, and threatening her
multiple times. He then murders several people while implementing his elaborate
schemes, and yet she’s still maybe, kind of
into him.
Seriously, that is messed up. And yet, at the performance I attended, the audience was
still rooting for The Phantom, even as he strung up innocent after innocent in
his physics-defying noose contraptions. You can make a case for The Phantom
being a tragic character, certainly, but sympathetic? A legitimate love interest
for the female lead? What kind of a statement is that making? Stalkers and mass
murderers are swoon worthy, so long as they have sadness in their heart and
sing well? Yikes.
But that’s a problem with the show story itself,
not this production. And this tour does many things right. First off, it is a
great-looking show. The costume designs by Mario Bjornson are stunning. The set
by Paul Brown makes clever use of a central rotating turret to create a variety
of locales, from a rococo theater office to The Phantom’s dank hideaway. The
various special effects fully realize The Phantom’s attacks — particularly
impressive for a road show.
Although the story is
set in the late 19th century, this production feels contemporary. The first act
moves along briskly, and director Laurence Connor has added numerous small
“moments” throughout the show that capture the audience’s attention, but don’t
distract from the overall story. That thoughtful approach is also reflected in
the way he presents certain secondary characters, specifically Carlotta
(Jacquelynne Fontaine), who is historically portrayed as an annoying shrew.
Here we are reminded that she is actually a victim in the story, and is
sometimes quite charming even as she is forced to perform in a situation that any
rational person would find terrifying.
As for the leads, the
standout is Julia Udine as Christine. Udine is almost ideally cast in the role.
She is a gifted singer and projects a delicate innocence. Once she is pressed
into the various mindboggling scenarios she seems on the verge of madness —
something this production makes seem like a very real possibility for the
character.
I found Cooper Grodin
less successful in the role of The Phantom. He worked much better in the second
act, but in the first he failed to convey the menace that should be associated
with the character — he seemed more like a fussy proctor. He is a strong
singer, but his vocal approach is less aggressive than most of the singers’
associated with the role. That was especially true of his upper register, which
verged on lilting at times. I suspect that Grodin’s softer approach to the
character was deliberate to make The Phantom appear more romantic, and less
horrifying. It apparently worked, as the audience with which I saw the show gave
the actor, and character, rapturous applause. Maybe arias speak louder than
actions.
This article appears in Apr 16-22, 2014.
You get some things right in your breezy analysis of the restaged, touring Phantom of the Opera. For instance,
The show has been and is massive successful.
The plot is a long way from being, say, Hamlet.
Cooper Grodin isn’t a very good Phantom.
The secondary characters are better done than in the original production.
You just “don’t get it” with your inability to grasp that there can be a love triangle. You don’t see or understand it, but audiences for over 25 years have seen it and understood it.
Some people undoubtedly come to the show for the spectacle, but the repeat customers, who have had a big part in keeping the show a success (some of whom are now bringing their children to see it) are led with great theater craft to care about the Phantom in the last scene of the show—as does Christine—probably because we all are given some insight into what has made the Phantom the dangerous and angry man he is (a life-time of rejection, beginning with his mother).
In the last scene, both Christine (and most of the audience, minus you) see his pathetic situation and sympathize. During the rest of the show, we see the danger and mystery and—in the original production—the elegance and magic of the character.
At the end, he is stunned when Christine willingly kisses him. Something happens to him. If he were the madman you think him to be, he would have been very unlikely to have undergone a change of heart and let Christine go with her young man, despite knowing he is losing his last chance at the kind of happiness most ordinary men know (HE believes it is, as unlikely as it might seem to a cooler, clearer head). It might well be the first really unselfish thing he has done. Real love is unselfish.
You apparently do not see these things or just can’t believe they could happen, even in a musical, but audiences mostly CAN believe it, and the touching emotion of the final scene, I believe, does more to sell the show than the falling chandelier.
It probably wouldn’t if it weren’t for the music…..but Lloyd Webber has written beautiful music for flops.
The fact that you don’t “get it” doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.
By the way, Grodin’s Phantom (I would bet it’s more Macintosh and Conner’s Phantom) is soft in some ways, probably an attempt to make him seem more “human,” but he is the most violent Phantom I’ve seen in several times I’ve seen the show (several, NOT hundreds or anything like it). He pulls her hair, chokes her, throws her on the bed, and climbs on top of her.
–And the show still works!
Yikes, some people take this show WAY too seriously, but I also kind of understand the obsession, having a slight case of it myself. I would just like to add that I was disappointed by some of the updating/downsizing, and distracted by the thought that producers were motivated by saving money. Did you happen to catch the statue that wobbled as The Phantom climbed aboard? ? I say again: Yikes.
@Sally Cohen,
Yes, I noticed the wobbly statue. The critics almost all seem to be raving about the new production, and although some of the new sets/scenery are quite good, the big multi-purpose drum, the “Masquerade” Ballroom (although the red-uniformed Phantom is completely unimpressive and not frightening), the show is clearly a down-sized, cheaper version.
Sorry, I forgot to say “YIKES” before!
I think it is actually the production that is flawed, not the story (if it were the latter, why would it have lasted over a century?). Go and watch Hal Prince’s original production if you haven’t already, and you’ll find yourself completely immersed. It is far superior than this poor attempt at money-saving.
OK, just got back from the Phantom show tonight in Atlanta and I have to say I hated it. Well not all of it but a lot of it. I thought Julia Udine did a good job as Christine, and I thought the stage scenery was better than I thought it would be for a touring version of the show. But, the actor playing the Phantom, Cooper Grodin, was absolutely terrible. It was almost as if he had never actually heard the songs before. He seemed to rush through his lines and songs. Sometimes the songs sounded like he was just shouting words instead of singing. He really ruined the show for me. My daughter said he sounded like he was doing a Saturday Night Live parody of the Phantom, and not a very good one either. The show was not a total loss but it was by far the worst of the 6 version of it I have seen. Disappointing. Plus, unfortunately the sound at the Atlanta Fox Theater was really bad. Many people were commenting out loud that they could not hear the actors let alone understand what they were saying. There were also some key Phantom elements missing from there show such as Christine de-masking the Phantom. How can you remove that from this show? This version of the show may not seem as bad for someone who has never seen the show before but if you have seen the original show chances are you will feel cheated.๏ปฟ
Nick, I couldn’t agree more. It isn’t the story that’s flawed. As you say, the original production has lasted since 1986.
Doglanta, on November 25 in Fort Lauderdale, FL, the principal actors will be replaced, INCLUDING Cooper Grodin.
The Phantom will be played by Chris Mann
The principal Christine will be Katie Travis
Raoul will be played by Storm Lineberger
http://www.thephantomoftheopera.com/ustour/2014/10/principal-cast-changes-coming-november-25-2014/