Phandom Heresies

I'm a huge fan of the website TVTropes. It's a really fun site on which you can find a lot of popular devices and conventions used in well-known fictional works, be they novels, films, TV shows, video games, and yes, even stage shows. (The section they have for POTO is quite fun and informative, covering the novel, ALW musical, and a few of the film versions.)

The title for this post comes from one of my favorite tropes to return to (and also look at the Troper Tales page for): Fandom Heresy. That trope illustrates the idea that within a fan community, there are certain opinions so unpopular that they may drive people to send hate mail to a fan who expresses them, particularly on fan websites, blogs, and forums -- heaven help you if you're a Star Wars fan who liked Episode I, or if you're a Batman fan (or a movie fan in general, really) with anything negative to say about Christopher Nolan.

Although reactions to differing opinions on the internet can often be intense, I like to think the majority of Phantom Phans are a pretty tolerant bunch. No version of the story nor any actor in a film or stage production is universally loved or hated (with the possible exceptions of Lon Chaney under "loved" and the Forsyth and Argento versions under "hated"), and most Phans seem to be pretty okay with that. No version or actor is going to please everyone because we all have our own visions of what the story is or should be. It's a lot like how everyone who reads a novel is going to have different views of how characters and locations look, how the dialogue is spoken, or what certain things are supposed to represent; therefore, even the most faithful attempt at a film adaptation isn't going to please everyone who loved the book.

There are, however, some Phantom Phans who do take it personally when someone else disagrees with them on favorite and least favorite versions and actors. As I said previously, I understand to an extent why some react so harshly -- the reason why we are Phans is because the story and characters mean something to us and touch us on some deep, emotional level. It can sometimes be a bit shocking to hear that someone really didn't like a version or performance that profoundly moved you. Sometimes, we may try to rationalize it -- for example, if someone didn't like a particular actor, we may tell ourselves that maybe the person was unlucky enough to catch that performer on an "off-night." Other times, as with hot-button issues like religion or politics, we may become convinced that our own opinions are the "right" ones; therefore, everyone who disagrees is "wrong" and has to have their opinion changed to conform to ours.

To try to counter the sometimes vitriolic arguments that can arise, let's get one thing straight: while there are some quantifiable things that people can be "right" or "wrong" on, like how closely an adaptation follows the Leroux novel's plot or whether the actor playing the Phantom is a tenor or baritone, other things are totally subjective. For example, it's an indisputable fact that Michael Crawford had a lot more vocal training and experience than Gerard Butler did; anyone who claimed otherwise would either be uninformed or lying. But whether or not that makes Crawford a better Phantom is entirely down to one's personal opinion. Someone may have a superb understanding of music theory and what makes a good singer, but still truly and honestly prefer Butler's performance to Crawford's; indeed, I know a professional opera critic who does.

In the spirit of tolerance, I thought it might be fun to create this post so that commenters can post their own unpopular and, in some circles, possibly heretical views relating to POTO. I'll get the ball rolling with a few of mine; while I've never been accosted online or in person for having these opinions, I seem to be quite in the minority... and that's fine with me! So here goes:

*******

While the original London cast album was my first exposure to POTO and it'll always have a special place in my heart for that reason, it isn't my favorite of the cast recordings. I love hearing the original cast, but compared to certain other recordings, the OLC CDs feel a bit lifeless. And furthermore, while I like Michael Crawford and Sarah Brightman's performances a lot and respect them for originating the roles in the completed version of the show, neither of them is among my top 10 for performers I've heard and/or seen in the roles. And then when you consider how much of the score is left out of the OLC compared to some of the foreign-language albums, it becomes really clear that it's not the greatest recording of the show out there. (There are also a whole bunch of issues I have relating to tempo and orchestration, but I'll save those for another time.)

Although ALW's POTO is one of my favorite musicals and the one I have the most recordings of, it's not among my top 5. Very often, people expect that if you consider yourself a "Phan," then the ALW musical must be your favorite show of all time. Don't get me wrong; I love the show to death. But higher on my list would be Sweeney Todd, Les Misérables, Assassins, Tanz der Vampire, and Sunset Boulevard, mainly because I consider those shows to be better-plotted and more musically creative. And although the ALW version remains my favorite of the POTO musicals mainly due to my personal history with it (i.e. the fact that it introduced me to POTO, and that it's the only one I've seen live so far), I do think the Ken Hill, Yeston and Kopit, and Tom Alonso versions have some advantages over it. Not to mention that certain recent events have substantially lowered my view of ALW as a person and artist. So this just shows that one can be a Phan without holding the ALW version far above and beyond all other musicals.

I'm no fan of the 2004 movie... but I don't consider it to be unwatchable. Opinions of the 2004 movie tend to fall into two major camps -- Phans either loved it with all their hearts and thought it was one of the best versions ever, or they hated it so much they can't stand to rewatch it or listen to the soundtrack. I'm not one of those; I have a, shall we say, less-than-glowing view of the movie, to be extremely generous. Yet, I'll gladly watch it again, especially with other people (as long as they don't mind me making snarky comments throughout). I view the movie as enjoyably bad, akin to an Ed Wood flick. However, certain things like the Japanese dub have helped me to see a few of the actual merits of the film (or those that would be there if the leads had been better singers and actors, and if the film had more capable people in charge of editing).

I have nothing against Raoul, and support E/C and R/C pairings pretty much equally. One very popular thing, especially among people new to the Phandom, is to bash Raoul, essentially just for being "the other guy." I don't think there have really been big battles between E/C and R/C "shippers" the way there are in some other fandoms, but liking Raoul at all is generally not popular. A fellow Phan had quite a good explanation for this -- as she put it, many Phans view POTO as analogous to "Beauty and the Beast" (which it is in many ways), and because they tend to be most familiar with the Disney version of BATB, they see the story as essentially "Erik is the Beast, Christine is Belle, and therefore, Raoul is Gaston." The analogy doesn't really hold up under closer examination, but for many new Phans (and maybe even a few of the not-so-new ones), it's a convenient way to view the story without having to think very deeply about it. But really, if you look at the way the story is structured, it becomes clear that whatever you may think of their personalities, the story wouldn't work without both Erik and Raoul. Mireille Ribière, who did the newest (and best, IMO) English translation of the Leroux novel, had an interesting view on it -- to paraphrase from friends who went to a presentation Ribière gave on the book, she considers the relationships to be two intertwining love stories rather than the "love triangle" that ALW and many others have depicted. One relationship had to fail for the other to succeed. After all, if Erik hadn't pretended to be Christine's "Angel of Music," she wouldn't have been performing in Carlotta's place that night, and Raoul never would have seen her or known that she was there. If, on the other hand, Raoul hadn't existed, it's very likely that Erik wouldn't have felt threatened and thus wouldn't have felt the need to show himself and take Christine down to his world. Whether or not you like Raoul, we have to acknowledge that the story wouldn't have happened without him.

There are some very popular performers in the major roles who I dislike for various reasons, and some very unpopular ones who I like for equally varied reasons. I won't go into detail here, but if you really are curious about who some of these might be, feel free to shoot me an e-mail and I'll give you as thorough a list as I can.

*******

Now it's your turn! Post some of your "Phandom Heresies" here -- things that most of the Phans you've talked to seem to disagree with you on. (It goes without saying that you're certainly free to disagree with me on stuff as well!) However, no "judgments" of people's heresies will be permitted. You can say you disagree with fellow commenters and/or me and give reasons why, but no bashing people for their opinions -- that's just not cool. As always, keep it civil and we'll all be happier for it.

Your obedient servant,
I.A.E.