Jump to content
Gerard Butler GALS

Phantom of the Opera


Recommended Posts

:funnyface: I have watched POTO probably 10 times now. I watched my copy (2 disc special) on Wed. and again on Oxygen last night. I don't have a wide screen TV, so I am willing to brave the commercials once in a while.

I have noticed through my many watchings so far, that it always seems Buquet was spying on the Phantom (as well as the young girls.) When Christine and Meg came out of the chapel, Buquet was there, and so was Phantom, although we don't see him, we only hear him. He is always watching Phantom from the walkway, and tries to follow him several times. Finally, he follows him during "Il Muto." and they go back and forth over the walkway. I think this was the last straw for Phantom. He knew this guy was a creep, womanizer and drunk, and I think he wanted to expose Phantom and was always trying to find out where he stayed. So when the Phantom killed him, I can't help but think in some ways it was justified. After all, today people are killing you if you cut in front of them in your car!! I get the feeling that Phantom knew that Buquet was dangerous to him, and would eventually cause him big trouble. So this was the last option for him. :bonk::yay: Good riddance. I am not trying to justify killing, but if you had a stalker, and he wouldn't leave you alone, the chances are fear would eventually cause you to react. I would shoot the B*****D and bury him out in the country where I live or throw him in the stream two miles away where the crocodiles are rumored to wait for them!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

I am not trying to justify killing, but if you had a stalker, and he wouldn't leave you alone, the chances are fear would eventually cause you to react. I would shoot the B*****D and bury him out in the country where I live or throw him in the stream two miles away where the crocodiles are rumored to wait for them!!!!

But, by that logic, Christine would be justified in killing the Phantom (or Raoul killing him on her behalf) because he is basically a stalker himself...no matter how his motivations (love, loneliness, societal rejection) are explained away or excused.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that I've sufficiently calmed down....lol...

Erik didn't have parents or guardians to teach him right from wrong. IMO, he didn't know any better. That, topped with experiencing terrible abuse as a child, would make anyone a little fooked up in the head.

I say this without having read the book or seeing POTO on stage. Only the movie...which was more than sufficient.

So, yeah, I CAN explain and excuse it away.

(Can y'all tell I love him?)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with Pilar on this one. I had to calm down myself. Now as to your question Spartandax;

I have read both Laroux and Kay(and many others), seen the play (in Vegas), and the movie.

Let me say this...Bouqet had it coming in spades! He not only was stalking Christine (ALW), but he also had raped in the past at least one if not more ballet rats (Laroux), and we all know Erik wasn't about to let him violate Christine. Plus Bouqet was hassling Erik too. After all, he went looking for Erik in the flies. In Kay, he had no choice but to kill, it was his job. I won't go into more detail about that here, you'll just have to read the book.

In the movie and the musical the line sung by Christine, "If he has to kill a thousand men, the Phantom of the opera will kill and kill again." has always bugged me. Just a tad overly dramatic eh Christine? He had only killed Bouqet at this point. He did not kill the stablehand/driver, he only knocked him out. And poor Piangi...I believe that may have been an accident. He most assuradly wanted him out of the way, and used a bit more force than was needed. But he was rather wound up at the time...

So, yes I can understand why he did what he did, and forgive him.

I love him too! :wuv: Me and Pil,and Erik....mmmmm Oops! Better go to the gutter!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, we're not given much of a backstory for Buquet...for all we know, there may have been factors in his own upbringing that contributed to his unpleasant behavior, too.

For all we know, he may have come from a very brutal childhood. He may have had a horribly abusive father, a negligent mother. Perhaps his parents were alcoholics who left him to fend for himself on the streets at a very young age.

Maybe, for different reasons than the Phantom, he too didn't have anyone to teach him right from wrong or properly set his moral compass.

But I guess it's OK to justify and excuse whatever wrong that the Phantom commits because he's one hot hunk of manflesh. But Buquet? He's an unattractive slob...so I guess his life doesn't mean anything.

Edit: I have my copy of Leroux at hand and nowhere in it does it reference Buquet raping anyone. He's a scene-shifter who, after seeing the Phantom is found hanging near some sets in storage. He isn't given that sort of violent backstory.

Edited by Panarophile
Link to post
Share on other sites

Going by the ALW stage play and film (not Leroux), the audience sympathizes with the Phantom because THAT is how the story tellers wanted us to feel. IMO, what happened to the Phantom as a child EXPLAINS his actions as an adult, but does not justify them. Perhaps he killed the gypsy in self defense.... that could be a justifiable action, but as to Buquet's murder.... I believe it is inexcusable... and sadly, the Phantom's violence is one of the reasons Christine is torn in her feelings for him.

In the movie...our sympathetic feelings for the Phantom have less to do with his half handsome face, and more to do with how Gerard portrayed the character. He gave the Phantom human vulnerability, and in the back of our minds even as we watch Piangi's murder, we remember how the Phantom was abused as a child.... and Gerry gives us glimpses of that child throughout the film.

The fact is.... the audience is being manipulated to sympathize with the Phantom, even after he kills Piangi in cold blood.

Hal prince once said something along the lines of: "If we do our job right, the audience will wish Christine had stayed with the Phantom."

and most of us do.

Swannie

Edited by Swansong
Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit: I have my copy of Leroux at hand and nowhere in it does it reference Buquet raping anyone. He's a scene-shifter who, after seeing the Phantom is found hanging near some sets in storage. He isn't given that sort of violent backstory.

Well, then I guess I interpreted it different than you did. Also with all the different translations/variations out there my copy may differ some what from yours. And I am too lazy (sign of a true Gutter Ho) to comb my copy.

Also, a cr*ppy upbringing doesn't neccessarily mean one will turn out to be a violent criminal. We don't know Buquet's backstory, and personally I don't care about it. IMO, right or wrong, Buquet got what he deserved. (Whenever I watch the movie, I'm right there rooting Erik on!)

It never ceases to amaze me all the different angles we get from the same story.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been a while since I read Leroux but I seem to remember that Erik exhibited his cold-blooded brutal behavior well before taking up residence under the Opera House. It's just my opinion, but I thought he killed Buquet only because he was a threat to Erik. He knew Buquet was stalking him that night and didn't want to be exposed. At that point Christine and Mdme Giery were the only ones who knew for sure that the Phantom was real. I don't remember any backstory on Buquet in the Leroux story nor was there anything very redeeming about Erik in the book. ALW is the one who "humanized" Erik for the audience and made him sympathetic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, then, I'm biased.

Erik's the bomb.

So is Deb.

My blood pressure is skyrocketing.

(lol)

As are you Sweets!

Erik has a way of raising our pressure doesn't he?

Posted Image

maybe my post will take this time :tantrum:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always in my mind justified the murders of the gypsy and Buquet. Self defense and well...justice. but Piangi's murder is the one that I never understood or accepted. Instead I kinda close my eyes and pretend it didnt happen. :lol: Honestly I feel that it was done in the ALW version to make the Phantom less of a choice for Christine. The Phantom was multi faceted, but he was also a bit off his rocker. how could he not be, living the way he did for his entire life.

But the fact is that the movie ALW character of the Phantom has taken on a persona way beyond the film. In the film he does not have a name, yet many think of him as Erik or Gerik. But on the screen he is only The Phantom, the Angel of Music or opera ghost.

We WANT his actions justified so we find a way to do it. Like the accident theory for Piangi. That's forgivable. Cold blooded unprovoked murder is not. And Swan's version of events in her book is different as well. And since this isnt reality but instead interpretation of a story then that works just fine. No reason for raised blood pressure. Opinions differ and some see the facts, others interpret. Neither are wrong in their own reality. No harm no foul.

Edited by DawnS
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Leroux would have a laugh to see how female fans of Phantom have turned the character of the Phantom into their dream man. Even though ALW changed the character to make him more romantic and more appealing, he didn't create the character. I've encountered phans who have tried to twist the story around to either make themselves and others believe that either the Phantom never actually killed anyone OR that each person he killed had it coming. The gypsy guy, I can understand that. But Buquet and Piangi? I don't think they deserved to die. You can't justify killing them. So in that sense, the Phantom retains at least a fragment of what makes him the villain of the story. Yes he's the central character, but he's also not a good guy. He stalks a teenage girl and kills people. Yeah he's an awsome character and in the movie, he's also sexy. But he's also bad. I feel like some phans try to justify the Phantom's murders so that they can justify their own attraction to him. But I don't think that's necessary. It's ok to like the bad guy! (says the girl with the Joker icon lol)

Edited by Shady_Lady
Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like some phans try to justify the Phantom's murders so that they can justify their own attraction to him.

Not me! I don't need to justify my attraction to him. Besides, by the time he killed Buquet I was already lost to him. :wuv:

But I don't think that's necessary. It's ok to like the bad guy! (says the girl with the Joker icon lol)

Yes, yes it is! I have had a thing for the 'bay guy' for a long time!!! :funnyup: (Dracula, Darth Vader, my ex...)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like some phans try to justify the Phantom's murders so that they can justify their own attraction to him.

Not me! I don't need to justify my attraction to him. Besides, by the time he killed Buquet I was already lost to him. :wuv:

But I don't think that's necessary. It's ok to like the bad guy! (says the girl with the Joker icon lol)

Yes, yes it is! I have had a thing for the 'bay guy' for a long time!!! :funnyup: (Dracula, Darth Vader, my ex...)

I just literally snorted! :lmao:

Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, I'm reading this thread and I find it very interesting and made me think how I feel.

I have to remind myself first that Erik is a CHARACTER, not a REAL person........but to us and many, he is very real in our imaginations and hearts. (I haven't read Leroux's novel, but I think I remember reading that there are documented events that there could have been such a person living underneath the opera house. Exploring this idea could make a good thread.)

Yet, he murdered and stalked a young girl - he was a very bad boy! Yet we LOVE him! As Pilar knows (and I, Pilar) Erik turns us on...BIG TIME! We LOVE, LOVE, LOVE Erik or Gerik. He's so furkin sexy and G-d, half is face is that of an Angel. HALF a FACE is as gorgeous as that.....(pardon me for that tangent). Not to mention that VOICE..........the voice that melts me to nothing.

Yet, for some reason, his bad actions don't bother me....they're there, they exist, but I don't feel the need to ignore it, play it off, or justify it. I just accept it as part of Erik and his story. I am not saying I condone or agree with it, they are just THERE as FACTS and there is nothing I can do about it and I certainly can't change it.

Now I have to say that since I have not read Leroux's original novel, I have read most of Susan Kay's Phantom and I really, honestly didn't like Erik in her book. Since her book is closely taken from the original, then I get the feeling I won't like Leroux's Erik either. Which is why I find it difficult to actually buy the book. Kay's Erik was a drug addict, sarcastic, caustic, cold and....and...so not GERIK. I couldn't sympathize with him at all. I ended up not finishing the book.

ALW's version certainly romanticized him and Gerry's performance made him so much more human (and sexy!) that we sympathize with him and feel for him and want to love and care for him. That is why Gerry will always and forever be my Erik/Phantom.

Ok, back on track. Shady Lady is so right. We love him therefore some feel the need to justify their love of him even tho we know he did those nasty things. I really am not bothered by his murdering and stalking because its part of the story. Without those bad actions, would Erik be the Erik we know and love?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...