People saying that 2004 Erik is "more likable" and "less horrific" than Leroux Erik is hilarious to me. No seriously, it genuinely baffles me. Are you serious that a version of Erik (the only one as far as I'm aware, thankfully) that grooms Christine when she was a child, kills Buquet and Piangi for absolutely no reason, aside from being much more manipulative and cold-minded, is "more likable" than the OG Erik that didn't do any of those?
Leroux Erik is always impulsive, doesn't think before he acts, ends up fucking shit up and feels guilty for it but continues fucking shit up because it's the only way he knows how to survive. Leroux Erik apologizes for the "Angel facade" much earlier instead of holding it until the end. Leroux Erik didn't run out there killing random people because yes, the only person he actually and directly killed was Philippe, a Count that was tresspassing his house. Leroux Erik's love for Christine isn't shown only in the end after the kiss. What is it about Leroux Erik that makes people despise him and prefer creepier, worse versions? Oh, sure.
🙄
Hey just passing by to say that disfigured people existing and being represented in fiction isn't "Horror" or "Body Horror". Just saying.
(this isn't a hate post against gerard butler! unfortunately i've seen a lot of phans being rude and terrible to him just because they dislike the 2004 movie, i'm not doing this, he is an awesome guy and a great actor, i'm criticizing the 2004 portrayal of Erik and media takes)
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
I have not a bad word for this Erik (and not just because I can feel a certain friend of mine holding a chandelier over my head). The 1990 adaptation made some big changes to the story, but it perfectly captured the childlike soul of Leroux's Erik that is often lost in translation but vital to him. (When I was explaining POTO to someone outside the situation, i. e. my mum, two things I kept using as comparisons were a child and Gollum - not because he's a chaos gremlin, I was trying to describe how he has a skewered perspective of the world that isn't evil but doesn't follow the accepted moral system. But that's for another time.)
I found myself trying very hard not to resent Christine - a first time for me. I will defend her choosing the Compte de Chagny over Erik, she doesn't owe Erik love, no matter what he did for her. The problem is that she took on a responsibility she couldn't possibly carry.
Never, ever assume to fully understand someone. Especially someone like Erik, who thinks and exists on a different pane as most people. Christine was wrong, terribly wrong, to assume she 'knew his heart.'
When faced with a person so sensitive, so particular, when you are the one person trusted by someone who trusts no one, don't make huge gambles like that. She shouldn't have assumed she knew what Erik needs better than he himself does - if he told you he is happy with where they were, then stay there with him! Instead, she pulled the 'I can fix him' and shattered him completely. I don't hate her for being unable to catch Erik when he falls, I hate her for blindly promising to catch him and failing him.
(I do realise how much of the above describes myself and my worries about how people treat me, so fair warning, I may be a bit biased.)
An opinion: in most versions of the story, Erik emotionally manipulates Christine, but here, Christine is the one who is emotionally manipulative. ('Manipulative' may sound malicious, but manipulators aren't always aware of what they're doing.)
In the second part of the series, she said at least three times 'If you love me...' Now, that is one of my least favourite sentences to see and hear in the best of times, but this is somehow even worse because Erik DOES do everything because he loves her. In other versions, there is the question of possessiveness against love when it comes to their relationship; in that context, I would accept her saying this, to remind him that he should love and not obsess over her. But here, Erik is not possessive.
As for Monsieur Carrière, I have beef with him, too. It's an even bigger, tougher slice of beef. He is irresponsible: not once, but twice, he got in relationships and then left his partners when they have children. The first time could be a mistake; the second time, especially when kept Erik's mother in the dark about his marriage, is inexcusable. Yes, he stayed with her till the end, but then left their son in a basement. Yes, he reached out to Erik in the end, but too little, too late. If Erik is emotional and irrational, it's because Carrière never gave him the guidance he should have.
Christine and Carrière love Erik, I don't doubt it. But it's still painful to see Erik fall down through everyone and everything that should have caught him: his talent, his parents, Christine.
If you'll excuse me, I need to cry in the catacombs and draw something miserable.
Phantom of the Opera (1925), what did you do to poor Erik?
The 5 stages of watching POTO 1925:
1. Beautiful set design. Mouth of Hell, giant skull for sitting on and decapitated head automaton -- peak Gothic atmosphere.
2. He's here! The Persian at last.
3. I want to live in this Erik's basement, that gondola-inspired bed is gorgeous.
4. Oh la vache, who let Erik drive?
5. THEY YEETED HIM INTO THE RIVER?
(Meme is originally Interview with the Vampurr Lestat's corpse yeet.)
I am not happy that they made this a 'monster film.' The greatest part of POTO is how it never denied Erik's crimes, but also never portrayed him as a mindless monster. But other than the ending, I did enjoy the film.
HOWEVER, now I'm in a mood and want to write a whole essay in complaint of the other silver screen adaption I've seen thus far, Phantom of the Opera (2004). That one I sometimes wish to roast with the heat of a burning opera house. See that and rambles about other adaptations here
(I'm sorry, Gerald Butler's Phantom, you're still very cool. See the original drawing without beef here.)
I'm not saying that the film is entirely bad. It's only that I tend to be extra critical about plot and portrayal. Phans of the film, feel tree to sit this one out. Now, the beef.
🥩 1. They cut out one of the most powerful scenes
Before I fell (or rather, was pushed) into the Phandom, I saw a clip of Sierra Buggess and Ramin Karimloo performing the 'SING!!!' part of The Phantom of the Opera, and even then, it struck me. Watching film, I was waiting to see it again... But they just kept rowing the boat. I find this direction choice rather symbolic of the angle of the entire film: they lowered the prominence of Christine's thrall to the Phantom's music and instead focused on their dubious romantic attraction.
🥩2. The Phantom's origin story
Perhaps they felt the need to explain his past more, but this is a case of the more you explain, the worse it gets. Why on earth would you feel the need to explain that the Phantom has been visiting Christine since she was a child? That is not only terrifying but also creates unnecessary confusion. If he's been teaching her for so long, I find it dubious that nobody has noticed her behaving strangely before the Hannibal performance.
🥩3. They gave Mme. Giry too many hats to wear
In the film Mme. Giry essentially took on the role of three characters: her own, the Persian's, and Mama Valeris' (Christine's surrogate mother in the book). Initially, I liked that they gave Mme. Giry a more active role in the Phantom's past, but then it gets very weird because she's essentially matchmaking her surrogate daughter with a man her own age whom she has witnessed killing someone. I mean, it's not implausible to give a character two conflicting roles, but the film gave no viable explanation for it.
🥩4. The graveyard duel
Why were they using rapiers in 1870? The Phantom dueling I can get behind, being the theatre kid he is, but Raoul? Get a pistol, monsieur le vicomte. Anachronism aside, this addition doesn't add more to the scene. It's meant to show how the Phantom tried to lure Christine again and Raoul comes to disillusion her, but with the duel added in, it's just a question of who wins the duel, who gets to leave with Christine. And I keep wondering how the heck the Phantom lost the fight in spite of his Magnificent Cloak advantage. (Cloaks were used as shields back in the day of rapier duels.)
🥩5. Carlotta
I adore Wendy Ferguson's Carlotta. I understand that the film wanted to make a contrast between Christine and Carlotta, but making her something out of Mean Girls was uncalled for. You got the wrong musical, mate.
