In this entry, I will be responding to yet another secular-feminist who has issues with the storyline of Andrew Lloyd Webber’s The Phantom of the Opera. But this time, the feminist has a diatribe-infested blog post from 2015 packaged as a well-meant public service announcement. So sit back and relax for a long entry full of disagreements with this lady’s analysis of the storyline and the Phantom’s bad and toxic behavior. I'm sick and tired of responding to secular feminists who spend time writing essays criticizing Erik for his behavior while simultaneously ignoring Christine's choices in all this. So this is my last response entry to a secular feminist who does nothing but gripe and complain about the rampant toxicity and abuse on the part of the title character while at the same time intentionally ignoring Christine's choices in this classic. Let’s get started.
“The Phantom of the Opera is one of those stories everyone seems to know, even if they've never seen it. It's iconic. Long before I saw the 2004 movie, I could have given you a rough outline of the plot. Until last summer, the movie was the only "real" version I had seen. When the Husbeast and I were on our honeymoon in New York we saw it on Broadway. This happened shortly after they had cast a black man in the role of the Phantom (whose name is actually Erik*) for the first time. He was good, very good, but he was the only black actor on that stage, which made the whole thing a touch uncomfortable. Besides the sudden racist over- and undertones the play had suddenly gained, I noticed something else: the Phantom is kind of a Nice Guy. He's blatantly the villain. Christine spends most of the play actively terrified of him. This isn't romantic pining cursed love, this is a man stalking a woman and threatening her and others (and blaming it on her when he hurts them) into doing what he wants her to do. The movie downplays how terrified Christine is and how villainous Erik is, but below is a list of super creepy things that jumped out at me when re-watching the movie.”
“The Husbeast?” That’s a really weird nickname you’ve got for your husband there, Erika. I personally wouldn’t call my future husband that. But that’s just me. You do you.
So right off the bat, there is quite a bit that I take issue with here. Erika referring to her husband as "the Husbeast" aside, let's address my issues with Erika's observations. First off, many wiki sources label Erik as an anti-hero in many versions of The Phantom of the Opera, including ALW’s hit musical and its 2004 film adaptation. Second, I disagree with Erika that the 2004 movie downplays how sacred Christine is and how villainous Erik is. The movie makes it crystal clear that Christine is terrified of Erik and that Erik is pretty villainous. The other thing I have an issue with is the following statement from Erika: “This isn't romantic pining cursed love, this is a man stalking a woman and threatening her and others (and blaming it on her when he hurts them) into doing what he wants her to do.”
This statement oversimplifies the plot, which is a lot more complicated than that. It’s very sloppy, inaccurate, and dishonest to sum up the story into an oversimplified statement like the one above.
Another one of Erika’s statements that I take issue with is this one: “I noticed something else: the Phantom is kind of a Nice Guy. He's blatantly the villain. Christine spends most of the play actively terrified of him.”
I've already said that The Phantom is actually an anti-hero/anti-villain, not a true villain. Think about it. The Phantom only wants to love Christine and for her to love him back. The desire to love and to be loved is a fundamental one. But he doesn't know how to express that love in a healthy way because no one showed him how. He's been abused, ridiculed, and rejected from the first few moments of his existence. Does that mean every abuse survivor becomes an abuser? Of course not!
He's an antihero/anti-villain because his desires and goals are good and valid ones. It's the way he tries to get what he wants that makes him an antihero/anti-villain.
While Christine does indeed most of the musical being actively terrified of him, she also spends most of the musical sympathizing with him.
A non-chronological tally of Erik being a creep:
You were saying? This tally of yours is awfully chronological and sequential.
-Christine was about 8 when he first came to her as "her angel of music" and started grooming her.
This is accurate, but it’s important to note that Christine deliberately chose to believe that he was the Angel of Music.
-Depending on what we go by, the age gap between the two of them is 12-30 years. The movie slants it more like 12 since that's the age gap between the actors, but he's supposed to have been a full-grown man when he first met her. His draw to her is supposed to be fatherly and sexual. THOSE ARE NOT THINGS THAT SHOULD GO TOGETHER EVER.
In my stories, I allow the age difference between romantic partners to be up to 15 years, max. In real life, I stick with the usual 10 year age difference. In my fanfiction, I adjust The Phantom & Christine’s ages so the age gap isn’t so wide. That’s one of the problems I have with the movie in particular, is that Christine is 16 and Erik is in his early thirties. I agree with you that a fatherly appeal and a sexual appeal going together is messed up. However, the argument that Raoul was also a kind of father figure to Christine, as well as her romantic partner, can be made. I'm aware that Raoul is closer to Christine's age, but the argument that Raoul is a kind of father figure to her, as well as her romantic partner, is a plausible one. However, in the movie, Raoul is 21 and Christine is 16 and so even their relationship would be illegal in the United States today. However, the all-caps is a bit too much.
-He can see through her mirror. He has 100% watched her change and sleep.
Yes, he can see through the mirror in the dressing room, but I dispute that “he has 100% watched her change and sleep.” The idea of him watching her change is a lot creepier to me than the idea of him watching her sleep. But here’s why I dispute that “he has 100% watched her change and sleep:” One, the dressing room in the movie was Carlotta’s before it was Christine’s. This is evident by the fact that there were opera posters with Carlotta on them on the walls.
Two, Christine only used that dressing room twice in the course of the entire movie.
Three, we only see her change twice in the movie, and I don’t think Erik watched her change either of those two times.
The first time was after “Little Lotte” and we see her come out from behind a dressing screen after changing. The dressing screen was in the dressing room for a reason. From how and where the dressing screen was positioned, it would have been hard for the Phantom to look past it and watch her change.
The second time is after the Phantom sabotages Carlotta’s voice during Il Muto and they lead her off to change into the Countess dress. We see a dresser helping her into the costume. At this point, the Phantom had gone to the rafters above the stage and was being followed by Joseph Buquet. He cannot have watched Christine change at this point because he was too busy going after Buquet who deliberately went after him.
-When, after grooming her as The Angel of Music, he finally does appear in the flesh before her he leads her down to his sex dungeon. In that number, he encourages her to turn away from everything she knows. In "Music of the Night" he is trying to isolate her both physically and emotionally by bringing her down to his dungeon and encouraging her to cut ties with everyone else.
This is accurate, but acknowledging his reason for trying to encouraging her to abandon the life and world she has known (and therefore trying to isolate her both physically and emotionally) is important. We need to understand and acknowledge his perspective. The Phantom has known nothing but rejection, ridicule, and abuse from the first few moments of his existence. He does not like light or day because the world of light above is the same world that shunned, ridiculed, and abused him. He feels that he cannot live in the world above because it is unsafe and cruel to people like him. He does not want to live in a world of light that mistreated and abused him and wrongfully withheld love, affection, and respect from him. Can you blame him for that? I certainly can't!
However, we should also consider the following lyrics from The Final Lair: Down once more to the dungeon of my black despair
Down we plunge to the prison of my mind
Down that path
into darkness
deep as hell!
Why, you ask,
was I bound and chained
in this cold and dismal place?
Not for any
mortal sin, but the
wickedness of
my abhorrent face!
Now consider the following lyrics from "The Music of the Night:"
As you can see, there is a stark contrast between the lyrics in "Down Once More/Track Down This Murderer" and the lyrics in "The Music of the Night."
In "The Music of the Night," the Phantom describes his home in the catacombs as beautiful and welcoming and the world of light above as "garish." But his goal at this point is to get Christine to fall for him.
In "Down Once More," the Phantom's description of his home in the catacombs is no longer rosy. Notice how he uses the words "dungeon," "prison," "black despair," "darkness deep as hell," "cold," and "dismal" to describe his dwelling in the catacombs.
Even though his home in the catacombs is the place where he hides from the judgemental and cruel world of light above, the above lyrics from "Down Once More" express the Phantom's hatred for his underground home. And he sings those lyrics as he drags Christine back down to his lair after she rejected him again just mere moments before "Down Once More."
And I daresay, it was a beautiful and heartfelt proposal. He did ask nicely. Even though he's dragging Christine down to his home, the lyrics from "Down Once More" imply that the Phantom still wants to live a semi-normal life in the world above. But the Phantom is done with asking Christine for her love nicely. His goal at the time of "Down Once More" is to make her his by any means necessary. He still wants her love but he doesn't care that Christine has chosen Raoul over him several times already.
Also, please don’t call the Phantom’s grotto a “sex dungeon” or “dungeon.” It is more than a dungeon. And it is more than a dungeon for sexual activity. Keep in mind that his so-called “sex dungeon” or “dungeon” is also his home and his haven from the world above.
-Erik literally has an altar dedicated to Christine. With a wax statue of her IN A WEDDING DRESS.
This is obvious. There is no need to point this out.
-She faints upon seeing it and he carries her to bed where he watches her sleep.
He does not watch her sleep! The website Questions Answered The Phantom of the Opera (2004) has an answer to a question, which was: "What was the Phantom doing while Christine was asleep?" The answer is that he was playing music on his organ.
-When she takes off his mask (not a sudden or sneaky move) the Phantom shoves her to the ground and starts screaming at her before twisting it to evoke her pity. Once she is a mass of emotions from his outburst he insists she leave now without giving her any opportunity to say or do anything.
Not a sudden or sneaky move, you say? That was pretty sudden and sneaky to me. I agree that there was emotional manipulation here and that he overreacted but again, his perspective needs to be taken into account here. Knowing full well what lies under that mask of his and the grief it has given him, I don’t blame him for not wanting her to see what’s under the mask. And she took it off without his permission.
-He threatens to murder people if he doesn't get his way (which includes Christine on stage as the lead, piles of money, and for the Viscount to never see her again).
This is accurate except for one thing: He only threatened to murder people if Christine wasn’t the lead in Il Muto and Box 5 wasn’t left empty for him. He did not threaten to kill people over not getting money and the Vicomte not refraining from seeing Christine again.
-He strangles a man and drops his body down onto the stage during a performance even after they scramble to get Christine on stage after he sabotages the Diva.
This is accurate, but a little more complicated than that: Buquet went after him.
-The Phantom sees Christine being scared, comforted, and romanced by Raul as a personal betrayal and has a whole number about how she totally friendzoned him.
First off, it’s spelled Raoul, not Raul. And you didn’t word this very well. “The Phantom sees Christine being scared, comforted, and romanced by Raoul” can be interpreted as Raoul is the one who caused her to be scared in the first place. That’s not the case at all. The Phantom is the one who caused Christine to be scared in the first place. But the rest of this is accurate.
-Verbatim line: "You will curse the day you did not do all the Phantom asked of you"
This goes with your previous point so this was totally unnecessary.
-He emotes with his cape. A lot.
How is twirling your cape a lot tantamount to being a creep?
-He crashes a great party just to yell at people, publicly point out that he's been the one teaching Christine, and to tell her to come back. He also rips Christine's engagement ring off of her and yells that he owns her.
-We do get his TRAGIC BACK STORY which is that he was abused as a kid and displayed as a sideshow freak, but...
You did so well on this point until you ruined it with the “but...” He was displayed as a human oddity and abused as a child in a traveling fair. Period. No buts!
-Erik stalks Christine to her Father's grave, where she is going to try and sift through her fear and confusion and loneliness so he can try to lure her back when she's vulnerable. He sings about how the "soul obeys". NO, THAT'S ALL THE GROOMING ERIK.
Your last statement is wrong and inaccurate. Because once again, it’s a little more complicated than that. To quote A Few Notes About Christine Daae from Christine Eyre of the blog “Overflowing Pen:” “Christine, for her part, differentiates between “friend or Phantom.” The two are no longer one and the same in her mind. She also no longer follows a mysterious voice without question, and wants to know who is there. But she quickly figures out it’s the Phantom, and picks up, at least to some degree, on hidden motives in his appearance: “Angel, oh speak!—what endless longings echo in this whisper?” Christine made several mistakes in her thinking and emotions, but she is not an idiot, guys. And my sister pointed out that she is fairly emotionally stable—she is affected by the traumatic circumstances, but she doesn’t totally break down under everything that happened.
The Phantom gives her a second chance to return to him voluntarily—and Christine feels the pull, but fights it: “Wildly, my mind beats against you, but my soul obeys!” At first glance, it seems weird that she chooses to let go of the past, and then immediately falls back under the Phantom’s spell. But the Phantom is manipulating her in a personal way here. And manipulating her, as I specified in my Raoul post, where she is most vulnerable. Also, Christine still feels a pull to the Phantom and his music, but it’s one that she does not want to submit to.”
Eyre makes an important point by saying that while the Phantom is trying to manipulate her, Christine also sings “yet my soul obeys,” thereby recognizing the Phantom’s pull and tries to resist Erik with every fiber of her being because she does not want to submit to him.
-When Raul bursts in to save her, he and the Phantom fight. Phantom was straight up gonna murder Raul but fails. Raul was in a position to murder the phantom but Christine tells him not to, so, no questions asked, HE DOESN'T. Just puts his sword away and gets them both onto the horse. Erik declares "war on you both" for this. For... not.. killing him?
How many times do I have to tell you that you're misspelling Raoul's name? It’s true that he was going to murder Raoul, but Erik is traumatized. Kill Erik because he tried to kill Raoul and even though Erik is not right in the head. *sarcastically* Great thinking, Erika! That's great moral fiber.
In all seriousness, you do not kill someone who has been that traumatized even though they tried to kill you first. That's just morally repugnant to me.
And Erik did not declare “war upon you both” because they spared his life. He declared “war upon you both” because Raoul came to Christine’s rescue and Christine went with Raoul.
-Did I mention the cape emoting yet?
Yes, you already did. And I, for the life of me, do not understand how that’s creepy or abusive.
-The entire number of "Past The Point Of No Return" is basically a self-insert sex fantasy fanfic that he is forcing Christine to act in. It seriously plays almost like a sex scene, but there's a lot of conflating song and sex.
Again, it’s more complicated than that. Yes, the Phantom was forcing Christine to act in Don Juan. But the following facts need to be taken into account:
1. No one was expecting the Phantom to insert himself into the role of Don Juan.
2. Christine knew she was performing with the Phantom during “The Point of No Return” the second he opened his mouth and started to sing. And she deliberately chose to sing the duet with him anyway, knowing full well that it was him. She could have run off the stage and flat-out refused to finish the performance, but she didn’t. She still sang the song number with Erik anyway.
-He uses the song Raul and Christine sing together, and forces her to sing it to him during previously-mentioned almost-sex scene.
Again, it’s spelled Raoul. And amazing. Every word in that statement is wrong. He did not use the song “All I Ask of You” to force her to sing it to him. He sang an adapted verse of “All I Ask of You” to her as a marriage proposal, as a plea to spend the rest of her life with him.
-When Christine yanks the mask off him, he literally tries to murder a room full of people via chandelier and kidnaps her.
You are literally the only person I've encountered who interpreted Erik causing the chandelier to fall as Erik trying to kill a theatre full of people with the chandelier. Geez.
He wasn't trying to kill anyone by bringing the chandelier crashing down. He brought it crashing down as a distraction and nothing more. But your point about him kidnapping her is unnecessary because it's blatantly obvious. So thanks again, Captain Obvious.
-He literally makes her wear a wedding dress.
Yes, he does indeed. Thanks for pointing that out, Captain Obvious.
-He insists the reason Christine dislikes him is because he's ugly and says it "poisons their love". You know. Not the murder.
No need to point this out or explain it because it’s pretty obvious and self-explanatory. But thanks, anyway.
-'Give up everything you know and love me or walk away and I kill your lover. Your call.'
Again, no need to point this out or explain it because it’s pretty obvious and self-explanatory. But thanks, anyway. The Phantom worded it differently, though.
-She picks him, he has a change of heart and angrily tells them to run away but still refers to himself as "the angel in hell" as he weeps over how much he loves her.
This is so sloppy and inaccurate. He sadly tells them to leave him because of the following reasons:
-He realizes that he can’t force her to love him
-He can’t give her the life she deserves and he knows that
-He’s ashamed of his bad and abusive behavior
He does not refer to himself as “‘the angel in hell’ as he weeps over how much he loves her.”
He refers to himself as “this angel in hell” as he sadly tells them to go because he now realizes what an abusive jerk he’s been and he’s ashamed of his behavior. That’s not being a creep or abusive, Erika. He did the right thing by letting her go.
Tearfully telling her “Christine, I love you” after he has let her go isn’t being a creep, abusive, or emotionally manipulative by a long shot.
And belting “you alone can make my song take flight. It’s over now, the music of the night” isn’t being a creep, abusive, or emotionally manipulative by a long shot. These two lines are him acknowledging that his and Christine’s relationship is over. He’s grieving their terminated relationship, which is perfectly OK and normal.
-Somehow outlives her and leaves the wedding ring he tried to force on her by her grave.
The wedding ring he tried to force on her was also the engagement ring that Raoul gave her. It’s also the ring she gave him to remember her by. He left it on her grave as a final goodbye and as a token of his love, affection, and devotion. I don’t see anything toxic, creepy, abusive let alone problematic about that. TV Tropes says that in history, there was a plague of some kind going around when she died. So I think that’s why he outlived her. She was also in her 60s when she died and that’s beyond the average life expectancy back then.
The next part of Erika’s post is a lengthy diatribe of everything that is wrong with Love Never Dies. I don’t like Love Never Dies. The plot sucks but the music is amazing. So the only thing I like about Love Never Dies is the music. So I’m going to skip that and just say that I do not consider Love Never Dies to be canon.
*I'm using his first name because typing The Phantom every time felt a bit absurd but yes, his name being one letter off from mine does make me surly, thanks for asking.
I understand your anger over this, but it’s a bit too much to me. The fact that his name being a letter off from yours makes you bad-tempered quite frankly reeks of a god complex to me. Chill out! He may have done some bad stuff, but he’s just a fictional character. I wouldn’t get so crabby over a villainous fictional character’s name being one letter off from mine. Just look on the bright side. Because you know what? You also share your name with several good fictional characters: Dr. Erica Hahn from Grey’s Anatomy, Queen Erika of Dulcinea from Barbie as The Princess and the Pauper, Erika from Pokémon, and Erika Kurumi from the anime series HeartCatch PreCure.
