...and I have to ask, what is it with this?

Like, okay, lemme start over.

Why do so many people think they can "fix" him, or point the blame on Christine and Raoul?

And yes, I know where I'm posting this. I honestly am NOT trying to be mean or anything to people who feel this way about certain characters, you do your own thing. I'm not bashing anyone. It's just a general question because either me and my entire household missed something or I'm just legit not getting it.

So yes. Backstory time (back in Gimmlestump).

There's been a channel on YT that's posted full versions of Andrew Lloyd Webber shows, and it had the Royal Albert Hall version of POTO on there a few weeks ago. Watched it. I love the effects and the songs combined with the show. I thought the actors were amazing and overall it was really well done. Even the songs, all of which have been ruined for me from figure skating due to everyone and their mother skating to them all the dang time, I found awesome in show.

I also am a fan of the story. I've read the original book only 5 million times at this point, and I like the direction Webber took the story with this and how he chose to convert it to stage. On the same token, I've found another play of it and thought it was pretty cool too. That version has a movie based off it with Charles Dance. I highly recommend it. It's my favorite for how the Phantom character is played.

Update: having watched the play now by Yeston and Kopit, I can confidently say that holy crap that is really good go now, watch. The music reminds me of Disney, and honesty, so do a few of the scenes. The overall thing is MUCH darker subject matter than Disney when you analyze it, but wow. That beats the AWL version for me.

Which brings me to part of my point. I think the reason I like the story in every form I get it is because if the characters. I'm not a romance fan or anything, and the drama I laugh at, but the characters are interesting, especially the Phantom/Erik character. Watching everything, I realized the reason why I like the story is because I like the villain. I think he's honestly interesting.

That, and it is a story that is focused largely on the villain's reasoning, motivations, and logic, but from an outside standpoint. We don't have to like him, but depending on the person or the adaption, you can almost feel pity for the man by the end of the story. We get inside his head only as much as the story allows, which still leaves him a mystery to the reader and holds some of that ghost-ish, supernatural quality, even though the character is very human.

So anyway, I get done with the video. I go to the other videos. I go to the world no one should ever see.

The comment section.

The comment section (sprays with Holy water) is very entertaining. It is also very alarming, especially if you hit the comments on the video that was up for Webber's musical (it was only up for 48hrs) and the comments on the videos of the musical by Kopit and movie based off it.

For some reason, people are... about lusting after the Phantom. If it's not themselves they're inserting into the scenario, it's a pairing of Christine and the Phantom and criticising her actions.

To which, again, I know where I'm posting this. But just hear me out.

Let's look at the Phantom. Is he a good guy? Why'd I call him a villain? Maybe he's just misunderstood.

- beginning of book/midway through play: kills a man. Hanging.

- Kidnapping

- The book largely implies hypnotism on Christine.

- impersonating a mourning girl's dead father

- lying about being a literal angel sent by her dead father

- drops a chandelier in a crowd on innocent people. Death count largely depends on the version.

- attempted murder of a friend (book)

- attempted murder of Christine's boyfriend/fiance

- threatening to blow up a theater if the girl he loves won't marry him. Last I checked, that was terrorism. Pretty sure that's also a type of abuse on the girl he "loves"

- kills girl's fiance's older brother (book)

- drives Carlotta insane/electrocutes her/ terrorizes her (depends on version)

- kills Carlotta's guy(?) He's def. dead.

- drives Christine to the point of suicide, with her having to promise not to kill herself after having just contemplated and attempted it (book).

Needless to say, he's (a) not sane and (b) most certainly, NOT a "good guy". Part of what makes the character the character is the not sane/ villain side of him. It's legitimately what makes him interesting. It's really cool to see the different motivations to villains and understand them more. By the time you finish book/movie/tvshow/play you get a good idea on the concept of said character.

But he shouldn't be mistaken for good.

A lot of the running themes I see with this guy are "Christine should have loved him" or "all he wanted was love." Technically, that is true, he wants love. Thing is, that is not going to "fix" the character. The closest time I have seen a storyline that has Christine falling, I guess, for him is in the Yeston and Kopit play called "Phantom." In that, Christine has interactions with Phillipe (equivalent to Raoul) but doesn't really pursue that story point. Instead, there's a full on song and scene that she manages to get Erik (Phantom in this) to take off his mask for her. That is basically the most trusting that character will ever be, and he does it out of believing he will be loved.

Still, seeing his face, Christine freaks the heck out and runs away. Does this hurt? Depends on how much the writers have made you see the story from Erik's point of view, but you definitely see his absolute anguish during the sung that immediately follows called "My Mother Bore Me."

"My mother bore me in the southern wilds/ I live in darkness but my soul is light/ Light as a forehead of an English child/ but I'm in darkness and bereaved of light."

(This song is a based off a poem by William Blake. )

Would her staying have fixed this? It may have stopped the actions that lead to his death by the end of the play, but he's already murdered Carlotta, pooped a chandelier on the audience, strangled Joseph Bouquet, terrorized the Opera house, threatened to kill-- yeah. He's already exhibited the destructive/insane tendencies at this point. In fact, the pooping of the chandelier and murder of Carlotta are directly related to Christine due to her having a poor first showing in an opera due to Carlotta being Carlotta.

So yes, while it is arguable that Christine loves him and he loves Christine, it is questionable as to what his version of love is. He takes her to the lair and fully intends to keep her there for the rest of her life. His excuse? Protection. Everyone else?

*Frantically screaming at all the red flags*

One of the reasons he is so attracted to Christine in this version is that she looks/ reminds him of his mother, who is the only person who has seen his face and thought it to be beautiful. So, ignoring that she noped out hard on that one, if she had stayed, would he continue to love her?

Maybe.

But, it brings to question what would happen if all the beauty he wants from her were to go away? If she stayed with him and loved him, does he actually love her or does he love the concept of her? If she were to not agree with a ruling of his, what would his reaction be? To nearly everyone in the play, it is violence of some kind. The first person he kills is a snowball to start the avalanche. The only one who can disagree with him with no direct violence is his father. He's still yelled at and told to get the heck out though. Under that logic, if Christine were to disagree, she could be privy to physical rage.

Would he hurt her?

Is it an argument we're talking about here? I mean, all good couples get into arguments. Or, is it much worse? Would there be any signs of physical/mental violence shown to her?

After long enough, probably. That's the sad part.

I say this because at the end of the same play, after running from police (stabbing at least one) he is shot. As in bleeding so badly they track him down and, if not for his father, find him. After a few minutes, he gets up to go down to the lair again. Christine and Phillipe show up. He sees Christine and breaks free from his father to get her because, and I quote,

"She has seen my face, she is mine."

The line is in the last 10 minutes of the show.

Which then beings on the fight that eventually leads to his death. All of this because he, who is bleeding out, sees her and because she has seen him, lays claim to her.

*Dancing red flags. Big."

It's rather unclear as to if he'd kill her in that moment or later. Everyone who has seen him up to that point has died except for, again, his father. The father though, saw him as a child so I wouldn't count it too much. If he isn't planning on killing Christine, he certainly plans on keeping her with him, which hurts her due to her wanting to be free. I honestly think that she wants his friendship in this play and thinks she loves him, but that particular character trapped in an underground lair wouldn't go well. 

It wouldn't go well for anyone.

Doesn't go well for Erik. He's insane. There are actually studies that talk about extended times in solitude and what that does to be. Basically, nothing good. This particular character pretty much worships music due to that being what he hears all the time. If it's not in his head, it's on stage. If he's not imagining scenarios, he's controlling the Opera house from underground with no contact from anyone.

So yes, he is capable of hurting Christine. The very thing he swears to protect from the "evil of the world above," he'd single-handedly destroy.

Why did I use one play to come up with that answer? That particular storyline is the closest those characters ever come to love. That is the most they know each other and trust each other in any version I have seen. If it could happen in any one, it would be that one.

Going back to all of them though, I have a tendency to believe that he loves Christine only because of her music. In everything, he is drawn to her because of her voice. In many versions, that is all we are shown that he knows of her. Yeston/Kopit is slightly different, but he still begs her to sing to him different times, and that is when we see the character feels the most love for her. He calls her voice "beautiful" and compares it to angels.

Overall, what the Phantom loves is music and beauty. Beauty would probably be the better of the two to compare. He sees music as beautiful. There are voices that feel more beautiful than others, as well as instruments. He is attracted to Christine because of her voice, which he seems as beautiful. He is obsessed with his face due to it being the exact opposite of what he loves. In every version, it is extremely clear that he hates his face.

History lesson time. At the time in book came out, to be disfigured or looked upon as ugly meant you'd either done  something or were going to do something. To be beautiful meant moral goodness, and not beautiful meant you were a bad person. The book is a commentary on those ideas. The Phantom, who is "good" or has the capability to be "good" (minus the murder) never has a chance to show that yo, he's a music guy. In the same token, people who are seen as "beautiful" waver in moral goodness as points.

I don't remember the description of Carlotta from the book, but she is basically a parallel to Christine. Both are considered "good" by society's standards, but each one has a different moral goodness. Christine is supposed to be innocent and pure. I mean, just look at her name. She is also portrayed that way throughout the story. Carlotta, on the other hand, is honestly fairly full of herself. Different versions of the story portray her differently, but it all comes down to her being extremely prideful and envious of Christine or anyone singing better than her. Both of them can sing. Both are fully capable of it. Watching the plays, I'm always impressed with the actress who plays Carlotta due to the notes she hits. Those are high. If they wanted her to be incapable of singing, she wouldn't have such good actresses and singers given the role. Truth be told, Carlotta is pretty much an exaggeration of the opera diva, hammered in do the audience can see that Christine is not like her. Carlotta judges quickly from the circumstances someone comes from and lets jealousy take over, but Christine judges the morality of a character.

Due to this, the beauty that the phantom loves comes through Christine's voice, not Carlotta. Again, Christine is innocent and kind. Carlotta wants to be known. It is because of that she is safe for basically the entire book and Carlotta is attacked.

The innocence Christine has is taken away when she sees the Phantom's face. The beauty that she held is swallowed by the Phantom's ugliness, which then turns her into a target. Why? Because of how she reacts. Yell, scream, faint-- any and all of it, she reacts negatively. She judged the character at first, but then turns to judging the person by the outside. Again, at the time of the story's release, to look the way Erik does meant evil.

Also, be honest, if someone looks like a walking dead man, you'd be freaked out too.

This then leads to her being treated as everyone who sees him. Her innocence is only given back at the end, when she shows what the Phantom wants to see as love. That is her beauty restored through that, and she is freed because he loves that very same beauty.

There's a scene at the end of the book, where the narrator finds the skelton of Erik. Those only reason we know it's him is because of his ring. Everything else is normal.

In death, everyone is equal. We all wind up as skeletons anyway. In the theme of the story, it's the only way he would be seen as normal too. He has, at that point, achieved his wish to be like everyone else.

That was a tiny bit of a tangent, but still gets the point across. What he loves the most is what would eventually destroy Christine if she had stayed. Beauty is only in the eye of the beholder, and something shown as ugly to the Phantom is something he does not love.

Love would not have "fixed" the character. It may have put a band-aid on the bullet hole, but it wound eventually bleed through. By the time the story starts, it's way too late for that. It's arguable as to if he fully understands what love is, and not his perception of love in beauty. I lean more towards him loving beauty and attributing beauty to things, which makes him love them.

He's not a good guy.

Are we supposed to pity him?

That, I think, is largely left up to the version and the person watching. I tend to pity the character at the very end of every version, because if you take away the circumstances and zombie face, he would've been a good character. He'd have gotten recognition for his music and work and probably lived a good life. Overall, that's what the character wants to be. It's one that wants to be good but isn't and doesn't know what goodness is. The fact that we may pity him enforces the villain aspect and why I like the story and character so much. He is a villain, but he's a villain with a story and reasons we can somewhat understand.

Except for that one 1943 Phantom of the Opera movie, where he hears his work played, gets jealous, kills the conductor, and is sprayed by acid.

ANYWAY

If he was good, and not murderous and/or crazy, it wouldn't be the same character, would it? There'd be no story. In order for the character to exist, he must have a kind of moral black, white, and gray to him. Without that, there is only a musician doing his job and living in music.

I've gone on about this way too long. Like, almost 3000 words-I-should-be-an-English-major long-because-this-is-fun-and-I-have-more.

Anyway, tldr: that's abuse, love alone doesn't fix people, he's crazy, and not meant to be a happy character. Great villain though.

I'm interested to hear y'all's opinions. I know where I stand, but it's a story. Just curious on different interpretations.

I'll probably rant long and hard about the 'sequel' next.