I am, amongst other things, a huge POTO fan. But being a bit new-age, I'm actually huge fan of the movie, because I think the portrayal of Phantom and Christine, and their relationship, was right on the money.
In the book Christine is sixteen, young, beautiful, talented and sheltered. Excluding first and third point, I am Christine in the flesh and in a position to say that the Phantom is actually pretty damn appealing if he didn't look like Michael Crawford.
The Phantom is supposed to exude dark, restless masculinity and profound sexuality, and that is his appeal to
Christine, who later learns through kindness and compassion to overlook his physical deformities. To be honest, I don't think the musical really cuts it. Gerry Butler's Phantom hasn't got Luciano Pavarotti's vocal range but he's an artist, he's a composer and an architect - a really behind-the-scenes guy. If he was such a spaztastic singer why would he want Christine to sing in the first place? There's this hint of danger about the movie's Phantom, a sense of superiority coupled with vulnerability - and I think the Phantom's mystery and sheer power is what is most appealing to a girl like Christine, who, at sixteen, probably isn't the world's most butch feminist. Michael Crawford's voice is undeniable, but he hasn't got that rock star crooning that people have criticized so much about Butler. Michael Crawford's elderly uncle appearance doesn't really make him a viable love interest - the Phantom is meant to be eye candy. There's supposed to be something sinister, slightly unhealthy and Lolita about Christine and the Phantom but Michael Crawford lacked the sex appeal for the role, and it made it just too avuncular and pedophily.
So there you go - why Gerry Butler is my choice Phantom.
No comments:
Post a Comment