#ALW Musical criticism

[dross-the-fish]

Thoughts on the unmasking scene in the musical?

Eeehhh

I don't love it. I feel like it drops the ball in a few places and it's placement is kind of off story wise.

Christine wakes up right after fainting post "Music of the Night", goes over to Erik at the piano, takes his mask off, and he rages and screams at her, all well and good. But right after he goes "now you cannot ever be free" she hands him back the mask and he immediately goes, "Come, we must return, those two fools who run my theater will be missing you."

ALW skipped over an ENTIRE WEEK. An entire week where Christine has to work on Erik to get him to let her go.

But hang on, there's a scene right after where the managers are panicking and the news papers are reporting Christine missing. What happened? Was she asleep for a week? Were she and Erik just hanging out for an unspecified number of days?

In the book there was an entire week where Christine was with Erik, trying to win his trust so he could be convinced to let her go. The musical completely takes that out of her hands and puts it in Erik's.

I feel like if you had to do it this way this would have worked better if you'd moved the numbers around a bit.

"Music of the Night" then "Notes" Then the unmasking scene. And then maybe as he's taking her back that's when you have "Phantom of the Opera" since the unmasking is the point at which she actually finds out he's not her Angle of Music and learns he's the Opera Ghost. Then all of those lines about "the Phantom of the Opera is there inside my mind" and being the mask he wears would make sense. That would be a great time for her to sound conflicted and have her grappling with finding out the truth.

I think this is ultimately the problem with the musical, it is not really an adaptation that can stand on its own. It's banking on the fact that you already know this story and can fill in the gaps yourself or won't think too hard about the logistics. It plays more to the audience's emotions than it does try to tell a cohesive narrative.

Phantom is carried by it's acting, it's directing, it's stylish production values and when it's good, the music.

The writing is easily it's weakest point. You can enjoy it without the book, I know a lot of people do, but I feel ALW wrote it with the expectation that the people watching were already familiar enough with the source material that he could get away with leaving things out, neglecting the timeline or flattening the characters.

Ultimately I don't find the unmasking scene as effective as I think it was meant to be. It has good build up and "Stranger than you dreamt it" is legitimately a good number but I feel like it ends so awkwardly.

Erik has his big blow up and Christine finds out he's not an angel of music, he's just some guy and all she can do is meekly hand Erik back his mask and let him tell her she needs to go back. Like he's scolding a child. Like she was there for a couple of hours, most of which she was asleep, and then she fucks up and he sends her back. It's giving "disappointed dad."

And then the scene ends and we get notes where we find out she's been gone long enough that the press thinks it's worth reporting.

[kimwexlers-brownhair]

The girl was undeniably radiant onscreen, so the critics reflected, but not quite classically beautiful in the way crowds were used to.... Yes, dark brown freckles splattered across her face. The nose was rather comical. Frankly she'd never give Sarah Bernhardt a run for her money acting-wise. But who cared if her dramatic skills were lacking when a genuine sweetness shone through no matter how tart or brassy the character? And when she smiled – when she turned at a certain angle – when that tawny lion’s mane caught the light, contrasting with her brown eyes so dark they looked almost black –

--The First Movie Star

Meg, once more inspired by Jean Harlow, with some Fernanda Muniz and Shohreh Aghdashloo. I may color at some point.

[luneemeritus]

ALW has such bizarre ways of characterizing Erik that will never not be weird to me.

Making him fatphobic, like if himself wasn't judged and abused for his physical appearance. Making him OWN a freakshow in Love Never Dies? He literally survived one! Erasing all the Persian elements of the story, making him pretend to be Christine's fucking father, kidnapping her son and threatening to kill him like wut...

But the worst to me was Erik leaving Christine after fucking her. BRO WHAT. THIS MAN DROPED A CHANDELIER FOR CHRISTINE DAAEUSSY WTF YOU MEAN HE JUST LEFT HER. The realistic choice would be him being even more dependent of her than he already was.

but all that being said, CHUBBY CHRISTINE SUPREMACY

andrew lloyd webber and susan kay, i see your fatphobic erik and i raise you erik who is fascinated with and worships and covets fatness because he doesn’t have it and he probably never will. he sees folds of flesh in paintings and sculpture and the bodies of the opera singers and he yearns and aches

[soprano-sfogato]

Christine’s part is more about the middle voice, not high notes

I’ve written a post about Christine’s technique in Leroux’s novel, but now let’s talk about the role of Christine in ALW’s musical. I can literally write a book about it—before I’ve chosen opera as my career path, I was aiming to play Christine one day (I had taken voice lessons from one of the actresses who played her many years ago, and I nearly auditioned for the London production). But today, I’ll try to write about this part in a nutshell.

High E is not the most important thing

I know that the role of Christine is primarily associated with that high note, but the whole part is more complex than just one note. It’s wonderful if you can sing this note with ease, but it doesn’t mean that you can sing the entire part well, because

Having a good and strong middle voice is crucial

Christine’s part sits mostly in the middle voice, and since that’s often the most challenging part of the soprano range, you need solid technique to manage singing in that tessitura. If you struggle with your middle voice, it would be impossible for you to sing this part. That’s why you should

Work on your chest voice

A developed chest voice is essential for a strong middle voice. It’s also critical if you want to handle the lower notes—Christine sings quite low at times, even below middle C. Chest voice is a must for this part, and it will also help with

A few high notes

Christine sings high during the Think of me cadenza and at the end of the title song (and in the ensemble at the end of Masquerade). That’s it. It’s not difficult if you have strong, proper technique. Regarding the Think of me cadenza, you should also

Be familiar with the opera style

Yes, Phantom is a musical, but Christine is an opera singer, and the score gives you the opportunity to show it! Plus, if you’ve sung some arias before, it will make the Think of me cadenza (in any version) much easier to sing.

To sum up, while Christine’s high notes are impressive, the role requires much more than that. A strong middle and chest voice, and familiarity with operatic style are essential to mastering that part.

[shutyourfacemonsterlover]

hmm call me an Erik apologist all you want, but after thinking it well, i think the complaints people have about "sexy phantoms" and how "adaptations never adapt POTO well, they romanticize the story too much, it's a horror story not a romance" are kinda...unfounded?

Yeah you can make a potential argument about adaptations missing the mark, removing the deformity from Erik (which shapes Erik's whole character), and that...But also...how much is this true, and how much this has been exaggerated by really one or modern interpretations?

And i wonder...is it really? Phantom has had such a number of different adaptations all over the years, from different creative minds, and each of them presented a different view on Erik. Do most of them not adapt the book? Yes (as in no birth deformity, no Daroga, no scorpion or grasshopper, etc etc). Do they really change the main themes and mood presented in the novel, turning it more erotic? Are really all adaptations with a "sexy Erik and cucked Raoul!", as critics state? Heem, let's take a look.

We'll mostly analyze the big film adaptations, since Phantom has been told over and over again in different books, comics, videogames, tv shows, and it would take us A LOT to go through every one (also let's be realistic...we have to analyze the most "well known" Phantom adaptations so to see if the critics' words hold some water. I don't think it would make much sense to point out a Phantom adaptation that has these elements but like...only four people know of it lol)

Lon Chaney...Nope. Erik was still deformed, and the few sympathetic traits he has were erased to give him a boring clichéd "kill the monster" ending, going against what the book stated, where Erik dies of a broken heart and not lynched (curiously, how the same people that go "we must portray the book accurately, not show him sympathetically" don't mind this change, huh)

Claude Rains...Nope. Still ugly, dies by the end. No sexuality. Even the "love triangle" element is changed so that it focuses on Christine and her being annoyed by the two Raouls.

Herbert Lom...Still ugly and dies. This adaptation even cuts his attraction to Christine yet keeps his obsession with music, even cuts down his biggest crimes to lay it on the hands of his sidekick (imo this is probably the most "sympathetic" Phantom, imo, since he's interpreted as an artist who had his art stolen, only wanting to "get back" at the thieves; but nobody talks of him when discussing sympathetic Phantoms)

Phantom of the Paradise...Still ugly, loses, but like Herbert Lom, redeems himself through death.

Maximillian Schell...Ugly, dies by the end.

Cartoon - Ugly, dies, Christine doesn't go with him. This is the most book accurate novel but in another angle, haha (Daroga is here, death's head, abusive mother...not exactly what the smart ass critics want ;)).

Robert Englund...Ugly, loses, doesn't get Christine...In fact I'd claim this is probably the most villainous version of Erik, turning him into more of a Freddy Krueger clone than the complicated character Erik truly is. Really amps up the horror for all those "IT'S A HORROR STORY" smart-ass critics if they're so desperate for an "accurate" version (Erik didn't flay people in the novel, iirc, so, so much for "being accurate to the novel"!)

ALW-verse / the musical / Gerard Butler film / Love Never Dies / Phantom of Manhattan (i'm placing all of this in the same venue because basically, it's really the same universe / canon, ergo we're really talking about the same intrepretation / the same creator). Ugliness is there, but sorta downplayed...This verse often ends with Erik and Christine getting together...yup, this is the one version where the criticism is legit.

Charles Dance / Yeston Kopit musical / Takarazuka (again, same universe, same creator, same interpretation). Possibly the nicest Erik yet, but he's still deformed, and he still doesn't get Christine. He's sympathetic, a little romantic, but I don't think it's on the same league as the sexuality present in Point of no Return's lyrics or Gerard Butler's open puffy shirts.

Susan Kay's novel - This one is interesting because it takes a lot from the musical (i'd argue even more from that than the novel), and then influenced the musical and future iterations of it (this novel amps up the sexy angle A LOT), so I'm not sure to categorize it as its own thing or added to the musical verse. But, still...it follows the plot points from ALW (and elements we see in future installments of ALW's POTO, like the secret child, first appeared in Kay, i think, based on publication dates), yet Erik is still hideous, but his sexuality is present in the novel...as well as his murderous tendencies. This is the one version that combines elements of both horror and sex, imo.

Dario Argento - for fuck's sakes, nobody likes this version, lol, and even the normies don't know of it. BUT ANYWAY, IF WE'RE GONNA MAKE THE COMPARISON....Not deformed, "gets Christine", in a way, but woof this version also amps up the horror and has the most unlikable Erik of them all imo.

And everything else...Do people really care or know about those versions? Wishbone's or the other musicals, or the ass long number of books? Not really...

So really...the number of Phantom adaptations that have a "sexy, romantic" Erik can be chalked up to 2-3...against all the other adaptations that keep the horror elements or have Erik still looking horrible. And the great majority of them keep it in canon with the original ending- ea Erik dies and Christine goes with Raoul (it's really only Kay's novel and LND that have the "sexy Erik cucks Raoul" interpretation...and LND has always always always been mocked and rejected by the fans)

So it's people really throwing a tantrum over the ALW version being popular, really. (And i'm really curious how they don't mind when Erik is turned more villainous, like in Lon Chaney or Robert Englund's version, even though those are also inaccurate to the novel. (Erik wasn't a sexy doomed hero, no, but he also wasn't this Freddy Krueger bastard.) Funny that).

[goblins-riddles-or-frocks]

Also if you want to reverse unpopular opinion about phantom of the opera :)...idk if you have criticisms of it either lol I haven't been able to find them in your tag yet...but it's fun to praise it cause I miss it

So I am a Phantom of the Opera fan first and a person second! I'm pretty sure that everything I have ever liked, you can probably draw a direct line back to Phantom of the Opera in some way. It's a story I enjoy almost as an archetype at this point. I love how there are so many wildly different adaptations and interpretations and more specifically resolutions for the story. But I'm basic, my favorite versions are the original Leroux novel, and the ALW musical. I read the unmasking scene at the impressionable tween and Erik digging Christine's fingers into the flesh of his face, telling her that he is made up of death from head to foot, and "Know that it is a corpse who loves you and adores you and will never, never, leave you!" Like that has been burned into my brain ever since lmao. I am very specifically drawn to stories that are centered on like overcoming an oppressive mentor figure. And that's really the heart of Phantom. I love the way it balances this with its over the top gothic tropes, while keeping Erik a very nuanced character, and still centers Christine the entire time and doesn't sacrifice her character or her suffering for his sake. It's just soooo good I love it lots! Send me a topic and I’ll say something good about it! No hating allowed!

[marybeatriceofmodena]

I'm curious, do ppl hate Love Never Dies because they think Eristine is problematic and it's made canon in it, or is it due to something else? I havent watched it yet or anything but i like the vibes, lol

Heh... Love Never Dies has always been controversial at the very least? It came out at a time where Erik/Christine was still the most popular ship in the phandom - it still is, by the way. That didn't change despite a clear shift in fandom and ""problematic content"" around 2013, so a good 3 years after the musical came out. If anything, Raoul/Christine shippers have been a minority for most of the phandom's history, and both sides of the debate at some point more or less decided to agree to disagree (I mean, the homophobic slurs Raoul would get at times were starting to REALLY be in poor taste), except on the point that without the love triangle, there wouldn't be much of a story, and there are various ways of interpreting said love triangle. So, quite frankly, I don't understand why some people on either side are trying to restart discourse in the POTO fandom but I digress. And look, if you see people in the tags saying that Erik/Christine is problematic, they're probably new, and not really representative of the phandom at large. Anything having to do with Sierra Boggess is more controversial.

I really don't think the controversy stems from it making Erik and Christine bang and have a love child - I know there are some people who are against the idea of any kind of sequel, in fanfic form or otherwise, for a variety of reasons, but most of them were being responsible adults about it and didn't actively seek fanfic. As I mentioned before, a lot of folks were Erik/Christine shippers and thought that Christine was more into the Phantom than into Raoul, that's nothing new. But a lot of them also had issues with how LND dealt with it, for several reasons. It didn't come from an "anti" sentiment, it was very much them having issues with the material that was presented to them.

Raphael/phantoonsoftheopera (who is a long time fan of POTO) goes into more detail here and I think he sums up a lot of phans' thoughts back in 2010 when LND came out (whether they shipped the Phantom and Christine or not), and I think @musicalhell is another one who was also around at the time (feel free to pop in, and hope I'm not bothering you with the tag).

As for the rest, I wish I could defend ALW's choices here in the same way I'd defend Lana Wachowski for Matrix Resurrections - i.e. you're allowed to not like it but this is this creator's baby and they're allowed to do whatever they want with it, so let's all respect art for the sake of art here. But LND is very much a vanity project, as ALW has proven multiple times, that is mean-spirited to its core in various ways. For my fellow SW fans, it's the TROS to POTO'S TLJ. The cast and crew were treated in a really shitty way back in the original London production days, same with critics of the show, and there was even a case where a journalist and long time phan who provided a critical review of LND was demeaned in an article as some sort of sad housewife who was obsessed with POTO. Mind you, ALW has tried to make LND work FOR YEARS, with various productions and tours opening here and there, but it always underperforms. And mind you, the Eristine crowd is still hanging around, and POTO is doing extremely well whereever it goes to this day. If the Eristine content was good, the crowds would follow, "problématique" posts and tweets or not. They aren't there.

[emeraldskulblaka]

Hm. I've chosen a difficult and controversial topic for my musings today, but given recent developments as well as the ask sitting in my inbox, I felt like I had to address it somehow even if I'm not entirely confident in my own stance on the topic, which is - "cancelling" celebrities, or more specifically, theatre actors, for their beliefs.

US elections in particular often lead to unexpected surprises, the most recent being Zachar* Lev* and N*cole Sch*rzinger as Tr*mp supporters, joining other former Broadway favourites like Laura O*nes and Carrie M*nolakos. This isn't a purely American phenomenon, of course, and also extends to the creators and producers. Cammack's transphobic remarks regarding Mary Poppins casting made headlines, and ALW's and Anton Kruglov's political affiliations are no secret.

Now what? Should everyone boycott their shows? Harrass them on social media and demand replacements? Never see any ALW musical ever again?

Personally, I find backlash important. The people in question should know that their actions have consequences - if they support someone trying to take away fundamental rights, healthcare etc from millions of people, they must be able to face a loss of support themselves, and the outrage by their former supporters. HOWEVER - that's usually not what I do. I'm more of a "quiet quitter". If I deem the accusations realistic enough or the evidence sufficient, I simply unfollow them and try to avoid them wherever possible. I stop talking about and recommending shows featuring them to others. I make peace with myself and look towards other performers instead, but if I am confronted with them, I try to focus on the character instead of the actor. After all, I liked their performance before their personality crept in, and it's not worth any less because of it. Ripley's Diana is phenomenal. K*lpakov's Caramon is interesting and emphatic. I won't throw a tantrum if I can't avoid them, but not having to see them at all would be ideal.

The problem is that this is feasible for performers, but not for creators and composers, and that's where it gets tricky. When I'm not forced to actually see the people in question, I catch myself ignoring the problems rather selfishly. The thing is, I'm not strong enough to swear off Cammack's shows. Les Mis, Phantom, Mary Poppins... yes, Weinstein produced Finding Neverland... damn, I certainly can't let go of Last Trial because of the composer. And what about Landestheater Linz using AI for all of their show artwork? I find it disgusting, but would I stop seeing show there if I lived nearby? Nope.

As I said, I haven't found a satisfactory way of dealing with it. But I find it very important to realise that nobody is morally perfect, and if you search long enough, you'll always find something disgusting to uncover. If you look for flaws everywhere, if what you watch has to match your worldview 100% all the time, there will be very little left for you to enjoy. Don't expect everyone and everything to be flawless until proven otherwise in the first place. Where your own tolerance ends is yours to decide, though.

For some artists (broad category), my tolerance has ended, and I recognise that I am still engaging with shows others would deem impossible to watch, heck, I'm well aware that my interest in Russian shows is seen as a taboo by many, but do not be fooled into thinking that I'm supporting everything uncritically and everything I post should be seen as an endorsement. Absolutely not the case. I'm not naive.

I'm at the end of my post and don't really remember where I meant to go when I started writing it, but tl&dr, Emerald is aware of goings-on in the theatre world and capable of engaging with things critically.

[sondheim-girly]

are there any musicals you don’t like?

BAD CINDERELLA

I’m about to go on a bit of a tangent so if you like this musical please skip cuz I don’t wanna hurt feelings

I have major beef with this show. First off, the music sucks ass (thank you alw) and the never ending sad ballads that she sings in act two are just like. Bro. Shut up. And oh my god the ‘feminism’ is just. Not feminist. Like it pits women against each other at every turn, and is just saying that women are shallow and frivolous and horrible and stupid if they care at all about how they look. Also the costuming on broadway was terrible because the whole thing is that she dresses really different from everyone else, but in the broadway transfer she didn’t really? However the “I’m not ur Cinderella, I’m ur bad Cinderella” was iconic and I laugh about it every day. I still have no idea how it got good reviews in London and I’m obsessed with how when it came to broadway it gave all the critics free material with its name change. Also that line from the nyt review will always be famous: “bring ear plugs, you might as well bring eye plugs, and while ur at it bring soul plugs”

anyways yeah I hate this musical and I have a lot of fun doing it

[broadwaydivastournament]

Broadway Divas Tournament: Round 1A

With sixteen Broadway shows under her belt, Carolee Carmello (1962) is a powerhouse belter with three Tony nominations. Tragically, every single role she has originated has been in a show that majorly flopped including Lestat (2006), Parade (1998), and The Addams Family (2012), but every show she has replaced in has been a critical long-running success (Kiss Me, Kate, Mamma Mia, Urinetown). She majored in business administration and just sort of decided to do shows for fun with no vocal training, just raw talent.

Julie White (1961) is a Tony winner who has nine Broadway straight plays (meaning non-musical, not like...heterosexual plays) under her belt. She was most recently nominated for POTUS: Or, Behind Every Great Dumbass Are Seven Women Trying to Keep Him Alive (2022) and it was the funniest damn thing I've ever seen on Broadway. She has also competed in a season of All Stars Chopped, so she cooks too.

PROPAGANDA AND MEDIA UNDER CUT:

"What kind of idiots would cast the actress with some of the strongest pipes in the business as the Stepmother in Cinderella and then NOT let her belt anything? Just listen to her sing "Fifty Percent" like COME ON. ALW is a fool and a moron and I demand recompensating for what he put her through."

"Julie White really chopped her hair, let it go grey, and got 10x hotter because of it. I saw POTUS four times and I'd have seen it four more gladly. The comedic work Julie White was doing had me on the floor. I also love that she has this dog she takes everywhere and looks perpetually bored."

[theimpossiblescheme]

👀🔥🌙📌

What’s your LEAST favorite song? Why?

"Growltiger's Last Stand"--we all know why. Fuck you, T.S. Eliot, and fuck you, ALW, for not having the good sense to leave it out.

Share one (1) hot take/opinion about the show/fandom/etc.

No more London-style replica designs--society has progressed beyond the need for London-style replica designs. More Broadway replicas or, better yet, Hamburg replicas, you absolute cowards.

Do you think Cats has a theme/message? If so, what is it?

I do think it has one, albeit not one that I think its creators were aiming for. The original poems have a distinct element of British classism to them, i.e. "these cats' jobs/roles in the household constitute their entire lives, and there is nothing else notable about them" (yes, that is partially me projecting based on what I know about T.S. Eliot as a person, but I'm not wrong, am I?), which you still do get some of in the musical. But by nature of almost all of the cats being onstage the entire show, we do get to see that these cats have more to their lives and relationships than just their human-designated jobs. And for all the "Hal, it's about cats" of it, there is quite a lot in the show about the importance of community and acceptance and cherishing our lives and loved ones while we still have them and how growing old is something that happens to all of us with the only difference being how we handle it and how others treat us. I wouldn't call it a message so much as a theme, but I'd say if there is a central one, it's (to paraphrase a certain poem) "sing, dance, and be merry for tomorrow we die."

What was Cats 2019’s biggest mistake, in your opinion? (OTHER than 'bad cgi’) If you don’t think it made any notable mistakes, what’s your favorite thing about it?

I think so many of its flaws can be laid at the feet of Tom Hooper as the director. The dude clearly does not know how to handle a show like Cats (he barely knew how to handle Les Miserables, and that's me being generous), and I'm still baffled that he wanted to inject more realism into it, like... my guy, it's about singing and dancing cats. Realism has left the building. Not only that, but the movie feels like it has a certain amount of contempt for its source material, like it's having a laugh alongside everyone who thinks Cats is weird and bad, which would have made for a mean-spirited and bizarre-in-a-bad-way watch even with a more competent director. I don't hate the Cats movie--I'm not overly fond of it, given all those reasons, but I think all the hyperbolic hate for it got really tiring really fast. If anything, I feel protective of it--if you're gonna criticize the movie, criticize it on its own merits, and don't drag Cats as a whole down with it.

[dross-the-fish]

Honestly love to see you criticise the phantom musical, like I watched it and thought it was kind of a bad musical with a few good songs, and I feel very validated seeing I'm not the only one who didn't like it 😭

(I mean, each entitled to their opinions and so on, of course, and obviously I don't want anyone to stop liking something just because I'm a hater, but it does sometimes feel like the musical gets way more hype than it should…😅)

I wouldn't be as critical if I didn't at least like it a little but I do wish it didn't over shadow the book so much in the phandom. There are a handful of people who don't love the musical but we are kind of in the minority as the phandom feels very musical centric as a whole. A bad musical with good songs is a pretty valid interpretation. I think it's major weakness is that you have to be at least familiar with the source material, it doesn't stand on its own and as an adaptation it's pretty weak. What saves it are the good songs, the costumes and set design and when you have a strong cast it is an enjoyable watch but not a substantial one. There are moments where the music and lyrics almost make you think you're seeing something deep but if you scratch even a little below the surface there's nothing there. The song masquerade almost tricks you into thinking that there's some deep metaphor going on and everyone is hiding behind metaphorical masks but honestly no one really is. Aside from Erik everyone in this musical is exactly who they appear to be. In a lot of ways Phantom feels a lot like a concept album that needed a little more polish and a couple more scenes to tie it all together. There's a good IDEA here it just needs more fleshing out. ALW gets away with leaving things implied or glossed over because the audience already knows this story. I see a lot of people here and there who will talk about the musical like it has substance but a lot of the depth they assign to it, particularly to Erik himself, either comes from the book and isn't actually shown in the musical or it's their headcanon/interpretation. Erik's use of the punjab lasso? Not really explained at all in the musical. It's just something he has. If you're familiar with the book you know it was from his history as an assassin in Persia. Without the context of the book the musical falls apart in so many places. When you hold phantom up to a more competent musical like Sweeney Todd the lack of depth in narrative and characters becomes that much more apparent. In Sweeney Todd every character has layers and as connections are revealed the story deepens and the stakes only seem to raise. The moral greyness of the characters in Sweeny Todd is also a lot more interesting than in Phantom because it's fully realized. Madam Giry knows who Erik is and has a lot of insight to how he works but not a whole lot about their connection is revealed and it doesn't really pay off in any meaningful way. Who is Madam Giry? Why does she do what she does? What is her motivation? We know none of it, it's just kind of a given thing. Erik is probably the most complex character in the musical but sometimes it feels like ALW can't decide if he needs this character to be a cackling, cape twirling villain or a tragic, romantic hero and I'd be lying if I said there weren't times where I felt like musical Erik was a little too goofy and over the top for me to take him seriously. Especially Ramin Karimloo's version. He spends a lot of time shrieking at the top of his lungs and screaming. And yet I can't totally dislike Phantom because it has JUST ENOUGH good qualities. It's not like I don't understand why people like it or how it got as big as it did. But I do wish people were a little more honest about the actual quality of the writing.

[addams-beineke]

It’s just crazy to me how much Andrew Lloyd Webber made Cinderella WORSE when he moved it to Broadway and (aptly) renamed it Bad Cinderella. The only version I (and critics lol) liked was the West End version and he subsequently burned every single bridge he had with the people who made it good (especially CHF) when he called it a costly mistake and closed it with little to no notice. Then on Broadway, everything from the casting choices to the costuming to the choreo to the lyrics to the arrangements are all somehow worse and make it fall into Love Never Dies territory rather than Phantom/Jesus Christ Superstar territory. He literally got rid of the Be My Baby beat in I Know I Have A Heart which is what made me feral for that song in the first place.

Like, this does happen to musicals from time to time. Sometimes they get a little worse with reworking (honestly the version of Addams Family Musical that’s been the definitive one for the last twelvish years is a little worse than the original Broadway production) but ALW Cinderella/Bad Cinderella is on another level entirely.

[vincent-marie]

Phantom Fan Confession Time

This is probably gonna be blasphemy to my fellow Phantom fans, but I actually like PHANTOM OF THE PARADISE a lot more than the ALW musical.

Hear me out:

-A lot of that is a "me" thing. I watch campy dark comedies as comfort movies, whereas I have to be in the right mood for Gothic 80s synth melodrama.

-PARADISE luckily doesn't have the misfortune of having a sequel that kinda ruins the first one like LOVE NEVER DIES did to PHANTOM.

-Instead you got fun trivia like the fact that Beef's actor Gerrit Graham would later voice Jay Sherman's drunken waspy dad on THE CRITIC, or, of course, that Paul Williams, in this movie with a bird motif, would loan his voice to the avian-obsessed Batman villain The Penguin in BATMAN: THE ANIMATED SERIES. (The best Penguin, IMO.)

-It's one of those movie musicals that I feel more recent ones like MOULIN ROUGE & CHICAGO owe a lot to in terms of dynamic, colorful, wonky-bonkers cinematography that works for something as larger-than-life as a musical, diegetic or otherwise.

-PARADISE is worth watching more than once cuz you might spot a cool detail in the background you hadn't noticed before. And, no, I'm not talking about the poorly-superimposed shots where they had to cover up anything that said "Swan Song." (Dammit, Led Zeppilin.)

-But, most of all, I just think Paul Williams is a stronger songwriter than Lord Andy. If I had to choose between owning a CD of PARADISE & the known Broadway show I'd pick the former, easily. That's something I'd put on while playing a video game or on a road trip with the folks.

But that's enough from me. I wanna hear y'all's opinion. For those who have seen both PARADISE & the ALW musical, what things about them worked or didn't work for you?

[montanamp3]

rip mr y from the critically panned alw musical love never dies you would've loved a freak like me needs company from spiderman turn off the dark 💔

[notebookmusical]

Hi! I'm so sorry I haven't replied in so long! Sorry if this is a shorter ask and I miss some things from a while ago. How are you? I've been okay and just distracted but I still always read your posts. I'm so sorry that you got Tendinitis and have had trouble with doctors about your anxiety or pain. That sounds awful and I hope your wrists aren't hurting as bad anymore. Sending love and hoping you're a little better by now...ugh. How was your Halloween? I saw you dressed up your dog which is cute. I didn't do anything this year though and it pretty much felt like just another day but maybe that's cuz it's only a day lol.

For the playbills, I liked all of the newer shows..like Outsiders, The Notebook, and Gatsby had some cool designs. All of the Moulin Rouge and Wicked designs were cool and different too. I really liked them all so it would be hard to pick favorites and I haven't looked in a while either. What about you? I don't know when I am going to listen to Urinetown but hopefully soon. R and J..I've seen mostly good things from audiences and clips but I guess I get why critics wouldn't like it if it's trying to be too woke or something, for lack of a better word. I also saw that one person plays both her mother and father, which could be confusing. I heard part of a song Rachel sings in it but can't say anything else about the music. Haha omg I didn't even think of how it's Sondheim vs Andrew Lloyd Webber! Lol wow..definitely team Sondheim and ALW is just okay. I also just think Gypsy is more interesting with a better cast, but I will listen to Sunset eventually. I do like Nicole's voice, but going up against Audra will be hard to beat in my opinion. I did read a bit about the staging and how it's very empty and minimal and I agree..just cuz I don't see the point but maybe it only works with a few shows and I know some people loved this show. I was also surprised the actor actually walks in the street during the song Sunset Boulevard in this performance.

It totally makes sense why you love the Notebook so much..it just feels so you at this point and it makes sense why it resonates with you cuz it has beautiful soft music and a touching story. I watched parts of it again and I liked it more. I think I wanna go back was one of the best songs and parts to watch. The older actors were great since they don't sing as much, but I don't feel like I have to watch the show..I can just listen to the cast album. I am excited for the rain scene and seeing it on tour though. That's why I was hoping to feel a little more emotional but I have also seen the movie a lot..I can't believe you've only seen it once. I do agree with the quote Ryan Vasquez said that you posted and it's great to see why you and others connect with it. We all have different musicals we connect to and I guess mine is just Outsiders but it's still my second favorite. No pressure to get to it, but I will say that I did not love Outsiders right away either. In fact, if you read the book and watch the movie first, you might be more skeptical, which is how I was at first. If I did not give it a second chance..I would've just found it okay lol and now it's one of my favorites. So just try to be open minded to the music and changes I guess. I think I'm biased cuz I personally like how Ponyboy is played more in the musical compared to the movie and it helped me connect even more to the character and that part of myself so it helped me rediscover my love for the character and story overall. That's a big part of it I think so I'm curious what you would think, being unfamiliar with the story at first. I also don't want you to have great expectations lol cuz of how I think or feel about it.

So when I finally finished Merrily, I enjoyed it a lot more. I admit I had to rewatch the beginning after because of the timeline and stuff I just couldn't remember and that helped a lot in following the story. My sister said she could understand that it was a flop cuz the timeline was confusing but it also made it more interesting and this production made it work. Like I was surprised Franklin Shepherd inc was one of the first songs lol but makes sense of course. We were confused when his first wife was singing Not a day goes by..I thought Mary sang that song and we barely knew who she was. It all made sense by act two of course and Mary sang part of it in act two lol. I think I preferred most of act one compared to act two but that's also the part I rewatched and I liked all those songs. It's also where the drama is haha. I think the cast all had great performances and it almost seemed like Lindsay was doing the most obvious acting at first. Anyway I would probably place it in the middle compared to other Sondheim musicals..like it seemed pretty similar to Follies and Company in a way, but I think I like those more. If I get more familiar with it, it could change. My favorite songs were Old Friends, Franklin Shepherd inc, Not a day goes by, Opening Doors and Good thing Going. I did find it interesting that neither the opening or closing song was as memorable as other songs. Wow I know I said it was going to be a short ask but I think I'm still gonna split this up in part 1 and 2 since it got pretty long still.

hello friend!! so sorry this is delayed — i meant to reply last week after i saw the wicked tour and then i got sick (surprise surprise) and then there was the bomb cyclone and ANYWAYS this is super super delayed and i'm sorry! i hope you've been doing well 🤍

my wrists are doing a bit better now! i haven't been doing a lot of crafts lately, which has helped — i think i probably won't be making more bracelets for eras (i've got around 60 so far) which is kind of a bummer because i have so much supplies left over but that's okay; there will be other occasions for bracelet making & i can use some of it for other crafts in the future. my halloween was good! very chill and cozy! and yes — i always make a big thing out of totoween but have never really been one for celebrating halloween itself!

how have you been? what's new in your life? my friend went and saw r+j a few weeks ago and despite loving the cast, actually didn't love it as a whole (and said that it felt very poorly directed, which wasn't super surprising to me). i'm a much bigger sondheim girlie than i am an andrew lloyd webber one, and i really like the gypsy cast. i'm still waiting to hear what people thought of gypsy; i had a couple friends who went to first preview (and i am very jealous of all of them) and i'm really intrigued to see how everyone's performances grow / shift during previews! and in addition to the gypsy cast being filled with people who i love, they also apparently have a REAL SET. ugh i love sets. i'm so glad we have a show on broadway with a real set haha.

honestly, i think with the notebook, everyone’s acting is just phenomenal, especially maryann as older allie! i really like the rain scene (as does most people) and i’m super intrigued to see how they’ll do it on tour — and the logistics that go into preparing for it. i have not picked up a book in a hot minute, so i do not think it is likely that i’ll be reading the outsiders before the month is over but … soon… hopefully. i did at least hunt down a bootleg of it, so we’re a step closer to me watching it in that sense.

i’m really glad you liked merrily! i just loveeeeee it. i’m really intrigued to know if the movie is still happening; i feel like i haven’t heard anything about it (and also do think that a 20-year filming period is really risky). franklin shepard, inc is soooo fun, i love singing it around the house!