25th Anniversary Restaged Tour

Raphael wrote:After seeing your username, it seemed obvious to me that you were the author of that review Thanks for writing it, it addressed many issues some phans have had to the new tour in a far less explosive manner that many of us tend to use in these isolated forums. I think a lot of the confusion we are feeling is that we were told that here in the US, the national tour was shut down due to how expensive it was to operate. And assuming that the new UK tour would eventually be the basis of a new US tour, the apparent size and scope of this new version apparently contradicted that reasoning. I am curious to see this new tour and will at least give it a shot should it visit my area, but as you say in your review, it feels like the changes cause the show to lose some of the magic.

I had read your Las Vegas review previously, and while I disagree with many of your comments in that post (in comparison to the Broadway, San Francisco, and multiple US tour casts I've seen - who were all wonderful, I might add - the Las Vegas company has routinely impressed me over the past 6 years; so here's where we roll out the old "You must have seen them on a bad night" chestnut), I respect your thoughts on it. R.

Thank you for the reply, Raphael. I really wanted to like Vegas; I had huge hopes for Crivello, an actor I admire and perhaps the disappointment I felt was heightened because of the expectation - it happens to everyone when they are looking forward to something a lot. On a second, unrelated point I want to openly state my jealousy of your location! We 'took in' SF for the first time last summer and can't wait to come back, truly one of the warmest places to stay in the world in every sense except the weather (it was about 10 degrees celsius colder than everywhere else we visited and actually rained

harryzing wrote:To answer your question directly, I believe they could easily have staged another production of the tour with the same sets (which were loaned to Australia or somewhere for a recent production!) but they have made the artistic decision to try something new for the anniversary. I don't believe it is a budgetary choice; the large drum revolve set they tour with is certainly not a 'cheap' option. In fact, I'm pretty certain it would've been much cheaper to tour the previous production again. The previous tours did only play the very largest venues due to the installation costs for the theatre compared to the size of the houses they would play. The show was available to smaller venues, but profitability was the issue more than technical limitations for most.

I've thought a lot about this. I assume the new UK tour IS cheaper to tour than the original one, despite the large drum and the technicalities of some of the sets. Basically because they don't have to deal with the false proscenium, the chandelier and the deck for the boat scene. But on the other hand, they have paid large money to a designer for come up with something new and to get it made. And the result is only semi tourable, in terms of low cost. If low costs really was the issue, they would have come up with a simpler solution overall.

In the end I think it's more about freeing Phantom from the past. And with this freeing it from the heavy royalty fees paid to Prince, Bjørnson and Lynne. WHEN we see a new US tour, I think the same will be the case here. And not only that, they will also be free of heavy Equity rules by "getting rid of" longtimers in cast, crew and orchestra.

So yes, it's about money. But not so much in "scaling it down" as it is in royalty fees. At least, that is my opinion. I might be wrong. But I think it's a big factor of the new tour.

Anyway, welcome "back" Chr.... harryzing.

Anyone knows how much Earl Carpenter is involved, besides playing the lead come fall? A couple of years ago - right after he left HMT after having played Phantom there for the first time - he was in negotiation or discussions with Cameron Mackintosh about a new UK tour. They were in dialogue for quite some time, but nothing materialized. I wonder if it was this tour they planned, and eventually if Carpenter is involved through his production company.

Nice slip, Anea. Now I know who he is. Long time no see.

operafantomet wrote:

harryzing wrote:To answer your question directly, I believe they could easily have staged another production of the tour with the same sets (which were loaned to Australia or somewhere for a recent production!) but they have made the artistic decision to try something new for the anniversary. I don't believe it is a budgetary choice; the large drum revolve set they tour with is certainly not a 'cheap' option. In fact, I'm pretty certain it would've been much cheaper to tour the previous production again. The previous tours did only play the very largest venues due to the installation costs for the theatre compared to the size of the houses they would play. The show was available to smaller venues, but profitability was the issue more than technical limitations for most.

I've thought a lot about this. I assume the new UK tour IS cheaper to tour than the original one, despite the large drum and the technicalities of some of the sets. Basically because they don't have to deal with the false proscenium, the chandelier and the deck for the boat scene. But on the other hand, they have paid large money to a designer for come up with something new and to get it made. And the result is only semi tourable, in terms of low cost. If low costs really was the issue, they would have come up with a simpler solution overall.

In the end I think it's more about freeing Phantom from the past. And with this freeing it from the heavy royalty fees paid to Prince, Bjørnson and Lynne. WHEN we see a new US tour, I think the same will be the case here. And not only that, they will also be free of heavy Equity rules by "getting rid of" longtimers in cast, crew and orchestra.

So yes, it's about money. But not so much in "scaling it down" as it is in royalty fees. At least, that is my opinion. I might be wrong. But I think it's a big factor of the new tour.

Anyone knows how much Earl Carpenter is involved, besides playing the lead come fall? A couple of years ago - right after he left HMT after having played Phantom there for the first time - he was in negotiation or discussions with Cameron Mackintosh about a new UK tour. They were in dialogue for quite some time, but nothing materialized. I wonder if it was this tour they planned, and eventually if Carpenter is involved through his production company.

This place is certainly the place to be for rampant speculation!

From speaking to a colleague at Bradford Alhambra, I happen to know that the venue pays for all of the technical alterations required; this is a big factor in who is willing to book the shows. They had just come out of negotiations with the producers of the tour, so I happen to know exactly how much it costs to mount.

Venues are quite happy to receive big shows if they don't have to pick up the tab, the producers of big shows - including Phantom - know how to get their money's worth and the costs you mentioned, Janne, in the UK are picked up by the receiving venue across all of theatre.

We will never know what anybody has in their contract due to non-disclosure agreements, neither is it any of my business, but I can assure you the running costs for the touring production are very similar to the previous tours.

Edit: By the way, when did you move to the States?

a very fascinating topic in reference to the theatres in your area and load ins.

yes I read the review, what I was asking for is the hope that someone who is uber technical will write up a review that spells out the technical scenic stuff, not just that there is a big drum that turns, lol. and to describe in detail things like the new office, the dressing room, how the scenes shift, etc.

I saw the tour today! I think I'll actually need a couple of days to digest it all and get my thoughts together, it is very different and I picked up on lots of things no one has mentioned in previous reviews, it was a bit overwhelming.

I will try and write a really detailed review though.

My initial thoughts are there is one scene for sure which I much preferred to the original (strike me down) but I thought most of the other scenes that had been changed didn't really make it any better and there was one (Music of the Night) which I hated.

On the note of "scaling down to save money" as lavish as the sets may be (although we still dont have a crashing chandelier) it still remains that the original costumes have been heavily watered down, it's not that Im against change at all..it's the fact that they slapped Bjornsons name on the poster/adverts touting they were using her original designs, when we have evidence that proves otherwise; So obviously, for whatever reason, someone was trying to "cut corners" as it where with this new tour, and I think that is were alot of phan frustration comes from, there have been several non-replica productions of Webber's Phantom and some have executed it very well, and many phans will agree. But taking something that was such a huge part of the originals success (Bjornsons designs) and saying you are keeping that ingridient, when in all actuality it's being replaced by cheap immitations, that is when you get a less than stellar product and response from the fan base.

harryzing wrote:I think the production team, headed by Lawrence Connor who, whatever people may have to say about him, is a popular man in Lloyd Webberland and carries a lot of clout as an RD and a director now in his own right, and was seen as the perfect man to take this new Phantom production on. I don't doubt the majority of what we see on the tour is his vision. I've met him a few times and he is always very proactive with the shows he works on; a lot of it gets rebuffed but he will try and push the envelope when he is allowed.

I disagree that he is the perfect man for the job. He's popular man for Cameron yes, but he's certainly not a well-known director outside of Cameron Mackintosh land. His most illustrious credits to date are the Les Mis 25th anniversary tour, which cannibalised Nunn's direction heavily, the RAH event for Phantom, which was Hal Prince's direction made worse and this tour (which I haven't seen, so can't judge). But if they REALLY wanted a new production, they'd start COMPLETELY from scratch and hire a first-rate team. Laurence Connor is hardly in the league of world-class directors like Trevor Nunn, Hal Prince, Richard Eyre, Michael Grandage, Nicholas Hytner, Rupert Goold or Matthew Warchus. I think to some extent Cameron employs him cos: a) he's cheaper; b) he won't say no to whatever Cameron wants; c) he's familiar with the show having been the resident director on it for so long. But if they wanted a truly new vision, they should/would have hired a director with no previous connection to the Hal Prince production, to have a clean break from it. I was not impressed with what Connor did at the Albert Hall, but it sounds like he's done a better job here.

Four friends of mine (some from this board) have gone to see the tour in Manchester this month. Worryingly, not (m)any of them are particularly positive. I was even surprised because one person, who loved the Albert Hall concert (whereas I didn't), said it was the first time in his life he had not enjoyed Phantom, yet he was so excited about it and to my mind seemed to be the more open-minded towards the new tour.

I guess I'll see next month in Bristol...

STUDI wrote:On the note of "scaling down to save money" as lavish as the sets may be (although we still dont have a crashing chandelier) it still remains that the original costumes have been heavily watered down, it's not that Im against change at all..it's the fact that they slapped Bjornsons name on the poster/adverts touting they were using her original designs, when we have evidence that proves otherwise; So obviously, for whatever reason, someone was trying to "cut corners" as it where with this new tour, and I think that is were alot of phan frustration comes from, there have been several non-replica productions of Webber's Phantom and some have executed it very well, and many phans will agree. But taking something that was such a huge part of the originals success (Bjornsons designs) and saying you are keeping that ingridient, when in all actuality it's being replaced by cheap immitations, that is when you get a less than stellar product and response from the fan base.

Agree 100%.

I do strongly believe the redesigned tour was to cut down on costs. Every interview with Cameron about Phantom I have saved on my computer from the last few years has quoted him saying that he thinks the time when the original is economically viable to tour is coming to an end. Projections and certain cheap-looking set-pieces (the chandelier, Apollo's Lyre etc) are obviously going to be way less expensive than a zillion curtains, drapes, candles etc. The new show might have this drum that everyone talks about, but it's not as if the travelator was particularly easy to tour or cheap to install. The running costs might be similar, but there will be far less to pay in terms of royalties this round (Hal Prince does not come cheap) and the cost in the first place of building the set was probably a lot smaller.

Very curious to find out what the particular scene is that starryeyed thinks is a massive improvement on the original! (It had better not be my favourite... ).

Scorp wrote:

harryzing wrote:I think the production team, headed by Lawrence Connor who, whatever people may have to say about him, is a popular man in Lloyd Webberland and carries a lot of clout as an RD and a director now in his own right, and was seen as the perfect man to take this new Phantom production on. I don't doubt the majority of what we see on the tour is his vision. I've met him a few times and he is always very proactive with the shows he works on; a lot of it gets rebuffed but he will try and push the envelope when he is allowed.

I disagree that he is the perfect man for the job. He's popular man for Cameron yes, but he's certainly not a well-known director outside of Cameron Mackintosh land. His most illustrious credits to date are the Les Mis 25th anniversary tour, which cannibalised Nunn's direction heavily, the RAH event for Phantom, which was Hal Prince's direction made worse and this tour (which I haven't seen, so can't judge). But if they REALLY wanted a new production, they'd start COMPLETELY from scratch and hire a first-rate team. Laurence Connor is hardly in the league of world-class directors like Trevor Nunn, Hal Prince, Richard Eyre, Michael Grandage, Nicholas Hytner, Rupert Goold or Matthew Warchus. I think to some extent Cameron employs him cos: a) he's cheaper; b) he won't say no to whatever Cameron wants; c) he's familiar with the show having been the resident director on it for so long. But if they wanted a truly new vision, they should/would have hired a director with no previous connection to the Hal Prince production, to have a clean break from it. I was not impressed with what Connor did at the Albert Hall, but it sounds like he's done a better job here.

Four friends of mine (some from this board) have gone to see the tour in Manchester this month. Worryingly, not (m)any of them are particularly positive. I was even surprised because one person, who loved the Albert Hall concert (whereas I didn't), said it was the first time in his life he had not enjoyed Phantom, yet he was so excited about it and to my mind seemed to be the more open-minded towards the new tour.

I guess I'll see next month in Bristol...

STUDI wrote:On the note of "scaling down to save money" as lavish as the sets may be (although we still dont have a crashing chandelier) it still remains that the original costumes have been heavily watered down, it's not that Im against change at all..it's the fact that they slapped Bjornsons name on the poster/adverts touting they were using her original designs, when we have evidence that proves otherwise; So obviously, for whatever reason, someone was trying to "cut corners" as it where with this new tour, and I think that is were alot of phan frustration comes from, there have been several non-replica productions of Webber's Phantom and some have executed it very well, and many phans will agree. But taking something that was such a huge part of the originals success (Bjornsons designs) and saying you are keeping that ingridient, when in all actuality it's being replaced by cheap immitations, that is when you get a less than stellar product and response from the fan base.

Agree 100%.

I do strongly believe the redesigned tour was to cut down on costs. Every interview with Cameron about Phantom I have saved on my computer from the last few years has quoted him saying that he thinks the time when the original is economically viable to tour is coming to an end. Projections and certain cheap-looking set-pieces (the chandelier, Apollo's Lyre etc) are obviously going to be way less expensive than a zillion curtains, drapes, candles etc. The new show might have this drum that everyone talks about, but it's not as if the travelator was particularly easy to tour or cheap to install. The running costs might be similar, but there will be far less to pay in terms of royalties this round (Hal Prince does not come cheap) and the cost in the first place of building the set was probably a lot smaller.

Very curious to find out what the particular scene is that starryeyed thinks is a massive improvement on the original! (It had better not be my favourite... ).

For me there are two scenes better than the original and I think starryeyed's will be one of them...the murder of Joseph Buquet is absolutely brilliant, and the Don Juan rehearsal is loads better.

There is lots to like in the tour, there really is, but it's just not really Phantomy, lol.

Wandering Child is brilliant, but that's more to do with a good cast and a well rehearsed scene and Don Juan Triumphant is excellently, the projections are top notch and the backdrop looks amazing, but it's such a shame about the awful hood on the cloak that makes the Phantom look like he's stuck a coat hanger in it. This, sadly, is a plot device which resurfaces in the final lair when then Phantom 'disappears' under the bed, but it's just awful!

starryeyed wrote:I saw the tour today! I think I'll actually need a couple of days to digest it all and get my thoughts together, it is very different and I picked up on lots of things no one has mentioned in previous reviews, it was a bit overwhelming.

I will try and write a really detailed review though.

My initial thoughts are there is one scene for sure which I much preferred to the original (strike me down) but I thought most of the other scenes that had been changed didn't really make it any better and there was one (Music of the Night) which I hated.

Glad you enjoyed it! Looking forward to hear more detailed thoughts on the scenes.

Kinda sad, though. In both raving and negative reviews I've read, MOTN always seems to be the weak link. Not just the blindfolding-Christine thing, but also because they interact too little. No real connection between them, apparently? I haven't seen, so I cannot judge. But I've read some 35 reviews, and they all say the same!

operafantomet wrote:

starryeyed wrote:I saw the tour today! I think I'll actually need a couple of days to digest it all and get my thoughts together, it is very different and I picked up on lots of things no one has mentioned in previous reviews, it was a bit overwhelming.

I will try and write a really detailed review though.

My initial thoughts are there is one scene for sure which I much preferred to the original (strike me down) but I thought most of the other scenes that had been changed didn't really make it any better and there was one (Music of the Night) which I hated.

Glad you enjoyed it! Looking forward to hear more detailed thoughts on the scenes.

Kinda sad, though. In both raving and negative reviews I've read, MOTN always seems to be the weak link. Not just the blindfolding-Christine thing, but also because they interact too little. No real connection between them, apparently? I haven't seen, so I cannot judge. But I've read some 35 reviews, and they all say the same!

Very true, they don't really do too much, although she does try to kiss him early on in the song, before the blindfolding, so he didn't need to try so hard

The moments before the unmasking is good though, if perhaps a little too realistic for some. He removes and wipes his mask and face and she steals it rather than removes it.

HerMajesty wrote:

The moments before the unmasking is good though, if perhaps a little too realistic for some. He removes and wipes his mask and face and she steals it rather than removes it.

Does this actually work? I'm not convinced by what I've read on the WOS board. How can he accuse her of being a "prying pandora" if she just happens to wake up and see him dabbing something on his face? It's not her fault. Especially as he probably woke her up thanks to the organ playing (unless they've removed that?). The unmasking is one the iconic moments of the Phantom story, from the original novel to the Lon Chaney film, so I find it sad they've changed it and to me it doesn't make sense with the lyrics. Or the character -- would he really be so stupid as to unmask himself in front of Christine when he knows she could wake up at any moment? He's spent months and months preparing this elaborate scheme to get her down in the lair and to concoct an illusion; why on earth would he risk ruining all that? You'd think he'd go and sort his face out in another 'room' in the lair.

John Owen-Jones will be talking to BBC Radio Manchester regarding Phantom...like now (I guess...I think it's 2:30pm now at least)

https://twitter.com/#!/PalaceAndOpera/status/193328963689525249

Here's BBC Radio's Manchester's website. http://www.bbc.co.uk/manchester/programmes

ETA Highlights:
Loves the Manchester audiences
6-weeks in Manchester, 4 weeks left
Redesigned, much darker
Spent 5 years playing Phantom
Doesn't get bored with the role
Played his version of MOTN (gorgeous! *sigh*)
Phantom-off with Ramin! (lol) But they're friends
Talks about new album, and Tom Jones is his hero.
Tom Jones is the only reason he watches The Voice. Otherwise he doesn't watch reality TV shows. Said he might go on the The Voice just to meet Tom Jones (lol)
Played Thunderball. Loves his version.
And it's over.

PhantomsGhost wrote:John Owen-Jones will be talking to BBC Radio Manchester regarding Phantom...like now (I guess...I think it's 2:30pm now at least)

https://twitter.com/#!/PalaceAndOpera/status/193328963689525249

Here's BBC Radio's Manchester's website. http://www.bbc.co.uk/manchester/programmes

Ooo he's singing MotN right now.

He does have a nice version of Thunderball. Very similar voice to Tom Jones. Didn't realize Jones was on The Voice.

Scorp wrote:

HerMajesty wrote:

The moments before the unmasking is good though, if perhaps a little too realistic for some. He removes and wipes his mask and face and she steals it rather than removes it.

Does this actually work? I'm not convinced by what I've read on the WOS board. How can he accuse her of being a "prying pandora" if she just happens to wake up and see him dabbing something on his face? It's not her fault. Especially as he probably woke her up thanks to the organ playing (unless they've removed that?). The unmasking is one the iconic moments of the Phantom story, from the original novel to the Lon Chaney film, so I find it sad they've changed it and to me it doesn't make sense with the lyrics. Or the character -- would he really be so stupid as to unmask himself in front of Christine when he knows she could wake up at any moment? He's spent months and months preparing this elaborate scheme to get her down in the lair and to concoct an illusion; why on earth would he risk ruining all that? You'd think he'd go and sort his face out in another 'room' in the lair.

It works better than most of the other blocking changes, but definitely shows a more human side to the character which is a constant theme in this versio, and does detract from the mystique of the character in much he same way (albeit nowhere near as bad) as Love Never Dies. She actually takes the mask then spins him round, so I guess 'prying' fits just about.

I had tickets for the show again tonight, but offloaded them, I don't think I need to see it again until it comes to Leeds

HerMajesty wrote:

Scorp wrote:

HerMajesty wrote:

The moments before the unmasking is good though, if perhaps a little too realistic for some. He removes and wipes his mask and face and she steals it rather than removes it.

Does this actually work? I'm not convinced by what I've read on the WOS board. How can he accuse her of being a "prying pandora" if she just happens to wake up and see him dabbing something on his face? It's not her fault. Especially as he probably woke her up thanks to the organ playing (unless they've removed that?). The unmasking is one the iconic moments of the Phantom story, from the original novel to the Lon Chaney film, so I find it sad they've changed it and to me it doesn't make sense with the lyrics. Or the character -- would he really be so stupid as to unmask himself in front of Christine when he knows she could wake up at any moment? He's spent months and months preparing this elaborate scheme to get her down in the lair and to concoct an illusion; why on earth would he risk ruining all that? You'd think he'd go and sort his face out in another 'room' in the lair.

It works better than most of the other blocking changes, but definitely shows a more human side to the character which is a constant theme in this versio, and does detract from the mystique of the character in much he same way (albeit nowhere near as bad) as Love Never Dies. She actually takes the mask then spins him round, so I guess 'prying' fits just about.

I had tickets for the show again tonight, but offloaded them, I don't think I need to see it again until it comes to Leeds

Meh, IMHO the character has been overhumanised recently, the worst instance being Paint Never Dries. I found him too human as well in Schumacher's mess. He needs to have an aura of mystique and menace...

I agree about the humanising point, particularly in LND the london version, I found they kind of lessened that in the Aussie version, where he does not really interact directly with anyone anymore besides his 3 henchmen (and the other principals), and even when meg sees him she is still taken aback as if seeing him is still a rarity. In the londonl one he would be walking about backstage with everyone like it was no big deal.

Scorp wrote:

HerMajesty wrote:

Scorp wrote:

HerMajesty wrote:

The moments before the unmasking is good though, if perhaps a little too realistic for some. He removes and wipes his mask and face and she steals it rather than removes it.

Does this actually work? I'm not convinced by what I've read on the WOS board. How can he accuse her of being a "prying pandora" if she just happens to wake up and see him dabbing something on his face? It's not her fault. Especially as he probably woke her up thanks to the organ playing (unless they've removed that?). The unmasking is one the iconic moments of the Phantom story, from the original novel to the Lon Chaney film, so I find it sad they've changed it and to me it doesn't make sense with the lyrics. Or the character -- would he really be so stupid as to unmask himself in front of Christine when he knows she could wake up at any moment? He's spent months and months preparing this elaborate scheme to get her down in the lair and to concoct an illusion; why on earth would he risk ruining all that? You'd think he'd go and sort his face out in another 'room' in the lair.

It works better than most of the other blocking changes, but definitely shows a more human side to the character which is a constant theme in this versio, and does detract from the mystique of the character in much he same way (albeit nowhere near as bad) as Love Never Dies. She actually takes the mask then spins him round, so I guess 'prying' fits just about.

I had tickets for the show again tonight, but offloaded them, I don't think I need to see it again until it comes to Leeds

Meh, IMHO the character has been overhumanised recently, the worst instance being Paint Never Dries. I found him too human as well in Schumacher's mess. He needs to have an aura of mystique and menace...

Absolulutey he has, it was the biggest mistake of LND (and that's saying something) and they knew it too which is why they tried to change it for the Aussie/revamped London version. I'm not saying I agree with it, just that it's in keeping with the rest of the tour version.

The ONLY bit I truly think is an improvement is the murder scene, it is brilliant. Saying that, it's also the only scene I liked in the film, lol

HerMajesty wrote:The ONLY bit I truly think is an improvement is the murder scene, it is brilliant. Saying that, it's also the only scene I liked in the film, lol

I'm still partial to the Auction/Overture too. I love that scene in the movie, up until the extended Overture part. Nevermind that the "burned down opera house occupying one of the top spots in Paris" part doesn't make sense at all. I love the sad undertone of the auction, and the first views of the opera restored.

As for the tour, I've read some 35 reviews, and none of them comment on Carlotta. The only Carlotta comment I've found was that one loved the understudy... Is it because Angela Caesar is no good, or is it because she's good but doesn't stand out?

HerMajesty wrote:The ONLY bit I truly think is an improvement is the murder scene, it is brilliant.

And it sounds like that part was lifted from the Las Vegas production!

R.

operafantomet wrote:

HerMajesty wrote:The ONLY bit I truly think is an improvement is the murder scene, it is brilliant. Saying that, it's also the only scene I liked in the film, lol

I'm still partial to the Auction/Overture too. I love that scene in the movie, up until the extended Overture part. Nevermind that the "burned down opera house occupying one of the top spots in Paris" part doesn't make sense at all. I love the sad undertone of the auction, and the first views of the opera restored.

As for the tour, I've read some 35 reviews, and none of them comment on Carlotta. The only Carlotta comment I've found was that one loved the understudy... Is it because Angela Caesar is no good, or is it because she's good but doesn't stand out?

Yes the auction/overture is fine too, but I actually really like the murder scene.

Angela Caesar is just very average, nothing to write home about at all, which is a shame really. She doesn't do anything to make her stand out.

Raphael wrote:

HerMajesty wrote:The ONLY bit I truly think is an improvement is the murder scene, it is brilliant.

And it sounds like that part was lifted from the Las Vegas production!

R.

No it's different from Vegas, he does it at ground level and it's much better.

Ground level? I'm no expert, but isn't that the *slow* way to hang someone? Or is it supposed to serve as an allusion to what may happen to Raoul in the Final Lair?

R.

Raphael wrote:Ground level? I'm no expert, but isn't that the *slow* way to hang someone? Or is it supposed to serve as an allusion to what may happen to Raoul in the Final Lair?

R.

Yes, he is lifted slowly off the ground in a really gruesome garrotting. The same noose is used in the final lair with Raoul. It takes place right at the front, stage right. My party and I were sat directly infront, the Phantom walks on, without his jacket and attacks Buquet from behind.

HerMajesty wrote:

Raphael wrote:Ground level? I'm no expert, but isn't that the *slow* way to hang someone? Or is it supposed to serve as an allusion to what may happen to Raoul in the Final Lair?

R.

Yes, he is lifted slowly off the ground in a really gruesome garrotting. The same noose is used in the final lair with Raoul. It takes place right at the front, stage right. My party and I were sat directly infront, the Phantom walks on, without his jacket and attacks Buquet from behind.

"without his jacket"? Wouldn't the Phantoms white shirtsleeves and mask kinda give him away in the shadows without the fedora and cape? Hmph.

I'm sorry, I'm just really more drawn to the idea of the Phantom conducting his machinations visually and physically far above the other players See: the catwalk for Buquet's hanging (as in Vegas), the Angel Statue for the All I Ask of You Reprise, the big cross for the Wandering Child scene. For the audience, the Phantom's being above the action gives the impression of power, control, and authority - he's less a man and more like a mythic figure. Putting him on the same or near the same level as the rest of the characters in key scenes makes him too danged human. He's no longer a Ghost/Phantom - he's more just a creepy dude.

~Madame~ (continuing with the 'don't like overly-humanized Phantom schtick)

Madame Giry wrote:

HerMajesty wrote:

Raphael wrote:Ground level? I'm no expert, but isn't that the *slow* way to hang someone? Or is it supposed to serve as an allusion to what may happen to Raoul in the Final Lair?

R.

Yes, he is lifted slowly off the ground in a really gruesome garrotting. The same noose is used in the final lair with Raoul. It takes place right at the front, stage right. My party and I were sat directly infront, the Phantom walks on, without his jacket and attacks Buquet from behind.

"without his jacket"? Wouldn't the Phantoms white shirtsleeves and mask kinda give him away in the shadows without the fedora and cape? Hmph.

I'm sorry, I'm just really more drawn to the idea of the Phantom conducting his machinations visually and physically far above the other players See: the catwalk for Buquet's hanging (as in Vegas), the Angel Statue for the All I Ask of You Reprise, the big cross for the Wandering Child scene. For the audience, the Phantom's being above the action gives the impression of power, control, and authority - he's less a man and more like a mythic figure. Putting him on the same or near the same level as the rest of the characters in key scenes makes him too danged human. He's no longer a Ghost/Phantom - he's more just a creepy dude.

~Madame~ (continuing with the 'don't like overly-humanized Phantom schtick)

Absolutely, but in the context of this production it works. I think we have to try not to be too precious about these things, the original will be around for a very long time, much longer than this production, but this is an excellently executed scene. I think it's good to see why Christine is suddenly so horrified by the Phantom, and gives more plausibility to AIAOY. This works the same in Vegas of course.

I hear ya. The whole concept of the new tour is to humanize him, to make the story more real - and more brutal, in some way. And judging from the reports, it works.

I wonder if all the attempts to humanize the Phantom is a good idea, though. I think one of the things fascinating the audience (and more importantly - makes them return to see more) is that this figure is elusive and apparently magic. And this makes his downfall in the Final Lair so big. He goes from magician, angel and ghost to a broken down man, a man without hope. It makes Christine's actions and the ending all the more heartbreaking.

The new approach to the character in the UK tour sounds intriguing. As does the set design. As I've written before, I would definitely see the tour if I had the chance. But after seeing the humanized Phantom in the 2004 movie and LND, the thought of yet another de-mystified Phantom only semi-interests me, disappearing cloak-act and splitting mask aside.

operafantomet wrote:I hear ya. The whole concept of the new tour is to humanize him, to make the story more real - and more brutal, in some way. And judging from the reports, it works.

I wonder if all the attempts to humanize the Phantom is a good idea, though. I think one of the things fascinating the audience (and more importantly - makes them return to see more) is that this figure is elusive and apparently magic. And this makes his downfall in the Final Lair so big. He goes from magician, angel and ghost to a broken down man, a man without hope. It makes Christine's actions and the ending all the more heartbreaking.

The new approach to the character in the UK tour sounds intriguing. As does the set design. As I've written before, I would definitely see the tour if I had the chance. But after seeing the humanized Phantom in the 2004 movie and LND, the thought of yet another de-mystified Phantom only semi-interests me, disappearing cloak-act and splitting mask aside.

Absolutely! Which is why I much prefer the original production and felt very 'meh' when I saw it in Manchester the other week, both Chris and I felt the same, however, this tour has to be given credit, it is high quality and on its own level it works very well, it's just lost a lot of what made the original brilliant. We had a strange discussion at the interval, we were both enjoying it, we both knew what to expect musically and book wise and all that was delivered fairly well, but it just lacks a lot of what made Phantom, well, Phantom.

I think a lot of our enjoyment was down to the cast though, JOJ was actually the best I've seen him and the others were all fine so they were able to carry it off, with a weaker cast? Who knows?

I would also like to add at this point, this version is vastly superior to LND as an experience.

I heard both about the tour, positive and negative. I can tell nothing before I´ve seen it.
The original will always be the original. Nothing will change that fact.

For me the tour shows something new and I like that...
And yes I like LND, especially Australia...