The Phantom of the Opera

I have always been a collector – stamps, books, chess sets, music, and so on, 60-years of it. Current craze is of course DVDs. Collectors generally compulsively hang on to something once they've acquired it – even if it turns out to be a piece of drek. You will therefore understand that – while it was a wrench – I've 86d this little item from my collection. And I'm about to tell you why.

The Phantom of the Opera is, like Dracula or Frankenstein (the monster's correct name since he would have the name of his father), an iconic figure from the lushly Romantic (as opposed to romantic) horror literature of the 19th Century. The Phantom exists in a number of celluloid versions, although inexplicably not so many as the endlessly dreary zombie films. At least, thank the gods, there are no zombie musicals.

The story line of this production pretty much follows (if sketchily) that of the Gaston Leroux novel on which the whole "Phantom" phenomenon is based. There is no need to rehearse this, since those who don't already know it … well, what can I say? The music for this production is, at best, kitschy and banal, more or less on a par with the alleged music Disney provides for their teeny-bopper programming. There is only one even remotely good musical number – and that is a very bad arrangement of Camille St.Saëns' "Danse Macabre". This accompanies the scène-ballet which follows the Phantom's unmasking. Missing from the production entirely is any hint of the music to the Phantom's grande-oeuvre, "Don Juan Triumphant".

The acting is no better. Indeed, it isn't acting at all; it's mere declamation. I've heard better delivery from used-car commercials.

This is of course a cut-rate production, complete with barely OK sets and obviously plastic prosthetics. Indeed, the Phantom's mask is far more realistic than his alleged disfigurements. We did get a falling chandelier – not badly done, actually.

I've seen this billed on some sites as a "musical comedy". It isn't – it's a serious if inept performance. We could perhaps regard it as a non-comedic parody. It is certainly a travesty.

I've seen some positive, even enthusiastic reviews for this performance. Well, everybody deserves to be loved by somebody. However, my advice is that you rent this before you even consider buying it.

Well not if you have seen "Beware: Children At Play" From Troma Entertainment. That was Awful. But I digress.

This Phantom of The Opera was not meant to be a movie. It was originally a very low budget Play. It was for a Benifit in Florida. The Set was Cardboard , and the Sound was horrible. But David Staller's Acting was once again awesome. He is the only reason to see this movie. Elizabeth Walsh was O.k The woman that Played Carlotta, played a very good Carlotta. Everyone else was just bad, really really bad. If your expecting to see a blockbuster hit, you will be sadly mistaken, but, if your a David Staller fan, Like I am, It's bearable enough to watch just to see him. He's the only good thing about the movie. But than again, As a David Staller lover, I offer a Biast opinion. I would like to see him do Andrew Lloyd Webber's play.

I hated it. I think Ms. Walsh has a lovely voice and a decent face/figure. My advice to her is keep at it. Oh, and do not put this on your resume. Mr. Staller was a cool voice as well. As to his looks, well, he was covered in stage make-up and a mask so i have no idea. His voice was good and anyone who can slowly lower himself from a standing position on a piano bench in time to the music must have wicked leg muscles! The song Perfect Music, Perfect Love was pretty good. He was fairly sexy and creepy all at once.

I hated it. I own it simply because I'm a Phantom Phanatic and must own everything Phantom related. However, it was a waste of money and an insult to audiences everywhere.

I actually liked this version and I have noticed that all the other reviews were made by what is termed "weekend fans" that is to say, fans who ONLY like the awl version. Yes, I know. If awl cant get Erik's name, why should I get his? The truth is, the explicit nature of awl's work is only one form of theater. Now think of another: Sondheim, who is equally talented, but more often implicit and less commercial. It is very easy for a newcomer to musical theater (or one who frequents only major touring productions) to be humanly dazed coming out of the Webber/Hal Prince production and then expect the rest of the theater world to deliver similarly muscular musicals.

The million dollar question remains: Is theater a visceral roller coaster set in two acts or can it challenge an audience to think? If the latter, what is the appropriate size and presentation to evoke thought? Lawrence Rosen and Paul Schierhorn's Phantom of the Opera is limited in size, budget and, yes, talent. In fact, it seems to live in a time capsule: a small regional musical inspired by Victorian operettas with no sense that it exists under the shadow of a late-twentieth century pop giant. Having seen many Gilbert and Sullivan operettas, the moderate song/dialog/song structure feels common to its form. Instead of rejecting its technique, I found myself quieting my commercial sensibilities in order to appreciate its low-key interpretation. (Just like Christine, I, too, have been trained to hear only Webber's grandiloquent music.) But it made me think! Bruce Falstein's book to the score presents a striking philosophic debate absent in most Phantom interpretations: What is passion? Should it be driven underground, symbolically like a monster? And what is passion without liberty (a timeless French theme)? In a superficial world, there is little room for the passionate genius to express himself freely, to create angelic music. Will even the genius be driven underground, cursed to deformity by conformity? This Phantom, without gargantuan sets and heroic harmonies, made room for a few universal themes previously overlooked.

The romantic triangle between Christine, Erik and Raoul is open to multitudinous interpretations and I'm ready to watch them all. Webber's gilding of Gaston Leroux' novel (already pervasively Gothic) with baroque artifice is sensational, indeed. I love theatrical excess! But I wonder if its truthful. Lawrence Rosen and Paul Schierhorn's Phantom is financially restrained but a purer narrative and in the end it struck me that Christine's choice to follow the fashionable Raoul is an obvious choice, but is it a courageous one? For me, viewing this small musical was my choice, like staying at a bed and breakfast for a change instead of the Hilton. Now what's yours?

It should be noted that this is NOT the infamous musical of Andrew Lloyd Webber.

All in all it was a bit "campy"- filmed live in a Florida theater, I believe. The score is not very impressive, but the actors voices are good quality. The storyline follows truer to the novel of Gaston Lerouxwith a few liberties here and there. The character of the Daroga is in this version, much to the delight of Leroux fans! If you see this movie, you will probably not that some song titles- like "Spirit of Music"- are similar to ALW, but keep in mind that there aren't too many synonyms for phrase "angel of music."

Rent it or buy if you you consider yourself a die-hard "Phan" or if you want a little change from the ordinary.