|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 9:26 am
Mm. I'm mixed on this issue.
You see, I don't like Raoul. At all. And I adore Erik.
In the movie, I found Raoul to be very annoying. The 'Little Lotte' scene is what put me off him. 'And now, we go to supper.' 'No, the Angel of Music is very strict!' Then he laughs like he's humoring her and says 'Well, I shan't keep you up late. I'll order my carriage. Two minutes, Little Lotte.' all the while she's protesting. I'm sorry, but that just pissed me off.
In the book, he came off as a sissy who was constantly crying on his brother's shoulder. Again, annoying.
I agree that Raoul does, in fact, love Christine. And she loves him. When he left her with Erik at the Masquerade, it was to get his sword. Admittedly, the first time I saw that I immediately shouted 'Coward!'. But then he came back.
I also think that while Erik was Christine's 'Angel of Music', she loved him. But once he was revealed as the Phantom and a killer, she became frightened. She still loved him, but her fear overrode that love.
I can see why she chose Raoul. He's more stable than Erik, he's not pushing 50, he can definitely take care of her, and (most importantly) she loves him and is loved in return.
I guess my whole love for E/C comes from the fact that I cannot understand how anyone could see a man so broken, so hungry for even the tiniest shred of love, and not want to fix him. Erik's suffered so much, it just breaks my heart. I cried for him when I read the book, I cried for him when I saw the movie, and I'll probably cry for him when I see the play.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 11:19 am
Azarni Usagi Mm. I'm mixed on this issue.
You see, I don't like Raoul. At all. And I adore Erik.
In the movie, I found Raoul to be very annoying. The 'Little Lotte' scene is what put me off him. 'And now, we go to supper.' 'No, the Angel of Music is very strict!' Then he laughs like he's humoring her and says 'Well, I shan't keep you up late. I'll order my carriage. Two minutes, Little Lotte.' all the while she's protesting. I'm sorry, but that just pissed me off.
In the book, he came off as a sissy who was constantly crying on his brother's shoulder. Again, annoying.
I agree that Raoul does, in fact, love Christine. And she loves him. When he left her with Erik at the Masquerade, it was to get his sword. Admittedly, the first time I saw that I immediately shouted 'Coward!'. But then he came back.
I also think that while Erik was Christine's 'Angel of Music', she loved him. But once he was revealed as the Phantom and a killer, she became frightened. She still loved him, but her fear overrode that love.
I can see why she chose Raoul. He's more stable than Erik, he's not pushing 50, he can definitely take care of her, and (most importantly) she loves him and is loved in return.
I guess my whole love for E/C comes from the fact that I cannot understand how anyone could see a man so broken, so hungry for even the tiniest shred of love, and not want to fix him. Erik's suffered so much, it just breaks my heart. I cried for him when I read the book, I cried for him when I saw the movie, and I'll probably cry for him when I see the play. -He was humoring her. You try telling me you wouldn't think someone crazy if they told you that they had a friend living in their mirror. But at the same time, Webber didn't even write in Raoul's part until halfway through production. And since Webber didn't care for Raoul anyway, he made him seem the ditz. -Aaalways the whining issue. One of these days I need to go through the book and tally up crying scenes for BOTH Raoul and Erik. Not being mean here, but if you're going to say Raoul whined, you need to say Erik whined too. -Don't base anything on the movie. Ever. That thing is about as accurate as a chicken is to an ostrich. -She loved what she thought was the spirit of her father. When she realized he was human, and a hideous one at that, it dulled that feeling. His aggressiveness and erratic behavior frightened her. Maybe she did still love him, or pity him, but it wasn't so much romantic love as maybe fatherly love. -They were also childhood friends. They were close, but the years had parted them, and when they were reunited, it wasn't as children, but as adults. Not to mention he was defying his status as Viscount for an opera singer, which was considered about the same level as a whore. -We all feel bad for Erik, but there's a point where the fantastical ideal of "oh he has to be good" must end and reality has to come into view. The man, while refined in some points, was socially awkward and, at times, backward. He had a childish personality in that, if he didn't get what he wanted, he was going to throw a fit. Not only that, but he had a homicidal nature that led him to kill whenever he pleased and without any remorse. Yes, he was treated unfairly because of his face and yes he wanted love, but given his way of handling things and even the way he threatened to kill Christine and them all if she didn't choose him, do you really think a happily ever after would've occurred. NOTE: Not being mean by any standards, so please don't take it that way. I'm simply giving my 2 cents on the subject. Plus, I hate how the movie makes everyone think in one direction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 12:48 pm
After reading the whole thread, and attempting to figure out a way to make sense...
I almost consider myself one of the neutral Phans. I like Erik and Raoul, and Christine (provided that she's not being shown as a ditz, like in ALW).
If Christine had stayed with Erik for whatever reason, he probably wouldn't have let her go anywhere out of the lair for fear of her running away. And god only knows what he did to that giant doll of her that he would do to her. o_0
It is really saddening that Erik is(was? whatever) such a broken soul that he'd never experienced love...and then was deprived of it when Christine left him. But I do have some thought on this, a little...
Perhaps he could tell that Christine did not love him, but his attempt to force her to marry him was to convince himself that she did. For something is not a lie if you believe it yourself, and having experienced love from Christine (if only just her belief that he was the Angel and she loved the concept but not him) for a time, he wanted to keep it as long as possible. Which would have meant making Christine unhappy. And he couldn't bear to see her unhappy, so he let her go.
But he was an old man who had had a horrible life and didn't know how to control himself sometimes...so it's a good thing Christine left.
*cough*
But for Raoul's point of view...
Yes, he didn't believe Christine because he thought the Angel of Music story was just that: a story. And when he refused to believe, she got mad at him. Then when he finds that the 'Angel' of Christine's is just Erik and stuff, he gets uber-jealous because he can't stand the thought of someone trying to take Christine. And then he risked his life to rescue Christine, and had to endure Erik's torture chamber. And then had to deal with the Erik-kissing-Christine bit, too.
And, as usual, I totally agree with Uta's post.
Erik and Raoul both cried a lot in the book. Raoul out of jealousy and stuff, and Erik of sadness that Christine didn't love him, etc.
Aand...there's my two cents, probably gonna get 'duh'ed at by someone, but...eh.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2008 2:08 pm
Utakan Azarni Usagi Mm. I'm mixed on this issue.
You see, I don't like Raoul. At all. And I adore Erik.
In the movie, I found Raoul to be very annoying. The 'Little Lotte' scene is what put me off him. 'And now, we go to supper.' 'No, the Angel of Music is very strict!' Then he laughs like he's humoring her and says 'Well, I shan't keep you up late. I'll order my carriage. Two minutes, Little Lotte.' all the while she's protesting. I'm sorry, but that just pissed me off.
In the book, he came off as a sissy who was constantly crying on his brother's shoulder. Again, annoying.
I agree that Raoul does, in fact, love Christine. And she loves him. When he left her with Erik at the Masquerade, it was to get his sword. Admittedly, the first time I saw that I immediately shouted 'Coward!'. But then he came back.
I also think that while Erik was Christine's 'Angel of Music', she loved him. But once he was revealed as the Phantom and a killer, she became frightened. She still loved him, but her fear overrode that love.
I can see why she chose Raoul. He's more stable than Erik, he's not pushing 50, he can definitely take care of her, and (most importantly) she loves him and is loved in return.
I guess my whole love for E/C comes from the fact that I cannot understand how anyone could see a man so broken, so hungry for even the tiniest shred of love, and not want to fix him. Erik's suffered so much, it just breaks my heart. I cried for him when I read the book, I cried for him when I saw the movie, and I'll probably cry for him when I see the play. -He was humoring her. You try telling me you wouldn't think someone crazy if they told you that they had a friend living in their mirror. But at the same time, Webber didn't even write in Raoul's part until halfway through production. And since Webber didn't care for Raoul anyway, he made him seem the ditz. Now? Yes. They're crazy. Then? It was France in the 1800s. Religion was a big part of life, so Angels weren't that far-fetched. And, excuse me if this offends anyone, if someone came up to you today and said they were the Son of God, what would you call them? And yet people easily believed Jesus. I know there is a VAST time difference, but the situations are similar.
You make a good point on Webber, though.
What really bothered me was how she was very seriously protesting the truth of her visit from her Angel, and he didn't seem to see that. I know what it's like when people are humoring you, and it does nothing but anger me.-Aaalways the whining issue. One of these days I need to go through the book and tally up crying scenes for BOTH Raoul and Erik. Not being mean here, but if you're going to say Raoul whined, you need to say Erik whined too. Erik did whine, true. But he did his crying (ALONE), then came forth with a new offense. Raoul cried constantly, on his brother's shoulder. I generally believe that when you need to cry, you should shut yourself off from everyone and have a good cry, so you won't have to worry about what anyone will say or what anyone will think of you. That's just my belief, though.-Don't base anything on the movie. Ever. That thing is about as accurate as a chicken is to an ostrich. Maybe so. But in each rendition, I see a different Raoul, a different Christine, and different Erik. I don't particularly like any of the Raouls I have seen so far. I base my movie observations on the movie alone.-She loved what she thought was the spirit of her father. When she realized he was human, and a hideous one at that, it dulled that feeling. His aggressiveness and erratic behavior frightened her. Maybe she did still love him, or pity him, but it wasn't so much romantic love as maybe fatherly love. I think it was a mix. He played on her need for a father, and that was a mistake. But when someone loves you the way Erik loved Christine, you really can't hate them. How could you hate someone who would kill for you, someone who would die for you?-They were also childhood friends. They were close, but the years had parted them, and when they were reunited, it wasn't as children, but as adults. Not to mention he was defying his status as Viscount for an opera singer, which was considered about the same level as a whore. But they rushed into it rather fast, don't you think? It seems to me that she felt something for him, then clung to the familiar figure when she was under stress. It's a good thing it was Raoul and that they would end up loving each other, truly. But in the beginning it seemed infatuation to me, not love.-We all feel bad for Erik, but there's a point where the fantastical ideal of "oh he has to be good" must end and reality has to come into view. The man, while refined in some points, was socially awkward and, at times, backward. He had a childish personality in that, if he didn't get what he wanted, he was going to throw a fit. Not only that, but he had a homicidal nature that led him to kill whenever he pleased and without any remorse. Yes, he was treated unfairly because of his face and yes he wanted love, but given his way of handling things and even the way he threatened to kill Christine and them all if she didn't choose him, do you really think a happily ever after would've occurred. I know he isn't good. He's insane, he's socially retarded, and he threatened to blow up the Opera House if she didn't marry him. Doesn't sound good to me. But society is what created this monster, and someone has to fix him. Otherwise, he'd continue to throw fits and kill without a though. That is, if he hadn't killed himself.
A happily ever after never occurs. The stories only stop during the happy times. That's why the 'happily ever after' illusion was created.NOTE: Not being mean by any standards, so please don't take it that way. I'm simply giving my 2 cents on the subject. Plus, I hate how the movie makes everyone think in one direction. No problem, I like hearing other's opinions on my own.
The movie was what I saw first, but now that I've read the book I'm seeing different characters with the same names in every rendition. Different sides and attitudes from each person. The only time they should be exactly same is in a sequel, and I've heard that they aren't. PoM, anyone? This is why different authors should not write sequels.My answers. ^^
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 7:52 pm
-It was the 1800s. Women were still the weaker sex and not only that, but she was claiming to be visited by something her father said he'd send. That is basically like saying you saw the tooth fairy when you're thirty. That she wholly believed it was her father's spirit/gift showed that she had yet to grow up completely. Raoul didn't want to hurt her feelings, but at the same time, did not want to play along.
-That's all on opinion. Erik had no one to cry to. Raoul did. I'm grown and I still cry on my mother's shoulder. And since Raoul was raised by his brother, that was the closest thing he had to a parent. But like I said, it's an opinion thing as to how to go about crying.
-Because there are different people reinacting the characters. And none of them have gotten them right.
-She never hated him. She feared him and was upset that he lied, but it wasn't hate. As for that last sentence, I personally would fear someone who would kill for me, and pretty much had, in a roundabout way.
-What you don't see in the musical is time passing like in the original novel where it went into months. That and most love stories give the cliched "love at first site" schtick so that you get the romance right then and there without the pussyfooting around. In the book, Christine didn't fully love him at first, but she began to and ended up with a strong love for him. After all, at first she was more terrified about what Erik would think than actually enjoying her time spent with him.
-There's nothing that can fix Erik. The man was in his fifties. The world thought him born from demonic origin because of his disfigurement, and the only way he knew how to deal with it was to retaliate. And Erik did not kill himself. He died of love; or rather, died happy because for one instance when Christine promised to marry him and let him kiss her on the forehead (or she kissed him, depending on which version), he knew love, which was all he'd wanted. Getting it for at least that long allowed him to finally move on and cease living.
-Every written sequel, published or not, is utter tripe. Nuff said. XD
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2008 11:56 am
Alright, here's my input after reading the last couple posts. So my humble response would be: Quote: I cannot understand how anyone could see a man so broken, so hungry for even the tiniest shred of love, and not want to fix him. But wanting to "fix" him fits more into pity and not love, which is the whole point of Christine's dilemma over who she wants. Quote: In the book, he came off as a sissy who was constantly crying on his brother's shoulder. Again, annoying. Well, the use of the term "sissy" is a matter of time and opinion. Thinking of it in terms of the 1800's, it was quite normally for men to cry, whereas, in comparision to our time, men are expected to be emotionally strong and, perhaps, impassive. Moreover, Raoul was raised almost solely by his sisters, which might give him a more feminine personality. Quote: How could you hate someone who would kill for you, someone who would die for you? This is a very romantic notion, and I'm sure many girls still dream of that knight in shining armor who'd do anything for her. But it's a fantasy. That's all it is. And in the reality of the situation, fear trumps fantasy.
I had a little conclusion prepared, but I really can't find a way to word it properly. Silly me and my inability to be eloquent. @_@
P.S. But Uta-san, I like that tripe...Actually, scratch that. I like the well-written tripe. whee
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 29, 2008 9:02 am
Lasciate: I've yet to read a good sequel, so I can't say I enjoy the tripe. XD Though, despite its flaws, Kay's "Phantom" was pretty good. Still feel like a whore paying $60 for it and now they're re-printing for around $20..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 31, 2008 11:14 am
Well, I've tried to avoid reading any harlequin-esque sequels. XD Poor Uta-san.
I just borrow it from my friends constantly. It's like having a book club.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 11:00 am
Wish I had a book club.
And really, since most of them are written by women, they end up being harlequin-esque and it just kills me. Especially "Letters To Erik". Oh my god, that thing was so awful. And Raoul, who somehow turned cold and distant, conveniently dies and voila, Erik ends up being his long lost cousin and inherits the family fortune. -.-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
