Welcome to Gaia! ::

(So... Here's my current event for Western Civilization. Before you read, I will warn you that it is EXTREMELY opinoniated. I'm stubborn, cynical, arrogant, and fairly passionate about the subject. And I'm also too lazy to code the italics...)
Clearly, the fame of being the composer of Broadway’s longest running musical has gone to Mr. Webber’s head. His musical, Phantom of the Opera, is special. There is something about it that can’t quite be explained, but that makes it unforgettable—the kind of musical people can watch and listen to over and over again without ever tiring of it. I, personally, have listened to “Music of the Night” literally hundreds of times and I still find it every bit as powerful and beautiful as it was the first time. The only difference between now and then is that I can hear the different layers to the song, like the magnificent swell of the horns when the music hits a dramatic point. In trying to recreate the affects of such a powerful, moving production, Mr. Webber has, without a doubt, bitten off far more than he can chew.
From what I’ve heard of it, the music of this sequel reeks of complacency. I cannot bring myself to fault the singer chosen for the Phantom overly much, as his acting is fairly good. He even manages to get teary-eyed during what was, I’m sure, meant to be an especially moving part of the song. But the music itself is nothing special. The swells in the music, put in there, most likely, to serve as an expression of emotion, seem to fairly scream, “Hey! I’m trying to make a beautifully romantic song, but I lack the originality to come up with something new!” There are certain works that steal my heart away and take it for a fantastic ride with the rising and falling of the music, bringing me from ecstasy to tears, back again, and to every emotion in between. The rising and falling of the Phantom’s pining for Christine does no such thing. Rather, it is disgustingly generic and predictable, as if Mr. Webber was thinking, “Oh! I guess it’s time for me to actually put some feeling into this. Let’s see how I can do that with the least amount of effort!” And that is exactly what he does. The progression of the song lacks any unique qualities whatsoever. The dynamics, the swells, the rises and falls, everything that makes it music rather than just a pretty melody is molded into a “cookie-cutter” love song. Where is the passion that made his first Phantom of the Opera so brilliant? Where are the raw, unbridled emotions that saturate every piece in the first, culminating in something that can only be described as awe-inspiring glory? Clearly, Mr. Webber has become too self-satisfied and secure in his own success to deem his sequel worthy of such effort.
Furthermore, the Phantom is an interesting character in literature and theatre. He is a complex character who is prone to sudden bursts of powerful, passionate emotions. Why Mr. Webber did not take advantage of this fact when composing his score is entirely beyond me. A sudden burst of volume in the music would be fitting. Perhaps a quickly reached, impassioned fortissimo amidst the otherwise sweeping melody would have made the piece more unique, or perhaps a sudden ascent to a spectacularly executed high note. Or even—Heaven forbid!—a few changes in tempo to reflect the character’s inner turmoil. There are so many ways to use the Phantom’s character and the music to support each other that it is an absolute crime not to allow one to feed off the other. From what I have heard, the music does not do the characters of the play justice any more than it can compare to Mr. Webber’s.
Sadly, lack-luster music isn’t the only reason this musical falls tragically short of reaching the standards set by the original. The plotline itself leaves much to be desired and does not coincide with the ending of the original. While it was a rather unorthodox ending for an interpretation of Leroux’s novel, the power of Webber’s ending resides in the fact that Erik—The Phantom—is so touched and moved by a single act of kindness that he is, for that moment, able to look beyond himself and act completely selflessly, allowing Christine to flee with Raoul. And that is the one scene that truly captures the ending of Leroux’s novel. That is what brings the plot to its tragically beautiful finish. To take Erik after this moment, where he is finally able to reveal his true character and act selflessly and have him become greedy and self-absorbed in the sequel just destroys the impact of the ending, proving that the plot is much better resolved when, like in the novel, Erik dies.
I shall relate here a passage from the epilogue of the original Phantom of the Opera that explains Erik and proves that his final act of genuine goodness is where the plot should end and is the final step in the development of Erik’s character.
“The reader knows and guesses the rest. It is all in keeping with this incredible and veracious story. Poor, unhappy Erik! Shall we pity him? Shall we curse him? He asked only to be ‘some one’, like everybody else. But he was too ugly! And he had to hide his genius or use it to play tricks with, when, with an ordinary face, he would have been one of the most distinguished of mankind! He had a heart that could have held the empire of the world; and, in the end, he had to content himself with a cellar. Ah, yes, we must needs pity the Opera Ghost.”
That is a profound statement that never fails to move me. Webber’s version of a Phantom who would be so cruel as to lure Christine to America in order to take her son from her is certainly not the Erik of whom Leroux wrote—the Erik with a heart large enough to hold the world. What’s more is that it goes so far as to undo all the character development that took place to get Erik to the point where he can open himself up enough to make himself vulnerable and be the person he was meant to be. And while his boring, generic music is absolutely awful, his desecration of a beautifully complex character in literature is something else entirely. It undermines both what Gaston Leroux wrote and the occurrences of the first musical. Whether Mr. Webber chooses to recognize this or not, Erik changes. By the end, he is not the same person he was in the beginning of the work. And that has to be acknowledged, or the entire purpose of the novel is undermined. Erik was never meant to be a villain. He was meant to be a character who can be looked upon with pity and sympathy in spite of his wrong doings, because he has always been a victim of circumstance. Readers are meant to learn that he is a man capable of love in its purest form. It is painfully apparent that Mr. Webber has completely lost sight of the beauty of the original work.
I must express that Mr. Webber ought to have left this historic work alone after his initial rendition, as he is doing himself and devoted fans of Phantom of the Opera a great disservice. I anticipate a well-deserved flop as a blemish upon the renowned composer’s reputation. Fans of Phantom of the Opera had best begin gathering the torches and pitchforks now, because come November 2010, I am sure that there will be a large increase in demand for these particular items.

eek What!!! eek Sequel! eek
First let me say, beautifully written (I have no idea why you are so worried about college entrance essays!).
Before I actually go through and do a picky proofread, do you mind posting the link to your source? I think it would help me in my reading if I knew where you were getting your information...plus I want to know what the F is going on.
Please post! And let me know when your due date is as well, I hate to get back to you too late (though I'm pretty sure you won't have any trouble making a good grade with what you have!) wink
If this turns out to be what you described, which I'm sure it is...why would you lie about the plot - that's silly...than I'm with you! Pitchfork it is! Poor, poor, darling Erik.