Not Sure What I Just Experienced Watching The Restaged POTO Tour, But Now I Need To Revisit David Shannon

Michael Crawford's "I love you" wail and "[big voice] YOU ALONE [sad wet cat voice] can make my song take flight" are actively disrupting my day.

The Golden Girls – 5.26: The Presidents Coming! The Presidents Coming!

An Essay on Why David Shannon and Gina Beck Are My Favorite Final Lair Coupling

They are just absolutely brilliant together. And I think it's a combination of bouncing off each other's spontaneous reactions well, but also having a plan and complete synergy in how they understand their characters and the arc of the scene. It all works together to secure the Phantom's transformation and redemption while also leaving the audience feeling like Christine made the right decision, which is such a hard line to walk in the final lair.

I think Gina's Christine genuinely loves Erik in this one, but there was absolutely no way she was going to stay with him after everything he'd done. The decision is questionable for other Christines, but her particular take on the character just wasn't going to allow for that, especially given his Phantom's more aggressive approach to the final lair.

And unlike other interpretations of this scene, both she and David/the Phantom know that and it plays out in their body language post-kiss. Up to that point, David had literally been grabbing Christine at will and throwing her all over the place, all while desperately denying that his actions were dooming their relationship. And now she comes back to return the ring and he literally can't make himself touch her because he knows he's pissed away every claim to that kind of intimacy with her. There's no verbal or physical bid for her to stay; that unfulfilled caress says "I recognize what I've done and that I have no right to ask you to be with me, so I'm letting you go." And even worse is the fact that David also plays Erik with chronic pain, so we can hardly tell if the face twitch/wince he does is literal or figurative (let's just say it's both).

GIVE THEM A DAMN OSCAR, IDC.

By request, a Gary Mauer final-lair kiss. With Marie Danvers in 2006.

The Saturday Stream sent me looking at Anthony Warlow and now between this and JRox I'm no use to man or beast.

Can't decide whether to crawl into fetal position or just cry face down in the pillow atp.

-Gregory Orr, “When Eurydice saw him” from Orpheus & Eurydice

Legs.

1. Jeremy Stolle 2. Davis Gaines 3. Hugh Panaro 4. Ivan Ozhogin 5. Ben Lewis 6. Gary Mauer 7. Howard McGillin 8. Earl Carpenter 9. Mathais Edenborn

An Essay on ALW's Erik

One of the best insights I got into ALW's Phantom from some random Reddit user is to watch for whether the lead plays Erik from his own POV or from Christine's, especially in MOTN. (I also add a third option because several actors also play him from the perspective of the audience or a more omniscient narrator.)

These approaches result in entirely different, but no less accurate, interpretations of the character. For example, Earl Carpenter's performance from the first lair to the final lair is entrenched in the Phantom's perspective, from the total anxiety he projects in MOTN, to his more hesitant physical engagement with Christine, to his decision to kneel/silently beg Christine to stay with him during the ring return. And I love that there's variety within this perspective as well. Carpenter uses this POV to portray a very earnest and sympathetic (if unscocialized) Erik, but I'd argue that Anthony Warlow also falls within this category even though he leans into the darker aspects of the Phantom's psyche.

I have favorite Phantoms in both categories, but I admit that Christine's POV is actually what hooked me to this musical. I got deep into Phantom boots after losing my dad in my 20s and watching an engagement fall apart under the strain of grief. When Erik is viewed or portrayed (à la Hugh Panaro) through Christine's eyes, you can see the character undergo a pitchy transformation throughout the musical as Christine works through her own relationship to men while grieving and coming of age. Erik initially presents himself to her as a father figure, then as a full-on seducer in the first lair, and then as a total monster. The story is in part about Christine's journey toward reconciling these different ways of perceiving/relating to masculinity in the absence of what had been the only male figure in her life. And the musical approaches resolution when Christine realizes that Erik is neither her dad, her lover, or a total villain--he's just a man. And he's worthy of compassion, but she can also choose to leave him.

Anyway, I hate when people say that it's inaccurate for Erik to be "X" or "Y". Because especially through the lens of Christine's journey, Erik is all the things at one point or another (or even simultaneously). He is a daddy-coded immortal messenger and a genius and sex incarnate and unhinged and broken and, and, and...a literary figure shaped by the internal worlds of the author, the reader, and the viewer/listener. What's the point in trying to make objective claims about him? Resist binary thinking and make literary and media analysis great again.

Why would you do this to me Fish?!?!

Phantoms who return the embrace, part 2 (part 1 here)

Sandor Sasvari & Andrea Maho | Budapest 2003

Josh Piterman & Kelly Mathieson | London 2019

Josh Robson & Georgina Hopson | Sydney Harbour 2022

Tim Howar & Harriet Jones | Thessaloniki 2023

James Gant & Holly-Anne Hull | London 2023

Kevin Greenlaw & Emma Kajander | Helsinki 2024

Nadim Naaman & Georgia Wilkinson | Lisbon 2024

Jon Robyns & Lily Kerhoas | London 2024