Me: Do I Like My Erik A Tender And Sensitive Loverboy Like Earl Carpenter Or A Deranged Sex God à La

Whoops, you thought I was over Davis Gaines?

He's just so ghoulish and graceful.

"Letters To Milena", Franz Kafka

All final Broadway Phantoms, the kiss.

Phantoms: Sad Wet Cat or Crazy Bitch?

Inspired by this tweet by @glindaupland (i think). May delete because, well...

Earl Carpenter: Duh, the OG sad wet cat OG.

Kevin Gray: Definitely a crazy bitch, but makes me a sad wet cat watching him.

Ian Jon Bourg: Sad wet cat pretending to be a crazy bitch.

Tim Martin Gleason: Name a difference between his final lair and a kitten left out in the rain?

Hugh Panaro: Psycho bitch who becomes a sad wet cat for 1.5 seconds when he says "my angel."

Davis Gaines: Sad wet crazy bitch.

JOJ: Crazy wet cat.

David Thaxton: Is a crazy bitch because he's a sad wet cat.

Ramin Karimloo: Extra crazy bitch. No cat in him whatsoever, unfortunately.

Jeremy Stolle: Was a sad wet cat in his early days as an understudy but graduated to crazy bitch and sex god in the 2020s.

Greg Mills: People literally call him finger lickin' Greg...but he's still a wet cat.

Ben Crawford: Crazy bitch who swears he's not crazy.

David Shannon: Sad wet cat who is also injured.

John Cudia: Sad wet cat who makes my cat w—*phone dies*

Hugh gave everything this performance. It's historic somehow, idc.

I don't think you understand how John Cudia's STYDI hands have disturbed me on a visceral level. He went OFF in this boot.

Incorrect Quotes: Jane Eyre (70/?)

Source

Rewatching Lindsey Ellis's review of Love Never Dies.

I honestly love this play so much. Not even because it's so bad it's good (it's really a little too boring for that). But because I used to write terrible POTO fanfiction when I was like... 8? And at least half my terrible ideas somehow made it into this way-past-its-prime fanservicey sequel.

"Erik has a son" is a complete nonsense pandering idea that undoes the character arcs of the first play's ending. And now people have to argue in the affirmative why it's not canon. It taught me that "real artists" plagiarize fans, and that nothing is too stupid to be made. And that's honestly the best gift I've ever been given.

It's why I'm so confident about "Slippin Kimmy". Love Never Dies taught me to stop worrying if I'm good enough and embrace this affectionate cynicism about art and the entertainment industry.

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.

The Last Black Man In San Francisco (2019)

dir. joe talbot