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.