Thoughts on Albert Hall production

[igenlode]

Well, it's an interesting experience to watch two different productions of the same musical on successive evenings, though I wasn't entirely emotionally engaged in either of them. At least this one doesn't seem to have introduced a whole lot of questionably consistent extra backstory.

Although... Carlotta has been leading lady for nineteen seasons? That's definitely a change -- just how young did she start and how few alternative candidates are around? I assume the idea is to make her old enough to be Christine's mother, but it doesn't sound very realistic to me to suggest that the Opera Populaire has only had one leading lady in twenty years.
And there's what I think is an extra line where she says that "these things do 'appen" for the last three years, which is presumably supposed to be the period of time for which Christine has been at the Opera, or at least the Phantom has been actively interested in her. (Though I'm not sure that makes sense; if his aim was to get Christine better roles by making a pest of himself, he hasn't been very effective at it if she is still in the chorus line after three years ;-p)

Also, this Carlotta is apparently a man-eater; she is all over the slave-driver during the rehearsal (and who can blame her? Those are some impressive leaps and fouettés -- I just looked him up, and apparently the actor is a bona fide Royal Ballet star) and then all over the managers once they come within her orbit. (Not much interest in Piangi, though.)

Is Piangi supposed to be struggling to hit his top notes during the rehearsal, in addition to having trouble with the French pronounciation of "Rome"?

The word "Vicomte" has an audible "T" [passim] :-p
Also, "Meyerbeer" is a composer, not Mynheer Beer (or whatever title the auctioneer thought he was using...)

Meg gets a new verse in "Angel of Music" (in place of "Christine, you must have been dreaming" - not sure if the objection was to Meg disbelieving her friend, or the suggestion that this is "not like you" when the plot requires her to be credulous) where she talks about hearing Christine's voice "but the words aren't yours", which is a weird way to put it. Of course the words aren't hers -- she is singing existing music, not having a spontaneous bout of composition ;-p

Christine doesn't seem to faint from terror in the Phantom's lair in this production; she just falls asleep in mid-song for no obvious reason. Collapsing from exhaustion and general adrenalin crash, presumably (she has after all performed her first-ever leading lady role before any of this extra excitement started).

Why does Raoul not after all have his hat when he returns to Christine's dressing-room after going to fetch it? He does have one the next morning in the managers' office ;-D
(And why does Christine dutifully learn her part and attend the "Don Juan" rehearsal after telling everyone at great cost that she won't sing the role?)

[Edit: he does have his hat and outdoor coat when he returns. It's just black on a black stage, and the close-up is cropped so that you can't see that he is carrying it.]

According to the new lyrics, Carlotta has actually tendered her resignation before "Prima Donna" takes place (and Christine is deemed to have done "a moonlight flit" -- but she no longer "burns the midnight oil" -- too literary a reference for modern audiences?)


I didn't like Hadley Fraser's voice :-(
He sounded very harsh and gritty as Raoul -- especially immediately after listening to Patrick Wilson's performance, which was so outstanding on the quiet notes. None of the others made me conscious of their voice quality in particular, as opposed to their characters, but Hadley's Raoul really sounded out of place during "All I Ask of You" -- complete voice/face mismatch. (His voice is downright ugly at the start of the rooftop scene, presumably intentionally as characterisation; he comes across as actively annoyed with Christine at this point.)

I did notice that Christine took some breaths in odd places -- I think we got a "Don't put me through this. Ordeal by fire!" rather than "Don't put me through this ordeal by fire". I don't know if it was by deliberate direction, or simply running out of breath during live performance, but it came across as a mistake :-(

And I can see why people complain about the ending; I definitely got the impression that this Christine wanted to return to stay with the Phantom (though I couldn't see why, unless she just feels really, really sorry for him!) and would have gone back down the stairs to him after giving him the ring if he hadn't shaken his head to forbid it.

The Phantom's prosthetics coming detached are very obvious, as are the singers' intrusive microphone headsets -- one of the disadvantages of filming close-ups of a production designed to be seen from a distance :-(
I liked the detail that you can see the "Act I, Scene 2" and the music written on the "Don Juan" parts in the managers' office -- and that the folders and paper are the same that we see the Phantom working on just before the unmasking. You can also see the actual "Le Figaro" headline "MYSTERY AFTER GALA NIGHT" when Firmin is reading the newspaper coverage!

---

And now -- since my grasp of stage canon does seem to be reasonably coherent -- I have absolutely no remaining excuses for not attempting to write this story. I've got slightly under three weeks left, and only half the regular writing time I used to have...
I still think it's an idea with potential, but I'm not feeling that fabled thing called 'motivation' that people moan about losing; partly, I think, because this is going to be yet another retelling of the whole canon plot, and I've already done at least three of those (Christmas as it ought not to be, Blue Remembered Hills, and If I Were Vicomte), partly because I just feel so emotionally and physically drained all the time (and constantly riddled by self-hatred and fear), and maybe because I've simply been at this too long. I thought I'd got a clever new twist, but apparently I'm not as enthused about it as all that.

(And I know that someone else is working on the same idea, because she mentioned it to me a few months ago -- so if the simultaneous existence of a deadline and of competition doesn't put a kick up my backside, then what can? I know-- I know that you don't get anywhere if you don't try. But when I've got an idea I don't usually have difficulty even starting, only in keeping going.)

Maybe this one is too long; I can't face another long one with Arctic Raoul still hanging over me (and my failure to do any work on that is not improving my mental happiness or stability.) But I'm not planning to make it a long story, only to pick out 'highlights' in my usual fashion, as I did with "If I were Vicomte", which barely mentions all the parts unchanged from canon at all.

Maybe I'm burnt out. Maybe I'm simply lazy. This is meant to be a hobby for my own entertainment, not an obligation. Nobody will care if I don't write it -- except me. I had a whole load of ideas a few days ago; where have they gone? (Well, actually I think watching the movie knocked the stuffing out of most of the recent ones, which is probably one reason why I'm feeling down...)

Comments

[erimia]

Nobody will care if I don't write it -- except me.

It's not that I want to pressure you into writing this particular story - in fact, if you don't feel enthusiasm about something it's a good idea to not do it - but I just wanted to say that you definitely have some loyal fans who care about your writing. :) It may be indeed burnout, it does happen with hobbies too, and any feelings of obligation don't help here. You definitely doesn't seem lazy - in fact you're a very productive writer! I'd be surprised if anyone wasn't tired and not motivated to write a story immediately after having finished another one.

I didn't like Hadley Fraser's voice :-(

I don't like Hadley Fraser's anything (okay, except maybe eyeliner). His Raoul is very aggressive and dismissive, which contributes to the overall E/C bias of this production.

[betweensunandmoon]

I'm sorry to hear that you're feeling so bad. :(

It's not worth putting your time and effort into something you don't care about, especially if you're not in a good place physically or mentally. Just because you don't want to write this particular story right now doesn't mean you never will.

I don't think you're lazy. You are the opposite of lazy. I think you're burnt out. Maybe take a break from writing, or try writing for another fandom if you don't want to do that. If athletes need to rest after matches and games, so should writers after finishing stories.

[betweensunandmoon]

I don't like Hadley Fraser's anything (okay, except maybe eyeliner). His Raoul is very aggressive and dismissive, which contributes to the overall E/C bias of this production.

Ugh. I won't be watching this one, then, despite the good things I've heard about Sierra Boggess's Christine. :(

I think that's partially why I'm so fond of the silent film--besides Lon Chaney, it and the Herbert Lom version (which I haven't seen) are the only two adaptations I know of that are in favor of R/C.

[igenlode]

I don't like Hadley Fraser's anything (okay, except maybe eyeliner)

Eyeliner...?
Clearly I really am make-up blind (or I've seen too many silent films).

I didn't get a sense of E/C bias in the production other than in the final scene, as I mentioned; I did get a sense of 'where did that suddenly come from?' in the rooftop scene, which I don't remember having before. I was abruptly very conscious that this Christine has basically not exchanged a single word with Raoul since her dismissal of him in their first and only scene together (and in the stage production I saw, her "Raoul!" and "things have changed" after "I'll fetch my hat" was a desperate call for him not to leave her, not an angry dismissal).

I think they may have cut a couple of bits of business between the characters in preceding scenes; when I checked the lyrics booklet, they'd certainly cut some of the managers' stuff, in that case I suspect because of Albert Hall staging constraints.

But I do know that a lot of fans are very enthusiastic about Hadley Fraser's performance, on the lines of "he's so adorable", "I love the exuberance and puppy-dog energy he brings to the role", "what sets Hadley apart from other Raouls..." and "he really brought out the best in a character that usually struggles to shine over the allure of the Phantom" or "he really made a pretty thankless (and often forgettable/irritating) role stand out".

(I have to say I was more struck by the Broadway fan who referred to his performance as a "let your jaw hang and sound like a chainsaw" technique :-p
Patrick Wilson had an idiot wig, but he did *sound* good; I do remember now that I made an active choice to link someone to the 2004 movie version of "All I Ask of You" on YouTube, despite the visual drawbacks, because I liked the audio performances much better.)

Ugh. I won't be watching this one, then, despite the good things I've heard about Sierra Boggess's Christine. :(

The screening just didn't do anything for me emotionally (but to be fair, neither did the live stage performance I saw a couple of years ago, or the live stage performance of "Les Mis" -- the visuals are always better on the radio record)
Ironically, it ultimately did *less* for me than the 2004 version, but it was struggling under the handicap of being a repeat of material I'd seen only a day earlier, plus YouTube streaming limitations which meant I came in at "All I Ask of You", couldn't get it to start at the beginning by hook or by crook, and had to watch the production through to the end and then restart, which really is not the most ideal experience :-p
But then I was doing it in a spirit of research rather than one of fandom, so I just sat down and viewed it looking for differences...

I think that's partially why I'm so fond of the silent film--besides Lon Chaney, it and the Herbert Lom version (which I haven't seen) are the only two adaptations I know of that are in favor of R/C.

Ah, the Herbert Lom one is the Hammer Horror version -- as far as I remember the defining feature in that one is that the Phantom is basically a victim rather than the villain; the actual villaining is split between two other characters, and the Phantom is just a scary recluse...

But one of the more striking features of the fandom to me has always been that every adaptation, so far as I know, has an R/C rather than E/C ending (at any rate, it's an inherent part of the story that the Phantom always dies and never gets the girl), and yet the fans almost universally fantasise about a loving E/C relationship which is never, ever, canon. Where does it come from?

(Even in the RAH production, I was left consciously thinking 'what has happened in the entire story so far to even suggest that Christine would want to stay with the Phantom in the final scene?')

[igenlode]

It's not worth putting your time and effort into something you don't care about, especially if you're not in a good place physically or mentally.

But I haven't been in a good place for twenty-six years -- I still wake up and hate myself every morning, and after pretty much every interaction with other people -- so that isn't really a good guide to whether I can write or not :-(
I mean, it's basically been the situation for every piece of fan-fic I have ever written; a little more obvious in some situations than in others, perhaps (I do notice a high proportion of angst/horror stories), but it's sort of baseline-normal.

Just because you don't want to write this particular story right now doesn't mean you never will.

I don't think it is a question of not wanting to write the story; I think it probably really is as simple as a question of getting down to it.

Six hours or so ago, I picked up my new (secondhand) pen, opened my current notebook, and spent an hour or so writing five hundred words of Hertha, her husband and the managers (whom I hadn't originally visualised as being present, but of course they ought to have been) positioned in the opera box just before the curtain went up on the opening night of "Hannibal".

It really wasn't that difficult -- not nearly as many crossings-out as the first page of "The Writing on the Wall", which really was a nightmare to start. I do need to try to keep in mind that it needs to be readable canon-blind (so, for example, it needs to be clear that "Raoul" and "the Vicomte de Chagny" are the same person), which is an additional constraint, but after the first paragraph or so I found the ideas starting to chain ahead as expected. (The disapproving lorgnette which was originally visualised as appearing in the opening sentence eventually made it onto the page as the opening of the third paragraph, once the intervening imagery had fully developed.)

And the thing is I knew this would happen. It [almost] always does happen. It is entirely intellectually predictable.

All I have to do is simply sit down to it. If I do, writing happens. If I don't, then obviously nothing ever gets written at all. The difficulty is not in the word-smithing. It's in the sitting down...

Now all I have to do is keep writing, and at the end of the process a story will result. I can't control whether it's any good or not (though they generally are), but whether they have any chance to happen or not is entirely within my control.

(And I already know the necessary ingredients. Write with a pen. Walk up and down. Never switch on the computer until after you have done your writing for the day. Write every day, however little you end up achieving. It works.)

[igenlode]

I really wasn't trying to fish for expressions of devotion. At least, I don't think I was (yet another unintentional inadequacy to beat myself up about -- whichever way I choose, I cannot win ;-p)

The obligation I feel is to the *stories* -- not the readers. The readers don't need me (there are lots of other people out there to fill the gap); the stories do, because they're trapped inside my mind, and only I can let them out. (Now I'm hearing an echo of the Phantom's lyrics: you alone can make my words take flight... only I am my own Christine and my own angel in hell all in one.)

What I meant was that nobody will care if this particular story doesn't get written; no-one else has any particular attachment to a non-existent piece of work. It's just that for me it is no longer non-existent. ("Raoul, I've been there...")

And once a story gets to a certain stage of ripeness, the clock starts ticking; it can stay in suspended animation so long as it remains unformed, but once it takes shape it needs to be written, or it will die.
I've been reading C.S.Forester's essay on the writing of Hornblower, with the usual leap of recognition that I get from most professional writers ('yes, I do that too!') And he talks about the prospect of diving into what you know from experience is going to be hard work in advance, and the 'hangover' feeling of letting the work slip away from you in which rapidly turns into a binge of not-writing; the fleeting guilty pleasure really isn't worth the after-effects.
(Weirdly, I don't actually enjoy reading Hornblower being a masochist; I suspect Forester himself was, because a lot of his books have a nasty and/or futile edge, and I know I am. But it's not something I take any pleasure in as entertainment; watching someone inflicting unnecessary and undeserved punishment on himself offends my old-fashioned sense of morality and purpose in fiction, I suppose.)

I'd be surprised if anyone wasn't tired and not motivated to write a story immediately after having finished another one.
Well, from my perspective, "The Writing on the Wall" was to all intents and purposes finished back in May, so it has been four or five months since I had any stirrings at all of 'a new story'. The fact that the actual process of conveying those images onto paper continued, zombie-fashion, for several months, doesn't really register with that part of my subconscious ;-p
(And in fact that story actually went down extremely well, despite all my moaning about the proverbial lead balloon; I ended up with four reviews on each chapter, from five different reviewers, which is far more response than I normally get. Possibly because it featured rather more Poor Erik than usual, of course :-P)

And I quite happily took a conscious break from writing anything at all for several months after the final chapter of Arctic Raoul, having been at it for literally years at that point. Only then you went and gave me a plot idea (and I assumed it would be a nice quick one-shot to write -- for some reason, it wasn't!)

I'm not one of those people who turn up on fanfiction.net saying "I want to write a story, but I don't know what is going to happen in it"; I don't have a 'work ethic' that requires me to turn out a certain level of output on an ongoing basis or lose my identity as 'a writer'. I just... don't want a story to die when I can save it.

(And my definition of 'lazy' consists of 'takes an enormous amount of whiplash to force myself to do anything at all, including things that other people appear to find entirely non-stressful', which of course is also a pretty fair definition of clinical depression. But I never know how much self-pity is justified, and tend to come to the conclusion that none of it ever is, because I'm not going out and therapizing myself to be a happy, productive person. If I'm going to cling to unhappiness as a central part of my identity, then I really can't qualify for pity for it. (Unfortunately on those grounds I can't actually believe in it either, and it's incredibly difficult to explain to a therapist -- who as a rule deal with people seeking to be cured -- that I don't believe I am genuinely unhappy, but would *like to be able* to do so...)

[betweensunandmoon]

But one of the more striking features of the fandom to me has always been that every adaptation, so far as I know, has an R/C rather than E/C ending (at any rate, it's an inherent part of the story that the Phantom always dies and never gets the girl), and yet the fans almost universally fantasise about a loving E/C relationship which is never, ever, canon. Where does it come from?

I believe the Robert Englund version (which I also haven't seen; my knowledge of the various adaptations comes almost entirely from the PhantomReviews YouTube channel) features Raoul dying and an immortal Erik. :P But if we're talking about fans who are only familiar with the book/musical/Gerard Butler version, I think it's nothing more than wish fulfilment.

[igenlode]

I think what I'm trying to say is that it seems very weird to me that the fangirls are apparently completely out on a limb in their desire to see the Phantom paired off with Christine, given that none of the people whose job it actually is to tell the story visualise it in those terms at all...