InsaneJournal

Tweak says, "Do you have to let it linger?"

tkp (tkp) wrote,
@ 2008-01-16 19:52:00

Entry tags:

movie, movie review, review

Review: Argento's Phantom of the Opera
So, my_daroga finally sat me down and made me watch Dario Argento's Phantom of the Opera, starring Julian Sands and Asia Argento and "based" on the Phantom of the Opera story (yes, the quotes are necessary). And this post is to tell you you must see this film. There are three reasons this movie is awesome:

1. It is so bad.
2. And yet, a few parts are so good.
3. Parts of this film are unique and thinky in spite of itself.

• Thrilling Aspects (on a stick!)

-Rat!sex.
-The director checking out Asia's boobs.
-The director being Asia's dad.
-Phallic deaths.
-Phallic lives.
-Did I mention sex with rats?
-A tongue getting torn out by someone else's teeth.
-my_daroga saying, "Wouldn't the teeth bite through the tongue first?"
-Raoul, looking exactly like a Raoul.
-Julian Sands NAKED.
-Rodent shenanigans. Also, sex.
-The Phantom threatening to bite off Carlotta's breasts.
-Degas. Yes.
-Turkish baths, with wild aristocratic depravity, and Raoul naked.
-And Philippe naked.
-Rats. Naked.
-Really bizarre, horrible lip syncing.
-A rollercoaster go-cart invention that hoovers up rats.
-Hoovered up rats.
-Sexed up rats.
-Long blond haired skirry dudes who run about with capes and are secretive always do it for me. Good thing Lucius doesn't live underground.

-Ratcatcher/midget/formaldehyde!rats = OT3 for life!
-How bizarrely sexual the attacks in this movie are.
-Like Snakes on a Plane.
-Except with rats.

• Thinky Thots Wot I Thinked

This movie is about deviancy, in particular, sexual deviancy. What I like is it's not just one character (the Phantom) being a freak; there's this whole atmospere of sexual deviancy, which may actually not be so inaccurate for the era and place.

For instance, much of the deviancy is explored in the form of aristocratic dissipation. This is interesting as class commentary. People would see the Phantom as a freak, but is Raoul so different? Raoul has a scene of dissipation in the Turkish baths, naked people fawn all over him, and we see how he longs to "corrupt" Christine. Is this meant to parallel to Julian having sex with lots of rats and actually corrupting Christine?

The other instances of aristocratic debauchery interested me because they explore opera politics in a way that is implied in Andrew Lloyd Webber, touched on in Leroux's book The Phantom of the Opera, but probably very prevalent in interests of historical accuracy. In ALW Raoul is a patron of the opera and so to some degree seems to have free access there. The managers meanwhile, are bourgeosie, but still higher class than the ballet rats, which may be why they're checking them out as if they have free access to them. In Leroux, the relationship between the higher classes and those less fortunate seems made more explicit. I can't remember--didn't Sorelli's livelihood actually depend on Phillippe's, ahem, patronage of her?

At any rate, in this version of Phantom this distorted "exchange" is very direct. We see the ~~director zeroing in on the actress's boobs~~ higher classes harrassing the ballet rats all the time. It seems apparent the poor opera denizens are at the mercy of these wealthier, older men, the way many servants of this day were. If they did not comply in these sexual exchanges, they'd be out flat on their arses, and have no one to whom to report these indignities who would give a damn.

What does it mean, anyway, that rodents play such a prominent part in this story, and the dancers were known as ballet "rats"? The lower classes were never treated as anything less than vermin; those more powerful always assume they are thus superior and able to deal with "less" beings in any manner of their choosing?

Speaking of power and aristocracy, the Phantom in this version seems different because he appears to have ambition. Can't remember his words exactly, but he does say something about rising above, and/or "showing them". The ambition of ALW's Phantom is love. The ambition of Leroux's is a normal existence (just like Buffy or Harry Potter. What is it with these people? There should be meta.) But Argento's Phantom seems to want power. I wonder if this is yet another commentary on the class divide. The one who is bucking the system is the freak. (But also, he does sleep with rats.)

Which brings me to another philosophical matter not quite so direct in most Phantom stories*. When I first heard the POTO story (it was ALW), I was expecting something Beauty and the Beast-ish--you know, hideous/repulsive/frightening appearance, heart-of-gold. Of course, as Christine points out, the Phantom's true distortion lies within his soul. But so much of that musical is dealing with that face that it's never very clear whether it's his face or behavior that really puts Christine off.

Argento, OTOH, gives us a Phantom who is beautiful, or would be if he washed his hair, and even if he never did have I mentioned Julian Sands, NAKED? So, because the Phantom is beautiful, his gruesomenesss, his horror, his ugliness, is all on the inside. Other Phantoms have the excuse of their faces for being evil--what's Julian's excuse? But what's interesting is that Julian seems just as constructed from his external circumstances as the other Phantoms, even without the horrible external circumstance of an ugly visage. That is, Julian's upbringing, his home environment, his status as it were, his nurturing not his nature make him the fiend he is. I think it's a stretch to say all this is more class commentary, but if not--what the hell was Argento thinking?

Besides getting Julian Sands, NAKED, I mean.

*(It's difficult to access how people react to Erik's inner ugliness due to the fact that people so often are reacting just to his face, and that's the nature of the story, that Erik is ugly. What's interesting is how many versions of the actual Beauty and the Beast fairytale DO seem to address this, when "canon" for Beauty and the Beast is solely about outward ugliness as opposed to inner. But in so many B&Bs, Beauty couldn't give two shakes about Beast being horrifying in appearance; it's his inner character and the way he treats her that appalls her. Or am I just thinking Disney? Let's check:

The only similarities I see...
...mostly have to do with icky hair.
This is here because I love people.

In conclusion:

iconage by

raincollector

Ads by Project Wonderful! Your ad here, right now: $0

(Post a new comment)

	kita0610 2008-01-17 05:57 am UTC (link)
	Your brain intrigues and horrifies me simultaneously. I LOVED Catherine & Beauty and the Beast. LOVED. Cried like a little bitch at the end of the series. ION, Marsters KISSED A BOY ON THE MOUTH WITH TONGUE TONIGHT ON TV. MY TV LOVES ME! LOVES! ME! (Reply to this) (Thread)

tkp
2008-01-17 06:16 am UTC (link)

OMG so I was going to email you today but then I didn't because all I had to say was that I wanted to read your fic but am holding off because I wanna watch the show first. But omg! Fic! Excited here. My housemate came home today and was like, "So, apparently Kita wrote Torchwood fic." It was funny because you're not even on her flist, but she knows you're on mine and I guess she heard it through the grapevine. Anyway, YAY. I loved the Torchwood previews I saw with Marsters so I will watch the first season just for him.

I loved that Beauty and the Beast too, but was quite young when it was first on. It just recently came out on dvd! So of course I bought S1. There's a lot of crap, actually, but Vincent is SO HOT. Of course he is he's a great big animal man!

My brain intrigues and horrifies me, too.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

kita0610
2008-01-17 06:24 am UTC (link)

No worries, the fic isn't going anywhere- although honestly it exists outside of the actual show, I wrote it before I saw anything but the previews. So basically I wrote it without ever even having seen an episode of TW. Uhm...

I LOVE the B&B myth, I think it's probably my favorite. I still have my childhood version of the book, and I have the DVD of Disney, and I think I may have to go buy the tv series too. OMG are there extras??? /geekspasm

Who is your roommate again? That's really funny, actually.

Gods, J. The ep is FUCKING HOT. It's hotter than the godam promos, I swear to g0d. I have no idea how they managed this, but they did. Marsters and Barrowman have wicked chemistry together. WIC.KED. GAH!

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

tkp
2008-01-17 06:36 am UTC (link)

I figured that might be the case, given how you felt about those previews, but I still want to know who the people are.

Love B&B too. My housemate is

my_daroga; you've seen her around because she's on my flist but you don't know her. Anywho, it was funny because today we busted out with the Disney B&B song lyrics and we both knew ALL the words and it was such a joy to be around someone like that!

The DVDs do not have extras. Or at least S1 doesn't. They have nothing! I bopped around that fandom for a while, and apparently the network that aired the show (forget which) was reluctant to even do the dvds because they thought they would not make money.

Have you read Beauty, by Robin McKinley? It's one of my favorite books and it's a retelling of B&B.

JM was AWESOME in the promo I saw. I usually only really find him hot as Spike, but there was something about this that was just as good or better.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

kita0610
2008-01-17 06:42 am UTC (link)

Oh, Capt. John (his character) is totally Spike. You'll laugh a LOT when you see in how many ways he is totally Spike. OTOH, this show is the perfect venue for him, he can chew as much scenery as he wants, and he fits right the fuck in with the cracktasticness that is CANONICAL BISEXUALITY OF EVERY CHARACTER IN THE VERSE. I just. *flail and die*, J. FLAIL AND DIE.

I may run out of caps in this fandom.

I have not read that book! Thanks for the rec! I'll get it!

Are you waiting til the 26th to see the show, then? *looks shifty*

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	tkp 2008-01-17 06:48 pm UTC (link)
	Daroga dl'ed the ep, so we'll be watching it soon. Although I think JM is a great actor anyway, there is definitely a sort of role to which he is more suited. Spike was the PERFECT part for him. Lemme know if you get that book, because if you don't you're getting it for your bday :o) (Reply to this) (Parent)

	my_daroga 2008-01-17 06:34 pm UTC (link)
	Oh my god! You said Spike was hot! In public! J, you have no idea how many stupid song lyrics I know. I've gotten out of the habit of busting out with them, being with Mr. Daroga. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	tkp 2008-01-17 06:39 pm UTC (link)
	Oh my god! We're commenting to each other! From different rooms! Does Mr. Daroga not like of the stupid song lyrics? WELL TOO BAD FOR HIM. Spike is hot. Even if he IS funny looking. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	my_daroga 2008-01-17 07:41 pm UTC (link)
	I honestly think I sing less because I'm convinced it'll convince him I'm not a perfect singer or something. I know it's stupid, but it's like performance anxiety because what he thinks means way more. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	my_daroga 2008-01-17 06:35 pm UTC (link)
	Hi Kita! I heard about your fic from herself_nyc, actually. That's how word got to me. But I haven't read it yet. I've seen you around and stuff, but I'm a sideliner in BtVSdom. And you should totally read McKinley's Beauty. It's romance for people like me who don't read romance. Or who need the hero to be just some sort of "wrong." (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	kita0610 2008-01-17 06:41 pm UTC (link)
	Hi!! I know I've seen your name too, even b4 TKP, but I can't remember where. I'm totally buying that book this w/e, thanks!! (Reply to this) (Parent)

	lafemmedarla 2008-01-17 08:50 pm UTC (link)
	WOHOO!!! Friend sent me here for Phantom of the Opera and I find bonus Marsters kissing squee! SQUEES Cried with the ending of the Beauty and te Beast series too. sniffs Those were good times. (Reply to this) (Parent)

stefanie_bean
2008-01-17 03:39 pm UTC (link)

Excellent thinky thots! I really like the Argento Phantom movie because of all the versions I've seen, it does get close to the "feel" of the time and place. And yup, there's the general sexiness of it all. I also really like that at the end, Christine *wants* to stay with Erik - but can't, because he's getting all shot full of holes by the gendarmes. That scene at the end where she's crying in the boat really moved me.

I had never made the connection between 'ballet rats' and the rats who "rescue" Baby Phantom and then ... bond ... with him.

I'm not sure Argento really thought out all this class stuff. But you're right - it *permeates* Leroux, and just about every later version chooses to ignore it. You're right, too - I think it's fair to say that Sorelli's rise was not just due to her beauty but due to her alliance with Philippe. Except for the "top stars," neither singers nor dancers were paid very much, and Leroux is careful to point out that Christine is *not* being supported by a "patron" (i.e. she is not anyone's mistress.) I think these careful things Leroux tells us about Christine tend to get lost on modern readers.

I think that Erik in Leroux wants power, too. He likes his blackmailing relationship with the old manager, Poligny (and we are given the hint that Poligny has some secret vices which Erik knows about, and uses to keep him compliant.) While we're not shown any details of the "angel of music" phase of Erik and Christine's relationship, IMO the power imbalance in that stage is quite great. For one thing, Christine never sees Erik, yet he can see her. (There are connotations of voyeurism there.) Further, Erik is either lying to Christine or emotionally manipulating her, and she has little way to "fact check" him. Then, when he does make "first contact" with her, it's rough, physical, involves drugs or some kind of hypnotism, and ends in a kidnapping. Later, when he kidnaps her again, he threatens to cause a major catastrophe (left out of subsequent versions.)

He also plays power games with the Persian, who in some ways does seem to be afraid of him, while still compelled to hang around him at the same time. In short, Leroux!Erik's idea of love is bifurcated - there is what he *says* and then there is what he *does.*

Good points too about the "beautiful Phantom" and how it is possible to be lovely on the surface, but twisted within. Also good point about how in Argento's interpretation, Raoul is decadent too. Argento!Raoul is far closer to an "average" aristocrat of the day. Leroux had to make the original pretty ununsual (devout Catholic, virgin, wouldn't marry except for love - i.e. would buck the arranged-marriage expectation for his class, etc.) in order for us to believe that he *wouldn't* exploit Christine.

And yup, that Turkish bath scene is *priceless.* I wish more movies would get frank and realistic about the 19th century. We carry around such a distorted view of it. In Leroux, when Philippe takes Raoul out on the town (in the "Mysterious Brougham" chapter), you can bet it was pretty decadent. Leroux doesn't have to spell it out for his audience; they know exactly what he's talking about.

More on BATB below.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

tkp
2008-01-17 06:12 pm UTC (link)

I think these careful things Leroux tells us about Christine tend to get lost on modern readers.

Exactly!

As for Leroux's Raoul being unusual because he wants to marry for love and everything--yes. At the same time, while it might've been unusual for the reality of the time, it wasn't unusual for the literature of the time. It's the sort of medieval Romance cliche. What I like about Leroux is he does seem to make a point that both Raoul and Christine are unique, not the norm among aristocrats or poor waifs.

(There is SO much meta here I really want to get into. Christine, Raoul, and the Persian are the most "Romantic" tropes, being pristine, noble, and mystical, but they're actually the most sensible ones in the novel. The managers, meanwhile, fancying themselves enlightened, are completely in a tizzy!)

I do think Argento's version has a lot of historical accuracy that is missing from other versions. At the same time, the movie is so exaggerated. On the one hand, we do have this vision of pristine Victorian (misnomer for France, but it seems to still apply) 19th c. OTOH, some seem to really harp on this seething underbelly of immorality and vice and hypocrisy. I think the fact is, there was some of both. A depraved aristocrat isn't necessarily more accurate; he is just as likely as an honorable and subdued aristocrat. Same is true of the today's businessmen. And same was true, I think, in America in the 1950s, which people seem to also want to paint as either pristine or a seething underbelly of hypocrisy.

As for Leroux's Erik wanting power. He does, perhaps, but his ultimate ambition is to be bourgeoise. I think his power plays are his way of making up for the fact that he can't have that normal existence. For instance, he could never have Christine in the way of a normal suitor, so he must trick her and manipulate her. Given the choice, I think he'd definitely choose courting her normally. This did not seem to be the case with Argento's Phantom at all.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

my_daroga
2008-01-17 06:31 pm UTC (link)

here is SO much meta here I really want to get into. Christine, Raoul, and the Persian are the most "Romantic" tropes, being pristine, noble, and mystical, but they're actually the most sensible ones in the novel. The managers, meanwhile, fancying themselves enlightened, are completely in a tizzy!

Oh, I agree. This is a really interesting factor, and sort of goes along with my "foreigner" meta about Erik, Christine and the Persian being "outsiders" bound together in some way. And the Persian, for instance, is the most rational of the bunch, despite his "esoteric" reputation.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

tkp
2008-01-17 06:41 pm UTC (link)

Yes! Love how the Persian is the voice of reason when the Victorians painted the East as something so lacking in logic; shows Leroux's true colors as a Naturalist.

We are so smart. I want to write a thesis on Leroux. Not because Leroux's exceptionally brilliant or anything but because he's such a product of his times, and yet his characters are so much a commentary on past times, and rather a way of poking fun at past times.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	my_daroga 2008-01-17 07:40 pm UTC (link)
	Good point, definitely. You can do that while I write my POTO-through-the-ages dissertation. (Reply to this) (Parent)

stefanie_bean
2008-01-17 09:49 pm UTC (link)

TKP: As for Leroux's Raoul being unusual because he wants to marry for love and everything--yes. At the same time, while it might've been unusual for the reality of the time, it wasn't unusual for the literature of the time.

Good point. There is a lot of idealization in both art and literature of that time, especially of "nobility" and male sexuality.

As for Leroux's Erik wanting power. He does, perhaps, but his ultimate ambition is to be bourgeoise.

Do you think Leroux is including a snark or two on bourgeoise ambitions? That they are only achievable, really, with violence and manipulation? Maybe I'm just pulling monkeys out of my butt here, but I wonder if that's why the novel has lasted - because it is really modern in a lot of ways.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

tkp
2008-01-19 05:04 am UTC (link)

I never really got that from Leroux. I do think there is an ironic point being made, but I thought that it was that the bourgeoise long for passion and drama, which almost by definition exist outside the realm they have access to. Meanwhile, a figure full of said passion and drama, in turn, only longs to be bourgeoise.

Also, I just don't see the novel as having "lasted". Certainly the story has, but imo that is because every decade or so someone adapts said story to the current zeitgeist.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

stefanie_bean
2008-01-17 03:39 pm UTC (link)

Re: the beast in BATB stories being appalling. One of my favorite renditions is Jean Cocteau's movie. There, the beast is appalling for two reasons. (IMO Disney borrowed heavily from this interpretation.) One is his angst over finding himself in a nonhuman form. So emotionally he loathes himself, loathes his "beastiness." Second, in Cocteau the Beast runs on all fours, hunts, and drinks like an animal afterwards. So he has all these bestial traits *by nature.* They're not moral failings - they're just the way he is, living in the beast body.

Donna Jo Napoli does something similar in her BATB retelling (called "Beast") where she shows the beast's life and experience as a lion (including lion sex.)

Belle in Cocteau has to *learn to love him* and *see through* those bestial features. This is critical IMO to the story, because I see BATB as a story (in part) of a young woman learning to love a man not just for his "personality" or "soul" but for his physical maleness as well. At first (to a lot of girls in gentler eras, at least) that maleness was seen as scary, too hairy, repulsive, overbearing.

That's also why I see the 2004 POTO movie as more of a BATB story, because it's particularly the overpowering masculinity of the "beautiful Phantom" to which Christine responds (and ultimately rejects.)

Think more thinky thot - they inspire me to some of my own.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

tkp
2008-01-17 06:18 pm UTC (link)

The original B&B story does have the beast as a animal who goes off on all fours and hunts. I loved how Cocteau's movie included that, too.

I see BATB as a story (in part) of a young woman learning to love a man not just for his "personality" or "soul" but for his physical maleness as well

I agree! I want to write a bunch of B&B stories and compile them in a book. In one of the stories, there is nothing physically "wrong" with the Beast character at all, unless you count his sexuality, which the Beauty character sees as frightening and depraved. In another story I wanted to do a woman!Beast. I'm not sure whether she would be in animal form or not, but the essential gist is that her sexuality is animal, and the man!Beauty does not go for her in the end--it's meant to point out how much less accepted and more frightening it is for a female to have sexual agression, while if men have it women are expected to embrace it. Sorry I'm babbling; I just really love looking at the B&B story the way you mentioned.

because it's particularly the overpowering masculinity of the "beautiful Phantom"

Fascinating! I had not thought of that--thanks for the insight!

(Reply to this) (Parent)

my_daroga
2008-01-17 06:39 pm UTC (link)

You and Stef have already said a lot of what I think about this, but I wanted to point out explicitly that making the Phantom hot sort of excises that layer of ugly from the interpretation. Leroux's Erik, whether from nature or nurture, is messed up. It's not just his face that's "wrong," even if his face is the root cause. By making him hot, Argento is free to focus on the sexual/mental wrongness of him.

Now, it's not perfect, because Julian doesn't quite follow a not-ugly Erik. But I think it's a valid direction to take the story in. The mask is not on his face--it is his face.

I think, also, that meta would have a greater chance at making sense if this movie hadn't deliberately ripped off the Penguin's origin story from Batman Returns. Because it means that the rat decision was made with regard to outside influences rather than diegetic necessity or interest. If that makes sense.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

tkp
2008-01-17 06:45 pm UTC (link)

making the Phantom hot sort of excises that layer of ugly from the interpretation.

Exactly. That's what I was trying to get at, and this is an excellent way of putting it.

If that makes sense.

Totally does. Although, as you may have figured out by now--I love trying to give things diegetic meaning when they really have none. None that the author/creator foresaw, anyway.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	my_daroga 2008-01-17 07:42 pm UTC (link)
	Although, as you may have figured out by now--I love trying to give things diegetic meaning when they really have none. None that the author/creator foresaw, anyway. For me, both are essential. You have to try to explain it, but as we talked about with my chapters, not get so far into it you don't acknowledge the nondiegetic meanings as well. (Reply to this) (Parent)

stefanie_bean
2008-01-17 09:45 pm UTC (link)

I think, also, that meta would have a greater chance at making sense if this movie hadn't deliberately ripped off the Penguin's origin story from Batman Returns. Because it means that the rat decision was made with regard to outside influences rather than diegetic necessity or interest. If that makes sense.

I dunno - both Argento's POTO and Batman Returns seem to have borrowed from the Romulus and Remus legend, or The Jungle Book, or any number of old stories where an abandoned child is raised by animals. There was also that 1971 movie, Willard, where an isolated misanthrope lives with a colony of rats.

Rats make sense (besides the link between the lower classes / "ballet rats" and real rats) because rats are so maligned and despised. Yet people who like them, have them as pets will tell you how intelligent they are, etc. It's as if they have something beneath their "repulsive" exterior. In this case, as you say, his face *is* the mask.

In a sense the rats are like an "unmasking" - because Christine sees him with the rats, and that's when she gets horrified.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	my_daroga 2008-01-17 10:08 pm UTC (link)
	I don't deny any of this. I think it's an accurate reading and adds a lot to the story. But I can't help but see it not as an artistic choice but as a response to the other film's popularity, down to the basket-in-a-sewer. I'd have less trouble with it if it wasn't so close. (Reply to this) (Parent)

lafemmedarla
2008-01-17 08:40 pm UTC (link)

Here via

my_daroga, for I cannot resist a Phantom. :D

1. It is so bad.
2. And yet, a few parts are so good.
3. Parts of this film are unique and thinky in spite of itself.

And those are the three reasons I cannot stop watching.

I ove Julian Sands, but my biggest issue with this movie is that Erik is so good looking. Generally speaking. But that is because the whole disfigurement/beast-y part is a kink of mine. (I'm the one kid that would put Beauty and te Beast on the DVD player and stop just after the Beast died and claim that was the end (Come to think of it, no one wants to watch the movie with me anymore....)

And I loved the Beauty and the Beast series! Hadn't compared the look with Julian's Phantom until now. BAD FAN *spanks self*

Great insight on the movie :D

(Reply to this) (Thread)

stefanie_bean
2008-01-17 09:36 pm UTC (link)

Hi,

lafemmedarla. Have you ever read Suzy Charnas's essay, The Beast's Embrace? She basically says the same thing - she likes the "untransformed" beast a lot better than the man.

It's a very moving essay, which ends:

He's a dream, our loving monster, no relation to the realities of what deprivation, loneliness and cruelty do to the real men and women who have to endure them, the embittering effects of ostracism, the tendency of those who have suffered greatly in the real world to pass on pain to others in turn, and if those others are close to them and bound to them by pity and love, so much the better.

God help us if we think we have found him in the real world. He doesn't exist there, and he can't.

Our incomparable monster, our glorious Beast, lives only in the imagination, where life is stronger, runs deeper and purer, and is more richly colored than our daily lives on the street, in the kitchen, and at the office. He has the power of angels, of demons, of longing, and of all the stories we tell ourselves for our comfort and consolation — the power we have given him, in our dreams.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

tkp
2008-01-17 09:57 pm UTC (link)

Oh, awesome! I'm going to check out that essay!

I also recced to la femme "Rose Daughter", the Robin McKinley book where the Beast stays a Beast at the end. I far prefer "Beauty", but the Beast does become a prince in that. Can't remember if you've read McKinley or not before.

Also, you might be interested in this story. It's a short read and steph, it is made of so much awesome I shiver.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	lafemmedarla 2008-01-18 11:52 am UTC (link)
	Oh, I read it years ago. Back when the movie came out someone from Charnas' contacted me with the links - at the time I ran both a community and a newsletter for Phantom of the Opera. I agree with the essay. The Beast is made of so much fantastic. (Reply to this) (Parent)

tkp
2008-01-17 09:54 pm UTC (link)

Hi, I friended you because with the POTO and BtVS and the Dr Who I didn't know how I could not.

I love how Julian Sands being pretty let's us take a look at Phantomy inner ugliness, but I can see where you're coming from.

Have you read Robin McKinley's Rose Daughter? I was reccing Beauty above, by the same person, and both are retellings of B&B. I far far prefer the latter novel, and actually quite disliked the former, but in the former, the Beast stays a Beast at the end.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

lafemmedarla
2008-01-18 12:08 pm UTC (link)

*totally adds you back*

I see where you're coming from too with the idea of the Phantom inner ugliness. Specially when I got home last night, turned on the TV and found they were airing the 2004 movie and couldn't help but remember this post.

I love Rose Daughter! I actually found about it because I read Deerskin *hugs your icon* and I decided to check more by the author. Someone recced me RD and it was a fantastic reading and the ending made me go SQUEE!!!!!

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	my_daroga 2008-01-17 10:10 pm UTC (link)
	Oh my gosh. I always hated the prince at the end of the Disney movie. I'm all, "Why would I want Michael Bolton?" So I would totally watch it with you. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	lafemmedarla 2008-01-18 12:10 pm UTC (link)
	Great, now I'm gonna be imagining the Prince singing "When a man loves a woman" in a very scary voice. :P I actually wrote bad fanfic pr0n where he Beast stays a beast based on the Disney movie! I obviously had really bad issues. (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	my_daroga 2008-01-18 02:42 pm UTC (link)
	I think those are really good issues, personally. Good on you! It had to be done. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	tkp 2008-01-19 05:06 am UTC (link)
	BUT YOU HAVE TO LOVE THE NOSTRIL FLARE. You just have to! (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	my_daroga 2008-01-19 10:20 pm UTC (link)
	WHAT WILL YOU DO IF I DON'T? (Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

	tkp 2008-01-20 05:29 am UTC (link)
	Make you watch the nostril flare again? And say, "Look, nostril flare!"? Possible reenactment of nostril flare? (Reply to this) (Parent)