A Brief Analysis of Phantom of the Opera
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0293508/
I went a few days ago with my girlfriend to see the Phantom of the Opera in theaters. For those who quietly neglected to see it due to vague and haunting fears for their masculinity or for those who have never had the great fortune to see the stage version, see any of several summaries, though this probably won’t make as much sense as if you were to see it (just rent it with Terminator 2 and watch them back-to-back, you’ll be fine;) ). It must be noted foremost that this is a movie version of a screenplay (which was adapted from the book by Gaston Leroux).
The Phantom is thought by the innocent Christine Daae, the story’s heroine, to be the “angel of music” her father promised to send her when he passed on. The Phantom has fallen in love with the young Mlle Daae and, more to the point, with her voice. Notice that it’s not necessarily the person of Christine herself, but that he lusts for her voice as his mouthpiece by which he can express himself—the darkness in himself—to the public who has reviled and mocked him but with whom he still yearns to connect.
So here we have the classic seducer: playing on the Mlle’s fears and insecurities after having lost her father, she nurtures her in such a way not as to foster mutual love, but rather a codependency on the father role he plays.
Perhaps most interestingly, Christine has to overcome her need for her father and her reliance on someone playing on that fear. So not only is the story about the choice of seduction over “true love,” it’s also a story of meeting someone as him/herself—as you are, in yourself.
I switch here to the personal pronoun because, indeed, that’s what makes the story so powerful: perhaps we can relate, to some extent, to all three of the main characters in some way. We have to overcome our own insecurities and parental needs to involve ourselves fully and healthily in a relationship; we likely all know what it’s like to feel so alone that the entire world seems to be smiling and alive while we brood, serenading ourselves to the “music of the night” (that is, at least, until a counselor or trusted friend has enough courage to slap you upside the head with a reality check and remind you life’s worth living); and we have all been in a position to help others overcome their fears, and perhaps have had to do battle for someone’s heart. Part of the tension of a relationship is the uncertainty involved and the conflict between solitude and communion within the relationship and with the world at large.
May 23rd, 2005 at 20:26:36
I agree and disagree. I believe he was a father figure to her. However, as she became older, he began to look at her differently. And maybe he did love her voice more than her, but that’s all he really knew about her. When she finally met him she did not look at him as a father. He did seduce her. I think that if he did not act so obsessive over her (killing ppl) things would have been much different.
May 24th, 2005 at 12:19:37
Thank you, Connie, for your comment. I’d say your analysis is well-said and probably takes a much more optimistic tack than mine. Thanks for visiting, and come back often!
January 2nd, 2006 at 00:54:43
It seems to me there is another layer you haven’t touched upon–that the Phantom represents the archetype of music, as a symbol for what fires the soul up outside of relationship (career, vocation, special skills) and how it can come to possess the person, much as the parent did in childhood, much as addiction might, obsession might. Raoul, don’t forget, was first in love with her performance, much as the Phantom was, but he wanted to take her away from the very thing that attracted him to her in the first place. The Phantom remained true to his commitment to her skill, her career. Archetypes are immutable. Like gods, they need people to live through. What happened to him? What happened to Christine with Raoul? Did she, like Shirley Maclaine in the Turning Point, leave the stage, marry and raise children? Is this the Cinderella happy ending? Phantom leaves far more questions, I believe than answers.
January 10th, 2006 at 03:59:39
Wonderful, thanks for the insights there! “Archetypes are immutable.” You’re absolutely right. Forgive me for psychoanalyzing this when I should have been willing to see through to the philosophical underpinnings.
June 21st, 2006 at 06:49:18
Mike,
I am very interested in your analysis of Christine, Raul, and the Phantom. Could you go a bit more into Christine’s psychological situation?
June 22nd, 2006 at 06:01:56
Erika,
Thank you for your comment; I’ll be glad to further analyze this next week when I’m done with this couple of summer classes!
November 28th, 2007 at 18:19:16
What would’ve happened if she went with the phantom instead of Raul???
December 5th, 2007 at 20:24:05
Christine and the Phantom are one in the same angel. We can hear the music of love that Christine sings, but we can’t hear the Phantom because he lives in the unconscious; he is the portion of the soul that remains unacknowledged in the darkness. The Phantom first sings to Christine, “I am your angel of music” and “Come to me, angel of music.” They are both angels of music and she first sees him in a mirror.