The Phantom of the Opera

Phantom of the Opera has the very special distinction of being the first Broadway show I ever disliked. Drunk on the wonder of live theater, I stepped into the Majestic Theater 15 years ago prepared to be dazzled. I found myself curiously underwhelmed and rather confused. Not just confused as to why the show was an enormous hit (it was already 10 years in though still well off becoming the longest running musical of all time) but confused as to what the hell was actually happening.

Revisiting the show for the first time ever, I still don't know why it's the biggest hit ever, but I at least know why I was so confused about the plot: it's insanely stupid. Not the idea of a murderous phantom living beneath an opera house and training a young ingenue to be a star. That's silly, but it's also just good gothic campy fun. What's stupid is how many storylines the show crams in without ever really bothering to allow any of them to accrue any gravitas or get very deep. Or even very spooky. Hey, isn't it kind of upsetting that the phantom just killed that...oh shit, look at all the candles!

One might wonder why I bothered going back to a show I knew I didn't like. First of all, the tickets were free. But more importantly, I thought that my taste for camp might be more developed than it was at 16. And I also thought it would be great fun to watch a show staged at a time when hundreds of costumes and hugely involved sets were still financially feasible. "Masquerade," the opening of the second act, is almost gasp-inducing in its sheer scale. An enormous staircase filled with dozens of actors in hugely involved costumes for a masked ball, it's pure eye candy. It also happens to be (in my opinion), the best song in the show. And there's a certain charm to the fact that during an early opera scene they pull on a life-sized replica of an elephant. An elephant! These days, we'd get a projection on a scrim and two folding chairs.

But as it turns out, lavish doesn't equal entertaining, at least in my book (see my previous review of Zarkana). And while there's so much potential here, I'd rather just read the book. As many people as there are on stage, the show feels deeply impersonal. No one has to do all that much acting (least of all the Phantom) because every role is painted in the very broadest strokes.

The musical staging (I hesitate to call it choreography) is stilted at best; the songs mostly all sound the same; and there's essentially no ending. Which makes sense for a show that mostly also has no backstory.

So why do I think it's been running forever? A few reasons: some people do just love seeing their dollars at work on the stage; the show at this point is its own brand which is probably self-sustaining; you can plop probably ANY halfway decent actor into any role and not gain or lose much; the show requires very little of its audience except the most facile emotionality; and who doesn't love to hear some big belty notes...even when they're prerecorded. AHEM.

I don't want to sound super snobby or contrary. I feel compelled to point out that I loooooove Les Miz. And while I think some of the lyrics of Miss Saigon are crazy stupid, it's lovely, admittedly silly, and still wonderful. I'm actually really fine with big dumb shows. As long as they're big dumb and FUN. Or moving. Or entertaining. Which is why I think Wicked should close tomorrow but Sister Act could run for years.

So...yeah. I hate Phantom of the Opera. I hate that it's the longest running show on Broadway, and I hate that it's probably got another 10-15 years in it. But if it ever DOES close, I'd love to play dress-up in all those costumes.