The Phantom of the Opera - His Majesty's Theatre

Do we think this will still open in just over 3 months?!

You've misunderstood. The UK tour chandelier that was intended (but never materialised) was more akin to the Laurence Connor chandelier in terms of the effect than the Vegas chandelier. As in, it rises (briefly, but not from the stage) and the drapes get sucked in to the chandelier (since they are not removed by stagehands on the stage as in the original). The design they have used in the planning application features that chandelier intended for the 2020 tour, not the 1986 original. In terms of mechanics and the effect, it owes much more to the 2012 tour chandelier than to Vegas.

How crazy is it that a high school production can raise the chandelier from the stage and fly it out over the audience but they can’t continue to do this in the West End?

The prologue is funny and the music is piercing but I love the chandelier. They must hire it, it’s a near replica.



Just googled and yes there are companies hiring chandeliers this one looks like flying by Troy. I’m well impressed. School productions weren’t like this when I was in school.

As a past master in tab pulling, I'm sure I could have turned my hand to chandelier raising. 🙂

[/quote]Bloody hell! That’s a school? Blown away![/quote]


Yep The Kings Academy in West Palm Beach.

I think the chandelier needs it's own show!

Yes, this exactly- it's the reason why I, at least, am so protective of the original chandelier + angel, as they also represent the theatrical effects and dramatic sequences from which they are inseparable, and are synonymous with ALW's Phantom by now- it's not just any prop that can be swapped out with just anything else, because it was designed to be stylistically, mechanically integrated into the production. So I couldn't judge a new chandelier simply by how impressive of a drop it makes. Or view the Pegasus as just another fresh take on the rooftop scene.

Personally I thought having a UK Tour-esque vertical-drop chandelier made the Overture scene a bit disparate. The changed script was distracting (no longer "Lot 666, a chandelier in pieces"), that chandelier was already mostly in place so it was a choice of either craning your neck to see it strobe a bit or watching the next scene come into place onstage, instead of everyone following the chandelier's diagonal path in awe like at Her Majesty's. It's not bad or totally inscrutable per say, but compared to the original, genius move of the chandelier rise bridging the stage and auditorium, as well as signifying the reverse time hop from the auction to Hannibal, moving from an outsider-POV/dusty recollections to witnessing/being part of a live rehearsal, in one elegant gesture, not having it is certainly a downgrade.  Throwing away a winning formula to save money is nothing new, but it's a damn pity.

The angel statue is another elegant, symbolic move. Being the centrepiece of a golden proscenium that signifies the Garnier's grandeur, an angel overlooking all proceedings, then actually being inhabited by the "angel of music" himself, as he literally and figuratively "descends" on the unaware couple below? This motif could not be abstracted more perfectly in the story's turning point at the end of Act I, and the surreality of seeing such a beautiful piece of the set being so immersed into the narrative- just makes the whole All I Ask of You Reprise sequence iconic. Whereas the UK Tour horse... merely represents a horse statue that happens to be on the Garnier's roof. Since it's so literal, it's more difficult to suspend disbelief when the entire statue starts swinging out to *ominous musical sounds*, making the Phantom popping out at the end disappointingly predictable. Also I'd wager for every spark of recognition that goes "ah yes, that's Lequesne's Pegasus on each side of the Opera roof in actual Paris" someone will go "why is the Phantom on a horse?"  To me, it's quite obvious which is the winner here. 

It's not a matter of being a "superfan" nitpicking over details, an inferior product = bad for business. I just don't understand how anyone who proclaims to want the best for Phantom (in wanting it to return/stick around/make money) can casually accept getting rid of such important components of the show. Let's hope retaining these iconic sequences are what they mean when they intend to "blur the line" between stage and audience.

The "rising from onstage" version certainly deserves its place in the whole Overture scene! 

I know right?!

Nobody *wants* these changes. Cameron Mackintosh clearly views them as necessary to reduce the weekly operating cost of the production. Will it harm the show? Absolutely. But Cameron didn't get to be the richest and most commercially successful producer in the history of musical theatre by not being a shrewd businessman - and certainly not by running shows at anything other than maximum profit.

Don't be fooled though, these "savings" can only come from the biggest recurring cost of running a show. Which is, of course, human resources. Crew.
Which means more theatre workers unemployed. But without his shows, there would be a hell of a lot more!

Much like Les Mis' downsizing in the early 2000's, attempts will naturally be made to spin this as an "refresh" or other euphemism. Many will buy it or just not care. When Sinfonia was introduced, it was because the technology was now available where it wasn't previously, saving a fortune across a theatrical season on professional pit musician's wages. It was slyly pitched as an "upgrade"; it's "new technology". Sure, in essence you're getting less for your money, in what is a very expensive evening out, but it is marketed as "new and exciting". Then prices go up again.

I wouldn't buy into the marketing copy for this (which frankly has been a shambles - what on earth is going on between ALW and Cameron's office, do they not communicate?!). The show is being adjusted purely for financial reasons, not artistic ones, which is understandable but impossible to spin credibly as a "refresh" of the show.

Finally, one last point regarding the oft-repeated argument, which goes like; "well, Mr and Mrs Bloggs who only visit a show once a year won't care or notice about XYZ (smaller band, such and such effect, so and so cast) because they aren't theatre obsessives".

I have a big problem with this argument, and here's why. Essentially it is saying that people will pay for a brand name regardless of the quality of the product, but time and time again in theatre this has been disproven often with huge financial loss for the producers. You might get them on hype and name awareness but they simply won't recommend it to their friends or come back themselves. This is a large part of why Frozen isn't reopening on Broadway but Lion King and Aladdin are.

Whilst the average punter might not pick up on specific changes, multiple little downgrades add up to an overall sense or feeling of declining quality. The stage looking a little bare because of a little trimming of the chorus, the band sounding a touch thin because of downsizing of the pit, a dodgy piece of casting here, a cheaper effect there and suddenly the show as a whole becomes a lot less impressive.

And this audiences most certainly do notice.

I agree to a point. I often looked at the weekly grosses for shows on Broadway (Don't believe we have that for the West End) and I think Phantom is a consistent performer in terms of gross and potential gross. 

www.broadwayworld.com/grosses/THE-PHANTOM-OF-THE-OPERA

Also, I don't think I buy the idea that the show will cost more to run with new technology, of course there will be an initial cost outlay but one would think the show would run more efficiently and sadly as a result with less crew costing less in weekly running costs. Perhaps it's because of a spiral in insurance costs, I don't know. 

I don't know about a sense of entitlement but theatre is much more accessible today, I often joke too accessible when i am stuck beside people more interested in themselves than what is happening on stage. 

The £15 tickets are few and far between and Phantom day seats are like hens teeth any time I've tried the box office before the show. 

There's only so much juice you can squeeze from an orange before it bursts. 

I also think no matter the industry that sometimes people forget to reinvest and think it's just take take take from the golden goose. 

I believe Phantom will survive but there will be lean months when tourists are sparse and the local audience might not be too keen on the new show. 

Also it's a risky strategy in a post-corona world where people will crave the nostalgia and a post-brexit world where the UK might not be the tourist draw it once was. 

Deviation from the chandelier but Id like to Christine Allado as Christine when phantom does return

She sounds lovely! Warm and clear, modern enough without being too "pop" which was my issue with the UK Tour Christine. Hope casting directors' choices are as inspired as this.

The "very diverse cast" rumour that was mentioned earlier also gives me hope that Alistair So might be considered to return, he was 1st cover last year and really was a sweet, sincere Raoul.