The Phantom of the Opera - His Majesty's Theatre

I could not imagine going onto a forum full of devoted fans of a musical and telling them all that they are wrong to feel passionate about a piece of art. I wonder if some of these naysayers on this thread go up and down the thread titles and pick ones at random to come in and say "you're all weird and crazy for being devoted to a show. Get over it." Why not just leave the thread alone if this is not your cup of tea? I enjoyed the Lion King but I don't need to ever see it again and I wouldn't care if they changed anything in that show BUT that does not mean I would go find a Lion King musical thread, see all the devoted fans upset, and lecture them about how wrong they are. How awful! I sincerely hope some of you one day find a piece of art that does touch your soul in a way that Phantom has touch ours.

As for me, the original staging of Phantom has been something that's near and dear to my heart since I was 12 years old and it was the first professional theater I ever saw. Going back to see it over and over and over again, it never failed to bring me comfort, joy, and happiness. No matter WHAT went on in the world, you can be sure that tonight, on the West End and Broadway, that the chandelier would rise and fall, that the staging would remain the same, and that the special effects would NOT be updated. Take a look at this video for how today's young people, who were raised on overblown Hollywood special effects, react to Phantom's 1980's special effects:

And let's remember what was said in the New York Times review of the original production: "The show's most persuasive love story is Mr. Prince's and Ms. Bjornson's unabashed crush on theater itself, from footlights to dressing rooms, from flies to trap doors."

Sigh.

Still hoping against hope that this travesty never makes its way to 44th Street.

Just to add my two pennies worth I don’t think I’d be that upset about it not crashing and landing on the stage it’s always been seeing it rise that has been magical for me that would
Probably be what I miss.

I think I’m just gonna wait to see the show when it re opens and make my decisions. I of course have so much respect for the original design and direction but it’s also good to try new things.

We've been through this again and again. This is not conjecture. Cameron Mackintosh has repeatedly stated (including interviews to the Mail and the Telegraph) that it is is the 2020 tour version going in. That opened briefly before the pandemic hit so we know what that looked like, and the designs featured in the planning application adhere to that production, not the original.

People are upset because: (a) that design is understandable for a touring production in the 2020s when economics have changed, but not for the flagship original sit-down London venue; (b) that design represents a scaling down of the original design, and in no way represents any kind of improvement as a result of new technology (e.g. loss of Angel, smaller chandelier that is unlikely to swing out over the audience or collapse, fewer proscenium statues, drapes only covering the false 'internal' proscenium rather than the proscenium that used to cover the actual proscenium arch of the theatre); (c) this has all be done in a duplicitous manner, with RUG repeatedly (and falsely) claiming that nothing is changing at all (ALW said the production would be back "in its entirety", while Jessica Koravos said the designs would be "unchanged"); and (d) it is entirely unnecessary to do this. I am absolutely fine with modernising the technology they use to deliver the show, and even welcome upgrades that make the show more powerful. But this is a downscaling, not an upscaling. I totally understand that touring economics don't work in the same way they did in the 90s and early 2000s, so that the original production is no longer viable to tour. But this is the flagship London original.

Cameron has replaced the originals of Miz and Poppins in the West End with versions designed for tour that were smaller and less powerful. He will be doing the same with Phantom, while simultaneously claiming that he is doing it to make it 'for the 21st century', which is simply not the case. It is all about money. This is why the original production itself was closed so that investors would be paid out and never again make a return on the show, and I would imagine Hal Prince's considerable (for directors) cut of the gross (which would have gone to his estate after his death) is also now non-applicable to the new production.

Chucking away Björnson's favourite set piece and doing away with the proscenium sculptures that Hal Prince considered integral to his central metaphor is no way to treat this show. I would much rather, if they really don't want to run, to close it properly, wait, and then revive it, rather than continue this sham that it is the same as it always has been whilst charging more and reducing its quality.

scarpia can I ask please, what needs to happen to the return of POTO to make you happy? 

I'd be a lot more generous if they didn't just lie about what they're doing. Both ALW and RUG have publicly stated the exact show was coming back, even though it's not.

Personally I agree with Hal Prince: a revival should equal or surpass the original. The downscaled tour does neither.

Have to strongly disagree here, but I think updating Phantom in the ways like you suggested above would be the worst thing that could happen to the production, artistically and culturally- in fact, the more posters here casually remark "...let's face it, most people who go and see the show won't see any difference...", "...hated the chandelier anyway, it was getting real slow and the 80s special effects are boring...", the more I’m inclined to advocate for preserving Every Single Aspect of the original London production, full orchestra and creaky Victorian stage machinery included. I'd sooner they close the whole thing for good than cheapen it from the inside year by year in the name of “modernising”.

Phantom is the epitome of a spectacular mega-musical of its time, purposefully designed around historic stage technology and lushly orchestrated to make the best of the proper orchestra available at the time- the whole package (performers, story, music, set and effects) was singular and impressive to 80s audiences when it first opened, and the very 80s extravagance is what’s kept audiences coming back for 34 years. It hasn’t got less popular over time because it was no longer novel, and people don’t return again and again to see how it’s adapted to yearly-changing tastes. In fact, everyone here attests to going back regularly (then complains about its age, almost like an afterthought… ALW and Cammack thank you for your continued patronage despite your grumbling…)

So why is everyone so reluctant to celebrate Phantom as the glorious 80s spectacle it is, period-accurate camp effects and all? (Camp is not a bad thing, but cheap is, and I’ve seen Killian on the funny horse on tour. Sure one can experiment a bit with tours, but that kind of thing has no place in this show in the West End.)

This is a three-decade-old work of theatre that has made its name by being what it is, not some fairground ride that needs to entice kids by being shiny, nor a superhero movie that needs to outdo every predecessor with more CGI and explosions. You don’t visit a grand old stately home to admire how many rooms they’ve stripped “those sculptures were a b**** to maintain anyway”, or praise its owners for having half a wing replaced for cheap “because frankly the old house was falling apart”? Before anyone yells again, "but this is show business! Won't you think of the monies!"- it is my belief that Phantom is one of the few shows that can afford not to change for changes' sake, and every sign shows that the Brilliant Original is being value-engineered to the detriment of its artistic integrity.

Counting on tourists to not notice the corruption of Hal and Maria’s vision- hardly a principled or intelligent way to judge and discuss a work of theatre? Least of all to run it?

Historicism is a big part of this musical, it is obvious the original production as it is holds its value (judging from the ever-popular replica World Tour, and the relative flop of the 2012 restaged production) and by taking away bit by bit of what’s essential to the original production- specific parts of choreography/direction that heavily involve major set pieces- the producers are steering the show away from how it was originally intended; they cannot pretend to sell it as the Brilliant Original, and we cannot pretend to see this as an actual improvement to the show.

Personally I go to see Phantom again and again for the 80s grandeur of it all, and to see how well performers transport us back in time, not to be wowed by some slick cutting-edge display of projection mapping and rock-concert pyros shoehorned into an approximation of the Palais Garnier… I for one mourn the patina and “material culture” of sorts that is lost by resetting the show and chucking out its history so Mr Mackintosh can get more value out of his shiny new tour set… 

Of course, this being a public discussion forum, everyone’s welcome to agree to disagree- obviously our values and tastes run fundamentally different!

Exactly, which is why it all boils down to a choice between 1) maintaining artistic integrity and closing the show if running it fully-fledged becomes financially unsustainable, or 2) running a formerly wonderful production into the ground by watering it down and cheapening the whole affair into a cut-price Disney attraction.

As a nostalgic fan, I'd vastly prefer the former

If they do replace the chandelier, it would be fun if they auctioned off the old one - maybe even "in pieces" - for charity or something.

CM closed the Vegas production?!?

The Vegas production was only 95 minutes long. It seems to get a lot of love despite the fact that it was butchered to the extent that it couldn’t really be the same show. The chandelier looked pretty spectacular though.

I used to like CM. It gets less and less all the time now