Oh yeah, I saw that when it was posted, but since I’d just come home after 12 hours of helping my sister move and graduate, I just went LOL and didn’t bother to respond. And I still won’t, at least not to the post personally. (Post in question is here, because heck no I’m not vague posting about it.)
I also thought a lot of the beginning was fairly accurate. For example, their description of Raoul as being the “white knight” who appeals to Christine’s childhood memories are kind of the point of his character… though on the other hand, the poster is so fixated on the Phantom being the sexual, passionate force that they seem to forget that the Phantom first appeared to Christine, and was appealing to her, because he pretended to be an Angel of Music, aka a being Christine was told stories about by her father. In her childhood. (I feel like this often seems forgotten – both the Phantom and Raoul were initially attractive to Christine because they were both reminders of her happier childhood days.)
The idea that Christine having to choose between a safer, more socially acceptable love and one that is more passionate but also more dangerous is also a running theme of the musical and original book. (Though it always seems to get left out that part of the reason why the Phantom is socially unacceptable is because he’s a frigging stalker, kidnapper, and murderer.) And I can buy that Christine reciprocates the Phantom’s ardor in ‘Point of No Return’, though as rjdaae points out, that argument is flawed because it’s not Christine saying it, it’s Christine as Aminta acting out a part in an opera. And despite the author’s stance that they want Christine to grow and express herself, they do miss that they are using words written for her by her stalker to make their point.
So, there was an analysis of POTO that went up a few days ago. Basically to summarize, it criticized the musical for having Christine choose the safe, asexual relationship with Raoul over the steamy, passionate, sexual awakening with Phantom. It framed this as kind of regressive/anti feminist which reinforces ideas of chastity/conforming to society. What do you think of this criticism?
Published
¯_( ಠ_ಠ)_/¯ 