Stranger Than You Dreamt It

Tuesday 15 August 2017

Chicago (August 6th, 2017)

Chicago

August 6th, 2017

The final show of my brief trip to NYC was the classical musical staple: ‘Chicago’. After finally seeing the movie for the first time last spring, and thereafter performing in a short excerpt of the musical, I was anxious to see the staged version.

Seat/Venue Review: Chicago is presented at the Ambassador’s Theatre, and I was sat in the centre of row A (third from the front), Orchestra, and they cost $89. It was an excellent seat, and extremely well priced (Chicago offers cheaper seats for matiees). Close enough to appreciate the little details, but not so close as to miss the bigger picture.

Overall, Chicago was an interesting, albeit bizarre, production. Though I wouldn’t count it amongst my favourite shows, I nevertheless enjoyed the experience.

Chicago featured Charlotte D’Amboise in the role of Roxie Hart, with Lana Gordon as Velma Kelly. D’Amboise gave an energetic and humorous performance. A clever actress with excellent comedic timing, D’Amboise spiced up lengthy monologues with improvisation, and regularly pulled particular audience members into her performance (including one very embarrassed fourteen year old boy). D’Amboise’s voice was solid, although unremarkable, but it was really her acting and interesting character development of Roxie that made her stand out onstage.

Gordon as Velma Kelly was D’Amboise’s polar opposite, which, in some ways, worked, as they acted as each other’s foils. However, when Gordon was performing either as a soloist or part of the ensemble, she stuck out for all the wrong reasons. Her voice has a whiny, nasal tone to it, making the iconic “All That Jazz” a painful experience. She also appears to lack a dance background, which really stuck out in “Cell Block Tango”, where it felt as though the very skilled ensemble was being held back by Gordon’s lack of ability. A strong, well-rounded Velma is essential to the show’s success, and here Gordon fell seriously short.

Chicago was full of a number of strong performers; the majority of the ensemble were excellent dancers, and were able to deftly move between characters (and occasionally act as narrators). It was an unusual directorial choice to keep all of the actors onstage during the show, but the ensemble managed this well, never looking bored or distracting from the main action. Standout performances came from ‘Mama’, who is a vocal powerhouse with superb comedic timing. I also enjoyed ensemble members Jessica Ernest, Robyn Hurder, and Jennifer Dunne. Dunne (a swing, playing Hudyak at this performance) blended into the background for a while, but in her two minute death scene, proved herself an incredible actress by delivering and emotional and heartbreaking hanging. I truly felt for the character in those moments, not an easy feat considering the character doesn’t speak English. Dunne expertly communicated all of her character’s feelings (heartbreak, desperation, sadness) in body language and facial expression. Ernest and Hurder were entertaining and engaging performers, full of personality and excellent dancers. You couldn’t take your eyes off of them in ensemble dances, and in their short individual scenes, both proved strong actors as well. A number of the male ensemble members, though skilled dancers, looked almost bored onstage. Whether this was a directorial choice, I can’t say, but it seems likely. I think it was a shame to not allow some personality and acting in the male ensemble, if that was the case .

I really liked how the set was done; it was cabaret-style, with the musicians onstage and regularly interacting with the actors. The conductor was regularly part of the plot, occasionally narrating or providing extra information during scenes. I was concerned that the black on black on black of the costumes, curtains, and set would blend together too much, but lighting was done such that it wasn’t too much of a problem. For the most part, the costumes were adorned with glitter and rhinestones while the set was matte, and the back of the ‘bandstand’ had a gold glittery strip around it, helping to add some dimension and depth to the set.

Altogether, Chicago was a skillful and innovative piece of theatre. Though it featured a number of exceptional performers, there were also some glaring weaknesses, particularly from one of the leading ladies.

★★★

Saturday 6 May 2017

The Royal Ballet: Mayerling (May 5th, 2017)

The Royal Ballet

Mayerling

May 5th, 2017

I have spent more than a year looking forward to Mayerling, and on May 5^th, I was lucky enough to finally take my seat and watch this remarkable ballet unfold.

There was very little I didn’t like about Mayerling, so I’ll start with that. I felt the third act was less well put together than the rest of the ballet. It lacked the clean transitions between scenes that made the first two acts so smooth, and there was a bit of waiting around in darkness for sets to reassemble for the next scene. I also felt the third act lacked intensity, and was somewhat anticlimactic. The hunting scene, in which Rudolf accidentally shoots a companion, came out of nowhere and didn’t make sense contextually. The second scene, in Rudolf’s apartment with Countess Larisch and Mary Vetsera, was beautifully crafted and very visceral and powerful, but the following – and final scene – at Mayerling Hunting Lodge felt flat by comparison. The real climactic moment was hidden behind a screen at the very back of the stage – if they had to use the screen, they could’ve done something cool with shadows or fake blood or something. It was the one moment of the ballet that felt false and crafted rather than emotional and real, and because it came at the very end of the ballet, that was the final impression you were left with. It was a shame, because the rest of the ballet is so, so strong.

Sarah Lamb as Mary Vetsera © ROH

My other issue was costuming. Although it’s a period piece, and they were clearly going for a ‘look’, everyone ended up looking the same with everyone in shades of brown and orange. If you didn’t know the dancers, it would’ve been difficult to discern who the main players in the story were. If I had designed the ballet, I would’ve given Larisch, Elisabeth, and Stephanie each a unique colour that all their costumes were in – muted enough to blend in, but still different enough to distinguish their character. Stephanie in white or pale gold maybe, Elisabeth always in red or blue, Larisch in green.

Aside from those small issues, Mayerling was an absolutely stellar ballet. Easily in my top 3. I could easily write for hours about much I loved it, but I’ll have to narrow it down to a few things.

The leading dancers were all absolutely stellar. Federico Bonelli played Rudolf, and while I was initially unsure about him after a few mistakes in his opening variation, Bonelli quickly regained his confidence and completely owned both the emotional and physical part of his character. Despite occasionally becoming entangled in costumes, he executed lifts flawlessly, partnering four different women – and a few men – across the ballet with seemingly effortless finesse. I honestly could not pick out a favourite partnership, he worked so well with every dancer. His acting was wonderful, and displayed Rudolf’s descent into madness with great realism. Laura Morera played Rudolf’s lover Mary Vetsera; though she blended into the background early on, Morera’s performance quickly became a highlight. She was so entirely in her character, there isn’t a moment where you could see the dancer – it was just Mary Vetsera onstage (if that makes sense). I felt that she established a believable character that was characterized by her obsession with Rudolf – it was very teenagerish. You got the sense that she and Rudolf were so twisted that they were meant to be together.

Olivia Cowley as Countess Larisch

Olivia Cowley as Countess Larisch was a revelation – bright, spunky, and sassy, she brought real light and character to an otherwise dark piece. She was almost the antithesis of Mary Vetsera in her very brightness, and her very presence brought new energy to the stage. Her eye rolls were also my favourite, and she projects her facial expressions such that they’re not overwhelming for the front row, but can still be seen in the back. That said, you also got the sense that she had a really special relationship with Rudolf, almost motherly. She wasn’t scared of him like Stephanie or Elisabeth, but tried to protect him from himself. Their final dance together in Act III was heartbreaking. Though her acting was stellar, Cowley’s technique was also shown to its full excellence in this ballet. She was so clean and effortless, and her dancing is light as air. A true all-around dancer, I feel that her performance in Mayerling proved that she should be given more leading classical roles (Juliet and Giselle please!).

Beatriz Stix-Brunnell as Mitzi

Meaghan Grace Hinkis also gave a very strong performance as Princess Stephanie. Her technique is clearly strong, but it was her emotions and acting in the dance with Rudolf at the end of Act I that truly made her performance special. It was a heartrending performance. James Hay as Bratfisch was another bright light in the piece; his technique is rock solid, so you could watch him entertain and just enjoy, without worrying something would go wrong. He’s one of the few male dancers that doesn’t have to stop and think before doing a tour jump. He’s just a joy to watch, really. Beatriz Stix-Brunell as Mitzi Caspar was also technically stellar – the only thing holding her back from really excelling was an apparent case of nerves. She spent a great deal of time looking at the floor as if checking her feet or her placement. It was odd as she executed challenging lifts and partnering with ease and confidence, but looked down during basic steps. Aside from that, she was brilliant. Her character work with Rudolf was great.

My only complaint re: dancers would be the corps de ballet, in tavern scene. Aside from two girls (one of whom was Anna Rose O’Sullivan, I’m not sure the name of the other) the dancers playing the whores looked so frightfully bored. It’s the end of the run and I’m sure it’s not fun to play whores, but Anna Rose and unnamed dancer managed to find something to do with the characters, making them fun and sassy. The rest just looked tired, like they wished they were anywhere else.

I loved the set of Mayerling – for the most part, the transitions between scenes were seamless, but each set was perfectly suited for the given purpose. It wasn’t overdone or clunky, but was still intricate enough to give a real opulence and realism to the ballet. I loved Elisabeth’s apartments, with the dresses and mannequins strung up from the ceiling. I also liked Rudolf’s apartments and the Tavern. Everything was just the perfect set for each scene.

I also cannot praise the choreography highly enough. It was so clever and intricate, and perfectly balanced storytelling with actual dancing. One of my favourite parts was the parallel between the bedroom Pas de Deux of Rudolf and Stephanie and Rudolf and Mary. A lot of the lifts and movements and choreography was almost exactly the same, but Stephanie and Mary reacted entirely differently. For example, at one point Rudolf lifts the dancer from the floor – Stephanie remains stiff as a board and tries to wriggle away, while Mary arches back and throws an arabesque into the lift. It created an interesting dichotomy that enables the audience to see that Mary was just the perfect woman for Rudolf, while also realizing that something isn’t quite right with Mary. Stephanie’s reaction to Rudolf’s aggression was normal, Mary’s was not. This dichotomy helps to further establish all three characters. I also really enjoyed all of the lifts – it sounds a bit weird to say the manipulation of dancers was good, but that’s the best way to describe it. MacMillan was so creative in thinking of different ways of moving bodies around each other. I also really liked the parallels between Larisch, Stephanie, and Mary that happened, in which they’d each perform the same routine in quick succession around each other and Rudolf, vying for his attention and affection. I could easily go on forever about all the choreography I loved, but in short, Mayerling was a masterclass in choreography and crafting a ballet.

All in all, Mayerling was absolutely incredible. I so wish I could have a video of this cast on DVD as I absolutely adored everyone who performed, and can’t imagine anyone else dancing these roles. The choreography and set design were beyond amazing, and while I would make a few changes to costuming (and the corps needs to be pepped up somehow), as a whole, Mayerling is about as close to flawless as a ballet can be.

★★★★★

Wednesday 26 April 2017

The Addams Family (25 April 2017)

The Addams Family

Edinburgh Festival Theatre

25 April 2017

The Addams Family musical was one of my absolute favourite shows when I saw it on broadway in 2010 (nearly seven years ago… how?!), so needless to say I was thrilled to see that it was being brought to the UK, and even more thrilled that the first stop on the tour would be the city nearest to my University town. By pure coincidence, I bought a ticket for what turned out to be press night, so I was one of many reviewers in the audience.

As much as I enjoyed The Addams Family on Broadway, the UK tour was not nearly the same calibre. Though I had a good time watching it, and a number of performances were very strong, there were issues of design and staging, as well as a few notably poor performances by certain characters.

The standout performances of the show came from Cameron Blakely (Gomez), Samantha Womack (Morticia), and Charlotte Page (Alice Beineke). Blakely's humour - and accent - were on point; his line delivery was stellar, he had a solid voice, and he built real and believable relationships between himself and all other characters. I particularly enjoyed the scenes between Gomez and Mal Beineke for their humour and quick wit. Womack as Morticia was very enjoyable (if one can say that); she had the right balance of stoicism and dark humour, coupled with a beautiful voice and charming stage presence. Womack and Blakely worked well together, and were utterly convincing as two deeply in love, and incredibly morbid, people. Blakely's airy humour balanced out Womack's darkness nicely. These two also appeared the best rehearsed out of anyone onstage. Page as Alice was the surprise standout of the show; a character I didn't even remember from the Broadway production. Page has a surprisingly strong voice, but also brought incredible intelligence and comedy to her role without turning it into a caricature. Page also managed to create a believable arc of character development that greatly added to her performance. Of all performers, Page appeared to understand her character the best. She was living rather than acting.

Good performances also came from Dale Rapley (Mal Beineke), Valda Aviks (Grandma), and Les Dennis (Fester). While I disagree with the choice to cast an adult as Pugsley (though I understand the practicality of it for a touring production), Grant MacIntyre did an excellent job with the material he had.

I was not particularly fond of the set design, and combined with poorly thought out staging, the whole effect was lacklustre. The colours chosen for the set were good, I'll give them that. But the set was very shaky and unstable, and the balconies seemed unnecessary (one would have sufficed, if they needed to have them at all). Few plot developments required the balcony (the only scene it benefitted was one between Wednesday and Lucas), and use of the balconies mostly consisted of the Ancestors hanging around watching the action below. Another noticeable error in judgement was the torture device during 'Pulled'. For most of the song, Wednesday was entirely obscured behind the device (unless you were sitting on the far left side of the theatre), meaning you missed any acting that was happening. My favourite sets were Morticia's Boudoir and the Entrance Hall, which were detailed and interesting. Most of the rest felt as though they were missing something, or could use some rearranging.

Costume design and construction were also not to my liking. The Beineke's were adequate, as was Gomez. But Morticia's famous black dress was poorly fitted and featured an odd patterned material around the bust. Wednesday's dresses were far too frilly and fussy for her character, and the black corset was just completely out of place. I did like the colour and material of Wednesday's green dress, so I believe they could've chosen a better design and still used that material. The Ancestor's costumes were also too colourful; I much preferred the Broadway's all-white look. It made them more interesting. Coloured costumes blended into the background too easily, and made it less believable that they were invisible. On that note, I also really disliked the choreography. It was far too peppy and excitable, basic corrections hadn't been made (everyone's legs at the same level when there are kicks involved - if that means 45 degrees, 45 degrees it is!) with the result that the entire thing looked sloppy. While the Ancestors are clearly well trained and talented, I did not like the material they were given. They were far too smiley as well; basically, the ancestors were not nearly macabre enough.

The two weakest performances came from Carrie Hope Fletcher as Wednesday and Oliver Ormson as Lucas. Fletcher has an undeniably strong voice and sung the score with ease, but her acting varied between wooden (at best) and robotic (at worst). Though she manages to act a bit when singing, when she's not singing, Fletcher appears to forget she's still meant to be performing, and instead fiddles with her plaits or her costume, or glances out into the audience. She performed the blocking as blocking, rather than natural movements. Fletcher's Wednesday also lacked character development; there was no change in her from beginning to end - a kind of stagnant melancholia. Wednesday is a beautifully written character with so much opportunity for expression and growth, but Fletcher encompassed none of that. There was no ferocity or determination in her character; instead, it was, to use my companion for the evening's words, "sad and awkward." Ormson on the other hand appeared to have some understanding of his character, and with Gomez or his parents was an interesting character. But on his own, Ormson became almost too feminine in his movements and mannerism. There was nothing of the "College Football player" image in him anymore. This combination of a feminine Lucas and a wooden Wednesday meant there was absolutely no chemistry between the two, which is difficult because this is the couple you're meant to be rooting for the entire show. The director needed to be reminded that you can't force chemistry by making two characters kiss multiple times a scene. This lack of chemistry really showed itself in Crazier than You, which was easily the most awkward scene of the musical.

There were also a number of mess-ups that one does not expect to see by the time press night rolls around (perhaps the show would've benefitted from another week of previews). Ensemble members were constantly checking their spacing and looking around at each other, particularly when changing formations. There was a major flub when the dancer portraying the moon had her wig come off, and instead of calming letting it go, she had a minor on-stage freak out. While she recovered quickly, it is not the reaction one expects to see in a professional production. Only Page, Womack, Rapley, Dennis, and Blakely appeared absolutely confident in their abilities. That's not to say the ensemble were not strong individual performers. If anything, they just appeared underrehearsed.

While I enjoyed The Addams Family, and it benefitted from some strong performances, it was significantly weakened by poor staging and choreography, an interesting but poorly thought out set, inconsistent costuming, and a few uninspired performances. I would be curious to see it again in a few months, but for now, I would give it three out of five stars (which would've been two if it weren't for the strength of the source material).

Monday 13 March 2017

Off-Topic: "A Theological Reflection on The Phantom of the Opera"

The following post is a bit of a departure from my usual style. It's definitely not a review, anyway. Below, you will find an essay I wrote in March of 2016, exploring the theological themes and implications of The Phantom of the Opera, for a theology class at the University of St Andrews. Taught by Dr Ian Bradley, the course, which is the only one of its kind globally, focused on the theology of musicals in the 20th and 21st centuries. I was a bit out of my comfort zone on this one - I'm technically a history student, not a theologian. But my love of musicals prompted a leap into the unknown, and I ended up having the best time (and getting the highest mark in the class, but that was just a nice bonus). This essay was my second piece of coursework, after a very fun Godspell presentation, and I had a wonderful time researching further into one of my favourite musicals. So, enjoy! It's written in a loose academic style, but I hope you'll find it an enjoyable read nonetheless (I threw some pictures in to loosen up the wall of text).

A Theological Reflection on The Phantom of the Opera

The Musical The Phantom of the Opera (herein after referred to as Phantom) premiered in London in 1986, and continues to run in both London and New York City to this day. Based on Gaston Leroux’s 1909 novel Le Fantôme de l'Opéra, it introduces a mysterious Phantom who haunts the Opera Populaire in Paris, and chronicles the story of his muse and obsession: the young soprano Christine Daae. At first glance, Phantom appears as a secular musical, with no outward expressions of God or faith in God. Nevertheless, it is packed with biblical innuendo, echoing people, places, and themes found in popular theology. To understand the theology inherent in Phantom, this reflection will begin by examining the affect the production design had upon its theological messages. It will then look at the theological themes that are most prominent in the show, followed by an analysis of lyrics and songs that evoke biblical imagery. Finally, the reflection will conclude with an investigation into the characters of Christine Daae and the Phantom himself, and their parallels with biblical figures.

Andrew Lloyd Webber, composer of Phantom, has obvious and well-known links to Christianity and theology. As the composer of Jesus Christ Superstar and a patron of Open Churches Trust, it is clear that he is influenced by theology in his writing of music. Because of this, I would instead like to briefly discuss Maria Bjørnson’s, the production designer, influence on the visual theology of the show. In a 1988 interview for Connoisseur magazine, Bjørnson noted her interest in creating the familiarity of a church setting for many audience members. With the appearance of organs, candles, and drapes, Bjørnson created a church-like setting for the show (and particularly for the Phantom’s Lair). This understanding of Bjørnson’s use of religious imagery is part of the understanding of the show, and will be explored further in this essay.

There is a distinct comparison between the physical and emotional spaces of Jesus’ Garden of Gethsemane and the Phantom’s Lair. The Phantom’s Lair is his place of contemplation, meditation, and creation. In it, the Phantom feels that he can be left undisturbed in order to devote his life to his music (for example, he composes the score for Don Juan Triumphant and countless other unknown pieces). Moreover, as Jesus teaches his disciples about prayer and a relationship with God in the Garden, the Phantom uses his Lair to teach Christine about her voice and a relationship with music (and more importantly, with him, her “Angel of Music”). The Lair also plays a part in the Phantom’s capture, as Gethsemane does in Jesus’ capture. A night spent in the company of others culminates in the storming of the Garden and the Lair by a multitude of soldiers, intent on the destruction of the subject they hunt.[1] Because of this parallel, despite knowing full well the atrocities the Phantom has committed, the audience feels sympathy for the Phantom, and often acts as though they believe he is being unjustly persecuted. Though I do not think a comparison between the characters of Jesus and the Phantom is warranted, their ‘safe spaces’ are remarkably similar to one another’s, a detail I believe that Lloyd Webber and Bjørnson constructed purposefully based upon Lloyd Webber’s foundation in Jesus Christ Superstar and Bjørnson’s desire to create a church-like atmosphere.

The knowledge of Lloyd Webber and Bjørnson’s emotional and visual goals in mind allows us now to turn to theological themes inherent in Phantom. Phantom abounds with any number of possible themes, but this essay will discuss the themes of appearance versus reality and forgiveness. Appearance versus reality harkens at once to the Phantom’s physical appearance; on the outside, he appears calm, cool, and sophisticated in his debonair suit and luminous white mask. But the reality is that this cool exterior masks a deeply twisted persona, which emerges in moments of rage or upset during the show. This depiction is reminiscent of 1 Samuel 16.7, which says, “man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart.” Bjornson intended the Phantom’s outward appearance to look like he had poured his effort into it; the mask is meant to resemble finely crafted porcelain. Thus, it is not immediately apparent to anyone who looks at the Phantom that he is a madman. Until he reveals his true personality to Christine, only God knows.

Forgiveness is essential to the ending of the story of Phantom. Christine has been wronged enormously by the Phantom; but also by Raoul, Madame Giry, the Managers, and Carlotta. Though Christine expresses anger and fear during “Twisted Every Way” and “Final Lair”, she nevertheless provides a biblical model of forgiveness at the end of the show. Christine begs for God to give her courage to show the Phantom the love and acceptance he needs, and doing so, is able to forgive him for the suffering he has put her through. Because she does this, Christine is able to rescue herself and Raoul (and really, the entire opera house) from the “dominion of darkness” that is the Phantom’s Lair.[2] The Phantom, on the other hand, is more of an example of what not to do. Matthew 6.14-15 notes, “For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.” The Phantom blames his sadistic behavior on never having been loved, appreciated, or understood, and being, “met with hatred everywhere!” In fact, the Phantom outright accuses others of sins and attempts to punish them. Again in the Final Lair, he sings to Raoul, “Why should I make her pay for the sins which are yours?” before hanging Raoul from a portcullis. The Phantom’s inability to forgive others for their sins against him turns him farther towards hatred; his very soul is corrupted, and he cannot be saved or welcomed back into the human world.

With those theological and biblical themes in mind, it is time now to turn to the characters of the Phantom and Christine. Both the individuals and relationship between them parallel significant biblical characters, almost too clearly to have been accidental. The Phantom himself bears many similarities to the biblical representation of the Devil; the “Angel of Music” (as mentioned above) literally becomes the “Angel in Hell,” following the ‘fallen angel’ archetype as referenced in the New Testament. 2 Peter 3.4 says, “God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell.” This is, essentially, what happens to the Phantom during the show. His sins (murder, lust, and all manner of malevolent deeds) are what condemn him to the hell that is the underbelly of the Opera house, where he is doomed to suffer an eternity alone. Moreover, like the Devil, the Phantom longs to be worshipped and revered, and is also guilty of the sin of Pride.[3] Lloyd Webber wanted the Phantom to appear as an “unrecognized genius,” far ahead of his time musically. The Phantom believes he is more skilled than everyone else, yet no one recognizes his gifts. In this way, we can see how closely the Phantom resembles the biblical Devil.

Christine Daae, the young, innocent ingénue who is our protagonist in Phantom, reflects many characteristics of the biblical Virgin Mary. Stacy Wolf, in her book Changed for Good, notes that women in 1980s musical theatre fall into two categories; either virgin or whore, wherein a virgin is the one with whom the hero falls in love.[4] But Christine does not simply represent a virgin or virginal figure; in many ways, she represents the Virgin: Mary. For example, as God uses Mary as his instrument on earth, the Phantom uses Christine as his literal instrument in the world of the Opera Populaire. Mary bears God’s child, Christine bears the Phantom’s music. Moreover, the Phantom can be perceived as Christine’s God for a time. He gives her the gift of music; he is her saviour, and she is dependent on his instruction, grace, and love to excel as a performer. At certain points, Christine’s physical appearance is representative of Mary; in ‘Wishing You Were Somehow Here Again,’ Christine appears in a blue cloak and red scarf. These are the traditional colours that highlight Mary as she appears in artwork from late antiquity onwards. Furthermore, it is significant that Christine appears in this costume in ‘Wishing’, a song in which she speaks to her father, who is referenced throughout the show as a God-like figure in her life – never there physically, but always spiritually present. Christine ‘speaking to God’ in an overtly and unashamedly Marian costume, and in front of a large, imposing cross, is a powerful piece of imagery intended to further emphasize Christine’s innocence, naivety, and blind faith in her God-figure.

There is also somewhat of an Eve/Serpent (as represented in Genesis 3) dynamic between Christine and the Phantom. It is more subtle than the comparisons above, but the theme of temptation underpins the entirety of the show. I believe the scenes where this comparison is most evident are “Angel of Music” and “Point of No Return.” But there are also strong serpent-esque vibes within “Stranger Than You Dreamt It,” wherein the Phantom literally slithers across the floor like a snake. Moreover, I have seen some Phantoms (including veteran Scott Davies and newcomer Ben Forster) incorporate snake-like characteristics into their performances. Davies hisses all of the ‘S’ sounds in the show, but it becomes most pronounced when his Phantom feels threatened. Forster’s body language is very reminiscent of a cobra about to strike; dangerous, yet sensual. It is clear that performers have made acting choices to reflect the serpent-like quality of the Phantom’s character. There are actions, too that make the Phantom appear as the serpent to Christine’s Eve. In “Angel of Music,” he lures her through the mirror with some sort of hypnotic power; Christine walks towards him as if in a trance, and remains in said trance through until the end of “Music of the Night.” Moreover, in “Point of No Return,” there is the explicit imagery of a bright red apple with which the Phantom attempts to seduce Christine. The Phantom, like the biblical serpent, beguiles, tempts, and enchants Christine for much of the show. After having consumed the fruit of knowledge in the preceding scene, the enchantment breaks; Christine, now full of knowledge, has removed herself from the imaginary Garden of Eden she had seen the Phantom as part of, and now beholds him for what he truly is – evil; the devil represented in flesh.

Within the song, “Point of No Return,” there is a line in that song which has always intrigued me. Christine sings, “Past the point of no return, no going back now. Our Passion Play has now, at last, begun!” At first, this seems out of place. Did Lloyd Webber and Hart not realize what a passion play was, thereby using it in a romantic or sexualized way? It is possible, but I do not believe that is case. The passion play reference comes at a climactic moment in the action; the Phantom has cornered Christine onstage in a mock opera. In mere moments, he will be unmasked, and will flee with Christine into his lair, where the grand final scene will take place. And so, the passion play, as it is, is literally about to begin. The audience will watch as they experience the Phantom’s, rather than Jesus’, trial, suffering, and ultimate sacrifice (it is a stretch, but one could also argue that the banquet scene preceding Point of No Return represents the Last Supper). The Phantom does not sacrifice his literal life for the good of others. Or does he? Ben Forster, current West End Phantom and former Jesus in Jesus Christ Superstar, notes the Phantom does sacrifice his life, because Christine is all he has left of life. “He sacrifices his dream and obsession […] she is the only person to show him humanity and kindness;” Forster adds that the Phantom knows she needs to be free, even though it will literally kill him to let her go.[5] Kieran Brown, current West End understudy Phantom, agrees, “She is his everything, but he has to let her leave.”[6] So we can see that this major sacrifice is written into the script and ingrained in the performances of various Phantoms. The Phantom experiences the trial and judgment of the audience and other characters, he suffers loneliness and betrayal from those he trusts most. When the Phantom sacrifices his life and his love for the benefit of Christine and all of those at the Opera Populaire, the Passion play narrative is completed.

Another lyric that stands out, and is repeated frequently throughout the show, is, “Angel of Music.” It’s a phrase used occasionally by the Phantom to refer to Christine (“Sing, my Angel of Music!”), but more often is Christine who applies it the mysterious figure that sings to her (“Angel of Music, guide and guardian,” for example). With Christine’s comparison to Mary already in place, it seems apt to mention this quote from Luke 1.28, “And the angel that came unto her, and said, Hail, thou art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee.” Christine sees the Phantom as the angel sent by her ‘God’, her father, just as the angel Gabriel was sent by God for Mary. As God uses Mary, the Phantom uses Christine, heightening the comparison between the two. Christine believes that the Phantom favours her above all others as he not only teaches her to sing, but also seeks to remove those who stand in the way of a successful operatic career. Moreover, in the song “Angel of Music” itself, the Phantom appears to Christine quite miraculously, similar to Gabriel’s appearance before Mary. The Phantom materializes out of the mirror and, like Mary, Christine has a moment of doubt and fear, before coming to trust and be comforted by the mysterious apparition that sings to her in her dreams.

Though presented as a secular piece of theatre, The Phantom of the Opera is a musical which abounds with theological themes and imagery. Though they may not first be apparent, once realized, they are impossible to ignore, and the knowledge of these themes and parallels add depth to one’s impression of the story, sets, costuming, and characters. The themes within the show, both theological and secular, are universally recognizable, which contributes to Phantom’s unending popularity. The lyrics and staging of many songs allude directly to biblical verses or situations, and the characters of the Phantom and Christine themselves personify key biblical figures. Phantom is a musical that has something for everyone within it; there is a love story for the romantic, dancing for the balletically-inclined, scenes which pass the Bechdel test for the feminist, and, most importantly, biblical parallels and theological themes for the theologian.

[1] John 18.1-11, Holy Bible: King James Version. New Edition. Collins, 2011. Print.

[2] Colossians 1.13, Holy Bible: King James Version. New Edition. Collins, 2011. Print.

[3] Isaiah 14.12-14, Holy Bible: King James Version. New Edition. Collins, 2011. Print.

[4] Stacy Wolf, Changed for Good: A Feminist History of the Broadway Musical (New York, 2011), p. 128

[5] Twitter Exchange with Ben Forster (@BenForster)(March 16^th, 2015)

[6] Twitter Exchange with Kieran Brown (@KierBro)(March 15^th, 2015)

Please note: this is a piece of academic work and should not be reproduced or quoted without the express permission of the author.