History Headscratchers / ThePhantomOfTheOpera

** The idea behind casting Rossum may have been that she was the right age to play Christine, who is supposed to be a young chorus girl. Unfortunately, opera singers don't develop their full, strongest range until they're about 30 (or around there). They decided to go with the then-very-young Emmy Rossum. I believe she was 17 when cast, and her sound is probably about as good as any 17-year-old could be at singing songs written for Sarah Freakin' Brightman.

** Although Emmy doesn't have as much operatic talent, consider that she has different burdens on her from stage actresses. Stage Christines need to do stage acting, and project their voice, even with a microphone. Emmy had some of the best, most tragic expressions, you could feel her confused pain. She was a very realistic teenager placed in an awful situation. Some of the parts she actually sings normal ("Why can't the past just die?" from Wishing is so heartbreaking, yet most stage Christines just sing it operatically instead of on the verge of tears) I think all the Christines have their place.

** My interpretation was always that while Christine was a decently talented singer, she was also a relative unknown, while Carlotta was a star (albeit in decline) who still had drawing power and a fanbase that would buy tickets. Opera fans are fiercely protective of their favorites, and André and Fermin were unwilling to alienate Carlotta's fans and their money by giving a girl fresh off the streets top billing.

** But looking at it, most of those glances would just assume he was the victim of an extreme burn. Honestly, he looks no worse for wear in the film version than the Hound in Game of Thrones.

* In the movie version of the musical, Miranda Richardson gives Madame Giry a French accent, while everyone else uses an English or American. Her choice is baffling to me because it takes place in France, and most of the characters are Parisian natives which makes her accent unneccesary.

[[WMG: In TheMusical, this Troper never understood why Christine thought it would a be good idea to unmask The Phantom on stage in front of hundreds of spectators after singing a passionate/sexy love song with him.]]

* There's something of a clarification to be made here, which is made clearer in the book. The phantom tells Christine to go to the graveyard where he will prove that he is the angel her father has sent to her by effectively summoning the spirit of her father, signified by playing the Ressurection of Lazarus on the violin buried in the coffin with him. Therefore Raoul's comment is that the spirit playing the violin is not her father, but is instead the phantom attempting to play a trick on her. (Incidentally, the book places this at the beginning, before the Chandelier incident.) Christine's reply

[[WMG: In the titular song, Christine sings, "Those who have seen your face/ draw back in fear." She obviously knows that the phantom is disfigured, so why is she so paralyzed with fear when she removes the mask?]]

* In the movie, there's no indication that the opera we see him working on is necessarily the one he gives to the managers. I always thought that he wrote Don Juan in a hurry to have an opportunity to kidnap Christine:

* To be fair, parts of it might be heard later in the film, at the CallBack to the song.

In the musical (the lines are cut from the movie), there's a bit about how the Phantom's Don Juan is "gibberish," and even Wiki/ThisVeryWiki says that it's meant to be a parody of overdone, cliched opera. So how can Madame Giry say he's a genius, when really his work is no better than any other opera?

[[WMG: TheMovie and TheMusical: Early on, it's mentioned that Christine is such a fantastic singer because of the secret lessons she's been getting from her "Angel of Music", who of course turns out to be the Phantom. So someone with an opera-quality voice (Emmy Rossum has some experience with The Met under her belt) was taught by [[WordOfGod someone with a]] [[LargeHam rock sensibility]]. How?]]

* The anwser is FridgeBrilliance: WhereDoesHeGetAllThoseWonderfulToys: Erik, being a MadArtist / MadScientist / EvilGenius can make a lot of HomemadeInventions, but still needs the money to buy supplies (the mirrors of his RoboticTortureDevice came to mind). Given the Opera is administrated by two {{PointyHairedBoss}}es,[[FridgeBrilliance Erik must have not a problem getting everything delivered there]]. Also, [[GildedCage he could have bought some house to live with Christine]] and no doubt he will spoil her. The Persian says that the only reason he gave back the money is that he didn’t need it anymore.

* To address your second question first: yes, Christine does realise the Phantom and the 'Angel' are one and the same during ''The Phantom of the Opera,'' although she might have dismissed it as a dream; she does wake up the next morning very uncertain as to what happened. The ''Il Muto'' section seals the deal; when Meg screams 'He's there etc', Christine also cries out 'It's him! I know it is!' as she again comprehends that the voice/man who taught her is also the 'ghost' haunting the opera house.

** This suggestion actually merits more consideration than it seems at first glance. In the book, even as she's being led away by Erik, Christine never even suspects that he might actually be the Phantom of the Opera until she sees the horse that was rumored to have been stolen by the Phantom. Whereas in the film she actually recognizes - in the titular song, no less - her "Angel of Music" as the Phantom without any hint from his side and ''just before'' she has a chance to see the horse, assuming that horse bit is unchanged from the novel (it is never mentioned in the film). And I should also add that not even the fact that the stranger was wearing a mask was for Christine a clue to his identity in the book - because, in the novel at least (and there's actually little to directly contradict it in the film), Phantom is ''not'' generally known as a mask-wearer: on the contrary, he generally prefers to show his true face, albeit just for a second or two. So yes, either we should assume that the film Christine is way smarter than the novel one, or something supernatural really ''was'' at play in the end, as suggested by the troper above. Going along these lines, however, I must point out that once she figures out that her captor is the Phantom, the line "those who have seen your face draw back in fear" makes perfect logical sense, because that's precisely what they do in the novel.

** This suggestion actually merits more consideration than it seems at first glance. In the book, even as she's being led away by Erik, Christine never even suspects that he might actually be the Phantom of the Opera until she sees the horse that was rumored to have been stolen by the Phantom. Whereas in the film she actually recognizes - in the titular song, no less - her "Angel of Music" as the Phantom without any hint from his side and ''just before'' she has a chance to see the horse, assuming that horse bit is unchanged from the novel (it is never mentioned in the film). And I should also add that not even the fact that the stranger was wearing a mask was for Christine a clue to his identity in the book - because, in the novel at least (and there's actually little to directly contradict it in the film), Phantom is ''not'' generally known as a mask-wearer: on the contrary, he generally prefers to show his true face, albeit just for a second or two. So yes, either we should assume that the film Christine is way smarter than the novel one, or something supernatural really ''was'' at play in the end, as suggested by the troper above.

* Running time. ''A lot'' of content got rearranged and excised, and a few things which originally made sense now no longer do. It's there to establish that it's taking the Phantom and Christine some time to get to his base, and to keep building the suspense for the moment when the candles start coming up to signify "we're here."

** Also an interesting detail to consider: in the book, even as she's being led away by Erik, Christine never even suspects (not even on seeing the mask on his face) that he might actually be the Phantom of the Opera until she sees the horse that was rumored to have been stolen by the Phantom. Whereas in the film she actually recognizes - in the titular song, no less - her "Angel of Music" as the Phantom without any hint from his side and ''just before'' she has a chance to see the horse, assuming that horse bit is unchanged from the novel (it is never mentioned in the film). So either we should assume that the film Christine is way smarter than the book one, or, yes, something supernatural really ''was'' at play in the end.

** Also an interesting detail to consider: in the book, even as she's being led away by Erik, Christine never even suspects (not even on seeing the mask on his face) that he might actually be the Phantom of the Opera until she sees the horse that was rumored to have been stolen by the Phantom. Whereas in the film she actually recognizes - in her song - her "Angel of Music" as the Phantom without any hint from his side and ''just before'' she has a chance to see the horse (assuming that bit is unchanged from the novel, though it is never mentioned in the film). So either we should assume that the film Christine is way smarter than the book one, or, yes, something supernatural really ''was'' at play in the end.

** Also an interesting detail to consider: in the book, even as she's being led away by Erik, Christine never even suspects (not even on seeing the mask on his face) that the "Voice" aka "Angel of Music" might be the same entity as the Phantom of the Opera until she sees the horse that was rumored to have been stolen by the Phantom. Whereas in the film she actually recognizes - in her song - her "Angel of Music" as the Phantom without any hint from his side and ''just before'' she has a chance to see the horse. So either we should assume that the film Christine is way smarter than the book one, or, yes, something supernatural really ''was'' at play in the end.

** Also an interesting detail to consider: in the book, even as she's being led away by Erik, Christine never even suspects (not even on seeing the mask on his face) that the "Voice" aka "Angel of Music" might be the same entity as the Phantom of the Opera until she sees the horse that was rumored to have been stolen by the Phantom. Whereas in the film she actually recognizes - in her song - her "Angel of Music" as the Phantom before any hint from his side. So either we should assume that the film Christine is way smarter than the book one, or, all things said, something supernatural ''was'' at play in the end.

** Also an interesting detail to consider: in the book, even as she's being led away by Erik, Christine never even suspects (not even on seeing the mask on his face) that the "Voice" aka "Angel of Music" might be the same entity as the Phantom of the Opera until she sees the horse that was rumored to have been stolen by the Phantom. Whereas in the film she actually recognizes - in her song - her "Angel of Music" as the Phantom before any definite hint (remember that the . Either we should assume that the film Christine is way smarter than the book one, or, all things said, something supernatural ''was'' at play in the end.

** Also an interesting detail to consider: in the book, even as she's being led away by Erik, Christine never even suspects (not even because of the mask) that the "Voice" aka "Angel of Music" might be the same entity as the Phantom of the Opera until she sees the horse that was rumored to have been stolen by the Phantom. Whereas in the film she actually recognizes - in her song - her "Angel of Music" as the Phantom before any definite hint (remember that the . Either we should assume that the film Christine is way smarter than the book one, or, all things said, something supernatural ''was'' at play in the end.

* The book describes Erik as pale and corpse-like with no nose or lips ("what passes for my mouth," he says), so I can only imagine he looks like [[Franchise/HarryPotter Voldemort]]. In any case, he was born disfigured, not scarred in some accident or attack involving acid (what [[SarcasmMode genius]] mistook SelfDemonstrating/TheJoker's BackStory for Erik's?), and should look genuinely deformed, hideous, and horrifying, not tragically-romantically-scarred a la [[WesternAnimation/AvatarTheLastAirbender Prince Zuko]].

* Since when does the Phantom has "a rock sensibility"? He's the Phantom of the Opera, he lives in an opera house, he writes an opera, and also the whole story takes place several decades before the invention of rock. So while the actor who portrays the Phantom may sing with rock sensibility (because RuleOfCool and whatnot), the ''character himself'' is clearly meant to be an opera expert in-universe. He taught Christine a bunch of opera stuff because he's an expert at opera stuff.