#theatre discourse

[onstagesport]

Every so often I saw this take on twitter that venues not allowing solo ticket-buyers to leave orphan seats was bad and I just genuinely don't understand that perspective.

I work in a box office so I know that people have favorite seats but I don't understand (barring disability and physically needing an aisle for example) prioritizing them over recognizing that other people might have a party that actually fits in that spot and allowing them to experience the event.

Is this a take that only exists on twitter? And if not, can someone please explain like I'm 5?

[aboutiroh]

Why would a greengrocer travel the world to sell a single cart of cabbages? Are the cabbages so bad that the news spreads like wildfire (“I heard Sung’s cousin’s skin turned green and that he hasn’t left the house since”), forcing him to move towns every few days? Have we actually ever seen him sell a single cabbage? Or is his cart always full? If he does sell cabbages off-screen and is not travelling with the same cart of cabbages, where does he get new ones? Is it plausible he's first travelled back home every time we encounter him in a new Earth Kingdom town? Is it plausible we just happen to stumble upon him whenever he's gotten new products? Or are the cabbages merely a cover for a larger conspiracy? In this essay I will

[ingravinoveritas]

Hey! Have you seen the blind item about Michael?

Hi there! Yes, I did see the blind item about Michael, as it was brought to my attention earlier today. I'll post it here for anyone who hasn't seen it yet:

I'm not sure where Enty is getting information from, but it was certainly interesting to see this turn up on CDAN today, especially since there was just a red carpet for Nye a few days ago. I'm also not sure that I agree with the second part, about a "drift" between Michael and David, as the play has just started its run and there is more than enough time for David to go see it again before it transfers to Cardiff. But even if he doesn't see the play (or isn't able to), I don't think that necessarily means there is any sort of issue between the two of them.

(Also, the quote marks around "bestie" were very definitely a Choice...)

As for the rest, it seems like more people are noticing what many of us have noticed for a long time. The thing I keep coming back to is that Michael is an actor, and if he wanted to act happy next to her on a red carpet--regardless of what he might be actually feeling--he absolutely could, and it would make sense to do so. But what doesn't make sense is for Michael to act or look miserable with Anna, especially if that's not what he really feels.

It's also worth mentioning that in all the Insta stories Anna posted about press night, she never posted a picture of her and Michael together. She posted pictures of her with the Nye poster, but the official Getty pictures that fans were sharing? Not a single one. Which just makes you wonder...

Those are my thoughts on the new blind item, at any rate. I'm happy to hear what other folks think as well, so feel free to share your thoughts in the comments....

[ghostinacardboardbox]

do you mind if i toss my hat in the ring as a jewish person rq? i feel like the whole antisemitism in cinderellas castle convo is completely dominated by goyim but i just wanted to bring up my thoughts on the situation.... i feel like in the modern age we forget how much antisemitism is completely imbedded into western folklore, european inspired fantasy coming off as antisemitic is almost inevitable if im going to be fr. doesnt make critiquing it in CC *invalid* ofc, its important to point out and critique, but it feels incredibly icky when a bunch of goys (not you specifically, your posts are quite thoughtful) act like starkid specifically made up the concept of "hook-nosed trolls" and filthy monsters sneaking into society wearing human skin rather than falling into unfortunate pitfalls that are baked into the genre....

Absolutely!! It’s a really good point. That’s also why I genuinely believe none of it was on purpose. They didn’t invent the tropes. It’s very much important to remember that it’s baked into the genre; these are tropes that have existed for centuries. They are not unique to Starkid, and if I ever implied they were, I want to make it clear that was not my intention.

I have been posting a lot but also very much do not want to be taking over the conversation, so I’m very grateful for this ask and your perspective.

[mad-not-disappointed]

With the recent release of “Elio”, there’s been a lot of revived discoursed surrounding Disney, Pixar, and originality in their movies. I’ve seen a lot of people shaming others for not watching the movie, going “Oh these people beg for originality but ignore it when we do get it”.

Originality is (understandably) quite wanted, yes, I too am sick of constant franchise oversaturation, but what these people fail to consider is that being original is not always a one-way ticket to being considered good

(That last bit isn’t meant to be a dig on Elio, I haven’t seen it yet as of the time I sent this ask)

oh yes, i saw some of those posts and i found it a bit absurd too. i do think that people should watched elio because it's a genuinely good movie, not just because it's an original movie.

i can understand why people are starting to veer away from disney and pixar so to shame them for not watching a new movie is only gonna make them NOT want to watch it.

i think the idea is to encourage the studios to release more original movies, but they already know that. they're not dumb, they know that people want original movies. they're basically thriving off of ragebait right now, because ruining a beloved classic is the best way to get people talking. coming up with an original idea would require them to actually pay their employees and give their writers the creative freedom to come up with something new.

[malewifealucard]

the discourse about Remmick and Sammie is INSANITY y’all are scaring me (the hoes)

[mountain-dew-tickledpink]

shitty doodle of a thing I'm writing hashtag Christine should be allowed to be a little gay hater

[evanpeterswifeyyy]

Phantom of The Opera rant because I just watched the full movie of my favorite stage play and it’s on my mind.

Warning: controversial/ unpopular fandom opinion. Key word: OPINION. Excessive yapping—I’m pulling up recipets yall. This is actually an essay. Despite that, I will definitely make some spelling mistakes, explain things poorly or repeat points. I am human, thanks.

I’m not sure if this is controversial or not, but I don’t fully understand how people like Christine and the Phantom together. At a basic level, I can understand why:

- It has dark romance themes/ tropes (totally different topic I could rant about)

-It’s taboo and edgy, kinda raw

-Many actors who play the Phantom are conventionally attractive

-Christine and the Phantom usually have more on-screen chemsitry (chemistry does not always mean romantic, please be mindful of that)

So, I wanted to write a small little essay picking apart why I believe The Phantom and Christine are a toxic and abusive pairing.

This is not an attack on anyone who pairs them together, nor do I honestly care that much if you do, I just don’t see many in-depth second opinions about this.

With this knowledge, proceed at your own discretion and be respectful:

I want to start off with the main reasons why I believe the Phantom and Christine should NOT be paired together. To preface, I have only seen TWO pieces of media related to the POT. I will be using those as my evidence, as they are also the most popular reditions of the play that I’m sure most of you will know and reference yourself.

Those being:

The 25th Anniversary stage play with Sierra Boggess and Ramin Karimloo

The Phantom of the Opera screenplay starring Emmy Rossum

To begin, in the screenplay Christine has been shown to have known the Phantom since she was a child. Throughout multiple reditions, Christine has always been portrayed as in her late teens to early 20’s during the main events of the play and the Phantom is depicted somewhere around his 40’s-50’s. That in it of itself is creepy.

I understand that age gaps are a big topic in fandoms and media, and I would have little problem with this age gap if it weren’t for the fact that it is implied many times that he has been training her to sing since her father died. To get to Christine’s level in the opera, that would take years. Even if she already had vocal talent. Meaning that she was a minor when he met her.

That would be grooming. Literally.

To add onto this point, I want to paraphrase and quote some of the things the Phantom says to/ about Christine.

“Sing for me, my angel of music”

“Since I first heard you sing. I have needed you with me, to serve me, to sing. For my music”

Now, anyone can interpret these lyrics differently, but how I interpret them is:

He is using Christine for her voice. He has groomed her (in multiple ways) and polished her voice to sing so he can use her for his music. I mean, he literally kills and threatens people who do not allow Christine to be the star of every play once the main events happen.

He calls her his “angel of music”. Which might be endearing, if you remember the fact that he has been grooming her since she was a child to “serve” him. This is an objectifying name. He is saying this in contrast with Christine’s angel of music, which is a literal angel that her father promised to send her. To Christine, her angel of music is her father’s love and legacy. For The Phantom, it is his magnum opus: Christine.

Speaking of Christine and her “Angel of Music”. This leads me to my next point:

The Phantom pretends to be Christine’s father/ angel of music to manipulate and trick her.

During both graveyard scenes (the musical and the screenplay) Christine says:

“Angel or father, friend or phantom?”

The way I interpret this:

It is not a coincidence the comparison. [The split/ play on words]

Angel or friend?

Father or phantom?

Christine believes the angel to either be her father, or an entity he sent. When the Phantom says to her in the next moment:

“Have you forgotten your angel?”

That is him admitting he knows that Christine has believed he was the angel of music/ her father teaching and guiding her this whole time. And in the same song he is manipulating her, putting back on the facade of being her “angel of music” and leading her back to him—where Raoul has to snap her out of it.

Raoul has to literally tell Christine that the Phantom is not her father in both the play and the screenplay. Further solidifying the fact that she believes that the Phantom is her father or a being sent by him.

If we take that into fact, that means that the whole time up until at least now, she has only seen the Phantom as a fatherly figure.

Now, let’s talk about the final confrontation.

I’m already hearing the “but she says she loves him at the end!” Or “then why did she kiss him?!”

Glad you asked!

The final confrontation is the most blatant showcase of the Phantom’s delusion and abuse.

First, lets it back to the fact that the Phantom is shown to be a murderer. Someone who kills for their own benefit without remorse. Christine says it herself, and there are multiple scenes where she speaks of the Phantom and is afraid. She believes the Phantom may even kill her if she does not comply with his rules.

Quotes/ Paraphrases here (from the broadway and movie scripts):

“(to RAOUL, pleading)

Raoul, I'm frightened -

don't make me do this

Raoul, it scares me -

don't put me through this

ordeal by fire

he'll take me, I know

we'll be parted for ever

he won't let me go” (Christine talking about doing the Don Juan play)

“RAOUL

When will that be?

It's an engagement,

not a crime!” (Raoul fighting with Christine about hiding their engagement. It’s implied here that Christine is hiding their engagement from the Phantom because she knows it will upset him.)

The most damning piece of evidence:

“CHRISTINE

Twisted every way,

what answer can I give?

Am I to risk my life,

to win the chance to live?

Can I betray the man

who once inspired my voice?

Do I become his prey?

Do I have any choice?

He kills without a thought,

he murders all that's good

I know I can't refuse

and yet, I wish I could?

Oh God - if I agree,

what horrors wait for me

in this, the Phantom's opera?” (Christine speaks about the Phantom after being told she is forced to play in Don Juan)

With this information, we know that the Phantom kills for selfish reasons. He will do anything to get what he wants. Regardless of even the feelings of Christine.

Back to confrontation, Christine in the movie is shown to have the Phantom force her to put on the wedding dress. She clearly does not want to do it, but feels threatened by him to do so.

The whole time she is uncomfortable. Then, he captures Raoul.

He gives her an incentive and she only has two choices:

-Admit she loves him to free Raoul

-Deny she loves him and kill Raoul

Now, if you know anything about incentives and abusive people. This is the most toxic thing to ever do. It is completely self-serving and both Christine and Raoul know that he is going to kill him regardless and is pressuring her to lie and say she loves him.

Quotes/ Paraphrases:

“CHRISTINE:

Farewell my fallen idol and false friend

We had such hopes, and now those hopes are shattered!

PHANTOM:

Too late for turning back, too late for prayers and useless pity!

RAOUL:

Say you love him and my life is over

PHANTOM:

All hope of cries for help; no point in fighting!

RAOUL/PHANTOM:

For either way you choose, he has to win/you cannot win!”

The Phantom is not doing this out of love. No one who loves someone would threaten to kill the person they love/ choose instead of them. The Phantom up until this point is possesive, infatuated and obsessed wih Christine. There are no signs of real love from him. It is all self serving and an idolized image of Christine.

When Christine shows him a bit of kindness during this moment I believe she is being genuine, but I also believe she’s only doing it to save herself.

Christine feels pity for the Phantom because she realizes during this encounter that he has been traumatized and isolated so bad that he feels he has to torture others to get what he wants. That he truly believes that no one but Christine will love him, and therefore he must make sure at all costs that he will get what he wants. Christine, being empathetic, tells the Phantom that she hears him.

I don’t think Christine kissing the Phantom is out of love. Not in a romantic sense. Christine kisses the Phantom not only to save her and Raoul’s lives, but also because she is feeling pity for the Phantom. He has never felt the physical touch of another person as he says in his own words, so she kisses him.

This obviously works, and she sets him free.

Lets talk about the musical because there’s a scene after this where she returns while the Phantom is wallowing after freeing them.

I still don’t think Christine returns because she loves the Phantom. Up until now, she has no reason to except for the fact that she finally humanizes him. No, I think that this scene just further solidifies that she yes, she loves the Phantom. But not in a romantic sense. From the beginning she has been shown to have a fatherly view of the Phantom, and I believe that paired with the memories of her father and the years they spent—she returns because she continues to see her father in him and feels pity for him. She wants to help the Phantom be happy because he brought her a piece of her father. Possibly she even still believes that he was in fact sent by her father to teach her music and take care of her in some way.

This is my interpretation of the scene.

A point I see brought up A LOT when it comes to justifying Christine’s romance with The Phantom is:

“Well, Raoul is abusive in the second rendition and her and the Phantom have an affair.”

Have you ever seen Cinderella 2? Have you ever heard of it? There are 3 Cinderella movies.

But we all refer to the first one because A. It’s the most popular and a classic B. The other movies sold poorly because they were bad and nobody asked for them.

My point here is: so is Love Never Dies.

I said what I fucking said. Cry about it.

But lets imagine for a moment if we took Love Never Dies as part of the main canon:

I don’t think Christine should be with Raoul either.

Another point I see a lot is: “They just meet again and instantly get engaged”

Which yes, that’s definitely a point of contention.

But considering just The Phantom Of the Opera in this case, they have known each other since they were kids. And considering the time period the events are set in, this is actually not that surprising or uncommon and makes sense. Even if Christine didn’t love Raoul, given her position, it would have been beneficial for her to get married. And it might as well be someone she’s known for a long time.

But if you were to ask me, without being forced to choose between Raoul or the Phantom, I would tell you that I believe that she should be with neither.

Both are abusive towards Christine. One just more literally stated than the other.

Edit because I forgot to add this crucial point:

The Phantom of the Opera was NOT a story created by Andrew Lloyd Webber (the man who created the musical adaptation and scores)

It is a story from 1910 by french author Gaston Leroux. If we take that context into consideration, (as someone who has not yet read the book) the movie (based on the musical) and the musical are not accurate representations of the original material or intention.

There were definitely creative liberties taken or misinterpretations. Especially with Love Never Dies.

There were black and white movies made of the story as well. The Phantom is specifically portrayed as a real life monster. This image of him being a handsome man with a scarred face and tragic past only happened in the 20th century.

I believe that is the conclusion of this rant/ essay. I know this probably won’t get a lot of reach, but if you read this whole thing (whether you agree or not), thanks a lot. Truly.

Hopefully this will add more discussion to the topic and give people a more open minded view on the topic, and realize the real nature of the Phantom. There are so many ways to interpret and art piece, and time and time again, this is what I see in it. So to see people romanticize their relationship always gives me the ick (ofc, you do you boo, I can’t stop you). So I’m tired of arguing individually with people, so I might as well have a full reference to come back to.

I’m sure there’s more evidence and points I could have made, but this is long enough. Regardless, I hope you can take away something from this, and if you want to possibly hear about any more of my controversial opinions—leave a note so I know! <3

[whatsthefix]

i am so sorry nosferatu (2024), the general modern movie goer population does not deserve you 💔

[can-of-w0rmz]

“Aaron Tveit is a tenor he shouldn’t have been cast in a baritone role”/“Sondheim is rolling in his grave rn”/“He sounds too cute and unthreatening.” Genuinely shut the fuck up oml how does it feel to be boring asf 😭 He played the role extremely well, the songs sounded great in his vocal range, he WAS extremely threatening, and y’all are just being petty and puritanical about this shit. I’m a hardcore fan of Josh Groban and Len Cariou’s interpretations of the character, but Aaron Tveit did just as good of a job playing Sweeney Todd as anyone who came before him.

Sweeney Todd is a show that is and always has been continuously reinterpreted and played around with, while still keeping its core characterisation, plot and themes, which, just saying, were way clearer under Tveit’s portrayal of the character than for example, some of the “classic” baritone portrayals like George Hearn (iconic as his performance was, totally rewatching my 1982 proshot DVD on loop over here). He captured the sympathy and tragedy of the character whilst still being feral, aggressive, passionate and threatening, he’s a great actor and apart from the very mild set-back of his vocal range just being higher, he’s probably the best portrayal of Sweeney Todd I’ve ever seen. And even then, his vocal performance was far from bad — I’d totally stick it on in the background if he had any songs professionally recorded. He just doesn’t have the deep oomf that Josh Groban had, but if we’re going to talk about Tveit’s Todd being too “cute”, I’d totally say the opposite — as much as I absolutely love Groban’s interpretation of the character to bits, he arguably kind of lacks the feral aggression other actors who’ve played Todd have.

And, as for “Sondheim is rolling in his grave”, excuse me?? Sondheim has always been explicit about wanting an actor that can sing over a singer that can act. He reworked the structure of “Send In the Clowns” specifically for Glynis Johns because “she couldn't sustain notes,” his words. Not that either Johns or Tveit can’t sing, but you get the picture — yeah, no, Sondheim would absolutely not be rolling in his grave because a tenor played a baritone role he wrote extremely well and opted a couple notes higher than they were originally written.

Also, while I’m on the subject, listen, ok, I love the original 1979 cast recording so much that Angela Lansbury was my top artist (😭), and Annaleigh Ashford is actually my icon oml I absolutely adore her, but bsfr the hate on Sutton Foster was wayyy out of order. I’m not really a fan of a lot of the stuff she does (no harm to her or anything, just a personal preference 🤷‍♀️), and I think her portrayal of Mrs Lovett was a LITTLE bit surface level at times, (imo she didn’t REALLY have the same super strong characterisation that Ashford brought to the table tbf?), but for the most part she was actually really really funny and her chemistry with Tveit was on point, and she was still really good during those serious scenes too.

And don’t get me started on that one time I read a comment that said “Sweeney Todd is not a comedy”….bro… some of these people don’t even know what the fuck they’re talking about 😭

[act2drama]

Pretty much every Mischief (and Mischief-adjacent) work: at least one character with father issues (or parental issues in general) that are dragged out for as long as possible and maybe there's some kind of a resolution at the end...maybe...

Pretty much every MMNI episode: "sure dad, I'll instantly forgive all the crap you've been putting me through throughout my formative years up to and including literally murdering me, FAMILY HUGS AND SING-ALONG TIME!"

[ingravinoveritas]

Another Nye press night and no sign of David. I was there and at the after party and there was definitely no sign of him. Can’t help but be really disappointed in him given Michael showed up for both Macbeth press nights.

Hi Anon. Thank you for letting me know about Nye press night tonight. I was aware that it was happening, but reports and pictures are only just now starting to come in.

I know there has been a lot of talk about whether David would attend tonight. But one thing that I think is important to keep in mind is that when David went to Nye last year, he didn't attend press night then, either. He instead went on a random night, and to me, that is actually more intimate and personal than going on press night. Press night is when both critics and celebs go to see a show, but also go to walk the red carpet and be seen. Which means that it's ultimately a more high pressure type of night, and one where Michael is likely to be more anxious about giving a good performance.

So my feeling is that David, being an actor himself, understands that very well. I think that he will likely go to see a show on this run on a normal night, to avoid standing out and to just be there for Michael. I will also say, however, that even if David doesn't go, that does not mean he and Michael aren't friends or that something is wrong. We've seen how, for the last several months, they have dialed down their public interactions significantly...but that does not necessarily having any bearing on what is happening in private, behind closed doors.

That said, I'd just like to put up a few pictures from the after party, because...there is a lot going on. And if things are as bad as they look judging by these pictures of Michael and Anna both looking...well, the way they look here...then perhaps it's just as well that David wasn't there...

(And just for comparison, here is Michael with Jason Hughes, who plays Archie in the show...)

[ghostinacardboardbox]

CC is one of my new favourite things ever but ill respect your dislike of it far more than i ever will going "I'm not saying you cant criticise the musical but" then express discomfort with people calling out the antisemitism

CC is my least favorite Starkid show ever but I'll respect your appreciation of it far more than I ever will people who go "there's nuance here" in a post that is fully just using polite language to shut down criticism. I genuinely don't know what's so hard about this.

Anyway it's been a Rough Time to be in the Starkid fandom and actually want to complain about things I disliked in a show I was incredibly excited for. Somehow having literally any issues with the show at all means I must be someone who is only here for Hatchetfield and is just trying to bully Starkid back into doing Hatchetfield stuff. Piss on the poor website.

[bmydruidess]

Hi!! Never Nosferatu-posted before but I’ve made a playlist filled with songs that I think match the unsettling energy of the film. i hope you enjoy!!

[andacherrycoke]

Does anyone else use threads? If so, have you witnessed the site wide discourse about knitting in a movie theatre that’s been going on this weekend because it’s highly entertaining

[tawked]