The Phantom of the Opera at the Royal Albert Hall [Blu-ray]

I have never been a person that has been overly found of musicals. I'll tell you this up front. Basically, I could always just take 'em or leave 'em.Make no mistake, I am not immune to the 'songs in my head' phenomena. Thankfully, for me, this problem has always been fairly rare. And when it did occur, it never persisted for too long. That is, at least it used to be this way. Until I experienced not the 'songs in my head' problem, but rather the 'entire frickin' libretto in my exploding brain' problem. Two very different things.It all started innocently enough. Some years ago a "friend" (I now use that term loosely, as the plot was diabolical and doubtlessly premeditated. We shall call her "Joyce".) stated that she had purchased tickets that she was to be unable to use to attend a touring company production of a play that was stopping in Sacramento (California) a city 100 or so miles away from where we both live. It was a show that I had heard of vaguely - one that I really had no interest in seeing - a musical (wouldn't you just know it?) titled "Phantom-of-the-something-or-other".Right.I didn't want to go. Too far. Too much trouble. Too much to do. Not interested.My friend persisted, and as time for the performance drew near I desperately cast about for some acceptable and reasonable excuse that would allow me to gracefully bow out. There were none forthcoming. So, on the appointed day, I somewhat reluctantly drove off to the production with low expectations, knowing the show was long, and hoping that I would not fall asleep whilst it was onstage.After arriving at the venue, and finding my seat, soon the the rock-opera music began to pound, the chandelier began to flash and my eardrums began to thrum. With alarm, I could begin to feel the persistent tendrils of music seeking purchase in my cranium, and I found myself limp in my seat, unable to fight them off. I began to suspect that I was surely doomed.But not quite yet: after the overture, a brief reprieve.This traveling production was presented in the Sacramento Convention Center. As it's name implies, it is not a theatre, but - you guessed it - a convention center auditorium. On the day that I was there (I can't speak for other days when things might have been different) the acoustics were. . . less than spectacular [i. e., incredibly bad] and the show appeared to be poorly miked (or mic'ed, as you prefer). The result was that I could hear the music fairly well - but I could not understand a single solitary word that was either spoken or sung. I could see that the mouths of the distant performers were opening and closing, but all I could hear was muffled gibberish.But still, somehow, this phantom thing reached right out to this non-musical-lover and grabbed me tightly by the throat, gave me a quick shake, and would not let me go. I could hardly breathe. I was completely gobsmacked, even though I had pretty much no idea what the thing was about, due to my complete inability to understand any of the words.I think when my friend asked me afterward how I had liked it, I just stared at her with a glazed expression. I knew that something strange and wonderful had just happened to me, but I could not for the life of me figure out exactly what it was.I had absolutely no idea "how I had liked it".I soon found out, however. A quick trip onto the internet revealed the complete libretto, and a quick trip to the music store revealed the original cast recording, and with reading and listening the story became startlingly clear. Within a few weeks I drove to San Francisco to see the resident theatre company of "Phantom" that was then there. Twice. And I continued to play the CD incessantly.My brain began to swell, and from time to time gray matter would begin to drip out of my ears. The entire libretto, stuck unmovable in the depths of my skull, played on and on and on. And on. I thought I might go mad. Perhaps I did go mad for a time. Mercifully, after some years (!) it began to quiet, and not too long after that finally it was gone.Freedom at last. Or so I hoped.Fast forward to October 2011. I happened to be at my local movie theatre taking in the latest drivel when an ad briefly appeared advertising "Phantom". I felt only a minor tickle of interest, supposing it to be some quickie cheesefest, and thought to check it out on the internet when I returned home. But by the time the drivel had ended, I had totally forgotten about "Phantom".My bad. And my regret.Fast forward to March of 2012. Surfing around for something to DVR one weekend afternoon, I noticed that "Phantom" was to be presented on my local PBS station. PBS??? Phantom??? My lip curled in a sneer. I certainly didn't need to watch THAT ever again. For some reason I decided to DVR it anyway, sure I would never actually watch it. Three hours long? Good grief. Not for me.Late that evening, wishing for a brief bit of escape before heading for bed, I decided to turn it on. Just for a few minutes, you understand. After all, it was late, I had to get up early the next morning, it couldn't possibly be any good, I just needed to unwind for a few minutes. Smile condescendingly, maybe, at the ridiculousness of it all.And for the next three hours I was totally and completely lost.I have read other reviews that I would like to briefly rebut, before I go on.Basically these other reviewers state that POTO_25 is "pretty good, but can never match a live performance". To that I say, with all due respect: "Sir! You are very much mistaken!" My three experiences with live POTO were nowhere near the quality of POTO_25. NOT EVEN CLOSE.The Sacramento performance was as described above. Flawed, yet the brilliance of the piece still shone through. On my first visit to POTO at the Curran theatre in San Francisco, they announced that "Christine" was ill, and that an actress had been flown in from Los Angeles for that evenings performance. Well, that particular "Christine" was just fine - unfortunately, the rest of the cast, particularly the Phantom, sounded like they all had a very bad, sniffly colds. On my second visit to the Curran, the Phantom was suddenly a low baritone, that would fudge on the tenor notes. I do not say that these performances were bad, because they were not. They were good. However, they were somewhat less than wonderful. And no where close to amazing.Which brings me, finally, again, to the amazement that is POTO_25.After seeing the show previously several times, I knew what to look for as POTO_25 began. The point that will tell me whether this will be a great and amazing performance, or merely a good and serviceable one. For me, that point is when I first hear the Phantom's voice, immediately after Christine's "Think of Me" triumph. We hear the Phantom softly calling her name. I have heard this calling when I could not understand the words. I have heard this calling when the Phantom had the sniffles. I have heard this calling when the Phantom was a low baritone, and should have been a tenor.I had never heard it the way I imagined it could - and should - be sung. Until that moment. I sat straight up on the couch and threw my clock right out the window: O. M. G.This is a musical whose implausible story is hung on the thinnest of gossamer threads. The amazing thing is not that it works - and in the case of POTO_25 it works overwhelmingly and brilliantly well - but that it works at all. With this show, as it comes to show time, all of the elements are in place: the costumes, the sets, the music, the effects.It only remains for the actors to give it life.And they do here flawlessly.Wendy Ferguson (Carlotta):What a revelation. The previous Carlotta's I had seen had all seemed to be thrown in as some kind of a diversion, to make time as the other characters were introduced. I am watching this and suddenly I'm thinking: What the. . .? Is Carlotta making eyes at the male ballet dancer? Indeed she was!And her voice. Oh my. Like no Carlotta I have ever heard. And the wonderful characterization continues throughout the the show. What before had always seemed to me to be a throw-away part, is now a full-blooded and critical member of the ensemble. She is funny. She is poignant. She is brave. She makes one care about what happens to her. All with wonderful acting and amazing vocals.Hadley Fraser (Raoul):A very different - and welcome - take on the part. In previous "Phantoms" Raoul has always seemed to be a bit of a wishy-washy rich boy, with no real backbone. It never really made sense to me that he falls so instantly in love with Christine.Here he doesn't.Mr. Fraser is telling here a different tale with his acting, maybe not so in love - but worried about his investment. Watching his facial expressions (and it is glorious to be able to actually see facial expressions!) one notices that he is carefully calculating. He does not believe - at first - Christine's assertions about her "Angel of Music".And when she later professes her love for him on the roof of the opera, he seems a bit surprised and even taken aback. And seems not to be really in love with her at all - but only leading her on in order to get her back inside to the paused performance.After all, he would likely lose his investment in the Opera Populaire should she not return to the performance, and need to refund all of those tickets. This Raoul is a strong, assertive and calculating man - not a sniveling love-struck boy. I like him! Wonderful and absorbing tenor vocals.Sierra Boggess (Christine):What can one say of perfection? Her bravura performance takes ones breath away. I have never heard this part so well sung before, nor have I ever seen it so well acted, even sitting in the 5th row at the Curran. Frightened, happy, despairing. Soprano vocals unmatched, and unmatchable. Bravo Ms. Boggess!Ramin Karimloo (The Phantom):Well, here we finally come to the crux of it. The make-or-break performance of the show. So let me state this up front, without wasting any more time: I have never heard - nor seen acted - a better Phantom, nor do I ever expect to hear - or see acted - one at this level of performance art ever again in my lifetime.Period.The casting of Mr. Karimloo in this part puts a whole different take on the story. When he first comes onstage, after his offstage vocals, I was very surprised. I mean, what's this, a young guy? He is intense, virile, commanding - and seems unstoppable. And yet, at the proper times, he is also soft, retiring, poignant, and despairing.When he is onstage, there is no one else there. His youth and vitality completely commands and changes the love triangle of the show. Always before, the Phantom has generally been played by an older man - that is, a man much older than is Christine. An older man moves differently and reacts differently. It is always supposed that a young man (in this case Raoul) will always win the love of the beautiful young woman over the affections of this older man.This time we are not so sure. With a young Phantom, and particularly with *this* young Phantom, we realize that he really does have a chance with her. This adds a dramatic tension that has, until now, been missing.As I have written above, I have seen this show more than once, but at the end of POTO_25 Mr. Karimloo's Phantom so had me in his grip, and so understanding of his loss, that in the final scene I dissolved into tears. This had never happened to me before when viewing this show.Vocally, from the lowest baritone notes to the highest tenor, Mr. Karimloo navigates this torturous score with ease, elegance and confidence. Just when one thinks he can't possibly stretch out a high note or a low note one second longer (even he must finally run out of breath!), he ends with a sweet and extended vibrato.My only complaint is that when he was singing the video would often cut to a reaction shot of Christine. I didn't want to watch Christine. I only wanted to look at him.I can't wait to hear what this man does next.BRAVO Mr. Karimloo!!!![Sidebar: as I don't follow theatre in general, and musical theatre in particular, Mr. Karimloo's name was unfamiliar to me. In the interest of fairness, I decided to Google him, and found a few YouTube interviews. What I discovered was a very handsome young man, extremely soft-spoken, polite and self-effacing. Where was the big ego? Where was the big voice? There obviously is some mistake here. Ramin: call me and let's discuss.] ;-)To conclude, I will say that this will without doubt prove to be the definitive version of "Phantom of the Opera" for years to come. If you want to watch "Phantom", you really can't do better than this. It is an asset to any DVD/Blu Ray collection, and a "must have" for those who love Andrew Lloyd Webber's masterpiece.So, you may be asking, is it over for me now, the Music of the Night? No. I don't think it will ever be over again. At least not for me.There is no more hope of summertime.Because the Phantom of the Opera is HERE: inside my mind.And the music plays on, and on.And on. . .May God have mercy on my soul.

Andrew Lloyd Webber's Phantom is a great musical, and even a profound one. While it is fashionably dismissed as pure spectacle, I'd ignore that common byproduct of its staggering success (the stage show is the second highest grossing entertainment of all time, perhaps the most successful adjusting for inflation). Provided one isn't cynical, it's enthralling, sweeping, and splendidly turgid. At its core, it uses Leroux's mysterious novel to retell the myths of Eros and Psyche and Beauty and the Beast. As in the novel, Phantom tells the story of a Victorian composer, the phantom, a mysterious figure who dwells in a subterranean lair beneath the Paris opera house, haunting it. While in Leroux's original, the Phantom was entirely physically deformed and embodied death albeit singing in an ethereally beautiful way, in this telling, the Phantom is more Manichaean. Half of his face is hideously monstrous, the other half human. What is crucial to the Phantom as a character is the power of art and illusion as a sort of half-truth with which what is true yet unpleasant can be vanquished. With the artifice of a half-mask, the Phantom disguises his hideous facial half and masters his self image. Around the proscenium, sinisterly beautiful statues of angels and demons entangle in an ambiguous interplay, evoking the dissolution the show achieves between stirring beauty and monstrosity. True to the Eros and Psyche base, the Phantom's greatest powers are those of enchantment, which are most fully deployed in the attempt to woo Christine, an ingenue soprano, whom the Phantom loves and guides to his underground, candle-lit domain. Amidst otherworldly voice lessons, and the use of half-light, and sonorous music, he attempts to use art to appeal to her soul. As a Victorian story, the pursuit is chaste. The Phantom's seduction of Christine is never quite sexual, but it is sensual.Phantom is a meditation on love. We witness the Phantom's redemption through love and the plight of Christine in determining whether to requite it. By giving Christine voice lessons, the Phantom appears to fulfill the promise of her dead violinist father of tutelage from an angel of music. Throughout the show, Christine conflates the Phantom with both that angel and her father. Fundamentally, the prospect of the Phantom's love represents certain artistic heights and soulful emotion. Yet, the show thrusts us into a very effective love triangle, whereby the unworldly love of the Phantom is contrasted with he conventional affection of her earthly suitor, Raoul, a Viscount who offers her security and wealth and likely artistic mediocrity. How this all resolves, is, in my opinion, one of the most moving things I have ever witnessed in any film, show, or novel - akin to Gone with the Wind (there can be no sequel). There are other parts to this story as well. With a Cyranoesque combination of wit and threats, the Phantom also conspires to depose the leading soprano Carlotta, replace her with Christine, and intimidate the managers, Andre and Firmin. His ruses, as well as the Phantom's often murderous rage make for engrossing entertainment.The cast, particularly Sierra Boggess as Christine and Ramin Karimloo as the Phantom are excellent. Both sing well; in Boggess's case, prettily, in Karimloo's case, powerfully. Of course no one can surpass the ghoulish pathos of Michael Crawford's origination of the part, or the exotic beauty of Sarah Brightman's Christine in the original album. Yet, both Karimloo and Boggess manage to surpass the originals in their acting range while singing well enough. The cameras allow closeups we could never get in a theater. In the scene where Christine unmasks the Phantom, Boggess says nothing, yet conveys a sense of playful whimsicality in unmasking him . Under so much makeup, Karimloo relies on gesture and vocal dexterity in his performance. In something like John Hurt's elephant man, Karimloo uses what he has left to reach into our hearts and condemn us. Karimloo's Stranger than you Dreamt it, where the Phantom castigates Christine for her disloyalty at unmasking him and then pleads for Christine's love caused me to sob. Sierra Boggess transforms Wishing You Were Somehow Here Again, what typically seemed a pretty yet vacuous second act number, into a pivotal scene. Her devastation at her father's death and coming to terms with it suddenly lend nuance to the scene and sends the show hurtling to its gripping denouement. Boggess's performance here, for which the audience gave a standing ovation, left me sobbing. Hadley Fraser is fine as Raoul, only a touch more dominating and lower pitched than ideal, but still hitting the high notes and conveying the the tender reassurance that Raoul offers Christine. The only downside in my view was Wendy Ferguson, whose Carlotta, the resentful reigning diva who finds herself overthrown by Christine as a result of the Phantom's machinations, if serviceable, seemed one dimensional vocally.Nothing can be perfect in a show, but Lloyd Webber's Phantom is the definitive Phantom. It is the only version to utilize high romance. It also features one of the best scores of all time, at some points literally derivative of Puccini (and Pink Floyd for good measure), and otherwise evocative of Puccini and opera, the score is full of melodic and instrumental sweep. It's Lloyd Webber's most memorable score in an accomplished career. Anyone will likely be familiar with Music of the Night, All I ask of You, and Angel of Music. So far, this is the definitive version of Lloyd Webber's Phantom (The 2004 version starring Gerard Butler pales in comparison). Part of what makes this so gripping, in addition to acting that is cathartically tear-jerking, is the setting. All of the show takes place in the opera house. We shift among the phantom's underground lake, the stages, the offices and dressing rooms, and the rooftop, making only a single detour to the grave of Christine's father. With a few exceptions, notably a chandelier that plummets from the ceiling to the stage, and a giant staircase replicating the grand staircase of the Paris opera house (not exactly minor losses), this production incorporates just about every set-piece and costume of Maria Bjornson's notorious designs. Even reduced, the sets are extraordinary. The costumes, with few exceptions, are sumptuously designed, ingeniously constructed, richly trimmed, extravagantly fabricated.

Mybson saw Phantom of the Opera in London and loved it. I wanted to get him a gift that continued that excitement. He loved it!