If you're one of those people who has been on to the musical sensation that is The Phantom of the Opera since the 80's or 90's, then you, like me, resent the movie and the fangirls it has produced. You know, the kind who think that the Phantom was a buff Scottish man who would risk serious vocal damage to growl his lines instead of sing them. They didn't fall in love with a tortured soul who is completely unlovable but entirely worthy of love in a fashion that completely captures the heart! They just saw a polished, sex-ed up version of the man and the story we've loved for years- they just don't see what we see in the story. And, for the musicians in the crowd, they certainly don't hear what we hear! So I present to you a list of grievances against the Joel Schumacher version of Phantom (feel free to remind me of any I might have missed). Mr. Schumacher, to these things we object:

-The casting of non-singers in a musical. Come on. Forget casting younger, hotter people to draw crowds. It's not about age- let's face it, women still find Sean Connery sexy. It's not even about looks; Erik is going to be covered in prosthetics anyway! You should have hired people who sing (Emmy Rossum does not count- her vocals are atrocious and she only has one facial expression). Or, if you had to have your sexy, out-of-character actors, couldn't you have let them lip-sync the way Minnie Driver did? Really, Joel, it's inconsistent. (I must say that I exempt Patrick Wilson from this rant. I'm a huge fan of his work, and his Raoul is probably the best performance in the film...and I don't even like Raoul!)

-The non-classical singing. I know, you were trying to appeal to a new generation of movie-goers who aren't all that into opera. Here's the thing- it's not even operatic music. You just needed people who were classically trained (or in Ms. Rossum's case, talented). I mean, really, this is taking place in the 1800's underneath an opera house. The guy is training an operatic soprano for crying out loud. You'd think he'd follow his own teachings and sing like a singer, not like a chain-smoking rock star (was that a bit below the belt?). I mean, the music is anachronistic in some sections (like the title song) and that works fine...it's artistic and interesting because of the classical vocals that go with it. Making the orchestrations in some parts and the vocals more modern was a huge mistake and a crime against the fans. It kills the spirit of the piece.

-The character of the Phantom. One- his deformity. It's supposed to be "hardly a face." Butler's Phantom, through no fault of his own I realize, looks like a BAD SUNBURN! Ahem. Two- Erik is portrayed as angry/crazy. Not depressed, not completely crazy, not musical genius crazy (which we diehard fans relate to, right), but a guy who doesn't get the girl and is therefore pissed off. Anger is a part of Erik's character; in his anger and his growing insanity, he destroys the chandelier and he kills Buquet and Piangi. It isn't pure anger. These actions are warnings. In his logic, he is trying to remind the management and Christine and Raoul who he is and how much power is at his command. Gerard Butler's Phantom is angry whenever he isn't seductive or sad. He has no middle ground, and he certainly bypasses crazy and confused and taunting and goes straight into rage. Please, Mr. Butler, Erik is a complex and sophisticated character. He requires a bit of finesse. Erik would never growl- he's a voice teacher. He would know the irreparable damage that would cause. He would never breathe in the middle of a phrase- heaven forbid! Erik would always be as sophisticated and polished as his tuxedo implies (except during "The Music of the Night," but then it's seduction and we encourage him to take some liberties). He does use deception and violence, but in a beautiful and graceful way- not in a growling scream. He's supposed to have the voice of an angel- beautiful, pure, and haunting to us mere mortals.

-Christine. I usually find Christine weak-willed but sympathetic. Who wouldn't be a bit indecisive when faced with the choice between the man who is a beautiful and dear friend and the man who is a god inside but a monster outside? Emmy Rossum's Christine just pissed me off. Once Raoul was seriously in the picture and she'd discovered the truth of Erik's face, she displayed no indecision at all. Unless, of course, she was mystically enthralled by Erik's spell (as in "Why So Silent" and "Wandering Child"), but you really can't count that, can you? Even in the finale, she doesn't seem to be having any issues with choice- it becomes self-preservation. She's all about saving Raoul, not about being torn between a friend and a mentor. I want to physically shake her and tell her that the depth of the story comes from her loving Erik as well as loving Raoul. Raoul is easy to love and deserving in an obvious sort of way. Erik is difficult on multiple levels (he's scarred, he's done bad things, he's dangerous and socially unacceptable), but he has also given her the gift of her voice and all of his love and his fragile trust...what does she want from him?!?! Rossum's Christine is cruel to me, playing Erik in the final part of the movie just to save Raoul and herself. Not to mention the fact that she spends most of the movie with a vacant look on her face with her mouth hanging open like a dying fish.

-The dramatic speaking of some of the lines. Let's face it- they're written for the rhythms of music. They sound ridiculous when spoken in a half-whisper while music is playing to accompany them.

-The changes in choreography. Masquerade is absolutely stunning on stage. The vast array of colors and the various different costumes make it a feast for the eyes and an unforgettable spectacle. The almost monochromatic theme of the film's "Masquerade" reduces the visual spectacle, but the repetitive out-dated dance movements make it less interesting and something of a let down. The new choreography also left out the darker overtones of the song and the part where Christine dances with a Phantom double, forshadowing the coming events. But this is nothing compared to the travasty that is the film's "Point of No Return." This is one of the most amazing scenes on stage- and the music alone makes it stunning even in the movie. However, the new choreography makes absolutely no sense. For one thing, Christine should not know that Erik is playing opposite her on stage. The dynamic totally changes if she is aware that it's him. Also, for the most sensual and suggestive part of the song, they should not be on the opposite sides of the stage apart from each other. Ascending the stair cases and facing off against each other on the catwalk may be very Freudian, but it's contrary to the nature of the song. She's singing about buds bursting into bloom, and yet there's 50 feet separating them. Not logical!

-Additions and cuts. I like Andrew Lloyd Webber's new orchestrations. They're beautiful, if a little out of place. However, the added scenes just take up time. What's with watching old Raoul watching some deer run along the road? Maybe it's symbolism, but maybe it's just a waste of time. Why do we watch Raoul fall into and then escape one of Erik's traps in the finale? Again- waste of time. Why did we cut most of the scenes and elements of scenes that make Erik seem like a mystical force and less like a man? If they were going to do that, they needed to change "Wandering Child" as well. If we see how Erik crashes the chandelier and how he makes Carlotta croak and how he raises the portcullis barring entrance to his lair, then why are we going to believe that he's got Christine under some sort of hypnosis? On that note, I feel that his character is weaker for all the cuts made in the second half of the film...we see no evidence that he's on to their plans. He doesn't taunt them as he does in the show. He doesn't bespell the entire cast or taunt the police and Raoul- those scenes would have been even more effective on screen than on stage, but they did not take advantage of them. Sigh.

-The opening scene. Is that supposed to be Madame Giry or Meg? Really. If it's Meg, then she's an old maid. If it's Madame Giry, then she's really old.

I could rant about this all day, but I feel that these are the most important grievances. It's a shame that Lord Lloyd Webber waited so long to make this movie to have it turn out this way, but c'est la vie.

The Phantom of the Opera has been my favorite musical since I was 8 years old. Pretty crazy, huh? My mom bought me the highlights of the original cast recording, and I was immediately enthralled. True, some of the slower songs didn't keep me completely captivated, but I was all about the story. A deformed musical genius hiding out under the opera house who falls in love with the beautiful soprano who may or may not return his affections because of some other guy who's apparently pretty hot?!?! Wow! Yeah, I got behind that all the way; I made my friends listen to it at my house and I made my mom play it in the car as she drove me to school. Here's the catch though- my mom never told me the ending. I wasn't too great at picking out voices as a child, and I always thought that Christine and the Phantom lived happily ever after. Only when I was 16 and I heard the complete recording for the first time did I realize the true state of affairs!

After I heard the whole soundtrack and I cried for about a week because of it, Phantom became a sort of obsession with me (not the unhealthy kidnap-a-soprano kind, but the normal teenage girl kind). I read the novel by Gaston Leroux, and I finally got a hold of the out-of-print version called Phantom by Susan Kay (which I highly recommend to anyone who wants more from the story; she really really understands the character of Erik and she fleshes out the mysteries of his life). I finally got to see the stage show when I was 17, and I told my friends and family that I could then die happy. Then I saw it again when I was 18. And again when I was 18. And when I was 20. The film even came out on my 18th birthday- even though I wasn't impressed by it, it was still really cool.

All this to say, I've got a long history with the story and the show.