MovieChat Forums > The Phantom of the Opera (1989) Discussion > Prostitutes? this move made me sick.....

Prostitutes? this move made me sick.....

posted 17 years ago by hollywoodfilmdirector
31 replies | jump to latest

Ok I like totally wanted to shut it off after the part with the Prostitute. I mean Erik was obsessed with Christine and all but wouldn't go as far as picking up a prostitute and telling her that her name is going to be Chrisitne as he begins to undress her. That made me soooo sick and besides as the story goes....

Christine- Have you gorged yourself at last, in your lust for blood?
Am I now to be prey to your
lust for flesh?

Erik-That fate, which condemns me to wallow in blood has also denied me
the joys of the flesh.

he's a Virgin..... please does anyone else feel the same way I do.. Just don't see this movie....

[–] fritzfassbender 17 years ago

Dude, he's a deformed opera lover who lives in a sewer; he's not going to get a lot of action.

Man's got needs, even if he is a Phantom, give him a break.

[–] hollywoodfilmdirector 17 years ago

lolololol that was funny.....it's still messed up no matter how you put it.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] WarpedRecord 16 years ago

Well, at least he makes the rest of us pretty desirable comparison. At least most of us.

[–] Carnelian-Zebra-Lily 17 years ago

I don't dislike this movie, i think its interesting to see another take on the book other than Andrew Lloyd Webbers version, and I think Erik's disfigurement was most loyal to the book in this film which I think was great because the whole point of The Phantom is that he is completely distorted. But I agree, the prostitutes were not needed. Why do people feel the need to sex-up the character of The Phantom?? These morons should read the book. Read the book and be captivated by the original story where the Phantom is actually disfigured, frightening, and not some figure of forbidden desire and raunch.

Erik aka The Phantom is meant to be completely distorted. Once Christine rips his mask off (in the book) he loses all sense of musical superiority and confidence and becomes a pitiful, pathetic creature who begs christine for mercy and love. That goes to show that he is meant to be a character who is not confident in love or sensuality, his only release from his physical ugliness is the beauty of music, and the beauty of Christine. He feels euphoric to find that Christine sees him as an 'angel', when in reality he is a physical monster who has never been showed love by other human beings.
Thusly, he becomes obsessed with Christine and kills/hopes to kill anybody who stands between himself and her. He is not an altogether pitiful, tragic character, for he is also a madman and a murderer.
The 2004 film got the Phantom all wrong. I appreciate where their coming from, but Leroux's character is not meant to be a symbol of desire and sexual awakening for Christine, he is meant to be her source of musical inspiration and also of complete terror. In the book, she is clearly terrified by the Phantom once she understands his villainous nature, and has no sexual feelings for him. She trusts him because she beleives he is an angel sent to watch over her by her father, and in a way he manipulates that trust.

Point being theres not meant to be any sexuality between Erik & christine and because of Eriks nature, why on earth would he visit a prostitute???

[–] crawlfan-1 17 years ago

Well, that's what the musical says; you can't be a slave of the lyrics in the song as opposed to someone else's idea of the character. The Phantom really is a lonely character, so it's perfectly reasonable if he were to get a prostitute. It just makes him more sick of a character, but who says we were ever supposed to feel sorry for him in this movie?

[–] ghoultown 16 years ago

I feel that in the book, Erik's terror is supposed to overpower our symptahy for him until the very end.

I think that Eric Destler probably lost his virginity before he sold his soul too.

Besides, the to make it work better for Englund and a teenage audience, they changed it to London, thus there's a good chance the prostitute was a reference to Jack the Ripper.

[–] skeletal_wings 16 years ago

I don't think Erik picking up a prostitute is that ridiculous in the context of THIS film. Bear in mind he wasn't born deformed and lived out a large portion of his life as a normal human being (playing the piano in a brothel, I might add). He was even able to make himself look normal enough to sit in taverns, pick up prostitutes and go to a bathhouse! You can't expect him to have the same emotional/sexual restrictions as someone who had been disfigured from birth to the extent that even his mother and father couldn't look at him, like the original Erik.

The prostitute moment might have been an unnecessary device to 'sex up' the film, but it wasn't out of character for this particular incarnation of Erik.

And if this version made you feel sick, I recommend steering clear of the infamous Dario Argento adaption. At least Englund's phantom keeps to his own species...

That was the weirdest weekend ever, except for the time I ate that mushroom on a nature walk

[–] glr-beltran 16 years ago

Yes,that´s absolutely insulting! (not to mention what Christine would think of that,if she knew it,she´s supposed to be a virgin,like most of the 19th century girls).I hate people who puts unnecesary sex scenes on Victorian novels-based films.As for the Argento version, ít´s nauseating!

[–] Yuna_Fantasy 15 years ago

ROFL... most 19th century girl's were virgins? Where on earth did you read that?? That's just BS, most would LIE and say they were to get a husband but having children out of wedlock was quite common in the lower classes as was prostitution.
Sex out of marriage was just as common too in ALL classes, know why you never hear about it? Because NO ONE talked about it! It was taboo! Geeze people weren't chaste and pure back then, they were human beings living in a world of overbearing morals.
The only change is we are more open about talking about sex these days and are not as tied up by what society wants us to be, we have more of a choice to speak out and not be judged. I'm sorry, but to think that people were all virgins and pure until they tied the knot is just... naive

Read up a little on it and your views will change, porn pretty much got a good foothold in the Victorian era thanks to the camera.

"Never bite into an apple without knowing what lies within..."

[–] glr-beltran 15 years ago

No comments...anyway,Christine was a virgin...and Erik too!

[–] Yuna_Fantasy 15 years ago

In the book yes, in this movie no. It is not a full re-telling of the story is it? It's just someone's take on the story. If it bothers you so much (people having sex) don't watch movies like this.

Again I state to believe that everyone was chaste in this period is just plain silly, sex is part of life and therefore people even do it in Victorian novels and movies *gasp* because it actually portraying real life.
If you don't like this kind of thing stay clear of R rated movies, simple.

"Never bite into an apple without knowing what lies within..."

[–] GeneticSugarKane 15 years ago

In this version of the film Erik isn't a disturbed and disfigured recluse trying to win the love of a woman in all the wrong ways... he's a demonic entity with supernatural powers... a manifestation of evil.

[–] spectrx 14 years ago

To the OP, haha ok so you watch the movie where this guy is killing people and murdering them, but what makes you sick is the fact that he hooks up with a prostitute?? Seems kinda funny to me is all

[–] LadyOfTheMasque 14 years ago

That's what I was thinking!

Honestly, someone finds that a man hiring a prostitute is sickening, but murdering people and sewing his victims' flesh to his face is somehow not so bothersome?

I haven't seen this movie in many years, but I remember the whole thing being rather disturbing. Not that that's a bad thing; I enjoy dark movies and literature.

House: Climb out of your holes, people!

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Yuna_Fantasy 14 years ago

ROFL awesomedom

"Never bite into an apple without knowing what lies within..."

[–] ceo-652-974360 14 years ago

I don't see why prostitutes are supposed to be "bad people" at all. Having worked in the hotel business at one time, I came in contact with a lot of them, and most of them were nice, friendly types. And then again, if all their "moral" customers stayed at home, there wouldn't be anybody in the business, now would there?

To quote a story, the Irish author George Bernhard Shaw, renowned for his icy humour, was at a very elite cocktail party and asked an arrogant starlet if she would sleep with him for 1000 pounds. After she'd said "Yes", he asked if she would do it for half a pound. "What do you think I am" she replied enraged "a prostitute?". Shaw answered "That, Madam, has already been proven, now we are merely haggling over the price!"

But as regards the film, I don't think it's unusual for a "virgin" man to go to a prostitute: if something goes wrong, you don't get mobbed at school next morning and you also have somebody to "teach" you how the whole thing really works. Much better than getting in a mess with the neigbour's daughter!

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cdull 14 years ago

So, sleeping with a prostitute is worse then killing people and making a mask from their skin?

Weird morality you have there.

Josh

[–] SepiaLife 14 years ago

My thoughts exactly, cdull. Gratuitous slaughter is fine, but sex is not? It's crazy how warped the minds of some moviegoers have become.

Optimism: Waiting for a ship to come in when you haven't sent one out.

[–] KittyGrimm 14 years ago

I dunno. To be fair, every adaptation of the story is different and if you want a version that's faithful to the original, you might as well give up now because there is none. Not even the Lon Chaney version is all that faithful and the author himself was part of the production. The ALW version doesn't follow the original much either, so I wouldn't call that particular scene pure to the text.

Actually, a lot of people find it out of his character, but I disagree. I kind of like the idea of Erik blending into the seedy city society and turning out, in the end, to be an absolute madman. He probably would, if he had the chance, and here he does. Also, I think it makes sense for him to find a prostitute and sleep with her out of desperation for human contact, but only if she looked like Christine. Sleeping with prostitutes was very common in that time, not too much different to how it is today, so I guess if Erik wanted to be like any other man, he would sleep with prostitutes as well as going out to taverns at night.

And don't tell people not to see a movie just because you don't like it. Don't you think it's best to them decide for themselves whether they like it or not?

---
I can't help being a gorgeous fiend. It's just the card I draw!-Lestat

[–] Tin Man-5 14 years ago

The prostitute in this scene is a literal interpretation of Mdm. Giry's declaration in the novel that the Phantom was seen escorting a mistress around in the opera house. He even speaks to her from his box about his mistress. Some have interpreted this to be one of his tricks, others believe it was Christine while she was staying with him underground. This film suggests that this "mistress" might be an occasional prostitute picked up by a lonely recluse.

I find it mind-boggling that the addition of a prostitute in this version is enough for some people to dismiss it as "sexed up." Turning the Phantom into a supernatural sewer rat with a penchant for sewing skin onto his decaying face is "sexed up," but a swooning, dashing Gerard Butler with a bad bout of acne singing "Music of the Night" seductively to a love-hypnotized Christine, who is clearly being sexually seduced, is not? Rubbish.