I've loved watching this version of Leroux's Phantom for atleast three or four years, but I cannot understand why the hell he gets a prostitute. I thought that maybe he just feels like 'company' but then, howcome he avoids one who approaches him, but then offers 'the arm' to another? Was it because she reminded him of Christine? I'm so confused :-(
shareIt would seem so, what with his line to her that "Tonight, your name is Christine"
shareOMG! Really? I never heard him say that....oh well it must be the recording I have that you don't hear it. Thanks! :-)
When he rejected the other girl, wasn't he working on his music at the time??
We all know how fanatical Erik is about music.
I always thought that, the prostitute had long dark hair like Christine, so he chose her to release any sexual tension. So he could continue to lure and teach Christine, without jumping her in a fit of lust during a lesson or something??
"Hey Erik what if we play this in D minor...Oh Good God!!"
"C'mon bay don't be like that.."
He is still only human after all?? :)
ROTFLMAO Yeah I think you are right. She did kinda look like her what with the hair and all. I thought "The Arm" was great too. :)
shareAll I know is, that if I was the prostitute, I would not have been so quik to turn the light on. I wiuld have been more like,
"Yes! The dark, have to do it in the dark! And blind folds!! Yep I always have to do it with a blindfold on,.....can you wear this rubber Nixon mask?"
He!He!
Pretty funny.
Actually, I think it'd be: "can you wear this rubber Garfield mask?"
Hopelessly in love with Uma Thurman and Emmy Rossum
Erik has a prostitute that he carts around in the original book. They're staying faithful to the source, and both the book and the film speculate that he keeps a prostitute close at hand because he cannot have the innocent Christine. Trash for trash, I guess. It makes sense.
shareO don't recall erik having a prostitute in the book. tell me, what section of the original book can i find the proof that erik had a prostitute?
shareThe Phantom was "seen" bringing a mistress with him to Box Five on several occassions.
shareYou know... it's incredibly sad... I never got that reference before now. Great. Now I feel incredibly stupid. Or maybe it'd be naive?
share
i guess its because im completely hooked on the ALW romance musical and all, but i never even considered that Erik would NEED any "sexual" releases. I always imagined that he was an ugly virgin. Of course, if he really looked like Gerard Butler and I was Christine, I'd definitely screw him. But still, wasnt there a line from the musical thats like "that fate which condemns me to wallow in blood has also denied me the joys of the flesh...?" oh well after all i havent even seen this movie. if theyre not singing music of the night, then i cant bear it.
Audrey Winward
they do indeed sing Music of the night... several times... ;)
shareAside from the bit about Erik's escort in the original book (Mme. Giry relates to the managers that the Ghost asks her to bring a fan for "his lady") I think it's also a nod to Charles Baudelaire, who kept one woman for physical pleasure (i.e., sex) and another for spiritual pleasure (he never touched her). OK, maybe not a conscious nod, or even an unconscious nod -- maybe it's just my Classics B.A. rearing its head -- but it's interesting...After all, in the original book, Erik himself admits he never laid so much as a finger on Christine sexually.
shareDOn't worry, LittleZebra333, I didn't get it either... Though he did say he'd never kissed a woman before.
I just watched the Englund version last nightwhile kitting my bunny bag, I saw it on HBO. haha, funny story really - I had it on Hidef and couldn't get the picture, so I just listened to like half the movie!!! haha, im such a dork...
But it WAS good... and I would have given anything to be that prostitute.
Or Christine after he hasn't had a prostitute.
D minor, indeed. muwahahahahahahahahaha.....
I'm working on getting the Kay version book... I'm entering that blasted contest...
Did anyone else feel a sort of Jack the ripper vibe going on with the Englund Phantom??
shareYeah, i sorta got the Jack The Ripper kind of vibe from this movie too. Maybe it's because it's takes place in London, and was set around the same time (or before or after) as Jack the Ripper, and the phantom walks around in a black cloak with his face hidden, and carrying a knife with him. (Which is kinda what Jack the Ripper wore if i'm not mistaken)
shareWell, actually, the lady was never heard nor seen. Leroux's Erik was undeniably insane, therefore there could have been no lady at all, simply his fantasies...that, or he may have had ulterior motives for claiming he had a lady with him.
Besides that, Erik had never kissed a woman before Christine at the end of the book ('My mother, daroga, my poor, unhappy mother would never...let me kiss her...She used to run away...and throw me my mask!...Nor any other woman...ever, ever!').
I just felt the need to point that out.
Are you ready to match wits with the Grim Reaper?
actually the "mistress" was probably Christine. they would have mentioned more about this mistress, but I always thought maybe it was the phantom showing Christine stuff.
*~If only I could touch it~*
http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=karatewolfpunk
Ah,yes? I think that´s was the excuse he used for getting a footstool and leave roses to the box-keeper,actually,nobody ever saw him in the box...Read the novel,i know it by heart!
shareThe heck he does have a prostitute! I've read the book nimrod and NO HE DOESN'T!!1 I am an Erik phan...and saying he has a prostitute offends me, ERik, and the Erik phan club. We shall sue you!
Yours truly,
the Vice president
Of the Erik phan-club!
I'm not sure what an Erik Phan is, but I've read the book, and I remember M. Giry talking about the Phantom's "mistress." True, he admits that to the Persian that he's never kissed a girl, but that could be read as saying he's never kissed an INNOCENT girl like Christine...Christine was his first encounter with an innocent who actually initiated a sincere, romantic (in his eyes anyway) gesture towards him.
Granted, the mistress passages are vague in the book; books are open to interpretaion. This film version interprets it as saying Erik needed to fulfill his sexuality even if he would never "touch" the true object of his affection, Christine, without her consent. If you don't like it, move on. I'm sure you'll find Dario Argento's version much more to your liking. Hee.
I read that part, but its reveled later that he threw his voice up to box five; he never actually was there. He was plenty happy that Chirstine just kissed him on the forehead; so I doubt the fact that he ever hired a hooker or something...he REALLY doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who would.
share[deleted]
Yep, its extremely vauge....
There also is the fact that he was ecstatic (sp?) that Christine just kissed him on the forehead
O_o the Argento version? ....I have a fear of that. X.x
He was estatic because it was Christine, the object of his obsession--the ONLY object of his obsession, his whole life, who kissed him.
Okay, so I was kidding about the Argento thing. But anyone who says that they will sue because we are suggesting that Eric might have been promiscuous really ought to get a life. Hell, Argento would probably tramautise them.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
Please never ever mention the phantom of the opera with Dario Argento or I shall have to hurt you.
shareFinally, someone else who respects the books and the true nature of The Phantom!
shareDespite the period setting, I think the producers wanted to make a post-modern Phantom movie, and scene with the prostitute is part of this approach. It addresses the fact that Erik has sexual needs.
Actually, I think the sequence works rather well. The scene where the girl awakens to find Erik gone, and her payment under the pillow, is strangely touching.
You know? For the longest time, I couldn't tell if that was the prostitute finding her payment, or if that was Christine waking up to find that someone (her Angel??? :O ) has left her a little present. I just recently saw that is was Maddie, not Christine, which I thought ultimately was a pointless insert (an obvious attempt from the producers to sell their film with a nice boob shot). It's weird enough that the Phantom doesn't find all other women than Christine repugnant like you might imagine, but then tossing in that shot of Maddie waking up in the middle of the night after the Phantom slashes up three thugs.... Odd.
shareI always liked that scene as well. Sure, on the surface it was just a boob shot, but it also was a nice contrast. It showed Erik did have morals and standards - 'Yeah, he guts people in his way, but he's nice to the ladies'. Except Carlotta. But he probably didn't think of her as a lady.
See No Evil - it's like King Kong meets Friday the 13th.
July 27 - Skinwalkers, finally.
oh man... lmao... very likely though, that makes sense b/c yes he IS only human.
shareI think he took the second prostitute because she bore more of a resemblance to Christine
:D
The Phantom didn't like people throwing themselves at him, or getting into his business. I would imagine this is why he reacted badly to the first prostitute. The prostitute who accepted his invitation did not offend him, nor did she bother him when she walked by. I don't think this girl necessarily reminded him of Christine, but she may have been the closest to resemble Christine. At any rate, he could pretend she was Christine while he was with her.
shareI've never watched this movie with Englund, but I'm going through all the threads to see if it's worth buying it.:P
Anyway, about the "mistress" in the book. The word "mistress" is not meant as a lover, paramour, but as a lady, miss, mademoiselle, you know? And, at the time when the book opens, Christine and the Phantom are already acquainted, not through the mirror, but face-to-face acquainted. If you will recall, he and Christine went "out" occasionally. And believe it or now, Christine was that "mistress". They watched operas together. But of course, no one knows the woman is Christine, because she makes sure her identity is not revealed. I mean, she's in Box 5 with the Phantom....
How can you read this? There's no pictures!
Well, some people use their imagination.
This version is worth buying if you can get it cheap, lol. It is a bit gruesome and gory (it's rated R), but not as gory as Dario Argento's unrated version from the 90's. Just don't expect this version to follow the book too closely! There is a masked ball scene, and a scene in which Christine visits her father's grave. However, these scenes aren't totally following Gaston Leroux's story. The production values are nice in this version. Suggested retail price is $14.95. www.deepdiscount.com has it for $9.58, and I think I picked my copy up at Circuit City at around the same price. www.deepdiscount.com has the unrated Dario Argento version for $6.04. These may just be the best prices for both movies if you buy them online.
shareHey! Yesterday I discovered that the whole movie can be seen on youtube. I typed The Phantom of the Opera 1989 and watched it in 6 parts. Unfortunatelly, I was very disappointed. I did like the music, though, if that counts.:P
How can you read this? There's no pictures!
Well, some people use their imagination.
I just got it on half.com for $2.50
Totally worth it to have it in the collection.
I have ALW, Argento, the original 1925/29 Lon Chaney, Claude Raines (is the ending a bit...well, I won't say - I may offend people...) and this one.
Which am I missing that is worth it?
It sounds like you're missing the 1962 theatrical version made by Hammer Films. This one stars Herbert Lom as the Phantom. It is available on dvd, but I think you can only purchase it on a box set that has seven other Hammer thrillers. It was a good investment, because I like the Hammer Horror series.
shareDamn me!!
Ok, cool - I will look for it!!
Thanks!!!
I don´t think Erik were in the box with Christine,he was on his own and I don´t think her to be flattered to be compared to a whore!
shareOh stop being silly!
You appear to have serious issues with sex!
She was NEVER compared to a whore, point out when she was in the entire movie? Whores were a part of accepted society in Victorian times, much more so than nowadays.
"Never bite into an apple without knowing what lies within..."