Phantom Of The Opera @ MindSay

Warning, the following essay may prove TL;DR. I am also extremely angry and passionate about topics, and can no longer stand stupidity. Firebombs may explode.

      Alright, I heard about the alleged 'Hidden Plot' in "The Phantom of the Opera" (2004 movie, specifically) a while back. But only recently did I venture out into the wide open interwebs to find out more about it, and quite frankly, it just pissed me off more. The rabid fan-girls who spend hours pausing scenes and dissecting them for "clues" have gone beyond obsession, but fail to realize that if you want to find a symbol bad enough, you can find it anywhere. I do not believe the hidden plot exists, I do not believe there is any credibility in the fan-girl's "research", I do not believe their evidence is anything but a way to justify every despicable move the Phantom makes.
      For those who have never heard of the hidden plot, allow me to elaborate; the believers claim that there is a second story behind the one we see played out before us. They have taken (what they believe to be) clues and symbols as evidence that Eric (The Phantom) is Raoul's brother, but possessed by an evil Phantom spirit. Madame Giry is a priestess, Christine is Eric's intended queen, and Raoul is a priest of the light. They also believe the entire Opera House is a kingdom in which Eric reigns as "King Music", and everyone in the opera house is aware that it is a kingdom, and not simply an opera house.
      Let's begin our essay with why. Why do these fans insist on a hidden plot? What was the purpose for even trying to find a hidden plot? The answer lies in Gerard Butler's sex appeal to 16-year-old-girls, and the actual plot's ending. Christine chose Raoul, and left the Phantom behind. Fan brats could not compute this, and ran off to make fanfiction where Christine realized her Vicomte was abusive, inatentive, whatever, and returned to her equally abusive (but hotter) Angel. Soon, simply pretending that Christine returned to Le Stalker was not enough for fans; they wanted it to happen fo realz! But they soon realized that no matter how many times they re-watch the DVD, the ending never changed. And thus, they decided that because Gerard Butler was just TOO DAMN SEXY to be left behind, there must be some hidden plot somewhere that reveals that Christine did, indeed, chose the Phantom.
      As I said in the introduction, if you look for clues, you can find them anywhere. But these conspiracy theorists (I'm sorry, "Unravellers") give Andrew Lloyd Webber and Joel Schumacher too much credit. Their first problem lies with their belief that every single set piece hold some kind of meaning, because it is concievable that Shumacher (the guy who put TITS on Batman) would actually spend hours upon hours meticulously scrutinizing every single scene he shot just to make sure this evil-looking mask was looking at this nice-looking mask, and these four bottles were placed here, all for the purpose of leaving audiences clues, hoping that one day some lonely, fat teenager would decide to pause the scene and unravel the mystery. The Unravellers justify all of the continuity errors and historical inaccuracy throughout the film by calling them clues. Because the number of flowers in Christine's hand change in every shot for a deeper meaning!!1. And because Christine's vacant expressions mean she's a high priestest bringer-of-light or some shit, not because Emmy Rossum is a piss poor actress.
      They scrutinize the lighting. They say that there should be no light coming from the catacombs during the song "Phantom of the Opera", as the pair are riding into the Phantom's home on a boat. Granted, they are right, there should logically be no light comming from that area. What they fail to take into account is that lighting directors can't think in terms of logical lighting, their job is to make sure the atmosphere is correct, that it makes you feel a certain way, that the actors are viewed in a good light, rather than depicting the world exactly as it should be.
      Unravellers have also given themselves the authority to warp the symbols as they see fit. The interpretation of a rose is their most serious blunder. When they first talk about roses, they say it means a secret meaning, but the next time the rose shows up, in context with Eric, it means true love. Yet they themselves say that the rose did not begin to mean love until American's interpreted it that way, much later on.
      There is a lot of explanation to be done, as well. Unravellers associated Eric, Christine and the Phantom with numbers and colors. The colors they claim have been decoded using the song Masquerade, but each time they bring up the number code they say; "Research shows Eric's number is 4, and Christine's is 1, and The Phantom's is 3." What research? How, exactly, did they decode this? There is never an explanation for why, but they frequently say "Look at the 5 candles, 1+4=5, so it means Christine and Eric are one."
      One of the main reasons this hidden plot theory pisses me off so much is because they only use it to justify every cruel and evil thing Eric has done. They claim that Joseph Buquet was a stalker, and a danger to Christine, which is why Eric killed him during a performance. Except the real reason Buquet was killed was because he knew too much, and The Phantom wanted to send a strong message to his managers. Another thing they justify is the fight between Eric and Raoul at the cemetery. They claim that, because Raoul was first on the defensive and suddenly on the offensive, this means that Raoul was possessed by the evil spirit to kill Eric. Because, you know, Raoul totally wasn't just trying to defend his fiancée from a madman. They say this to give Eric a reason to attack, but it is just an excuse to victimize him. In their world, Eric never does anything wrong. He is a pure, good soul because he is pretty.
      And then there is the blatant disregard for the stage show. First off, they wonder if "some of the movie's hidden plot carries over to the stage show." Because the movie from 2004 came out before the show that’s been running for 20+ years. They misquote the stage libretto, and use an alternate version of "Music of the Night" to enforce their claims. The alternate version of "Music of the Night" was a first (maybe second) draft, it is not unlikely for a lyricist to change lyrics that just don’t work.
      Now, here is my question for any Unraveller that has stuck around for this entire essay. I honestly figured most of you would be boo-hooing to PhantomGerry.net by now. My question is why should this plot exist? What logical reason do you think Andrew Lloyd Webber, Joel Schumacher, Charles Hart (Lyricist), and all of the set, costume, and lighting designers had for creating this? If this is the story Lloyd Webber wanted to tell, why not tell it straightforward? Why leave obscure clues, and wait for all the girls who didn't get invited to prom to sit down at their television sets and look for them? Do you even realize how much work it would take to leave these clues, how much planning and attention to detail it would take to pull this off? You cannot possibly think that the entire creative team behind this story gave a damn about a secondary plot. This is from Hollywood, and it's filled with people too busy cashing in checks to actually care about creating something that 90% of the viewers wouldn't even see. You can not take a screen cap of Emmy Rossum's face that lasted for a split second, which looks like she's smiling, and say that it's proof she wasn't scared of the Phantom during his rant, so the verbal abuse was all a-ok. After all, poor Eric was just scared and vulnerable when he took to Christine with the belt and made her kneel on uncooked rice for a few hours.
      And if you've stuck around after that, I apologize, but I need to tell you all off. All of you who believe Eric is sweet, innocent, and romantic, Get Over It. He is a stalker, he is a murderer, he is insane. Yes, xxFantumxCristinexxForever@Yahoo.com, he is insane. He is a genius, but he is mad, and mad with power. He is infatuated with a naive young chorus girl. All of the "hidden clues" in the world cannot hide the fact that Raoul is truly, deeply in love with her, and was willing to die to protect her. When Christine kisses Eric, it is a sacrifice to save Raoul, the man she loves. Nothing can change that. You may think she made the wrong decision, but you fail to realize that while Gerard Butler is a hunk, and Patrick Wilson had really bad hair in that movie, the phantom still has some serious issues.
      The bottom line is, Eric is Abusive, Raoul is Not. Eric is Deathly Jealous of anyone who gets near Christine. Christine is Terrified of him, even if she is strangely drawn to him. Yes, he does put her under trances. While he may cry at the end, and yes, it made me feel sorry for him too, you cannot simply forgive all he has done because he is beautiful.
      The hidden plot does not exist. Stop dreaming. Can the Unravellers please admit that the only reason they created this fantasy world is because they want Eric's magical lasso up their pooper? There is no hidden plot.