Interviews & quotes that point to hidden plot

For those who believe, or want to, that there was more to the story...

Interviews & quotes that point to hidden plot

Postby honeyphan » Sun Sep 22, 2013 4:33 pm

The purpose of this thread is to share any and all interviews that were strange to say the least, or that seemed to drop hints as to a hidden plot; also that ALW/JS's intent that Erik & Christine were the true couple/love story. Here is what I have so far. I have more in another document, I'm sure. I just have to find it.

And please, when sharing interviews, quotes, etc, provide the links if you have them. Or the source from which you gained the information. It helps a lot. And I'll do that from now on too. I tried but didn't always, and now wish I had.
Thanks! :heart:

edited-- 3/3/07

Here's a winner--shows Christine did love Erik, and straight from the horse's mouth too...from Joel Schumacher:

I came back to Andrew and said; I will do it, Andrew, if Christine is very young. She must be young, that’s the key to this story. And I wanted her relationship with Patrick Wilson’s character to be the awakening of romantic love for the first time and her relationship with Gerry Butler to be the awakening of a darker, more sexual, passionate, obsessional love.

her love--not just his. :heart:
Also note that Andrew said it was a "very personal" piece for him...
here's the clip: (the video was taken down by the site- I will try to find it again)

from an interview with ALW: ... 25,00.html

.. But the Phantom has what he calls "a special personal place in the canon". He decided he wanted to adapt it as "a high romance" in those giddy, distant days when he was engaged to his first wife, the singer Sarah Brightman, and very much in love. Soon after seeing a campy adaptation of the novel at Joan Littlewood's Theatre Royal at Stratford East, he bought a copy of Gaston Le Roux's novel. "It's one of the most confused books ever written. It can't make up its mind whether it's a detective story, a history, a horror story, but much the most intriguing for me - which I'd never thought it was - a love story. Because it ends up with a line saying that on the Phantom's finger - he's exhumed, heaven knows why - they found Christine's ring. And I thought, 'Hello'. "

What made you think "hello"?
"It's that conflict in the adolescent girl. Her first love is Raoul, the gorgeous tenor who every mother would hope her daughter would marry, but the danger side of her, the rock'n'roll side, is the Phantom. We all know - us rock'n'roll dads - that she wants the Phantom. And the ring showed that she had a thing with him that you didn't initially imagine. I just wanted something where I could really let myself go and write a full-blooded romantic musical. So I did."

Here's another excerpt from another interview:

Question: The Chaney original, was that?

Answer: I saw that ages ago, but it was very much the horror story, wasn't it? Christine was the frightened girl. Of course, my Christine is not frightened of the Phantom at all.

And that to me really says it all. That we're not supposed to compare the book to the movie as far as how ending is thought to have gone, because ALW had his own ideas of how he wanted to portray this story and the characters--his adaption--even rewriting the ending and giving it an alternate ending for those who look more closely.


Here is a quote from Austin Shaw, when asked about symbolism in the movie, and the link to the page.

"There is a lot of symbolism in the movie." And "Some of the props we used do have a certain symbolism."

And they did have enigmatic comments.

This is my favorite, from the producer, and on the RUG site:

Q: Why are Christine's stockings was missing when she woke up on the swan bed?

A: Someone else has said this to me and I haven’t actually looked at the scene in that detail, because as far as I am aware they are not! Have a look on the DVD and see if it is there!.

IN this same interview, he admitted: "When you are actually producing a film from start to finish you end up seeing the film probably in excess of 60 times. . ."

And you're telling me he didn't notice her stockings were gone? Sorry, I don't buy that. But notice what he did say--he referred them back to the DVD, to see if it was there. To me, this was a sneaky way of saying keep watching the movie, you may find more. . .


There were a lot of interviews where they didn't answer the question, or they did it in such a way so as to create confusion--even to the interviewer. (which he admitted in one interview I have with Charles Hart.)

The following to me is a very enigmatic response to a very simple question. I feel it could have easily been answered--but JS was very vague (I think)

Q: What did you feel you could enhance about the story, that couldn't be done before given the limitations of stage? What changes did you make to improve the storyline and make it more cinematic for movie-going audiences?

A: I appreciate this question but it would be so incredibly complicated to explain the entire vision of the film and every cinematic detail. I feel the true answer to your question is for you to actually see the film itself.

The "entire vision" of the film??? the true answer???
You mean, it's more than just a tragic romance? :wink:

And what is so "incredibly complicated to explain"?? How hard is it to say--We hope to reach a generation of new POTO phans and satisfy older ones--how hard is that???? They could have said something. But they didn't.
To me it seemed like an enigmatic answer to an interviewer's simple question, which I feel could have been easily answered. And again, note he's telling the person to watch the film.


JS said this in an interview of companion book:
"It's been a very successful collaberation creatively because I take care of the filming and he (ALW) takes care of the music. Andrew's company, Really Useful Films, are producing the film and helping to finance it, so I've had an enormous amount of freedom to really create what I thought should be done with the material, and I've had Andrew's full support throughout. We didn't have a third party who might have been a stranger to the project coming in so that was very helpful."

JS was given pretty much full control, and he has made no bones in his interviews that he felt Christine really loved and was attracted to Erik, sharing deep soul ties with him. It makes sense to me that he, with how he felt, and ALW (whose story this was said to be in the special edition dvd disk) created a different twist to this classic, keeping it hidden. Why? That's anyone's guess.
perhaps because of Sarah, perhaps because marketing advised it out of worry it wouldn't go over well, or perhaps because it does seem to be the thing in the entertainment industry now, and they jumped on teh boat too, deciding to give alternative stories and endings.
No one will ever know, but I am convinced the hidden plot is there.

Also, if there is no third party--it's kept more secret, if they should have put together a hidden plot. And that could be considered helfpul. To me, it's kind of odd to say that a third party--which means probability of more outside money invested--was helpful NOT to have.


From interview with JS--found on p. 49 of companion book:
"Christine's relationshp with Raoul is really her romantic awakening as a teenager. But I think her pulll towards the Phantom is a very sexual, very deep, soulful union."

These are his words--he was the director. He would have told them how they should act it out and portray it.

and these words:
"But I think her pulll towards the Phantom is a very sexual, very deep, soulful union."

A union is the coming together of two and making them one.

Webster Illlustrated Contemporary Dictionary:
1. The act or instance of uniting two or more things into one as a) a political joining together, as of states or nations. b) Marriage or wedllock. . .

And to me what he was describing sounded like marriage.

They were soulmates, deeply connected, and they were sexually attracted to one another. She never looked at Raoul the way she did the Angel/Erik in MOTN, but it was about more than sex too--it was their love of Music since they were both the epitome of it, and there was even more to their relationship than that. . .


"One of the things we were all aware off as we filmed it was that there is so much of a visual feast to see that actually the film does bear viewing more than once because you can see so much more on repeat viewings."

I realize that with any movie that holds true--but that is how we found many of the clues--by repeated viewings. And I believe this was another veiled hint (they did many of them) to watch the movie and find them for yourself.


regarding the possibility of a hidden plot in the entertainment industry--a new fad???

This is from an article in a newspaper (i need to go back to WB board and look for the exact name of it, but i think it was Colorado Gazette)

The Gazette asked "Lost's" producers how technology plays into their plans for the show. Here's what executive producer Carlton Cuse wrote in response:

On LOST hidden plot:

"We purposely plant Easter eggs (hidden clues), including Walt talking backwards, knowing that people have the technology to dissect the show and find our little secrets.
"We know that we can stick something in for just a few frames or in the background and people will find it . .."

And ALW (or maybe JS) said they were excited because technology now allowed them to do things they couldn't before, if they had made the film ten years ago, for example. And that is exactly how the clues were planted--in the background, and often only for a few frames.

DVD players now enable viewers to do things they couldn’t do before. Such as find hidden clues that were stuck in for just a few frames of background.


JS said in companion book regarding movie: . . ."So I guess you could say that this was about fifteen or sixteen years in the making!"

I think that literally, it might have been. From a sleuther who is a film major and is working on a movie:

"When I was in the art department seeing all the many sets they were making, they had a whole shelf dedicated to research. I'm talking at least 100 binders full of pages with information, such as symbol meanings and building designs. . ."

She went on to say that the amazing thing about this is that each symbol, no matter how small a part it made in movie--had its own binder.
This shows me how dedicated researchers/ set designers/ costume designers/, etc--are in their research.

And a lot of research was put into some of those clues, because when you find the meaning of them, they support one another and relate to a hidden plot.


This one is interesting:

They say for an ebay auction:

Item desciption:

Prototype cape for the Phantom. We can't be sure if this precise cape was actually worn during filming because for most of the shots of the Phantom we don't see the cape's lining. Hence we have listed this as a "prototype" to be safe. What we can say with assurance however is that this cape has been worn by Gerry Butler. Black full length cape with beautiful gold lining and velvet collar.

two things about this line:

We can't be sure if this precise cape was actually worn during filming because for most of the shots of the Phantom we don't see the cape's lining.

Why should it matter if "we" see the Phantom's lining or not? To put it this way, it's as if they are stating that there are two different linings. That the cloak does change.
Also, throughout all of movie, Gerry made it a point to swirl that cape, to lift his arms, to do everything imaginable so we WOULD see the lining for "most of the shots."
So what they wrote in this listing makes no sense--unless, it was a hint dropped to watch the cloak lining.
And that IMO is the only thing that really does make sense regarding what they said in this listing.
Image E/C manip made by me
User avatar
Posts: 795
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2013 3:17 pm

Return to Board index

Return to Hidden Plot

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest