I am going to endeavor to tell you why.

When thinking about writing this letter, I wondered: what could add that's new? How could I possibly verbalise a sentiment that has been perfectly articulated by so many people over the years. Finally, I decided to return to my own personal observations and experiences.

In 1986 when your 'Phantom Of The Opera' burst onto the West End, it was clear from the outset that this show was different. I remember even as a child back in Australia hearing all these amazing things about this show so many thousands of miles away. The show's appeal was broad and far-reaching: Gaston Leroux's haunting story, your magnificent score coupled with new and special effects.

But if that's all the 'Phantom' was - great special effects and staging - then it should have faded away by now. Instead, it's popularity has continued to grow. Quite obviously, the show's appeal is based on something more profound.

I think the appeal lies not so much with the physical production, but with the underlying concept: unrequited love, the importance of self-image, acceptance, and the connection that all of us can share through music.

Perhaps to venture further, on a more personal level, 'The Phantom Of The Opera' does more than entertain, it inspires. I have spoken to countless people who say that this show, this story, this music, has moved them to try things they would never have considered possible. It provides such a unique and interesting insight into the human condition. Your true achievement was the perfect marriage of story, concept and music. The other great achievement was taking the gamble and hiring Michael Crawford to bring your vision to life.

I could spend pages detailing what I perceive to be the nuances of Michael's performance. However, I don't think that's necessary, you hired Michael and had an initial belief in him. I wonder where that belief has gone now? And after all, I can only use my imagination as to what Michael's performance was actually like. But, what I do have, is the privilege of hearing his fantastic vocal performance on the cast recording.

If I, and millions like me, can come to think of Michael as 'The Phantom' after only ever hearing his voice, imagine what kind of impact his presence would have on film!

This, of course, leads to the most-asked question: 'Why is Michael Crawford so popular in this role?' The only answer is, 'Because he created and gave us a character that touches our inner spirit.' He showed us the difference between acting and showing off - he never once tried to impose his persona on the role.

To make the role of 'The Phantom' truly work a special kind of performer is needed because the character is as much much off stage as on. The performer must have a presence, not just a good voice.

Michael Crawford had, and still has, that presence.

Additionally, you have to realise that we would all rather see an actor capable of performing this role the way in which it was originally conceived and written, with special regard to the vocal aspect. 'The Phantom' is not the kind of character you can compromise with an audience.

Michael Crawford has the vocal skill to sing this role. Michael has the acting skill to perform this role.

Moreover, he has the commitment.

I qualify all this through a personal observation, on that I was grateful to witness first hand. Last year I was fortunate enough to see Michael in concert. What made his performance of 'The Music Of The Night' so incredible was his ability to let us travel with him through the song. So many performers merely sing that song to us; but Michael through his intonation and feeling, takes us on a journey. For those five minutes we were all right there with him - there was no noise, no sounds of chatter, just this incredible quiet that swept across the stadium. I don't think there was a person there that night who wasn't moved - and we were all aware that what we were seeing and hearing was unique: not to be copied and never emulated.

Ultimately, whoever has the final responsibility of bringing 'The Phantom Of the Opera' to the screen will hopefully realise that this is more than just another project. He or she will have the duty above and beyond making money, the duty to capture the heart and soul of this story and celebrate your vision.

It seems a travesty then that Michael Crawford's contribution to the role and indeed the show, seem to have been ignored in favour of trying to appease a set of movie studio executives, who's mindset lies with Box Office appeal and the financial bottom line. I realise (as many people out there do) that there are so many factors involved with film production. All of us understand that compromises have to be made, but the studio concerned has made it abundantly clear that they are not interested in the quality and integrity of the proposed film. There even seems to be an 'arrogance' about the whole conception of this project. Arrogance because those in control seem unwilling to the engage the public who make this show the continuing success it is today.

Sir Andrew, 'show us just a little of your omnipresent brain' - and cast Michael Crawford as 'The Phantom Of The Opera.'

Yours Truly,

Rachal Aza