A Letter To
The Michael Crawford Phantom Movie Campaign
From James A. Yacobacci
May 26, 2000
Dear Campaign Members:
They say that revenge is the most futile of all ambitions. If that is true then, oh, well. Your campaign members and thousands of others have done everything they could have and then some to convince Andrew Lloyd Webber and Warner Brothers to cast the most obvious and best suitable person, both from a talent standpoint and a financial risk standpoint, for the role as the Phantom. Yet, if all the reports are true, and they appear to be so, then The Phantom of the Opera will be made with inferior actors, singers, and story. This is a most complexing, frustrating and anger provoking situation that defies a logical or intelligent explanation. All along we have been asking the right questions.
By an overwhelming vote in every poll, Michael Crawford is the choice as Phantom, so why not give the people, the paying public, what they want? Antonio Banderas is not able to sing the part. Already, spoken dialogue, musical key changes and story changes have occurred in the screenplay which the creators have explained as their desire to adapt the musical from the stage to film, when they are really techniques to cover for the lead actor’s glaring deficiencies. Why change a story and musical that has worked? Why cast a non-singer in a musical? Do not be mistaken. One sub-par singing appearance in a musical and singing at a birthday party does not make a person a singer or convey any special status as such. And there is always the same argument that the role of the Phantom would cover Banderas’s only bankable asset, his face, so why be concerned about his face or Crawford’s age, when both will be unrecognizable? Talking about unrecognizable, Banderas has yet to be in a movie where I could understand most of his dialogue. So that makes a lot of sense, take away some of the beautiful music and add mumbled, garbled spoken lines in a Spanish accent. Also, how economically secure is an actor who has had a series of consecutive flops?
And all those questions about artistic integrity. How could Lloyd Webber write such beautiful music, but be deaf to the tone, quality and ability of Banderas to sing the notes? I am not going to badger the point by repeating all the questions about artistic integrity, successful box office, public opinion, or the success or failure of past movie musicals. These questions have already been fully asked and then explained by so many great letters.
Still, we are left with the reason or reasons why. To explain it all as mistakes or stupid decision making appears to be the obvious answer. Is Andrew Lloyd Webber that stupid or lacking in integrity that he would prostitute his masterpiece for money? And although executive movie decisions can be tricky and involves an almost uncanny skill in understanding and predicting the public’s ever changing opinions, tastes and moods, are the Warner Brothers’ executives so stupid or incompetent? After long and agonizing thought about all these difficult questions, I have developed my theory to explain it.
First of all, even though Lloyd Webber has done a few cost saving moves in the past, I do not believe that he would prostitute his masterpiece for just money, especially since all this opposition would make even the most incompetent, money-driven entrepreneur a little nervous about the high prospects of a good financial return. And because being a movie executive today is so stressful, very few would be able to survive too many mistakes and bad judgments when millions of dollars are invested in their films. So I don’t think greed or stupidity could any longer explain this fiasco.
Then, why? The answer is simply ego, or should I say not so simply explained as ego – Andrew Lloyd Webber’s ego. For some time now, Andrew Lloyd Webber’s musicals on stage have been critic proof. How successful they are depends on how well they are staged and received by the public and not by critical acclaim or the lack thereof. As an artist, I’m not saying that Lloyd Webber is not bothered by negative reviews, he just realizes that his survival in the business depends on the public, or "his" public as it has become. He realizes that even if he turns out an inferior product, there will be enough of a financial response to it, because it is an Andrew Lloyd Webber product. Some hard-core fans will also not find anything wrong with anything he does and justify or explain away any limitations. Surely, no one in his position can live in this kind of world without some ego. What I believe will destroy The Phantom of the Opera is the type of ego that Andrew Lloyd Webber has. To uncover this, let’s examine his history and the evidence.
I personally believe that his musicals with the best lyrics have been his collaborations with Tim Rice. Even when critics were negative about some of his music, there were usually always glowing, positive comments about the ingenious lyrics. Early on, Tim Rice seemed to be getting equal attention and interest as Lloyd Webber himself. For any true partnership to develop, flourish and succeed, it should be void of envy. Finally, after three successful productions with the last, Evita, being the most successful, Tim Rice was sacked without warning. Andrew Lloyd Webber had grown to the point where there was no room to share the spotlight with anyone, even a talented lyricist such as Tim Rice. His explanation was very credible. He would begin a project based on the collective poems of T.S. Eliot and use those poems as a basis for the lyrics. Tim Rice has gone on to be a very successful and requested lyricist without Lloyd Webber. Do you not find it strange that a composer would not use such a lyricist again? In reality, Lloyd Webber has gone from musical to musical with different lyricists which only supports my contention that he does not wish to share the spotlight with anyone that could be referred to as a partner. Any collaborator after Tim Rice, with only a few minor exceptions, should be viewed as "one night stands." If he must share the spotlight with a collaborator, it will only be temporarily as he moves on to another project with another one. On the surface, this may appear to be nothing more that an artist who desires to work with other talented artists. Think again!
At the height of the popularity of his masterpiece and personal favorite, The Phantom of the Opera, Crawfordmania ran along side Lloyd Webbermania, or maybe even surpassed it. Although it was his music, it was Crawford’s voice on the recordings and his complete characterization on stage that brought the character to life. Still with so many great Phantoms, it is his portrayal that the public uses as its standard. After Crawford left the role in Los Angeles, he kept his close identity to the Phantom by headlining the national touring concert, The Music of Andrew Lloyd Webber. Despite his name in the title of the touring production, it was the name Michael that the adoring audience yelled every night. Even though there have been several different touring groups of this show with new music and performers, none have come close to the success of the Crawford headlined show. One of the reasons Michael Crawford agreed to do the show was the promise of making the Phantom movie after the tour. But Michael Crawford, and not Lloyd Webber, had become synonymous with the Phantom, and I believe that Lloyd Webber has become extremely jealous of Crawford’s fame with his creation and with a character that he identified with himself, an unappealing man who can lure a beautiful woman with his soulful music. How dare Michael Crawford steal his alter ego? This man must be punished, even if the film and the character he supposedly loves suffers. Or why do we hurt the ones we love? Andrew Lloyd Webber has no intention of resurrecting Crawfordmania, not with his Phantom. There will be Lloyd Webbermania or none at all. He seems to be willing to risk none at all. This even explains why he would cast a non-singer in the role. He does not see Banderas as a competitor for his fame. He still believes he has the fan base, Phantom fans and Antonio Banderas groupies to have a financially successful movie and gain more glory by overcoming bad critical reviews and poor singing. In the end, poor Antonio will be thrown to the dogs and cast away. He will be another on a long list of throwaways in The Andrew Lloyd Webber Story. I am sure we will not see Banderas in another Lloyd Webber musical after this. It will be too late then. The harm would have already been done. We would have lost another movie musical, and not just any other musical, but The Phantom of the Opera.
There have been many other examples of his lack of loyalty or envy with performers who have made his productions hits. Patti Lupone with her great success in Broadway’s Evita was not used again until the London premier production of Sunset Boulevard, and then had the promise of bringing the role back home to Broadway broken by Lloyd Webber in a most embarrassing and public fashion. Sarah Brightman with her outstanding success as Christine was not used again, and even though there were many other reasons for a failed marriage, he did not like being referred to as Sarah’s husband. Even Glenn Close publicly lambasted Andrew Lloyd Webber for not giving her enough credit for the success of the Los Angeles and New York productions of Sunset Boulevard.
Surely, these and many other incidents point to a pattern of disloyalty that did not seem evident in his early days. Can they be explained away as just thoughtlessness, artistic temperament and license, professional jealously, or even ruthlessness? The answer is yes to all the above. But, the single motive behind all of this is ego.
As I had said at the beginning, the most futile of all ambitions is revenge. This might lead many of us to just concede, pack our bags, and go home. We are weary from the long war and it is now time to move on. Not so fast. If anything stirs human motivation and emotion to act, it is the blatant display of ego. We all can generate enough energy for one more jump, when we see the egomaniac upon the pedestal whom deservedly should be knocked off his high and mighty perch. We have asked him to consider our casting choice and he has dismissed it without even acknowledging it or giving it the merit of a direct response or explanation. We had strength in numbers. Still, we were discounted as if we mean nothing. Yet it is we who have made him successful. Such actions are more than artistic license or creative differences. They are arrogant. They are also childish. He reminds me of the immature, spoiled brat child who will break his favorite toy rather than let others play with it.
We must now boycott the movie for two reasons. The first is that we must remind Lord Lloyd-Webber that he still needs us, and second to remind all movie executives that this is not the way to make a movie musical. Although the executives at Warner Brothers should not be left off the hook for their part in this, I believe that they feel locked in to the choices that Lloyd Webber makes. It is a shame that this film will not only destroy the Phantom, but also destroy the confidence any other movie executives will have to make another movie musical. In the end, its failure will be dismissed as simply "the public will not support a movie musical."
It might appear to the reader that I hate or at least do not like Andrew Lloyd Webber. That is not true. I do not know the man personally to dislike him and even though I will be disappointed with a bad movie, it will not cause hurt to me enough to hate him. It is true, based on his public antics, that I do not respect him. It is also true that I do not like to be dismissed as if I do not count. But this letter was not motivated by dislike or even hurt feelings, but rather by logic. After extensive thought, I, as an intelligent and reasonable person, could not offer any other explanation why someone would not make the best possible film with his most popular and favorite creation. It makes both artistic and economic sense. Just as revenge may be a wasteful motivation, history has shown, on even greater scales than just making a movie, that ego can be much more destructive and wasteful. It has destroyed not only families, but nations.
James A. Yacobacci
More Letters written by James A. Yacobacci