operafantomet:

despiteyourdestination:

Shaula Salathe as Carlotta (understudy) in the original Sydney production of Phantom of the Opera! [x]

It is unclear exactly when these photos were taken. I have reason to believe that with her closeness with Dale Burridge it can be anywhere between 91 and 95. It’s rather neat to see these pop up. :)

Since she is listing the original Sydney production as her stint, it should be between 1994-96 sometime. Cause the Melbourne production didn’t close until spring 1993, I believe, and then it took some months to transfer it to Sydney. It opened in January 1994. I don’t think Dale Burridge followed to Sydney, his resume lists him playing the role of Raoul for two years only, but they might have rehearsed together? 

neimhaille, you’re the resident Aussie expert, do you have any inputs? 

I agree, with your tags, soooo great to see full length pics! My brochures are full of tiny grainy images :(

Sadly, my two brochures are missing but I have my cast lists from 94 and 95 and she is not listed. However one of my booklets has Janet Healy as a totally separate page- she was not an ensemble member but she came in to play Carlotta.

http://www.starnow.com.au/janethealy/photos/2276338#!photo-1550620

I’m not entirely sure if the flyer was a stand in until a new booklet was printed. But technically it was during Helen’s run.

Dale was Raoul for my 1995 brochure and Peter Cousins for my first. That said there was some coming and going for Carlotta’s as far as I can tell. Pretty sure I saw Dale again in NZ and I seem to recall he was Raoul for someone else in 1994.

Of other interest is that Danielle Everett was Christine Alt (and understudy with Vanessa Fallon) as well as understudied Carlotta (she is in the red dress for A Carlotta Side Story) and had earlier understudied Mme Giry! (Amelia Farrugia is alt and listed as understudy with Vanessa Fallon again.)

So round about way of saying she may have come in for a short stint like Janet not really sure when?

Skirt looks more like Helen’s original than Christa’s (that was some squinting- the flared points of the tabs sit right on the top of the widest band of gold, while Christa’s sits a fair bit higher (longer in general but the tab position is usually more likely to move with a blunt relengthening.) So.. sorry, no help as they did switch a lot:

http://phantom-media.info/onstage/souvenir-brochures/international-shows-and-tours/australia

Edit: I spent way too long for the answer of “I have no idea” basically it doesn’t help when actors don’t have date ranges and there is no single repository! Bethany of the Carlotta shrine may have more specific info?

fripperiesandfobs:

Dress, mid-1870’s

From the collection of Alexandre Vassiliev

They’re that rare common-yet-not-common beast! In the time people hated, hated *hated* side parting of the hair and asymmetry. There are a few great books of photos of American’s of the 19thC And this era has a lot of chevrons rather than true diagonals in them. And this era was all about non-horizontal, it was all about looking long. So vertical stripes and chevrons were more mundanely pleasing even if the fashion was all “put things on an angle! Askew askew!”

So while the wedding gown is so on point, so on point, it is so on point that Erik was making quite a statement. 

So while I there are examples extant and in fashion plates and in photography, it is definitely a statement to do.

I must find that quote about hair being parted on the side being so unnatural and thank goodness it was just a fashion for women to return to respectability soon.

(via operafantomet)

fdelopera:

operafantomet:

fdelopera:

elf-in-mirror:

fdelopera:

Raoul Week QOTD (from “The Enchanted Violin”):
One day, a young boy from the town was out with his governess and made her take a long walk, for he could not bring himself to leave the little girl whose voice, so sweet and pure, seemed to have enslaved him. In this way, they came to the shore of an inlet that is still called Trestraou. In those days, there was nothing there but the sky and the sea and the golden sand. And above all, there was a strong wind, which carried away Christine’s scarf into the sea. Christine let out a cry and reached out her arms, but the headscarf* was already far away upon the waves. Christine heard a voice which said to her:
"Don’t trouble yourself**, mademoiselle, I shall go collect your scarf from the sea."
And she saw a little boy running, running, despite the cries and indignant protestations of a respectable lady dressed all in black. The little boy went into the sea fully clothed and brought her scarf back to her. The little boy and the scarf were both in a fine state! The lady in black was unable to regain her composure, but Christine laughed heartily, and she gave the little boy a kiss. It was the Vicomte Raoul de Chagny.
—
Notes:
* In this sentence, Leroux refers to Christine’s scarf not as “echarpe” (scarf), but as “voile” (veil, or headscarf), indicating that Christine’s scarf was used as a head covering instead of as a neck scarf as in the ALW musical. A headscarf or kerchief was often worn by Swedish girls and women in the 1800s and even into the 1900s, as in the artwork above by Anders Leonard Zorn.
** redeaths, Raoul uses the formal “vous” form to address Christine. Such a polite young man! :D

Fun coincidence: In some areas of Sweden, it was costum for a man to give his bride such a headscarf on their wedding day!

How interesting! I wonder if Leroux knew of this? Even if he didn’t, Raoul returning Christine’s headscarf still bears significance.

Though I support this interpretation, I can’t help but thinking “voile” might be just as much a reference to the material used? That the “voile” was some sort of drape made of a sheer fabric? I know Daddy Daaé and Christine played Swedish peasants in Bretagne, traveling around and performing for people like they had done in Sweden. But at the same time, it sounds strangely old fashioned that Christine would wear a head scarf in Swedish manner. Even in Sweden it would be considered fairly rural and something you’d be more likely to see on elder (married) women than on young girls. Christine, being unmarried and having lived in Paris for some time, doesn’t seem like a likely headscarf wearing candidate. I will not Lerouxify the 2004 movie, but this came to mind: 

operafantomet, I had considered this when I translated the “scarf” passage, since in English the word “voile” does mean “sheer fabric” (it is a French loan-word that entered the English language in the late 1800s).
French also carries a tertiary meaning of “voile” as “sheer fabric,” however the sentence construction is different when the word is used this way. If you want to use “voile” to mean “sheer fabric” in French, you use the construction “en voile de [material used]” to describe a piece of clothing. So you could say “une écharpe en voile de coton” — literally “a scarf in the manner of a veil made of cotton,” or more generally “a scarf made of veil-like cotton fabric.” (I think the word that you are looking for is “voilage,” which means transparent net fabric, like what 2004 Movie!Christine wears in the graveyard scene.)
When the word is used by itself, however it means “veil” or “headscarf,” as in its modern usage describing a Muslim hijab.
(And of course, this is only when the noun is masculine — “le voile.” When the noun is feminine — “la voile” — it means “the sail,” like on a sailboat. Leroux used “le voile,” so we can rule out that possibility.)
(“Voile” [masculine] also contains a figurative sense, like in English, where you can say “voile du secret,” i.e. “veil of secrecy.”)
In short, the sentence construction and the context do point to Leroux’s use of “voile” as meaning “veil” or “head covering.”
As for Christine wearing a head covering that in real-life 19th century Sweden would have seemed overly provincial, well, we’ve seen Leroux get details of Scandinavian life confused or over-generalized before. Like the interchangeable way that he used Sweden and Norway, or Christine being a blue-eyed blonde with pale skin. So it is entirely plausible that Leroux envisioned Christine walking along the Trestraou beach in Perros-Guirec wearing a headscarf.

Interesting, as escharpe is used a few times here, bolded with voile as a comparison:
Un jour, un jeune garçon de la ville, qui était avec sa gouvernante, fit faire à celle-ci un long chemin, car il ne se décidait point à quitter la petite fille dont la voix si douce et si pure semblait l’avoir enchaîné. Ils arrivèrent ainsi au bord d’une crique que l’on appelle encore Trestraou. En ce temps-là, il n’y avait en ce lieu que le ciel et la mer et le rivage doré. Et, par-dessus tout, il y avait un grand vent qui emportal l’écharpe de Christine dans ler mer.  Christine poussa un cri et tendit les bras, mais le voile était déjà loin sur les flots. Christine entendit une voix qui lui disait :
« Ne vous dérangez pas, mademoiselle, je vais vous ramasser votre écharpe dans la mer. »
Et elle vit un petit garçon qui courait, qui courait, malgré les cris et les protestations indignées d’une brave dame, toute en noir. Le petit garçon entra dans la mer tout habillé et luirapporta son écharpe. Le petit garçon et l’écharpe étaient dans un bel état ! La dame en noir ne parvenait pas à se calmer, mais Christine riait de tout son cœur, et elle embrassa le petit garçon. C’était le vicomte Raoul de Chagny.
It is interesting to ponder why that one instance it is changed to veil. Veils were not always worn on the head either, though shawl tends to be more commonly used around the shoulders. And again can wind up on a head. There is a lot of interchange for clothing terms. 
But the whole scene is about real courtesy and pretend- so it wouldn’t be reading too much in to this to work out if Leroux was trying to make a distinction as to the use or appearance of this piece of fabric.

fdelopera:

operafantomet:

fdelopera:

elf-in-mirror:

fdelopera:

Raoul Week QOTD (from “The Enchanted Violin”):

One day, a young boy from the town was out with his governess and made her take a long walk, for he could not bring himself to leave the little girl whose voice, so sweet and pure, seemed to have enslaved him. In this way, they came to the shore of an inlet that is still called Trestraou. In those days, there was nothing there but the sky and the sea and the golden sand. And above all, there was a strong wind, which carried away Christine’s scarf into the sea. Christine let out a cry and reached out her arms, but the headscarf* was already far away upon the waves. Christine heard a voice which said to her:

"Don’t trouble yourself**, mademoiselle, I shall go collect your scarf from the sea."

And she saw a little boy running, running, despite the cries and indignant protestations of a respectable lady dressed all in black. The little boy went into the sea fully clothed and brought her scarf back to her. The little boy and the scarf were both in a fine state! The lady in black was unable to regain her composure, but Christine laughed heartily, and she gave the little boy a kiss. It was the Vicomte Raoul de Chagny.

Notes:

* In this sentence, Leroux refers to Christine’s scarf not as “echarpe” (scarf), but as “voile” (veil, or headscarf), indicating that Christine’s scarf was used as a head covering instead of as a neck scarf as in the ALW musical. A headscarf or kerchief was often worn by Swedish girls and women in the 1800s and even into the 1900s, as in the artwork above by Anders Leonard Zorn.

** redeaths, Raoul uses the formal “vous” form to address Christine. Such a polite young man! :D

Fun coincidence: In some areas of Sweden, it was costum for a man to give his bride such a headscarf on their wedding day!

How interesting! I wonder if Leroux knew of this? Even if he didn’t, Raoul returning Christine’s headscarf still bears significance.

Though I support this interpretation, I can’t help but thinking “voile” might be just as much a reference to the material used? That the “voile” was some sort of drape made of a sheer fabric? 

I know Daddy Daaé and Christine played Swedish peasants in Bretagne, traveling around and performing for people like they had done in Sweden. But at the same time, it sounds strangely old fashioned that Christine would wear a head scarf in Swedish manner. Even in Sweden it would be considered fairly rural and something you’d be more likely to see on elder (married) women than on young girls. Christine, being unmarried and having lived in Paris for some time, doesn’t seem like a likely headscarf wearing candidate. 

I will not Lerouxify the 2004 movie, but this came to mind: 


operafantomet, I had considered this when I translated the “scarf” passage, since in English the word “voile” does mean “sheer fabric” (it is a French loan-word that entered the English language in the late 1800s).

French also carries a tertiary meaning of “voile” as “sheer fabric,” however the sentence construction is different when the word is used this way. If you want to use “voile” to mean “sheer fabric” in French, you use the construction “en voile de [material used]” to describe a piece of clothing. So you could say “une écharpe en voile de coton” — literally “a scarf in the manner of a veil made of cotton,” or more generally “a scarf made of veil-like cotton fabric.” (I think the word that you are looking for is “voilage,” which means transparent net fabric, like what 2004 Movie!Christine wears in the graveyard scene.)

When the word is used by itself, however it means “veil” or “headscarf,” as in its modern usage describing a Muslim hijab.

(And of course, this is only when the noun is masculine — “le voile.” When the noun is feminine — “la voile” — it means “the sail,” like on a sailboat. Leroux used “le voile,” so we can rule out that possibility.)

(“Voile” [masculine] also contains a figurative sense, like in English, where you can say “voile du secret,” i.e. “veil of secrecy.”)

In short, the sentence construction and the context do point to Leroux’s use of “voile” as meaning “veil” or “head covering.”

As for Christine wearing a head covering that in real-life 19th century Sweden would have seemed overly provincial, well, we’ve seen Leroux get details of Scandinavian life confused or over-generalized before. Like the interchangeable way that he used Sweden and Norway, or Christine being a blue-eyed blonde with pale skin. So it is entirely plausible that Leroux envisioned Christine walking along the Trestraou beach in Perros-Guirec wearing a headscarf.

Interesting, as escharpe is used a few times here, bolded with voile as a comparison:

Un jour, un jeune garçon de la ville, qui était avec sa gouvernante, fit faire à celle-ci un long chemin, car il ne se décidait point à quitter la petite fille dont la voix si douce et si pure semblait l’avoir enchaîné. Ils arrivèrent ainsi au bord d’une crique que l’on appelle encore Trestraou. En ce temps-là, il n’y avait en ce lieu que le ciel et la mer et le rivage doré. Et, par-dessus tout, il y avait un grand vent qui emportal l’écharpe de Christine dans ler mer.  Christine poussa un cri et tendit les bras, mais le voile était déjà loin sur les flots. Christine entendit une voix qui lui disait :

« Ne vous dérangez pas, mademoiselle, je vais vous ramasser votre écharpe dans la mer. »

Et elle vit un petit garçon qui courait, qui courait, malgré les cris et les protestations indignées d’une brave dame, toute en noir. Le petit garçon entra dans la mer tout habillé et luirapporta son écharpe. Le petit garçon et l’écharpe étaient dans un bel état ! La dame en noir ne parvenait pas à se calmer, mais Christine riait de tout son cœur, et elle embrassa le petit garçon. C’était le vicomte Raoul de Chagny.

It is interesting to ponder why that one instance it is changed to veil. Veils were not always worn on the head either, though shawl tends to be more commonly used around the shoulders. And again can wind up on a head. There is a lot of interchange for clothing terms. 

But the whole scene is about real courtesy and pretend- so it wouldn’t be reading too much in to this to work out if Leroux was trying to make a distinction as to the use or appearance of this piece of fabric.

Anonymous said: The scarf that Raoul rescues for Christine in Leroux isn't necessarily red, is it? It doesn't note color at all in my translation, but I wonder if that's different in the original French. Any thoughts as to why they chose red, if indeed it was the ALW production that invented that "canon"?

fdelopera:

Hi Anon. That’s right, Leroux never mentioned the color of Christine’s childhood scarf. It was Maria Björnson who decided to make Christine’s scarf red in ALW’s production. In Leroux’s novel, when Raoul reintroduces himself to Christine in her dressing room after the gala, he says:

“je suis le petit enfant qui est allé ramasser votre écharpe dans la mer” — “I am the little boy who went to collect your scarf from the sea.”

As to why Maria Björnson chose the color red, I have some theories, which I have written about in this post. I don’t know, however, whether these theories are along the lines of what Maria Björnson would have considered when creating Christine’s WYWSHA costume. I would recommend directing any PotO costume related questions to operafantomet and viscountess.

From a strictly theatrical costume point (which I have studied for 20 odd years or so, no biggie) could be down to effectiveness on stage. Red isn’t the pure compliment to blue but it is close enough that when worn together they affect the eye.

White would look too banal, and frankly looks like a gentleman’s item of the time. And it is her scarf from childhood so a vibrant colour is going to work on a staging level as well as creating a memory in the minds of the audience. Replace red with any other colour that would show up and you have potential for some off visuals in the minds of the audience. Her yellow scarf (looks like a banana peel on the waves)…

If it was black, grey, brown, pale blue, green of most shades or blue of most shades it simply wouldn’t stand out.

It’s pretty much a given that this is also why Carlotta got a new red dress- she was originally in the b/w dress for 2nd managers.

With a red dress she is clearly and distinctly set up in opposition to Christine, and underlines what we know of her and of Christine. And there is a wide range of red so it’s not a flat true red on stage either. Maroon and magenta and gold braiding etc.

broadway-idiot said: HI! I was wondering if you could help me out with something. You see, me and a couple of my friends are dressing up as Phantom characters for Halloween, and I'm going to be Christine. The thing is, I can't find a costume for her anywhere. I made a post yesterday asking if anyone knew where I could find a costume, or if I would have to make one, if anyone could give me some tips (since I've never made a costume before). Someone gave me a website url with her dressing gown, but it's almost $200

operafantomet:

…and i don’t want to spend that type of money on something I will most likely wear only once. Someone else recommended that I ask you about a costume, so here I am! If you have any suggestions on where to find a costume or on how to make one, I would really appreciate it! Also, I would prefer either the dressing gown she wears down to the lair the first time (phantom of the opera/music of the night) or her wishing dress, both from the stage production. Thank you so much for your help!!! :)

My usual advice is to find a silk/synthetic silk dressing gown in a place like H&M or eBay or maybe second hand, and remodel this. Sew lace around the neck opening and maybe around the skirt. Wear a top/bodice/other underneath where the area over the bust is decorated. Maybe with something like this? It’s expensive to use, but fairly easy to make, or you can put smaller appliqués, beads and sequins together to one large piece. Add a sequined appliqué in front and back. 

If you think lace is too expensive, you can for example buy a cheap white chiffon or crepe shawl, cut this into suitable strips, and trim this with a narrow row of lace. It’s similar to how they made this Hamburg one

I hope that gave you some ideas. Have also a look at this post: 
http://operafantomet.tumblr.com/post/95758077332/yo-f-del-sent-me-she-said-maybe-you-could-help-me

I just sold my two replicas, to non fans because no one here clicked the link to look at them :/ I let them both go at cost so $40 a piece.

If you aim for the original Sarah Brightman style you don’t even have to do much shaping, in fact due to the lightness of the material you can almost get away with a shapeless piece and just cut and bind the neckline. The belt needs no shaping and so you don’t have to try and make it fit.

huffposttaste:

Love is pepperoni pizza.

I’m vegetarian and even I want to nibble this. But I have just had a “do you make your own cortisol?” test and who knows what the synacthen is doing to my body in terms of hunger and satiation.
Am I thirsty? Do I want salt? Am I actually vegetarian or was that a 25 year dream? What do cat biscuits taste like? Why did my chai tea fill me up so much? What the hell are these ants doing still living in my screen?
Important questions brought to you by whatevertheheck synacthen does (aside from feeling like the plebotomist is trying to pierce your tricep with a tire iron) and a colony of ants that have also managed to check out how I taste.

huffposttaste:

Love is pepperoni pizza.

I’m vegetarian and even I want to nibble this. But I have just had a “do you make your own cortisol?” test and who knows what the synacthen is doing to my body in terms of hunger and satiation.

Am I thirsty? Do I want salt? Am I actually vegetarian or was that a 25 year dream? What do cat biscuits taste like? Why did my chai tea fill me up so much? What the hell are these ants doing still living in my screen?

Important questions brought to you by whatevertheheck synacthen does (aside from feeling like the plebotomist is trying to pierce your tricep with a tire iron) and a colony of ants that have also managed to check out how I taste.

(Source: addaspoonfullofsugar, via spacecaptsteve)

We are so incredibly sorry …

oldschoolphantoms:

… to our followers.

Because we have something queued up for later this evening that is quite possibly the most disturbing, confusing, strange, and intensely hilarious Phantom video we’ve come across in our collective 45+ years of being Phantom fans.

You will either find it to be comedic gold.

Or utter garbage.

You have been warned.

Either way; please don’t unfollow us.

Thank you.

- The VPA Staff

Oh hey, half that collective age could be just from me! Yes, 1985. That. Music. Video.

In amongst the poo that was today, I have stretch velvet. it rolls. It may work. But it is royal blue and wine red.

So I may need a new bodice (meh, easy) and to overdye the blue with idye poly Yellow that I know works.At $NZ20/m this is cheap and still cheap with dye. There is no bottle green quality stretch velvet anywhere.

I’ll roll a red strip tomorrow to explain what O think the World Tour ones look different.

But I have had a really no bad not good say and barely able to type. Tomorrow. No tags either as I really just can’t.

fdelopera:

*cries because stuck in Europe*
It’s a bit far away (all the way across the pacific ocean and then the continent) but have fun :)
Crying because I want to meet you both! :’(

And crying some more, even now. For many reasons. 

Anything happening next year that could link up with another big event to get a lot of Pahntom and Costume Nerds too?

Not the tour. Not that it needs to be said, 50 Shades of Paper Faces….

I am in tears. Not good tears. And then now, finaly too tired for them. And barely funuctioning to even press these keyboard buttons.