I fell in love with the 2004 film idea of them shating a bond starting from Christine's childhood. As in, that of friends and mentor/student, which then turned into more from Erik's side as she grew up into a young woman and eventually from her side too. But that the original bond remained in there, too. It all made it stronger, deeper, more soulful, and therefore more fascinating in my eyes.

And I also agree with this someone else pointed out;
"Again with the believability factor, I think it has to be ten years. Starting from a young age, The Phantom could hold such greater power over her than starting with a full-grown woman. I think being in her life that long is required for him to wield her mind as he does, so completely."

...wow, that is freaky and makes no sense. Whatever the Phantom may do, he doesn't do Wife Husbandry.

renrae, what are you on about?

I prefer the original idea that he had only been teaching her for a matter of months. Mostly due to the fact that it makes her progress that much more impressive. In the book, a rather big deal is made about her astonishing improvement, which I think falls as a credit to Erik.
And although I do understand that things were viewed a bit differently at that time, I still can't get the image of Woody Allen out of my head when I think about Gerik. Which, you have to admit, is just a bit of a squick.

The ten years thing creeps me out. I mean, seriously, think about it. He's preying on a SEVEN YEAR OLD GIRL's mind and emotions. After her father just DIED. That's not love, that's creepy.

Yeah, so before it's not much different, either, but Christine is older then and not as shell-shocked, I'd imagine.

"The ten years thing creeps me out. I mean, seriously, think about it. He's preying on a SEVEN YEAR OLD GIRL's mind and emotions. After her father just DIED. That's not love, that's creepy."

If you want to look at it that way. But one might easily and validly throw in genuine empathy and will to be there for the heart-broken child and comfort the child in her sorrow and loneliness to which he could relate to and be the Angel her Daddy had promised to send her and she believed in. And he had every reason to not dare coming to her as a human being. It wasn't necessarely that creepy or selfish reasons, what he did. And yes, I know he was emotionally twistced in some ways, but I think the fact the girl was indded a child is an essential aspect in that matter.

I think the reason that so many of us have trouble seeing it your way, ben, is that in most versions it very clearly states what his intentions were when he first appeared to her as the Angel of Music. For those of us for which the 04 movie was NOT the first thing we were exposed to, it's really hard to separate it out enough from what we view as 'constants' from the other versions to see it more innocently.

Okay. You are seven. Someone you love and were extremely close to has very, very recently passed away. You are emotionally and mentally distraught. On top of this, you are being taken by someone you have never met to a completely new place to live-- a dormitory. You have not yet come to full terms with the death of said person, and now your environment is completely new and kind of scary. This is, by all logic, the state Christine was in at the time. And Gerik took advantage of that. I think that's despicable.

renrae...

Again it's all about the point of view. You feel he took advance of it for selfish reasons I assume, but some others feel he tried to bring joy and comfort to her, some feeling of safety to the situation, in the form of the Angel her father had promised to send her.

She got all that while he himself got a human being to communicate with instead of remaining all alone in the cellars, and instead of continuing his useless existence, he got to turor someone in something she by the way loved to do.

That can hardly be called 'taking advance'.
"For it is in giving that we receive."

This film's Christine didn't seem emotionally scarred by having an Angel tutor and watch over her all those years. She didn't even freak out when she realized it was nothing but a mortal man. So, I'd sooner believe she grew up pretty happily with her Angel.

But as said, it is a matter of a point of view. I however am to believe they didn't mean his intentions and motives the same as they originally are in other versions. Because I just don't see any sense in making such unnecessary and drastical change in the timeline unless meaning to change the motives/relationship development too.

She didn't freak out cause Emmy Christine is dumb. Say what you will about Leroux Christine being dumb (I won't argue) but Emmy Christine is also dumb. I don't think he did it for selfish reasons but WHY did he do it to make her happy. WHY. Why did he CARE. Yeah yeah joy and comfort-- there were plenty of other seven year old girls there who probably needed joy and comfort. The point is that he did all this while she was in a messed up state, and he had no reason to. Or something. Urgh, I can't put my thoughts into words.

"I don't think he did it for selfish reasons but WHY did he do it to make her happy. WHY. Why did he CARE."

I thought I already stated my view on that; he cared, and did it because he could relate to loss and loneliness, probably starting from his own childhood.

And what do you base on, your assumtion of there having been lots of children around, needing joy and comfort? I can't recall anything like that even implied in any version of the story. There could've been but might as well not.

And even if there was, Christine was the easiest to approach safely to both of them. He could not start playing an Angel for just any kid, but very well for someone who's believing in one, waiting for and hoping for one. And he certainly couldn't have just walked into any kid's life to be a friend and teacher in flesh and blood.

...but... he's... not... Okay. She's seven, he's twenty-thirty something. HE LIES TO HER.

Originally he's 50 and lies to 20 years old, naiive woman for obsessive, possessive means. How is that more ok than lying to a 7-year old in means to bring joy and comfort for both of their lonley lives and tutor her in something she loves? (Obviously his feelings in time developed into what they're meant to be in the story's time.)

But at least in this child's case he may have had respectable/better motives and intentions to begin with. Of course lying (to anyone) is not cool, but the intentions ought to make an essential difference. If you think they don't, I respect that but do think you're missing something important.

But anyway, obviously no reasoning, even sensible, can affect your extreme/hatraed pov. If it doesn't make (any) sense to you by now, chances are it never will. So fine. It really isn't a problem to me.

Agree to disagree? I normally am more intelligent than this and could probably make a better argument for my case, BUT. And yes, I do think his intentions matter- but I think we have different ideas of his intentions.

Yeap, quite clearly. So let us agree to disagree, indeed. (:

Hey, guys, I have found some factual evidence to support the idea that in the film, the Phantom's intentions may have been good when he decided to become her Angel of Music and that he and Christine shared an actual friendship when she was a child or much younger than in the film.

But first I want to make clear, that I think of course those good intentions were significantly over-shadowed when he fell obsessively in love with her. And that his intentions were selfish and obsessive after he completely lost his mind as Raoul became an unavoidable threat.

Ok, so what have I found? You don't have to agree with my interpretations of the quotes but do mind the quotes, please.

*******

"What kind of Phantom is Gerard Butker playing?"
Gerard Butler answers: "The kind who has so much compassion which is what all the film is about."
And to another question: "Like the Phantom himself who is full of love and compassion, the film comes at a time when..."
link

I think that speaks for itself.

"In your opinion, why does the Phantom love Christine?"
Gerard Butler answers: "He loves her beauty, her talent, her innocence, but more than anything her pain, her grief which he can so identify with, and have that bond and healing together. You know, I think he's always wanted to father her, swaddle her, love her, protect her, care for her and at some point it became unhealthy and more of an obsession." (This also had more to it that I think was saying something along the meaning that he wanted to protect her from the world that he views as selfish and cruel. But english isn't my first languge, so I'm not sure if I heard every word of that bit correctly but it would make sense, wouldn't it? And no, Christine didn't truly heal, but he thought she would and with good intentions didn't see how likely it was that she wouldn't.)
link

Gerry says "at some point it became unhealthy and more of an obsession." And Emmy says that the point when the Phantom started viewing her differently was when she grew up into a more confident young woman (likely going for independence and being noticed by boys.) As in, it was not so bad and unhealthy from the beginning of the friendship which very well may have existed because of how and why he loved her but turn into the unhealthy obsession at the point when his feelings also obviously evolved into something more dark and mature like sexual and romantic. As in, this doesn't necessarely make the original emotions disappear, just become more complex and even stronger.

And no, not every relationship that starts off good and innocent will turn into that. The thing is, in this case they were eventually over-shadowe or over-run by obsession, which evolved because he's not a stable and sane human being and she grew into a more confident young woman who he was much more potential to lose than a child was. And at some point he had obsessively fallen in love with her and as he wasn't sane, everything would seem like a threat of losing her, no matter how great friends they were among the teacher/pupil relationship. And as said, at the evovled feelings, the obsession likely reached into the innocent, fatherly protective means too.

Just because you hold someone in high regard as a teacher, doesn't rule out friendship. I daresay not too many call their parents by their name or address them "my dear friend" even though they have a name and may be even your best friend. You just don't address them that way because they still are supposed to be an authority figure to you and you respect them as a parent too. But they can still be your best friend whoh you have good times with. Also, she thought of him as a 'strange angel' and didn't freak out when she found out that he was only a man, resulting to that she must have had a subconscious understanding and acceptance that he might not be an actual angel. She freaked out because he wanted to marry her or because she thought she saw a reflection of her in a wedding dress which she wasn't wearing, she didn't freak out because he was a mortal man.

Pat Kenny: "I heard you cooked for Gerry? Why did you cook for Gerry?"
Emmy Rossum: "You know, because in the movie the Phantom and Christine have a bond that's been over so many years of their life and they've shared so much together, so we really wanted to create a great affect friendship too. So he would take me to concerts at Royal Opera Hall and I'd cook for him."
link

I also saw an interview where she or Gerry, I can't remember which, said that Christine literally grew up with the Phantom, when they were regarding the strength of her bond to the Phantom when she was struggling between him and Raoul. Which to me is saying that the child Christine had more of him than just speaking to her in her dreams as a distant angel. I'm sorry I can't remember which interview that was, if I ever do refind it, I'll let you know.

And in any case, I mean not so much the number of years they'd had a bond but what she said about the relationship's content during those years. She said "they shared so much together." Of course that alone can be interpret in many ways but then she also said that because of their characters's bond (in which they'd shared so much together), she and Gerry "really wanted to create a great affect friendship too". To me it seems she was saying that the Phantom and Christine shared so much together in a great affect friendship bond, and so the actors wanted to create such too, to get even more natural affect into their chemistry when they portray the characters.

I think that E/C knowing for 10 years gives them a stronger bond, whereas knowing for 3 months is more like an obsessive crush. 10 years gives them a chance to know each other well, become friends, and who hasn't ever fallen in love with their best friend? This makes their love story so much more feasible.

This strong connection comes into play when Raoul reenters Christine's life. If she knew the Phantom for a matter of mere months, Raoul would, sadly, be the choice she makes, because she knows him better. If she has known Erik since she was seven (2004 film version), however, he would have experienced with her what Raoul didn't. After all, you have to know someone well to fall in love, don't you? Christine and Raoul, despite being childhood sweethearts, have been parted for 10 years. How well can they know each other?

I also like to think that Erik felt sympathy for her, and felt for her because he understood what its like to be lonely, to be sad. So he befriended her, to show her that someone cares.

He loves her beauty, her talent, her innocence, but more than anything her pain, her grief which he can so identify with, and have that bond and healing together
~ Gerard Butler on Erik

These two saddened souls, who have seen the cruelty and bitterness of the world, can identify with each other. And with their love, find happiness.

Romeo and Juliet.
This is probably one of the most famous romances in the history of literature. I doubt that anyone would argue that they were not deeply in love and very ardently devoted to one another.
I don't even think they knew each other for a whole month by the course of the play. My point being, time doesn't make it any more plausable. And, personally, I have never ever fallen for very close guy friends. They wind up very firmly in the 'brother' category, and it would be super creepy if they ever tried to come on to me. Fortunately, I've always ended up in the 'sister' category as well, so I suppose it's just a sort of odd concept for me to consider.
The way I've always seen it is that Erik was desperately lonely, but unsure how exactly to go about changing that. He happens to notice a very beautiful singer in the chorus who is emotionally vaunerable, and innocent in such a way that she believes basically whatever she is told. He offers her assistance in a bid to win gratitude and affection from her, and when she assumes him to be the Angel her dead father promised her, he just goes with it.
The shorter period might also account for the level of obsessiveness. It's like being in the honeymoon phase. The hormones and chemicals in the brain are still spiked and dancing, so you just kind of gloss over any doubts or worries because the love buzz feels too good to get rid of. Except in his case, any perceived obstacles just pushed him deeper into his delusions (He was convinced she loved him for himself, and God help you if you argued with the man on that point).

10