the novel and the movie

when i saw the movie i didn't know that i would be anxious to read the novel.
the movie is a piece of work . the use of lights ,the colours, and how busy is the back stage, the dancers, the singers , the actors on the stage , it was realy good .
and when i read the novel i noticed the same movementthe,same life .
there is no too much difference between the movie and the novel , the director succeeded in keep the spirit of the story and the actual events.
we can find that the main actors in the movie kept the same emotions, feelings and reactions of the alternative characters in the novel.
i think the only diffrence between the two works , is that the number of the characters is minimized.
and about the novel i didn't expect that the characters are so alive , espcialy in writing and expressing the phantom's emotions, it was facinating.
both works are ... inspiring.

i think that most of us are touched or at least interested in the phantom character.
that's because his character is complecated, he has many contrastive feelings : love, angre, passion, hate,he is sometimes storng and sometines weak.
and when he let Cristen go and sacificed his love for her happiness, was a very emotional,beautiful, unselfish moment. he was satisfied with a kiss on the forehead.
leroux succeded in making these feelings alive through words.

i would like to reply to your post in which you said that the only difference was taht some of the characters were minimized..well first of all can i say that Andrew Lloyd Webber is not a historian, he is a compser and playwrite. Raoul was portrayed as more of a hero and less emotional than in the book. Christine Dae was portrayed similarily, the persian, did not exist. The stage hand's roles were minimised, and the role of meg as used to portray christine and her as aquiantances;not close friends.

The novel is a totally different animal from the stage show and certainly from the movie.
One huge difference between them: Erik's deformity!
P.G.7.