Get Squished

Kinda personal question but what makes Elisabeth special to you? (Trigger warning) And in your opinion, does it romanticise things like mental illness and suicide? I think that ‘Die Schatten werden länger’ is a pretty apt metaphor for how it feels to have depression and suicidal thoughts (depending on one’s interpretation of what Death is) or to be emotionally abused. I ask about the productions with Furuka Yuta as Rudolf and the recent one with him as Death.

Dear Anon,

‘Elisabeth’ is my ultimate gateway down the rabbit hole of theatre and story-telling. Before ‘Elisabeth’ I was mostly a passive consumer of media, but after, I started to consider mechanisms of story-telling, and saw how different performers can tell different stories using the same script. This taught me how actions (dictated by the script) are just that - actions; and before we can understand a character, we must delve into what the context is of those actions.

Of course, the music is also just phenomenal, and it IS a musical, after all.

TL;DR: But importantly, I love ‘Elisabeth’ because it’s literally written to be a “F*ck you, Hollywood.”

In this post I discussed how ‘Elisabeth das Musical’ managed to save crumbling European cinematic culture. I am very tired of the Hollywood conventions, and ESPECIALLY tired of the glorification of romance. ‘Elisabeth’ subverted both of these stale conventions for me, and I was able to enjoy an alternative to the popular tropes of: “the superhuman lover, the caged bird, lonely at the top” in a new context.

This post will be divided into the following chapters:

1. Elisabeth

1.1. Deconstructing romance

1.2. Wife- and Motherhood

1.3. No pedagogical message in yer face!

2. Rudolf

2.1. Deconstructing romance

2.2. Depression in children

2.3. Crushing expectations and grandness

2.4. Deconstructing masculinity

3. Der Tod

3.1. Villain?

3.2. Predatory lover?

4. Conclusion

Trigger Warning: The text below contains mention of depression and suicide.

Romanticising mental illness?

‘Elisabeth’ is admittedly a bit of a problematic fave to me; it does indeed romanticise mental illness. However! Contrary to mainstream conventions, ‘Elisabeth’s does not show that mental illness can be cured because of THE POWER OF LOVE! It unapologetically showcases the destructiveness of mental illness, and how it is a long and painful struggle without promise of success. And that is exactly what a mental illness can be.

1. Elisabeth

1.1. Deconstructing romance

Elisabeth herself is the clearest example. She was a happy-go-lucky girl who was not destined to become Empress (her sister was), and yet she was chosen as bride by the handsome and young Emperor, Franz I, against his mother’s will. It is the dream many girls are taught to have.

And yet, it was exactly after becoming part of a fairy tale that her life sank into hell. Not just because of Sophie, but also because of her husband. Her husband did not turn out to be ‘a bad guy’ like Hollywood will make you believe is the only reason a relationship will fail. No, Franz was just entirely ignorant towards anything Elisabeth needed. Franz’ failure as lover was not what he ‘did’, but rather, what he ‘did not’. I think it is very important to show how real relationships require compatibility AND hard-work, but that without both, it just won’t work.

1.2. Wife- and motherhood

In conventional media, a woman like Elisabeth’s journey would be to find ‘the love she deserves’, she would still be ‘someone’s romantic interest’, just not Franz’. But in the musical, her arc is preserving and exercising her autonomy, and make the best out of a terrible situation. Women are trapped in patriarchy, and usually there is just no escape. And therefore seeing the strength of a woman who makes the best out of her pain is inspiring, and more relatable.

Usually in media, if the woman is not ‘the wife’, then the way she is strong is her focus on being ‘the mother’. Elisabeth however, was shown to be a terrible mother! She was not callous, she was very loving in fact. But because she had so much going on, she simply did not have extra mental energy to spend on her son. I find it very refreshing that love is simply not enough to make human-relations work, whether it’s romantic or familial relationships. Saying that somebody fails in a relationship ‘because you don’t love x enough’ is shortsighted and backwards.

It is breathtaking for me to see a narrative that solely focused on a woman’s struggles without the romance, and without the shackles of motherhood. No, she was struggling because she could not be a person.

1.3. No pedagogical message in yer face!

I also absolutely love how Elisabeth is not an idol that we are supposed to learn from. It’s not: “women! Look at this woman and [be/don’t be] this woman!!”. No, ‘Elisabeth’ leaves its viewer alone, and does not try to impose onto any ‘how to be a woman’.

We are simply supposed to see her life, and sympathise with her as human. The story never justifies her shortcomings, and never glorifies her as the fairy tale Empress ‘die Junge Kaiserin’ would have you believe.

‘Elisabeth das Musical’ does not treat its audience as people that must be educated; instead it assumes the audience has a mind of its own, and can participate in the story as Elisabeth’s peer.

2. Rudolf

2.1. Deconstructing romance

Rudolf’s arc is likewise one wherein his mental illness is not ‘magically cured by romance’. The historic Rudolf was married and he was VERY unhappy in his marriage. However, his unhappy marriage was not the cause of his depression, nor did it really matter that much in making it worse. Rudolf did have a lover (Mary Vetsera), and they loved each other deeply. However, that was not enough to make his mental illness bearable for him.

This forbidden-love part of Rudolf’s life was so insignificant to his depression, that the writers left it out entirely in ‘Elisabeth das Musical’, and his arc was still perfectly round without it.

2.2. Depression in children

‘Elisabeth’ is an excellent example of how depression is not limited to certain groups of people; anyone can be haunted by it. Rudolf is able bodied, white, wealthy, the crown prince of an Empire, intelligent, etc. etc. And yet he had crippling depression, and it is NOT because he was whiny within privilege.

Just like with his mother, Rudolf is also not an idol we’re supposed to imitate. However, we are supposed to learn from seeing him. We first meet Rudolf as a young child, and because he was not given any help, his depression escalated into suicidal depression later on. Many people either don’t believe that children can be depressed, or simply don’t take it seriously. Rudolf however, shows everyone how depression can in fact destroy the lives of children, not unlike adults. Even better; he is a historic character who actually existed. Good luck denying that!

2.3. Crushing expectations and grandness

As discussed above, Rudolf’s struggle has nothing to do with romance, but crushing expectations. As Furukawa explained in this interview: “When Rudolf finally figured out what he wanted to do, he was faced with his country sinking into crisis. He was stuck in the situation where he did not have the power to say anything, and yet had the status wherein everyone expected him to act for the benefit of the state. If he did not act he would be a neglectful man, unworthy of the title of ‘crown prince’, but if he did act for the benefit of the state, he would be a rebel.”

I think it is very refreshing too that despite all the good qualities Rudolf has (2.2.), he simply could not live up to the crushing expectations. It is very important to see how failure is often not the inability of the person, but that too much was expected of ONE human being to begin with.

2.4. Deconstructing toxic masculinity

Rudolf performs a very refreshing form of masculinity that is a departure from Hollywood’s ‘male hero’ model. His entire character is centered on his vulnerability, but he is NEVER portrayed as the loser. Instead, we see a man admitting his vulnerability and looking his depression in the eyes, and never being ashamed of it. He never blames himself for ‘not being man enough’ to live up to social expectations. Instead of “becoming a proper man!!” Rudolf knows that what he needs is compassion, a person he can talk to (his mother), and a fucking break.

Death is almost always without exception ‘punishment’ in stories. However, with Rudolf there were clearly external factors that have nothing to do with his supposed inaptness. The perpetrator was active in the sense that LITERAL Death manipulating him into committing suicide. Rudolf was a victim instead of someone punished for a “sin of not being man enough”.

3. Der Tod

3.1. Villain?

I am very tired of the good vs evil dichotomous story telling of Hollywood. Another thing I love about this musical is how it is entirely ambiguous who the villain is. It’s easy to point at Der Tod, but is he really the villain?

The script of this ingenious musical is written so freely that depending on the performers/director, the villain is either ambiguous, or non-existent, WITHOUT the story being vague. Depending on the actor of Der Tod, he is either an actual entity who governs over life and death, or the product of one’s imagination.

3.2. Predatory lover?

Der Tod’s existence and his pursuit of Elisabeth’s ‘love’ is the main factor that plays in saying “‘Elisabeth’ romanticises mental illness”. But depending on how the performers of Elisabeth and Der Tod interpret these roles, the story either becomes:

a toxic romance that is self-aware of its toxicity,

or like how Furukawa Yuta and Manaki Reika in 2019 managed, into a heroic tale of preserverence and a battle of wits.

Most importantly, in (most) non-Takarazuka versions, after Elisabeth dies, she is not there anymore to ‘reciprocate’ Der Tod’s feelings. She is just gone. Only in the Takarazuka version (I believe) does she enter the Underworld and actively becomes Der Tod’s lover.

So outside Takarazuka’s version, Der Tod is never rewarded with ‘a lover’; he simply gets his prey as a predator. Whether this ‘predator’ is a lover however, is again up to interpretation. But otherwise, death getting a mortal is just a very natural phenomenon, not victory as Furukawa puts it.

4. Conclusion

In conclusion, yes, ‘Elisabeth das Musical’ does have many elements that may qualify it as ‘a romanticisation of mental illness’, but ultimately I think it is not just that simple.

We must consider what the message is that the musical sends, and it is NOT: “because Elisabeth/Rudolf are mentally ill, they embark on an epic journey.” If anything, the musical makes very clear that the mental illnesses of Elisabeth and her son are the main culprit that MAKES them miserable, and that Der Tod is the personification thereof, hence his predatory nature. In ‘Elisabeth’, mental illness ‘preys’ on its victims.

The romanticisation mostly (though not solely) comes from the consumers, because we are conditioned to read stories like ‘Elisabeth’ as a romance.

We see a man (???) claiming to love a woman, and he chases her and won’t take ‘no’ for an answer. He goes through extreme means to impress her, and the story even comes with a ‘love rival’ (Franz).

We see a woman ‘yearning’ for something, and that something can only be given by Der Tod, and finally she does find peace when she is with him.

But, we must pay attention to what Elisabeth says when she is dead. It is not: “I’ve been looking for true love, and now I found it,” or “I wanted freedom, and you’ve been kindly offering it to me, but I was too foolish to accept earlier.” No, the very last thing she sings is:

“I have cried, laughed, been disheartened and I have prayed. There had been days where I tasted defeat in my senseless battle.Regardless, I have entrusted my life to myself alone!”

“Winning Elisabeth’s love” is the term Der Tod set without Elisabeth having any say in it. The term she set for herself is staying true to herself and not giving up; which she NEVER did. As such, THAT ⇈ was Elisabeth claiming victory of always having stayed true to herself, and it has NOTHING to do with Der Tod. She does not need Der Tod, she simply needed freedom.

fucked up hurt/comfort. the person who stabbed you tends to your wound. the person who killed your loved one helps you grieve.

reblog and put in the tags the similarity between you and your icon

Elisabeth Das Musical x MLP

集齐土豆召唤阴霾

请选择您心爱的土豆开始收割豆腐（bushi

did i spend the better part of an afternoon making this because i’ve been wondering about this for a while? did i expect this many actors to have played both krolock and erik? honestly i was worried i wasn’t going to have enough room for them all

anyway hey phantom fans, please watch elisabeth das musical and tanz der vampire. if this silly pointless thing somehow got you curious then hey check out my guide/rec list of non-english language musicals with links to where you can watch/listen to them

wuthering heights retold as a series of airbnb reviews

i need to talk about this beacuse i've been a poto fan since 2021 and i just have to say... i truly don't think raoul was trying to gaslight christine AT ALL in the rooftop.

the goal of his character is to protect everyone and make sure everything is ok at the opera. including christine.

one of his lines in "why have you brought me here/raoul i've seen him" is: "my god who is this man?"

of course he knows there's someone who's killing people. he just wants to make sure christine knows that it's not a supernatural being, because she is having a mental breakdown and because, at this point of the story, raoul thinks that if the murderer is only a man then he can be defeated and is not as dangerous as a literal monster (that's a reason why he tells christine "you said yourself he was nothing but a man... YET while he lives, he will haunt us till we're dead".)

he even checks to see what is happening when she asks "what was that?". he does care. that's why he's telling her all this. he wants to make her feel safe and calm.

while erik is blinded by the dark he has lived in his entire life, raoul is, at the same time, blinded by the light and his position. he is naïve (and maybe a bit dumb) but he has a heart of gold. he only wishes good for everyone (even for erik in some way. i mean, notice how he gives him advice. and, also, him and christine met because he went to fetch her scarf!! this dude wants to help others!!). and it seems to be hard for him to accept that not the entire world will be good and that not everything will always go the way he wants it to go.

he has blind optimism.

and his journey is to see life and the world as it is. it's personal growth. it's letting go of the chains that held you down. and that is also christine's journey.

they both leave their caves and learn about life together.

he wants to do everything for everyone and he may be stubborn as hell, but he would DIE for others (especially for christine). he needs to be the hero, it's not until the end when he becomes the victim that he realizes that the world is more than what he'd always known. and now he has seen the good and the bad. and the middle of both. and he can carry on.

Today's observation is The Disabled in Monte Cristo.

La Carconte has some chronic illness that gives her frequent fevers and prevents her from waking up or doing things. Her mariage is not happy but overall it works. She is shown as a materialist and not a good person but her husband does not disrespect her and even listens to her at times. Her actions help develop a key point of the plot.

Ali is mute but he is essential for the Count's plans and he communicates with the Count with just some effort on the Count's part. He is proven to be agile and intelligent, he is very expressive and we know how he feels and what opinions he has on things. For being a slave, he has more space and importance than the hired servants. His disability is useful to the Count, which is not something positive per se but it is unusual.

M. Noirtier is severely disabled and we spend a whole chapter on him, on how he communicates and how his grand daughter found a way to speak with him. He can only move his eyes, so there is a family agreement to ask him what he wants and he can give basic answers winking or pointing with them. With his granddaughter, she eventually pulls out a dictionary to help him find the word he wants after he made her go through the whole alphabet looking for the letter he needed. Thanks to her, he can communicate with people who don't know him.

This man was first described as a lost cause. His own son looked at him with pity (or worse) and used him as an example of something more terrible than death, barely more than a plant. When he is given his own chapter (2 chapters actually) he is also given his own voice and someone who listens. And then, he also does something that affects the world around him and probably the plot of the book.

There is a great respect about these characters. They have dignity and flaws, they are as active as their disability allows them.

y’all ever see a piece of fan content about your favorite character that is so horrifically different from what you personally believe and you just

i love when people say "meg was so out of character in love never dies" because then i have the opportunity to tell them about the theory she was written that way as revenge against patti lupone and her one million dollar andrew lloyd webber memorial pool