STAGEnThe GreatnDeceptionnby David KaufmannIt’s only too easy to be cynical aboutnAndrew Lloyd Webber’s Phantom ofnthe Opera, and particularly about thenexcess and emptiness it stands for.nWhile lavish money and attentionnhave been spent on all aspects of thisn$8.5 million production — in ways thatnare guaranteed to impress the child innevery adult — its packagers forgot thenone ingredient that some theatergoersnstill, require: the story. For all thendressing, Phantom’s story is so vaguenVITAL SIGNSnMichael Crawford as the Phantom and Sarah Brightman as Christine in AndrewnLloyd Webber’s latest theatrical extravaganza, The Phantom of the Opera.nthat even Cameron Mackintosh, thenproducer, Harold Prince, the director,nor Lloyd Webber himself would benhard pressed to locate it. In his posthumouslynpublished The Musical Theater,nAlan Jay Lerner tells an anecdotenabout Lloyd Webber’s earlier blockbusternEvita: “As a clue to Webber’snfundamental concept, he said to menone day that what interested him whennhe wrote was less the plot and more anvisually exciting effect.”nLloyd Webber’s success, accordingnto the conventional wisdom, representsnBritish appropriation of the Americannmusical. But has anyone noticed justnhow simple his formula has been?nnnWhile there might be some creativenand financial risk in adapting Shaw’snPygmalion {My Fair Lady), or Wilder’snThe Matchmaker {Hello Dolly),nor for that matter coming up with annoriginal idea, Lloyd Webber hedgednhis bets right from the start. His firstntwo offerings, Joseph and His AmazingnTechnicolor Dreamcoat and JesusnChrist Superstar, were both based on anbest-seller—the Bible. Since then, henhas pursued and captured an evennlarger audience by manufacturing musicalsnfor which language is no barrier.nFor Cats or Starlight Express the experiencenof seeing them is enough—ntheir content is utterly meaningless.nJUNE 19881 51n