Another ‘Phantom’ Materializes : 13 years ago, Ken Hill, right, thought the Leroux novel would make a fine play; little did he know what a great idea it was

There’s a new Phantom in town.

On Nov. 28, Ken Hill’s “The Phantom of the Opera” arrives at the Wiltern Theatre, a short jaunt from the Ahmanson where Andrew Lloyd Webber’s “Phantom” has roosted since June. Giant print ads hail the distinctions: “The original London stage musical” is Hill’s motto. “Ours is an out-and-out comedy--with the music of Donizetti, Bach and Verdi,” says producer Jonathan Reinis.

Most importantly, notes the Hill camp, Lloyd Webber has acknowledged that he got his inspiration after seeing Hill’s “Phantom.”

“In 1976, I was asked to do a show for a theater in the north of England, who wanted something fun,” said the British-born Hill, 52. “It was for their summer season, for people who didn’t normally go to the theater. I picked up a copy of (Gaston Leroux’s novel) and read it for the first time. I had no idea it existed. I’d never even see the old Claude Rains movie. But I knew there was a great story there.

“It’s not so much the story of the Phantom himself,” he stressed. “Mostly it’s the effect the Phantom is having on these respectable, boring people who’re trying to run an opera house--and there’s a lunatic hiding out in the building. I saw the real comic potential in that.”

In his original staging, Hill utilized the score of a composer he was working with then. That has since been replaced with the music of Mozart, Weber and Offenbach.

“Of course, opera buffs will know all this material,” noted Hill. “They usually quite enjoy the show. You see, we poke a little fun at opera and opera singers--because opera, like any art form, can get rather pompous. So we have a theater manager, a secretary, a fat opera tenor, a diva who throws her weight around, a pretty little ballerina who’s always flitting in and out. . . .” The accompaniment includes keyboards, percussion, bass, cello, French horn and oboe. “It’s a very nice sound,” Hill says. “Rather unobtrusive and gentle.”

After “Phantom’s” provincial run (Hill reports rave reviews--”but not by any of the major critics, because they don’t travel”), he revived the work in a London theater in 1984.

The London production was seen by Lloyd Webber and his producer Cameron Mackintosh--who then offered to produce Hill’s revised staging in the West End. A few weeks later, Mackintosh called to notify Hill that Lloyd Webber had decided to write his own “Phantom.”

Said Hill, “In hindsight, I’m very relieved. They wanted it to be a big show. And mine’s a comedy thriller, a small show. Therefore, I still have it exactly as I feel it should be.”

No feelings of encroachment? Hill shook his head wearily. “You have to understand--I’ve said this over and over again--I really don’t feel that strongly about Andrew’s decision to go off and do his own show. I’m not a friend of Andrew’s, but I know him well enough to know the sort of person he is. I actually quite like Andrew. And Cameron’s fine. He doesn’t care about this production. I’ve gotten letters from him saying good luck and that sort of thing; there’s plenty of room for both our shows.”

And how does Lloyd Webber feel?

“Andrew’s another matter,” he sighed, “because his ego is involved. Obviously, he doesn’t like it to be said that if it wasn’t for me, his (“Phantom”) wouldn’t exist--that this is where the idea came from. So he’s careful to avoid any mention of it.”

Hill paused. “No, I haven’t seen his show. Why should I? He’s never sent me a ticket. I cannot comment on it because I haven’t seen it. Perhaps it’s better for me not to have seen it.”

Why? “Lots and lots of reasons. For one, I might be tempted to make some changes in my show, mightn’t I? And since I haven’t seen it, I also cannot comment on anything else, like . . . similarities.”

He stopped, silently regarding the tape recorder. “I have to be careful what I say. I cannot afford to say anything inadvertently which would get me sued. Look, everyone has a private face and a public face. Andrew’s public face is that he doesn’t like any kind of criticism.

“He was perfectly entitled to go off and write his own ‘Phantom,’ ” Hill repeated. “He’s not done anything improper or illegal at all.” He clears his throat. Subject closed.

Director Peter Farago staged Hill’s work in St. Louis in 1986 and in San Francisco in 1988, but Hill disassociates himself from those stagings. “This time I wanted to direct it myself and make it a more classy venture. I wanted to take out the broadness and campery that had crept into it. You see, it’s not a huge musical. It’s small in dimension. Small in the number of people on stage. Small in force. Fourteen actors, two understudies and six musicians. In England, it’s what we’d call a play with songs.

“I’m reproducing an old production,” Hill noted of his current duties. “Nevertheless, I’m having to do it for America--and there are differences. The text changes are small, just odd words that Americans don’t use or understand. My main problem is that it’s a comedy, and English comedy doesn’t always travel well. Back home the graveyards are littered with the bones of English comedians who’ve died in America. So there are little moments in the play where the humor still needs work, to make it accessible to American audiences.”

So far, the reception has been warm.

“I purchased the North American rights, mounted it at my Theatre on the Square in San Francisco in 1988 and it ran for 10 months,” said producer Reinis. “Over 200,000 people saw it. It grossed in excess of $3.4 million. Then I licensed the show to a national touring promoter, Electric Factory Concerts in Philadelphia.” Electric’s Allen Spivak has since overseen the play’s 35-city trek. Variety reported last week that the tour recouped its $1 million cost after only eight weeks on the road. The show will travel to Symphony Hall in San Diego from Dec. 19-31.

Earlier in the tour, reports surfaced of audience confusion over which “Phantom” they were seeing. Last June, Spivak and partner Larry Magid filed federal lawsuits in Georgia and Ohio alleging that local promoters were impeding their booking efforts. “The (Atlanta) paper ran the wrong ad, which didn’t have the disclaimer where we clearly say who we are,” Spivak explained curtly. “So we did have a little confusion. But there’s been no problem since then, a minor amount of refunds. And there’s no current litigation.”

Hill himself is visibly uncomfortable at the idea that audiences would attend his show by mistake. “I’m very anxious that that should not happen,” he said soberly. “Because if they come with the wrong expectations--expecting a spectacular, then not getting one--we’re in trouble, no matter how entertaining the play is. But you know, I don’t care about standing up to Andrew. My work’s all right. I know exactly where the play is, how good it is. It has good standards. It’s very well done.”

Still, he admitted, the David and Goliath metaphor hasn’t been that far off the mark.

“There was a period when it was very difficult to get dates. People said, ‘Yes, we’ll take it,’ then changed their minds. A theater manager doesn’t know the history of our show. For all he knows, we’re just some cheap-jack merchants hanging on Andrew’s coat-tails and trying to make some quick bucks. So naturally we’ve been treated with some suspicion.”

Hill’s producers flatly deny the charge of riding on anybody’s coat-tails. “I prefer to say it’s a case of an author getting his just deserts,” Reinis stated. “If Webber and Mackintosh hadn’t changed their minds, my ‘Phantom’ would’ve been their ‘Phantom.’ So maybe it’s a question of the tail wagging the dog. There’s a certain amoung of justice to it.”

Added Spivak, “I knew it was going to be a success, and I’ve been proven right. Now we’re in a ‘Phantom’-mania; everybody’s jumping on the bandwagon. It’s nice to know we called the shots early on.” Spivak is right about one thing: “The Phantom” is a hot ticket. In addition to the current “Phantom of the Opera” film (with “Nightmare on Elm Street’s” Robert Englund), a TV miniseries version with Burt Lancaster and Charles Dance is upcoming.

Hill himself is justifiably weary of all the “Phantom” hoopla; after he puts some finishing touches on the Los Angeles staging, the 30-year theater veteran heads back to his London base. “I’ve had eight weeks of hotel rooms,” he said dryly. “I just want to go home.” And back to work.

“Either I’m writing or directing--or both,” he said genially. “That’s all I do. Year in and year out. I never get a holiday. Actually, I’ve been very lucky. I’m one of the few people in England who earns his living just being a writer in the theater. Though I’ve never made it big, I’ve never been out of work either--because my work does tend to be very popular.”

And when, on rare occasion, it isn’t? Look I’ve done between 100 to 200 plays,” he said briskly. “When you have that many first nights, you’re going to get slighted from time to time. The thing is, I have a very thick skin. I have to, you see. If you write and direct a show and the critics don’t like it, they throw the bricks at me. If they like it, they praise the cast. I’m telling you I can’t win. I’m also telling you I don’t care, because it’s been going on so long.”