Phantom of the Opera (1925 and 1943)

 

Phantom of the Opera (1943)

Erique Claudine is a poor and lonely violin player in the Paris opera, and the secret benefactor of singer Christine. His problems truly begin when his money runs out, and his growing he's let go from his position. Now forced to make money a new way, he composes his own music and shops it around, but after thinking a potential buyer is going to steal it, he flies into a murderous rage, and is scarred with acid. Now on the run and hiding in the sewers of Paris, Erique plots his revenge against the world...

This adaption of Phantom of the Opera is a real disappointment! Visually it's a treat, with its bright and garish colours, and portrayal of 19th century Paris, but as a movie it's just...dull! And badly crafted. There is no mystery here whatsoever.

A big problem is that it takes far too long for the movie to set up the most simple parts of the story! Instead of the Opera Ghost already being an established part of this world, we see his origin play out as the story goes along, meaning a whole third of the film is devoted not only to the villain's origin, but to one that wasn't even in the book. This movie goes so off-book it may as well be a remake of House of Wax!

It takes us halfway through the movie before it even adapts the first plot point of the book, and a lot of the mystery is gone, since we've been seeing the Phantom front and centre for a full half hour.

I felt the inciting incident was just a touch too depressing! If only the poor fool Erique had been a liiitle bit more patient, he would have become a world famous composer with the help of Franz Liszt! If only he hadn't made such a rash assumption things would finally work out for him.

Also, this isn't a complaint, but a random thought. Just how ridiculously expensive was this singing instructor if a lesson per week apparently cost Erique his entire fortune?! Much is made of just how much cash he must have, so the idea that he spent it ALL on this instructor is insane! Though I can totally buy it, since such people are that money-grubbing.

In the book, the Phantom seems like a supernatural figure, but we find out he is just a man. This doesn't detract from his skills though. When we discover his origin, we can totally buy how he does it all. He's an architect, genius inventor, talented acrobat and fighter, and above all, mind-bogglingly rich. Erique on the other hand is just a poor violinist, well past his prime. He's a doddering older gentleman more likely to break his hip if he keeps running around the catacombs of Paris, if he's only started a week ago! Call me crazy, but when a man is so infirm he can't even play a violin anymore, I'm not scared of him.

Christine is portrayed here decently enough, although not as interesting as she could've been. She's caught in a love triangle, and the movie makes out like there's a serious difficult choice here, though it seems pretty cut and dry to me. Anatole actually cares about her interests, while Raoul doesn't, only wanting her to cook and clean for him. He doesn't want a wife, he wants a servant!

The two suitors are a bit of a pain, with some cringey moments like the whole 'Monsieur monsieur' exchange. Raoul had trouble coming off as an effective love interest to me as he kept going firmly into detective mode, and I often forgot he was a paramour. In one scene when he was stubbornly refusing to leave Christine's apartment, insisting his position is to be respected, I was hoping she'd say "Well then please leave my house, sir". Doesn't matter if he's a gentleman, he's still an intruder in her house!

Now let's come to accents. This is set in a France where everyone speaks English, of course. Most of the actors here have the courtesy to at least use English accents, though some make a slight attempt at sounding French. J. Edward Bromberg does a decent job, even if his American accent is a bit too clear at times (which is funny, considering he was originally Hungarian!).

Normally I love Claude Rains, but I wasn't as much a fan of him here. I don't think its his fault, but that of the writing/direction. He plays such a pathetic character, and he does it too well! He also doesn't really get the chance to sink his teeth into a good villainous role either.

Purportedly Lon Chaney Jr. wanted to play the title role here, which is surprising. One would think he'd resent being made to do the very role his father played so famously, but nope, he was wanting to be given the role, and pissed when Universal didn't give it to him. It would've been an interesting take, for sure. Not sure if it would've worked, and he certainly dodged a bullet by not being in this, but it is a shame.

The rest of the actors all do fine. Susanna Foster is pretty but isn't given the range of other Christine's, while Nelson Eddy and Edgar Barrier are completely interchangeable

The direction is one of the few saving graces here. It's decent for the most part, with well filmed operatic segments, and superb singing (if shrill or ear-splittingly pitched at certain points).

As a movie, Phantom of the Opera 1943 is no two great shakes, but as a Phantom adaption it's terrible! There are so many problems here weighing the film down, and they are hard to forgive when they're entirely of the film's own making! If the writers had only followed the book/earlier adaptions, they would have been fine! Ugh. For a positive note to end on, I am at least glad the movie explicitly says Erique's music and concerto will live on, and be a nice legacy, as opposed to just being tossed away and forgotten just because he went crazy. Inspiring!...

The Phantom of the Opera (1925)

...Yes, you're reading correctly, I am discussing the older version of The Phantom last. Why? Well firstly I watched them in the opposite order, but also the 1943 version is lacking in so many qualities it would be a shame to discuss that one last, instead of the triumphant original!...

In the grand Paris opera house, business is flourishing and magic is in the air, but its two new owners are baffled by the demands of a mysterious 'Opera Ghost'. Flaunting his wishes causes misfortune to befall the set, and soon he is insisting that up-and-comer Christine Daae take a leading role. But she will play with only him in mind, and must forget her old life and love, or else suffer the wrath of the Phantom of the Opera...

The Phantom of the Opera is one of the most famous silent films of all, as well as one of the most famous in all of horror. It tells a story that weaves both horror, romance, and a hint of fantasy together, all while giving us a living and breathing location in the opera house.

As an adaption of the book, this is very good! There are some omissions for time or medium-change, and at times it feels more like cliff notes of the book than an actual adaption. I was surprised at how quickly certain events played out. But this doesn't spoil the overall enjoyment of the film. It moves along at a quick pace, and hits all the beats of the book, keeping true to its spirit and no doubt making its author proud.

The only area the movie disappoints in regarding the source material is the ending. Instead o getting a kiss from Christine and choosing to let everyone go, Erik is treated as a monster and sees a sticky end courtesy of an angry mob. Because of this, Erik never gets his redemption, and his character arc is incomplete. If this were made 10 years later, it would have been the draconian Hays Code to blame, as any kind of redemption for villains was censored and banned (and the call themselves Christians! Pah!), but in this case it was actually due to test audiences. *sigh* While not entirely a bad idea, and their input has certainly changed some movies for the better, they have also ruined far more, such as the ending to this Phantom iteration. They sucked the life out of it and turned it into just another monster movie!

The script here is neat. While the movie may be silent, it does not skimp on the dialogue. There is plenty and it is highly poetic and flowery. Sometimes a little too much, but always in an amusing way, and it fits the whole opera motif.

While she is generally likeable, Christine does have her moments of idiocy. As a note from the Phantom reads, "You are in no peril as long as you do not touch my mask." So what does she do? Immediately touches his mask! I also didn't like how Christine immediately rejects the Phantom as a loathsome monster upon seeing his face. Oh my god, he just has a deformity, you bitch! Poor Phantom, you deserve a better partner!

Raoul is a decent enough hero. Nothing special but he gets the job done. Replacing the Persian, Erik's old friend, is a random policeman, which is a little disappointing. Surely there'd be just as much exposition needed to get across who Special Agent Ledoux is than there would be for the Persian? Either way both characters share the same purpose in the story, acting as a hyper-competent sidekick to Raoul.

And lastly, Erik the opera ghost is a fantastic villain. Malevolent yet sympathetic, he casts a long shadow over the rest of the movie, and you really feel the impact from his presence. The unmasking scene is still a powerful moment, even without sound. Sadly the movie never really delves into his past, and changes some elements of it for the worse, but that aside he is still a strong character.

The acting here is that typical hyper-manic style you often see in silent films. You have to work double duty to emote when you're robbed of sound, and the actors here all do great performances. Mary Philbin is a nice lead, if a little over-the-top in the climax, and the rest of the cast are all fine. The standout is of course Lon Chaney, who delivers an iconic performance as the Phantom, that has been immortalised as one of cinema's greatest achievements. From behind the creepy and amazingly crafted make-up, he delivers both anger, tenderness, and anguish perfectly.

Phantom of the Opera is an absolutely gorgeous film. The sets are extravagant and meticulously detailed, and the recreation of the Paris opera house is nothing less than stunning. The countless extras (proudly advertised on the poster) really sell the image too. The catacombs beneath the house, and the Phantom lair all look superb too. The movie never puts a foot wrong visually.

Then there's the colour. I'm mixed when it comes to tinting. Sometimes it's annoying when a film randomly changes the colour from yellow, to orange, to bright pink. Where it's used well is if used either consistently, or atmospherically, and that is the case here, with the deep and vibrant colours adding much to the mood. There are also moments of full colour, which are unexpected treats that really stand out.

The film has a few different prints, with some lacking colour, missing certain scenes, or having some that others lack. The music can also be changed or absent altogether. Overall it doesn't really matter. The film is the film, and no matter what little aesthetic touches like that you change, it still holds up.

The Phantom of the Opera is a true classic of cinema in every sense of the word! It looks amazing even today, tells a compelling story, and is sure to keep you entertained throughout, as a marvel of old Hollywood...