The Phantom of the Opera (1925)

Country: USA

Released: November 25th, 1925

Genre: Horror

Directed by: Rupert Julian

Produced by: Carl Laammele

Written by: Elliot J. Clawson (and like ten other people)

Damn that's an ugly poster. I don't know who designed it but whoever it was should have been laughed out of the conference room the moment he presented it. Ignoring the mishmash of crap going on above the writing, in a movie full of iconic visuals why pick one of the more forgettable scenes of the film? Did you really think the "Phantom goes for a snorkel" sequence was going to be the defining moment of your movie? 

Full disclosure before we go any further I have never seen a Phantom of the Opera movie. I've heard that they're all pretty bad in their own way, and I never had any interest in watching them. My attitude was that if I was ever going to subject myself to such a kitsch story, and make no mistake it don't get more kitsch than Phantom of the freaken' Opera, I was going to at least watch it on stage. Alas, Schneider in all his divine wisdom has deemed it necessary that I watch it in movie form, praise be his name. And so, here we are.

It's weird to think that when this version of The Phantom of the Opera was filmed the book it was based on had only been out for fifteen years. Today thanks to countless film adaptations and theater production it feels as if it was a story written centuries ago. The plot, as if I should even bother, is of course about the titular Phantom, a crazed, disfigured lunatic named Erik (Lon Chaney) who prowls the Paris opera, terrorizing those within. He sets his eyes on the understudy of the opera's lead, Christine Daae (Mary Philbin). After manipulating the opera to give Christine the lead role he invites her to his lair where he reveals that he is in love with her. Christine is horrified by his appearance and lies to the Phantom to escape and return to her love, Raoul de Chagney (Norman Kerry). Betrayed and enraged, the Phantom kidnaps Christine leading to a chase through the Paris catacombs as Raoul and inspector Ledoux (Arthur Edmund Carewe), a police officer who was hunting the Phantom, try to rescue her. The film ends with Raoul saving Christine and a mob killing the Phantom.

So as many of you may have noticed this version of Phantom differs from other versions in that it lacks any meaningful love story between Erik and Christine, instead opting for a full blown horror story. Even I, having never even seen the other adaptations, was expecting a tragic or melodramatic (i.e. kitsch) romance between the tragic figure of Erik and the lovely Belle, I-I mean...uh... beauty, er, no wait, Christine. Yes that's it. Raoul was supposed to be a one dimensional Gastone (you know, the douchebag?) and Erik was supposed to look like a Chip n Dale's model with some gunk on his face to make him "ugly." Instead we get a Gothic monster movie, which may sound surprising but people forget that originally the Phantom was for a long time considered one of staples of the Universal Studios monster pantheon, up there with the likes of Dracula and Frankenstein. Everything about the movie is in service of the horror: the catacombs in which the film takes place drip with old-school horror atmosphere, the use of shadows to display characters, such as the Phantom himself and some of his victims, contribute to the sense of mystery and darkness that inherently surrounds the character. Even the makeup differs from later iterations in that it goes for a fully deformed look rather than the aforementioned "hot guy with an overgrown boil" approach of later adaptation that better suited the love-story. The makeup is as good as everyone says by the way. It's the most iconic part of the film, and it's not hard to see why: the Phantom looks absolutely ghoulish with his sunken eyes and upturned nose. Just look at him!

He looks like Emperor Palpatine from Star Wars, Deadpool, and one of the California Raisins got freaky at a swinger's key party.

Fun fact: Chaney himself designed his makeup for Monster Mash up there, something that would become a staple of his acting career.

As nice as the makeup is though the character of the Phantom feels too freakish, if that makes any sense. He's not all that sympathetic. There are a few moments when it feels like his monstrous persona looks like it's about to crack but it never comes to fruition. Any chance of redemption is completely lost when it's revealed he's a criminal escaped from an insane asylum, thus negating a lot of his motivation and relegating him to the archetypal "madman". What the other versions had over this one is that their Phantom's were tortured souls, tragic figures cast out by society and seeking redemption via love. Here all his rants about being redeemed by love feel like the delusions of a psychopath, not to mention that the movie doesn't bother establishing his love of opera or music which I assumed was a staple of the character. Supposedly there were plans on using the original ending from the books where he dies of a broken heart at the foot of his organ, but apparently this didn't sit well with test audiences so naturally they had the Phantom beaten to death by a mob. 

Smooth.

Still all this is not to say that the Phantom has no depth whatsoever, it's just not the kind that probably keeps in the spirit of the book. The Phantom is a fascinating lunatic, and it's interesting to watch this character get torn apart by his own psychosis. He doesn't feel like a zombie or slasher villain, his motivation goes beyond just kill everyone, he genuinely believes his mad plan will somehow 'save him,' which I suppose is tragic in a way. One of the moments that best illustrates this is when Erik plays "Don Juan" by Strauss. There's a lot of symbolism going on in that simple moment. Don Juan is the young, handsome protagonist of an old Spanish novel, "El burlador de Sevilla y convidado de piedra," and follows him as he manipulates women into sleeping with him. One could argue that the Phantom hopes to style himself as Don Juan, this handsome womanizer. However what he doesn't realize is that the point of the story is that Don Juan is really a monster who uses his charm to get his way and make other's suffer, ultimately meeting his demise at the hands of one of his victims. The parallels between the two stories are evident and there is a lot more room to interpretation that I've barely covered but I'll keep it at that.

The art direction is pretty gorgeous as well, particularly a masquerade scene which was painstakingly coloured in by hand. And holy crap what colours! If i didn't know any better I would have thought I was watching technicolor. Everything in that scene really pops, particularly the Phantom in his bright red robe which, along with his skull mask, feels instantly memorable. Lastly of course there is the music. The problem with music before the advent of sound is that it's difficult to tell if the music you're listening too is the original soundtrack or not. You see, what directors used to do is record the music separately from the film and then send both the movie and the soundtrack to cinemas to play simultaneously. In many cases these soundtracks didn't survive the passage of time and we only have modern scores to accompany them. Fortunately for us though the original music for Phantom of the Opera survived and it is great. The vocals for the opera scenes are particular noteworthy and edited in such a way as to synch with the performers on stage. While most of the time it's not a perfect synchronization and ends up looking bad, on occasion it lines up just right and feels like I'm watching a film in sound, especially when one of the singers transitions from holding a note into a shriek as a chandelier falls into the audience. It's a great sequence and made me jump in my seat.

The Phantom of the Opera is a good movie. Despite one or two missteps such as the overly evil villain and a clumsy ending, it comes together solidly. I wouldn't call it a favourite, but for fans of old school horror there is definitely a lot to enjoy.