Topic: The Phantom of the Opera (1925) - Lon Chaney

[metaldams]

     OK, let’s the get the versions out of the way first.  Originally released in 1925, the general release version from that year does exist in a mostly complete form.  The problem is it’s only available in a very worn 16MM print that visually does not look that good.  The 1929 released version where overdubbed talking and new scenes were filmed exists in a silent version.  To further confuse things, the 1930 European release of this 1929 version is the best looking version available today, by far.  While the 1925 version is the best version story wise, it is only because the Christine and Raoul characters are slightly more fleshed out.  Speaking for myself, I’ll sacrifice a little character development of those two for seeing this movie in the visual glory it deserves.  I can’t stress enough, the two versions visually are not even close.  So make sure you’re watching the tinted version where the masque ball scene is in color with the Carl Davis score.

      Confusing restoration history out of the way, PHANTOM OF THE OPERA, the silent Lon Chaney version, is the best version for pure horror fans.  While talking versions have their merits, the old cliche there’s more opera and less phantom in those versions is completely true.  This version, being silent, can’t have actual opera in it so the focus of the Grand Guignol horror aspects exist here more than any other version and in my opinion is much stronger for it.  Even in the realm of pop culture, The Phantom really belongs to Broadway fans as much as horror due to the musical nature when sound is involved, a fate not bestowed upon Dracula, Frankenstein and The Wolf Man, for example.  So yes, if you’re a horror fan who doesn’t watch Broadway plays, I’d say this is the definitive version.

      The art direction, so important to these old horror movies, is top notch here and again, comes through much better in the tinted Carl Davis score version.  One cool thing is the play they are staging for the opera is Faust, horrific in itself, so all the beastly props from this play really do lend a proper atmosphere for the backstage area.  The use of shadows throughout is another important aspect of these old horror movies and done masterfully here.  When The Phantom is talking to Christine in the basement while she is backstage, the effect of seeing Chaney’s shadow on the wall is really effective as are the shadowed hand gestures.  Even better is the shadowed hanging of the property man.  Snitz Edwards first looks off screen and sees the hanging man off screen, the audience seeing the large shadow of the hanging in the background.  When Edwards runs away, he is then confronted by the same shadow the audience already sees - very cool.

      As great as all this stuff is, it’s The Phantom’s underground lair that looks the best of all.  Several floors of columned hallways, stoned walls and flowing river all lit masterfully.  Check out the way the light reflects off the water and mirrors the surrounding scenery, really excellent stuff.  The best Universal Horror films all had art direction that was the best in the business and this, along with THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME, were the beginnings of this.  The art direction is a huge star of this film, no doubt.  The opera hall (a set which still stands today) and outside streets of Paris are also very impressive looking.

      The other great star of this film is of course Lon Chaney.  Known as “The Man of 1,000 Faces,” he created several great looking make up jobs through one little make up kit and his Phantom character is certainly one of his more iconic characters.  The unmasking scene is one of the more memorable horror scenes for sure, just the pure shock of the way it is suddenly exposed and the expression on his face is quite terrifying.  Wide, crooked tooth grin; loose skin, holes where a nose would normally be, dark and sunken eyes - a disfigured face that is very hard to forget.  Chaney’s melodramatic gestures are also quite memorable, he glides across a room, covers his face in anguish and hovers over Christine in a very possessive manner.

      Psychologically, Chaney’s Phantom is one very disturbed character.  He states mankind created the way he is and it is mentioned in one title card he was a prisoner in the torture chambers during The French Revolution, so I imagine that’s where his disfigurement happened.  He has since become an escaped criminal who practices black magic, and while it is not explicitly stated, I imagine The Phantom is a victim of post traumatic stress disorder from the war.  It is safe to say his psychological make up is as deformed as his face, his version of love to redeem him is not really love at all as he seems incapable of understanding the concept.  His feelings for Christine are totally conditional, as he would kill her if she went back to Raoul and is constantly threatening her if she were to leave or even remove his mask - the mask being a signifier for the conditional version of love he can offer - God forbid she sees the real Erik. 

      The ending of this film ends in the way a lot of a Universal Horror films do - the monster being chased by the angry mob.  Certainly a precursor to Frankenstein, the chase is a very visual spectacle to behold and after after fooling the mob one time pretending he has a hand grenade, The Phantom meets his watery end by being shoved into the river and drowning.  A very effective final shot in the best restored version.  The original 1925 version ends with Raoul and Christine on their honeymoon, showing us they lived happily ever after.

      The definitive version of PHANTOM OF THE OPERA and a great showcase for Lon Chaney.  While not strictly a horror actor, he did enough genre roles to qualify as the first American horror actor.  I will definitely be discussing more of his movies.

[Shemp_Diesel]

Yes, Lon Chaney is generally regarded as just a "horror actor" by most of the books I've read on the subject, but he was more than that--I would say perhaps the greatest character actor of the silent era or just movies in general. That being said, I never thought this was his greatest film, not even close. I'm not sure either if I've seen the 1925 print, though I remember reading a summary about the happy ending with Raoul and Christine.

I think I've also read about the backstage turmoil between Lon and the original director Rupert Julian and the many takes and re-edits ordered by the Laemlee family before this movie finally got general release in the states. I'm not sure if it was Laemlee Sr. or Jr., but I'm also not sure if the hamstrung production affects my opinion of it.

Visually, it looks great (it is a Universal Gem afterall) and the use of shadows is very effective. I think the dropping of the giant chandelier could have been staged better, but the Masque of the Red Death may be my favorite scene, though there are many whenever Chaney is onscreen.

Still, I think there are many better vehicles to dive into if someone wants to cut their teeth on Lon Sr., like The Penalty. I also need to find time to sit down and watch the Hunchback. I think that's the only surviving silent of Chaney I haven't seen...

Also forgot to mention, the Hammer Phantom with Herbert Lom I do find to be generally a better movie than this, imo...

7/10

[metaldams]

Yes, Lon Chaney is generally regarded as just a "horror actor" by most of the books I've read on the subject, but he was more than that--I would say perhaps the greatest character actor of the silent era or just movies in general. That being said, I never thought this was his greatest film, not even close. I'm not sure either if I've seen the 1925 print, though I remember reading a summary about the happy ending with Raoul and Christine.

I think I've also read about the backstage turmoil between Lon and the original director Rupert Julian and the many takes and re-edits ordered by the Laemlee family before this movie finally got general release in the states. I'm not sure if it was Laemlee Sr. or Jr., but I'm also not sure if the hamstrung production affects my opinion of it.

Visually, it looks great (it is a Universal Gem afterall) and the use of shadows is very effective. I think the dropping of the giant chandelier could have been staged better, but the Masque of the Red Death may be my favorite scene, though there are many whenever Chaney is onscreen.

Still, I think there are many better vehicles to dive into if someone wants to cut their teeth on Lon Sr., like The Penalty. I also need to find time to sit down and watch the Hunchback. I think that's the only surviving silent of Chaney I haven't seen...

Also forgot to mention, the Hammer Phantom with Herbert Lom I do find to be generally a better movie than this, imo...

7/10

For pure set design and make up, PHANTOM and HUNCHBACK rank among Chaney’s best, but as far as character acting, yes, stuff like THE PENALTY, HE WHO GETS SLAPPED and a lot of the Todd Browning collaborations are must sees.  I don’t consider The Phantom or any one role definitive Chaney, he had so many amazing roles.

Yes, there were definitely problems with Rupert Julian on the set.  A ton of delays in releasing this and there is even a shot of Norman Kerry smiling outside of Christine’s room at the most inappropriate time - when he hears The Phantom seducing her.  In spite of whatever technical or acting flaws - I think the good far outweighs the bad here.

As far as Hammer Phantom topping this, not even close in my eyes.  The Phantom Hammer has its moments, I’ll review that in detail someday, but the Chaney Phantom, by far, is my favorite.

[Dr. Mabuse]

Lon Chaney's finest hour.  Despite a history of production troubles and extensive re-editing, "The Phantom of the Opera" (1925) has survived as a landmark of the silent era — thanks largely to Chaney's classic performance in the title role. It's a stylish melodrama with serial-style thrills and some genuinely horrific moments. Remakes come and go, but the original reigns supreme.

8.5/10

[Umbrella Sam]

https://talk-about-cinema.blogspot.com/2018/10/the-phantom-of-opera-1925.html

Reviewed this a while back on my blog, so I’m not going to add a ton here, but I do want to stress just how good Chaney’s performance is in this. As I hinted in the SPIDER BABY review, one of the main things I like about this is learning about the emotional turmoil this character has gone through and why it made him the way he is. It’s not the writing that does this; they just try to make it seem as though he’s a psychotic monster who escaped from prison. It’s Chaney’s performance that tells this. You can tell from his expressions that this is someone who has spent so many years being neglected because of the way he looks. When he gets sad after seeing Christine and Raoul on top of the opera house or when he starts panicking seeing Christine comforting Raoul in the lair, he really sells it, as though this was the one chance at love that he thought he might actually have. Chaney was just such a great actor, it’s a shame he died so young.

Also...

Also forgot to mention, the Hammer Phantom with Herbert Lom I do find to be generally a better movie than this, imo...

I never knew that Herbert Lom played the Phantom of the Opera. Now that makes me wonder if THE PINK PANTHER STRIKES AGAIN was intentionally a homage to it.

[metaldams]

https://talk-about-cinema.blogspot.com/2018/10/the-phantom-of-opera-1925.html

Reviewed this a while back on my blog, so I’m not going to add a ton here, but I do want to stress just how good Chaney’s performance is in this. As I hinted in the SPIDER BABY review, one of the main things I like about this is learning about the emotional turmoil this character has gone through and why it made him the way he is. It’s not the writing that does this; they just try to make it seem as though he’s a psychotic monster who escaped from prison. It’s Chaney’s performance that tells this. You can tell from his expressions that this is someone who has spent so many years being neglected because of the way he looks. When he gets sad after seeing Christine and Raoul on top of the opera house or when he starts panicking seeing Christine comforting Raoul in the lair, he really sells it, as though this was the one chance at love that he thought he might actually have. Chaney was just such a great actor, it’s a shame he died so young.

Also...

I never knew that Herbert Lom played the Phantom of the Opera. Now that makes me wonder if THE PINK PANTHER STRIKES AGAIN was intentionally a homage to it.

I read your review recently, good job on it.

You are correct the writing does not explicitly state everything, though in my mind, I made assumptions and I think it’s because of the 1943 and 1962 versions.  My assumption is that The Phantom’s face did not always look the way it did but unlike those latter versions, it really never is directly stated how it got that way.  Now he does blame society for making him the way he is, but never states whether it’s physically or emotionally.  I assume both but again, it’s never stated.  They do say he was in torture chambers during the revolution, so I make the assumption his face got deformed there.  This would also cause post traumatic stress disorder, which would explain a lot about the character.  Again, none of this is explicitly stated, so the viewer has to make up his mind, and I’ve made mine up.  But yes, no doubt Chaney’s performance sells a lot more than the script, absolutely correct.

As far as the Herbert Lom version, the title character was originally supposed to be played by Cary Grant!

[Umbrella Sam]

I read your review recently, good job on it.

You are correct the writing does not explicitly state everything, though in my mind, I made assumptions and I think it’s because of the 1943 and 1962 versions.  My assumption is that The Phantom’s face did not always look the way it did but unlike those latter versions, it really never is directly stated how it got that way.  Now he does blame society for making him the way he is, but never states whether it’s physically or emotionally.  I assume both but again, it’s never stated.  They do say he was in torture chambers during the revolution, so I make the assumption his face got deformed there.  This would also cause post traumatic stress disorder, which would explain a lot about the character.  Again, none of this is explicitly stated, so the viewer has to make up his mind, and I’ve made mine up.  But yes, no doubt Chaney’s performance sells a lot more than the script, absolutely correct.

As far as the Herbert Lom version, the title character was originally supposed to be played by Cary Grant!

I can see the argument that the Phantom wasn’t born that way, especially since most adaptations portray it that way, but it’s from my understanding that in the original novel, his deformity was there since birth. The PTSD thing is an interesting theory and does fit the writing of this movie, but given Chaney’s devotion to his work, I always figured that he was trying to be the Phantom of the book, and not the one that the movie writers tried to create themselves.

Also, don’t know if you’ve checked it out, but this is a really cool article on the making of the film and the differences between the 1925 and 1929 versions.

https://moviessilently.com/2014/11/30/the-phantom-of-the-opera-1925-a-silent-film-review/

[HomokHarcos]

Before I was into old cinema this was along with Nosferatu was one of the only silents I knew of. I read that people in the theater fainted watching the unmasking scene. It may be a myth, but it was an interesting story. Now how does it hold up? Very well I believe. Unlike the 1943 film there's not some comedic romance subplot or all the opera singing. This version feels like a true horror movie.

Lon Chaney is the obvious standout performer here giving one of the greatest acts in silent cinema. I wasn't aware he didn't appear mostly in horror, I just assumed that was his specialty like his son Lon Chaney Jr. He makes the movie as the disfigured villain. In a way he reminds me of the Frankenstein monster that is in the book. He is mistreated because he is ugly, but is also very aware of what he is doing.

I agree about the set designs. The sewers are very cool and city sets are so well done I forget it was filmed in the United States. Possibly my favorite Charlie Chan movie, Charlie Chan in Paris, also has a underground sewer section.

I know of two different versions of the unmasking scene. In one the phantom appears very angry, in the other he looks more confused. I've read differing comments on why there were different versions. Some claim that the re-release changed it, and others say that it was just an alternate take from the original filming.