For this year's Countdown to Halloween, it's all-Universal Monsters, all-the-time, from Dracula (1931) to The Creature Walks Among Us (1956). Join me daily for a fresh perspective on movies you may not have watched in a long time, if ever. Today, a double whammy for The Phantom of the Opera!
The 1943 version of Phantom of the Opera is not really a
remake of its 1925 silent version; instead, another version of the story by
Gaston Leroux, like so many more that would come in later years. Nevertheless, since they both have legacies
as Universal Monsters, it’s difficult not to compare them. Both are rewarding to watch, just in
different ways. Both also have flaws,
one more than the other.
The Phantom of the Opera (1925)
It's got to be a hard sell these
days to get anyone to watch a silent movie.
It's nearly impossible to text or play Candy Crush on your mobile device
because you have to actually pay attention to what's happening on the screen
and occasionally read a card with words on it.
However, you quickly find yourself paying more attention because, well,
you have to. Once that happens, time
seems to go faster and a 93-minute movie is over before you know it.
An excellent silent movie to try
would be Universal's 1925 version of The Phantom of the Opera. Not only is it required viewing for any movie
buff or horror fan, but it's quite entertaining on its own terms. If this movie had any influence on the
lasting popularity of the story, then it's easy to see how it has endured over
the years. Numerous remakes, some good
and some not-so-good, and a Broadway musical exist in the original's legacy.
The version of The Phantom of the
Opera that I watched recently is a 1992 "special edition." I have no idea what frills, if any, an
original print of the film would offer.
This version has color tints applied to different sections: red for
beneath the Paris Opera House, amber for the stage performances and blue for
nighttime exteriors. It also has the
2-Color Technicolor Bal Masque scene, but it didn't appear as vibrant as many
photos I've seen from the sequence.
I probably don't need to recap a
story as ubiquitous as The Phantom of the Opera. Here, it's brilliant in its simplicity. I was a little surprised that the famous
revelation of Lon Chaney when Christine (Mary Philbin) removes his mask occurs
at only the halfway point of the movie.
That naturally makes the second half drag a little more than the first
once the suspense about his face is over.
Nevertheless, there's a rousing finale as The Phantom is chased through
the city.
It turns out that Frankenstein
wasn't the first movie to establish the angry, torch-bearing mob staple of the
classic horror films; The Phantom of the Opera did it first. With this and other familiar elements, it
doesn't feel 90 years old. I
particularly like how it leverages the mysterious reputation of The Phantom (he
has no nose vs. he has a huge nose) before we see him with his actual
skull-like appearance.
He tells Christine, "You are
in no peril as long as you don't touch my mask." Curiosity gets the best of her, though, and
she pulls it off as he's playing "Don Juan Triumphant" on his
organ. In other movie versions, the mask
is sometimes the most intriguing part of The Phantom's disguise, it's usually
ornate or a work of art. Here, though
it's a nondescript face with a flap at the bottom that moves when he speaks.
On the other hand, what lies
beneath the mask has not been bested since 1925. This was one of the "1,000 Faces"
for which Lon Chaney was famous and most of it is achieved by manipulation of
the actor's own features instead of with the use of complicated make-up
effects. As horrific as he appears, he
tells Christine, "If I am The Phantom it is because man's hatred made me
so."
The Phantom of the Opera is
mesmerizing to watch. With no dialogue,
the actors must exaggerate their movements and facial expressions in a way
that's almost balletic. And with no idle
chit chat the storytelling is tight. Few
movies offer a shock equivalent to The Phantom's revelation. Imagine what it would be like if you hadn't
grown up seeing pictures of him in Famous Monsters of Filmland.
Phantom of the Opera (1943)
For their days, each of the two
Universal Phantom movies must have been spectacular. The 1943 version remains beautiful today. Filmed in Technicolor, it’s bright and
lush. There’s no Bal Masque scene, but
each snippet of opera we see is filled with ornate sets and costumes. Even the Phantom’s mask is a lovely shade of
lavender. It must have cost a fortune to
produce.
Phantom of the Opera (1943), while
offering a grander scope and plenty of adventure, is short on actual
horror. It’s just not as creepy to see
frequent shadows of a caped man moving openly amid all the light and color as
it is to watch an occasional shadow of an arm reaching out from the black and
white darkness. On the other hand, it is more
suspenseful to watch the Phantom slowly saw away at the chain suspending the
giant chandelier rather than to just see it fall. In the 1943 version, the music of the opera
occurring at the same time seems to mirror and enhance the tension.
That brings up an interesting
comparison, as well. In the silent
version, you must rely on whatever music is applied to the print of the
film. It’s obviously a separate element. In the 1943 version, it’s fully integrated
into the action, which engages you in a different way. Perhaps you’re more a participant than a
witness.
In many ways, Phantom of the Opera
(1943) is constructed like a musical.
Not only are there full pieces of opera performed with the lead
characters singing, but the non-Phantom dramatic scenes are also written in a
light style. This can best be
demonstrated by the sometimes comic rivalry between Anatole Garron (Nelson Eddy) and Raoul
Daubert (Edgar Barrier) for the affection of Christine DuBois (Susanna Foster).
More so than in the original, you can
see in this movie the elements that would make the subject matter appropriate
for a Broadway musical, which is of course what the story would eventually
become. I resisted at first, but soon
found myself mesmerized by watching. I
was mesmerized in a different way than when I watched the silent version,
though.
The key moment, the revelation of the
man behind the mask, comes during the climax of Phantom of the Opera (1943)
rather than at the midpoint, as it did in The Phantom of the Opera (1925). This placement eliminates the need for an
angry mob to chase the Phantom through the streets of Paris and allows an
errant gunshot to bring his lair avalanching down upon him.
But the revelation is not as… well,
revealing. First of all, the movie opens
with a 30-minute backstory for Erique Claudin (Claude Rains). We see how and why he became the Phantom, so
there’s absolutely no mystery to the character.
And a face half scarred with acid might be terrifying for Christine, but
it pales in comparison to the ghostly visage of Lon Chaney.
I prefer the simplicity in the story
of the silent version. When you
embellish, there is more room for contrivances and plot holes, and Phantom of
the Opera (1943) is full of them. For
example, why is there a tray of acid in a music publisher’s office? And how does the identity of the Phantom
suddenly and inexplicably change from an unknown ghost to that of Erique
Cluadin?
I like both movies, but for entirely
different reasons. My favorite scenes in
Phantom of the Opera (1943) include the exciting chase of the Phantom through
the rafters of the Paris Opera House. My
favorite scenes in The Phantom of the Opera (1925) include the scary abduction
of Christine through the underground lair of the Phantom. For it’s significance as a horror film,
though, I prefer to watch the original.
Tomorrow: Son of Dracula!
No comments:
Post a Comment