Tags:
Film: The Phantom of the Opera
Year: 1925
Director: Rupert Julian
Writer: Gaston Leroux
Starring: Lon Chaney, Mary Philbin and Norman Kerry
Review:
This was the second version of this story I saw. My sister showed me the one with Gerard Butler and I decided to check out its roots. I have a fascination with silent films so it was one that I sought out. This was probably my first time with seeing a Lon Chaney film as well. I’ve now given it a second watch as a part of my Voyage through the FiVes.
Synopsis: a mad, disfigured composer seeks love with a lovely young opera singer.
This kicks off by informing us that the Paris Opera House is above a dungeon with catacombs where torture took place. It then gives us an idea of the shows that they put on. Upstairs, two men are buying it and as they are finishing the transaction they reveal about the guest who sits in box 5. No one has seen his face and he’s called The Phantom. They laugh it off that they are doing this to scare them, but they check for themselves. There is indeed someone mysterious sitting there. They get spooked and leave, but then come back to see he’s gone.
After a performance, dancers go backstage and see a mysterious figure. They can’t agree with how he looks and they seek out Simon Buquet (Gibson Gowland) who has seen The Phantom. He tells them what he looks like.
The opera being shown is Faust. Their lead singer is Carlotta (Mary Fabian). The Phantom has fallen in love with a young singer, Christine Daae (Mary Philbin) and he wants her to be the lead. She is in love with Vicomte Raoul de Chagny (Norman Kerry). His brother is with him the night of this performance, Comte Philip de Chagny (John St. Polis). To interject, The Phantom sends a letter to Carlotta demanding that she doesn’t sing. Her mother, Virginia Pearson, comes to tell them that she will not be bullied. The Phantom warned bad things will happen if his wishes are not met.
Christine sings on this first night and it is a success. Carlotta comes back over the next night, despite letters sent by The Phantom and that angers him. He does something that scares the whole theater, causing everyone to flee. In the panic, he takes Christine to his lair. She at first is intrigued by him, until she realizes he is just a man. He loves her and wants her to sing, but he has one rule, to not take off his mask. Raoul and Christine’s love angers him so she must make a choice. The problem is to The Phantom, there is only one decision.
That is where I’ll leave my recap and introduction to the characters. Before doing my rewatches, I’ve watched close to 10 different variations of this story. Something interesting is how old the novel this is based on and how it still can be adapted. I remember the play coming out in the early 90’s and I’ve even seen that on stage while in London. It just has a tale that is still relevant with that fear of the unknown. That was something I wanted to say to start off my thoughts.
Now that I’ve said that something that is intriguing to watch with modern eyes is the toxic masculinity of The Phantom. At first everyone thought he was a ghost. He is a man who is in exile that knows all of the hidden passageways inside this old building so I can see the confusion. The Phantom is a tragic character. In this version, he looks like a monster. He has been shunned his whole life due to that and it made him bitter. The issue I have is that he believes that he ‘made’ Christine into the singer that she is and he wants to own her, even though she loves Raoul. This is crazy that a movie that is hundred years old plus has commentary that is relevant.
Where I’ll go from there is something that I’ve touched on in other reviews of versions of this. I love the play they are doing Faust. There is a meta look at the story that is being told. I’m sure you know what Faust is about if you’re reading this, but I love the idea of them doing a play about a man who sells his soul to the ‘devil’ to gain immortality. That is what Christine does by taking the aid of The Phantom or that is the goal for performers. She isn’t ready for the consequences. That is something that still impresses me.
Now there isn’t more for me to go into story-wise so let’s discuss the acting performances. There are elements that go over the top, but it must since this is silent. These are stage actors who transitioned to this new medium. Chaney as Erik the Phantom is great. I’ll get to his look later, but he is just a legend of early cinema. I’m more impressed with each of his works that I see. Philbin is quite attractive for the era. She works as Christine who is put into a situation that isn’t fully her doing. I did like Kerry as Raoul, but he also doesn’t is more of a secondary character and a catalyst for the events. There is this odd character of Ledoux. He’s played by Arthur Edmund Carewe. He is stoic until the climax where that feels more like convenience. Everyone else seemed to fit their roles for what was needed to round this out.
All that I have left to discuss is filmmaking. Being this is an early film; I can’t judge its technical merits too hard. I did think that the cinematography and framing were solid to capture these great sets. The opera house feels grand. The dungeons under it have an eeriness about it. There’s that fear that you could get lost. They also feel like ‘old dark house’ films that would be popular in decades to come. The effects are limited. Being as early into the history of film as we are, I’m not shocked. I do know that Chaney did his own make-up back then and I love the weird look he gave The Phantom. It is a look that I knew before seeing this and it holds up. I’m not sure what music should go with this, but the version I have fits. I do think that this runs just a bit too long and could be trimmed to run tighter. It still flows well.
In conclusion, this being the first iteration of the story on film is impressive. What is remarkable is the age of this novel and how it still works today. This version does well with its commentary on toxic masculinity. Chaney gives a great look to this villain. I thought that the acting was solid across the board. Filmmaking techniques are limited, but it is early into the history of cinema. I did like capturing how grand the opera house is and then the treacherous dungeon beneath it. I’m hard-pressed to say that this is a great version of the story, but I still give it credit for how iconic it is and its place in history. It is worth a watch to fans of this era or interested in the history of horror.
My Rating: 8 out of 10