French authorGaston Leroux's novelThe Phantom of the Opera was released in 1910,based on rumors he'd heard about the Palais Garnier, the Paris opera house, one about a fire in the roof of the opera house that resulted in the chandelier falling to the ground, injuring many and killing one, and another about a ghost in its walls. Six years later, Germany'sDas Phantom der Oper became the first film adaptation of the novel, although the film itself has been lost to time. Since then, Leroux's novel has beenadapted numerous times, most famously as a long-runningAndrew Lloyd Webber musical, which opened in London's West End in 1986, and a subsequent film adaptation of the musical in 2004, helmed byBatman & Robin directorJoel Schumacher.But the best version of Leroux's famed novel hit movie theaters 100 years ago, 1925'sThe Phantom of the Opera, as powerful today as it was then.
1925's 'The Phantom of the Opera' Is a Horror Masterpiece
Theroad toThe Phantom of the Opera began with an initial script treatment, submitted to the studio on October 12, 1923, by writersBernard McConville andJames Spearing. From there, the film endured multiple rewrites – less horror, more romance, more comedy, less romance – and several scenes and endings that were filmed but never used, either falling prey to the ever-changing script direction or to negative feedback during screenings (one ending had Christine (Mary Philbin) give Erik (Lon Chaney) a compassionate kiss on his face, sending him into tears, having never known a woman's kiss, not even his own mother's, and sends Christine and Raoul (Norman Kerry) away as he dies quietly, alone). The final cut of the film was a mashup of scenes from directorRupert Julian's original shoot and reshoots directed byEdward Sedgwick (perAmerican Cinematographer).
The road may have been rocky, but the destination was worth it. The editing eventually brought a rough cut of four hours of footage down to a taut 107 minutes, unrelenting in its focus on the titular Phantom and his machinations to bring Christine to the top and win, or force, her love. By focusing on the Phantom and the horror element, the film uses all the tricks of the trade to heighten that experience. A soundtrack that perfectly embodies the moments. The yin of the Paris opera house, with its grand opulence and towering walls against the yang of the Phantom's lair, a dark, suffocating realm in the catacombs below. The touch of red in the Phantom's cloak in his guise as the Red Death, a presence at odds with the partygoers that back away from him, unsure of whom, or what, he is. Thatinfamous jump scare, which, no matter how many times you've seen it, is, in the context of the film, as terrifying and chilling as it was when it sent moviegoers screaming and running out of the theater... if they hadn't already fainted, that is (perCollider).But the film succeeds on the back of its star, Lon Chaney,the "man of 1,000 faces."Chaney's iconic, ghoulish makeup, a nightmarish sight, paired with his uncanny ability to say so much without uttering a word, communicating menace, yearning, sorrow, and anger effortlessly, issimply awe-inspiring to watch.
Where 1925's 'The Phantom of the Opera' Excels Over Its Followers
1925'sThe Phantom of the Opera is astounding on its own merits,but when compared to the host of other adaptations, its excellence becomes even more pronounced. The 1943 version makes the mistake of making the Phantom, played byClaude Rains, a secondary character in his own movie,second-billed afterNelson Eddy, actor and baritone singer. It also leans away from the horror and more into the romantic melodramatic elements, adds comedic subplots, and slows the film down with opera numbers, unable to focus as pointedly as the original as a result. 1962's version from Hammer Films relocated the story from Paris to London, but commits the same sins with lengthy musical sequences, and its Phantom is more sympathetic, given flashbacks to his origins (the bane of any once-great villain) and a heroic ending, withHerbert Lom's Phantom dying after saving Christine from the falling chandelier, moved to the end of the film. 1989'sThe Phantom of the Opera goes way, way too far the other way, focusing toomuch on the horror element and adding a Faustian twist in a gore-filled adaptation that resembles 1925 largely in name only, withRobert Englund as a "Freddy-fied" Phantom.
Cinema Will Forever Be Haunted by the Iconic Horror Movie No One Alive Has Seen
Lon Chaney transformed himself into one of his scariest monsters that has inspired a modern horror icon.
Now it may not be entirely fair to compare the 1925 original with 2004'sThe Phantom of the Opera, given that the latter is an adaptation of the Broadway musical as opposed to the novel itself, and as such embraces the music and the romantic drama element as opposed to horror.But it does highlight the biggest reason why 1925'sThe Phantom of the Opera reigns supreme: the role of the Phantom himself. From Claude Rains down toGerard Butler's 2004 iteration, the Phantom hasn't embraced the ugliness of the character the way Chaney did. Butler is barely scarred, seemingly a deliberate act so that the rugged handsomeness of Butler isn't hidden too much, and thus, surrendering ticket sales to female moviegoers.
Chaney, though, was fearless, going all in on the Phantom through a rigorous makeup routine (perAmerican Cinematographer) that accentuated the idea of being a living skull. That fearlessness carried through to his performance, allowing him to embody the horror of the character, and any sympathy directed toward the Phantom – and there is some – is a testimony to his ability to elicit emotion through the makeup and prosthetics. Other adaptations make it clear that the more focused it is on the romantic elements, the less ugly its Phantom can be, naturally inhibiting the horror.Chaney embraced it, and in doing so, his Phantom is the most focused and fearful of them all, elevating his own work and the film by extension, with that brevity.
The Phantom of the Opera is available to stream on Tubi in the U.S.
