The 1925 Phantom of the Opera, widely regarded as the best film adaptation of the story ever, starts off with the explanation that the Paris Opera House rises nobly over torture chambers and hidden dungeons, which is a great way to start a story about a disfigured man living in the torture chambers and hidden dungeons under the Paris Opera House. It not only establishes the setting as a classy playhouse built on the ruins of past torture chambers and dungeons, but also provides a level of creepiness necessary in a movie in which Erik (the Phantom) is able to live down there, in vast recesses which have become unknown.
Lon Chaney delivers a stunning performance, one of the most famous in film history. Indeed, the scene where Christine pulls off the Phantom's mask is still scary 80 years after its release. People in 1925 must have been nearly frightened out of their seats. This film is indeed the Exorcist of the 1920s. The very simple story is presented with stunning effectiveness, especially since the now very recognizable music is not even in this version.
In the cellars under the Paris Opera House lives the Phantom, who demands of the new and understandably skeptical management that the lead role in the play be given to Christine Daaé, under penalty of devastating punishment. The new owners laughed off a warning that they might hear rumors of ghosts, so it's the fact that they similarly ignore the Phantom's warning is to be expected. In this version that Phantom takes the terrified Christine into his dungeon because he loves her, "so that which is good within my, aroused by your purity, might plead for your love." As is also stated in the film, man's hatred made him into the Phantom, and he needs her love to redeem him.
The Phantom is constantly making gestures with his hands that give the appearance that he is about to pull off his mask, which is one of the brilliant ways the film adds to the suspense of Christine pulling it off. There is an impressive psychological subtlety here, as the film makes a comment on mankind's need to see and touch, our inability to leave things unseen, even when we know that they are better off unseen. Everything must be touched, experience, and, in this case, corrupted, even to theirs and our own detriment. Christine is humanity.
The infamous chandelier is indeed one of the stars of the film and the story itself, as it is the Phantom's instrument of his most extensive murderous damage, but its effects are almost immediately forgotten. Even though the scene after it falls is the one where Raoul and Christine meet against the Phantom's instructions is the only one that really shows that they truly love each other, this takes place the night after presumably dozens of people were killed or injured in that very room. I would think that the Phantom would have been upset as much by the lack of remorse shown by the people that he intends to punish and frighten as he was at the reunion of Raoul and Christine.
The Secret Police officer is one character that has been removed for the 2004 version, which is too bad because he added a great element of possibility to the movie, as he is initially thought to be the Phantom in disguise but ultimately reveals himself to be an officer who has been studying the Phantom for months in his attempts to capture him. The character makes for a great chase sequence of sorts late in the film, in which he and Raoul attempt to capture him in his dungeon home. In the climactic scene Raoul and the officer are in some sort of an oven-room being baked by the Phantom, who demands Christine's love in order to save them (the 2004 version of this scene, again, is strikingly different), but they escape into a nearby room full of gunpowder. Nevermind the influence this must have had on National Treasure, the important thing is that this shows that the Phantom had some explosive plans. He is a character for whom we are meant to have limited sympathy.
Although Chaney's powerful performance is the biggest aspect of this film production, Christine is the star of the story in this movie. She doesn't love the Phantom, obviously, but needs him to bestow upon her the talent necessary for her to achieve the stardom the she so strongly desires. Once she sees his disfigured face, she immediately calls upon Raoul to save her from him. It is important that she seeks Raoul's help only after seeing the Phantom's face, calling into question the realness of her love for him. Both men love Christine, but she loves neither of them. Her desire for fame turns to a desire to be saved from a man of whom she is terribly frightened but who is in love with her, and her only savior is a man who will similarly expect a lifetime of love and devotion from her but with whom she is certainly not in love either. The tragedy is Christine's, not the Phantom's.
I was initially wondering about the point of having Christine turn a scorpion or a grasshopper to indicate her answer rather than simply saying yes or no, but it allows a great opportunity to have a deathly hazard befall the police officer and Raoul as a result of Christine's actions. The Phantom redeems himself by helping to pull them out the trapdoor, which finally brings sympathy to the fate that he ultimately suffers, which is similar to that suffered by Frankenstein's monster in James Whale's unfaithful 1931 adaptation, which was invented for that movie, as is this one. Nevertheless, the reputation that this film has as the best Phantom adaptation ever made are richly deserved. This is a milestone in film history.
Lon Chaney delivers a stunning performance, one of the most famous in film history. Indeed, the scene where Christine pulls off the Phantom's mask is still scary 80 years after its release. People in 1925 must have been nearly frightened out of their seats. This film is indeed the Exorcist of the 1920s. The very simple story is presented with stunning effectiveness, especially since the now very recognizable music is not even in this version.
In the cellars under the Paris Opera House lives the Phantom, who demands of the new and understandably skeptical management that the lead role in the play be given to Christine Daaé, under penalty of devastating punishment. The new owners laughed off a warning that they might hear rumors of ghosts, so it's the fact that they similarly ignore the Phantom's warning is to be expected. In this version that Phantom takes the terrified Christine into his dungeon because he loves her, "so that which is good within my, aroused by your purity, might plead for your love." As is also stated in the film, man's hatred made him into the Phantom, and he needs her love to redeem him.
The Phantom is constantly making gestures with his hands that give the appearance that he is about to pull off his mask, which is one of the brilliant ways the film adds to the suspense of Christine pulling it off. There is an impressive psychological subtlety here, as the film makes a comment on mankind's need to see and touch, our inability to leave things unseen, even when we know that they are better off unseen. Everything must be touched, experience, and, in this case, corrupted, even to theirs and our own detriment. Christine is humanity.
The infamous chandelier is indeed one of the stars of the film and the story itself, as it is the Phantom's instrument of his most extensive murderous damage, but its effects are almost immediately forgotten. Even though the scene after it falls is the one where Raoul and Christine meet against the Phantom's instructions is the only one that really shows that they truly love each other, this takes place the night after presumably dozens of people were killed or injured in that very room. I would think that the Phantom would have been upset as much by the lack of remorse shown by the people that he intends to punish and frighten as he was at the reunion of Raoul and Christine.
The Secret Police officer is one character that has been removed for the 2004 version, which is too bad because he added a great element of possibility to the movie, as he is initially thought to be the Phantom in disguise but ultimately reveals himself to be an officer who has been studying the Phantom for months in his attempts to capture him. The character makes for a great chase sequence of sorts late in the film, in which he and Raoul attempt to capture him in his dungeon home. In the climactic scene Raoul and the officer are in some sort of an oven-room being baked by the Phantom, who demands Christine's love in order to save them (the 2004 version of this scene, again, is strikingly different), but they escape into a nearby room full of gunpowder. Nevermind the influence this must have had on National Treasure, the important thing is that this shows that the Phantom had some explosive plans. He is a character for whom we are meant to have limited sympathy.
Although Chaney's powerful performance is the biggest aspect of this film production, Christine is the star of the story in this movie. She doesn't love the Phantom, obviously, but needs him to bestow upon her the talent necessary for her to achieve the stardom the she so strongly desires. Once she sees his disfigured face, she immediately calls upon Raoul to save her from him. It is important that she seeks Raoul's help only after seeing the Phantom's face, calling into question the realness of her love for him. Both men love Christine, but she loves neither of them. Her desire for fame turns to a desire to be saved from a man of whom she is terribly frightened but who is in love with her, and her only savior is a man who will similarly expect a lifetime of love and devotion from her but with whom she is certainly not in love either. The tragedy is Christine's, not the Phantom's.
I was initially wondering about the point of having Christine turn a scorpion or a grasshopper to indicate her answer rather than simply saying yes or no, but it allows a great opportunity to have a deathly hazard befall the police officer and Raoul as a result of Christine's actions. The Phantom redeems himself by helping to pull them out the trapdoor, which finally brings sympathy to the fate that he ultimately suffers, which is similar to that suffered by Frankenstein's monster in James Whale's unfaithful 1931 adaptation, which was invented for that movie, as is this one. Nevertheless, the reputation that this film has as the best Phantom adaptation ever made are richly deserved. This is a milestone in film history.