The Phantom of the Opera (1925) User Reviews

The pathos of Lon Chaney gave the Phantom its dimension...

[Nazi_Fighter_David · 9/10 · 27 April 2005]

Lon Chaney was the first of the long line of Phantoms and the one against whom all his successors had to be measured…

The story, despite all its alternatives, is the familiar one of the musician avoiding the world because of his disfigurement and retreating to a hideout beneath the Opera House, from where he emerges to terrorize singers and audience alike…

He kidnaps a young girl singer – perhaps to teach her to become a great star; certainly because, in his grotesque and pathetic way, he loves her – and carries her off to a boudoir he has prepared far underground…

There was melodrama in plenty: in the first version, for example, two would-be rescuers found themselves trapped in an uncomfortable mirrored room the Phantom had prepared, where they first got a heat treatment and then were flooded…

But, beyond all the heightened effects, it was the pathos of the Phantom underscoring his lonely menace which gave the character a dimension, and the isolation of the captor and his captive, imprisoned to a literal underworld, which gave the suspense of the whole film its power…

A magnificent performance from the legendary Lon Chaney, Sr.

[ACitizenCalledKane · 8/10 · 6 December 2004]

This 1925 silent classic is still impressive, even after seventy-nine years!

Lon Chaney's performance is easily the highlight of the movie. His ghostly movements about his underground lair are haunting even by today's standards.

Use all of the computer generated images you want, but there is no substitute for authentic, old-world macabre. The scene where Erik's face is revealed is still shocking. He seems as horrorified by Christine seeing his face as she is by seeing his face. He seems to feel genuinely violated by her taking his mask off, revealing his horrible visage to the last person on earth he would want to see it. The Technicolor scene of the "Bal Masque" is also quite famous. The backdrops are very effective in creating the moody, medieval atmosphere of the underground passages. All in all, an excellent version of a timeless story.

Who was that Masked Man?

[lugonian · 9/10 · 15 March 2003]

THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA (Universal, 1925), directed by Rupert Julian, from the celebrated novel by Gaston Leroux, stars Lon Chaney, the legendary "man of a thousand faces," in what is hailed to be his most famous movie role, as well as one of the most bizarre presentations of his thousand faces ever shown on screen.

Hailed as a horror movie, THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA is actually a mystery tale with added suspense that takes place in a Paris opera house believed to be haunted by a mysterious cloaked figure obsessed by one particular girl, Christine Daae (Mary Philbin), an understudy, whose main interest is her love for Raoul De Chagny (Norman Kerry), her fiancé. Christine keeps hearing a compelling voice behind the walls of her dressing room that gives her encouragement to perform. Her career soon takes a turn for the better when the lead performer is "mysteriously" unable to go on and Christine is called to take her place. The voice later summons Christine to the cellar five flights beyond the opera house where she follows this sinister man whose face is covered with a mask. Although she fears him not, Christine becomes very curious about "The Phantom," but curiosity gets the better of her when she decides to creep up from behind the phantom and remove his mask, only to get the surprise of her life. The Phantom agrees to release Christine from his underground cellar (consisting of a coffin bed where the Phantom sleeps) at a promise that she not only devote herself to her opera singing, but to never see or speak to her fiancé again. Only after Christine has a secret meeting with Raoul during a ball masque does the Phantom, who shadowed her, to make Christine his prisoner of love.

In true Universal fashion, this Gothic presentation has all the elements of a suspense thriller. From its opening shot shows a cloaked figure creeping about the underground cellar of the opera house. The storyline immediately gets down to basics in which there's a discussion amongst the staff regarding a mysterious figure roaming about, followed by the sudden appearance of another mysterious character (Arthur Edmund Carewe) walking about the opera house, saying nothing but observing everything. In between these key scenes leading to the purpose of the movie title, there are ballet and opera sequences inter-cutting the plot, along with a stage hand (Snitz Edwards) supplying some "comic relief.". This being a silent film, the compositions from FAUST cannot be heard, but are usually heard through the underscoring which accompanies the film. Besides the now familiar story and its just famous unmasking sequence, it's Chaney as Erik, the mysterious phantom, with his skull-like appearance, who makes this one of the most intense characters ever played on the screen. The movie, itself, fails to explore the background to Erik's character, as to why does he choose Christine as his selected one. Only late into the story is it realized, through the investigation in the police records by Christine's fiancé, Raoul, that Erik is not only a self-educated musician having escaped imprisonment from Devil's Island, but is actually insane. Other than being insane, he's a genius, for that he has decorated his underground chambers with certain traps, including a room that can fill with water or become filled with intense heat for his intruders. While Erik being insane might explain certain aspects as his intent to kill certain individuals at the opera house (with one scene finding one man left dangling from a noose), but fails to answer the question, "Was Erik born this way or was he a rejected creation of Doctor Frankenstein?"

So popular upon its release, THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA was reissued in 1930, a shorter print with added talking sequences and new orchestral score. Universal remade THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA in 1943 with Claude Rains; and in 1962 with Herbert Lom, each performed differently from the Chaney carnation, but with some explained detail to the Phantom's background of character.

THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA has achieved cult status over the years, due to constant revivals, ranging from theaters to television. It was one of the selected twelve movies shown on public television's 1975 presentation of "The Silent Years", hosted by Lillian Gish. During the era of home video in the 1980s, THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA not only became a public domain title, but consisted of various versions and different scores. The Kartes Video Communications print features no scoring but a different opening introducing Raoul de Chagny (Kerry) and his brother, Philippe (John St. Polis), through title cards, and other scenes detailing the character of Carlotta (Virginia Pearson). There's even a conclusion with Christine and Raoul kissing on their honeymoon in Viroflay, a fade-out that's non-existent in most prints. BLACKHAWK Video, later Republic Home Video, included an excellent organ score (by Gaylord Carter) and clear picture quality of 79 minutes, the standard length of many video copies, but excluding the brief honeymoon closing. This similar print can be found from KINO Video.

In one of the Turner Classic Movies cable TV presentations of THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA during its weekly Silent Sunday Nights a few years ago, the station, having broadcast with a traditional organ score in years past, presented Halloween night one of the worst reproductions and bad orchestrations ever presented for a silent movie, making this 97 minute version appear endless. Eventually TCM went ahead and a more soothing copy and organ score afterwards.

As it stands, THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA can be seen numerous ways on video and DVD (at either 97 minutes or longer with orchestral scoring), but it's Lon Chaney's cloak figure that will remain in lasting memory long after the movie is over. (***)

Chaney outshines everyone.

[jondaris · 19 December 2001]

Chaney is best known today for two roles: Quasimodo in "The Hunchback of Notre Dame," and Erik in "The Phantom of the Opera." The pair contrast the human response to physical deformity. While Quasimodo searches for kindness and acts to protect his home and loved ones, Erik shuns humanity and in his hatred and isolation becomes truly evil.

Christine Daae (Mary Philbin) is the understudy at the Paris Opera house, an ancient structure built over a network of torture chambers and interconnecting cellars. Rumors abound of a ghost or phantom who stalks the halls, and even rents his own box for the performances. With the help of this mysterious stranger, Daae becomes the lead diva.

Daae, apparently fine with her benefactor's use of extortion and mass murder to help her career, dumps her boyfriend Raoul (Norman Kerry) and follows the masked Phantom into the bowels of the opera house. She is, however, sensitive enough to collapse in a faint at the discovery that her benefactor is the legendary Phantom, and at his profession of love for her.

Awakening, she discovers herself in a lavish bedroom he has prepared for her, with her name engraved on a hand mirror. But upon snatching off the Phantom's mask, she realizes that he isn't Prince Charming after all, but hideously deformed, with a skull-like face.

The Phantom returns her to the opera, telling her that she must never see Raoul again. Upon reflection, however, Christine decides that looks and sanity are more important to her in a lover than she originally thought, and makes plans to meet Raoul at the annual masked ball. Raoul, neither particularly brave or smart, suggests that the two of them hightail it out of town. Christine, not one to run before her chance at the big time, suggests that they flee after the following evening's performance. Erik, of course, is listening in.

At that point Erik drops his nice-guy facade, hangs a stagehand who discovers his trap door, kidnaps Christine and flees into the cellars. He is hotly pursued by Raoul and a Secret Police inspector, who are followed by Raoul's brother, who is followed by angry mob led by the murdered stagehand's brother.

Erik, meanwhile, is trying to convince Christine of his capacity to reform ("No longer like a toad in these foul cellars will I secrete the venom of hatred -- for you shall bring me love!"). Alas, his plans to become a good husband are interrupted by the need to bump off a few of his pursuers, using elaborate boody traps and alarms throughout the dungeons.

The final minute of the movie is perhaps the best, with Erik's final gesture proving that his mental ability far outweighs that of anyone else in the film. He goes out in style, leaving the dim-witted Raoul and his amoral girlfriend to live happily ever after.

The two best things are Chaney's over-the-top performance as Erik and the spectacular sets. Chaney had a way of making any other actors in a film appear flat and lifeless, and this is no exception. The elaborate set of the opera house and the gothic appearance of the dungeons are still impressive, and the tinting and two-strip technicolor in the Bal Masque sequence look great.

"Phantom" is rousing horror/adventure, while "Hunchback" was a touching allegorical film. The latter is better and more serious, but "Phantom" is still some of the most fun it's possible to have before a movie screen.

Only a shadow of a film.

[The-Silent-Photoplayer · 10/10 · 28 June 2003]

The current copy of the Universal production of "The Phantom of the Opera" (1925) is only a shadow of what was once a great film.

Originally, the way the film was shot, it stayed quite close to the book. Many people have complaints about the film straying from the novel, but key sequences like the Graveyard at Perros and the alternate ending where Erik dies of Christine's kiss were shot, then scrapped, then reshot, and then re-scrapped. Eventually, they were just rewritten or disacknowledged altogether.

The original cut was shown in Los Angeles on January 7 and 26, 1925. This was the cut that used the most footage from what was shot starting on October-December 1924. Due to poor reviews, the January release was pulled, and Rupert Julian was told to reshoot most of the picture. Already having become a difficult director and egocentric over the fact that he was the star director ever since he replaced Erich Von Stroheim on THE MERRY-GO-ROUND (1924), he walked out on the studio.

Edward Sedgewick (later director of Keaton's THE CAMERAMAN), who was working for Universal at the time, was asked by Carl Laemmele to reshoot and redirect a bulk of the movie. Raymond L. Schrock, who along with Elliot Clawson, was the screenwriter for the film, re-wrote new scenes to add into the film by the request of Sedgewick. Most of these scenes were added subplots, with Chester Conklin and Vola Vale as comedic partners to the heroes and Ward Crane as the Russian, "Count Ruboff" dueling for Christine's affection. This cut premiered in San Fransico on April 26, 1925 and also failed miserably with reviews.

The final cut had to be made, so Maurice Pivar and Lois Weber re-wrote the final draft script, which was edited to the final nine reels, which debuted on September 6, 1925 at the Astor Theater in New York City, and October 17, 1925 in Hollywood. This cut only exists in 16mm Show-At-Home prints made by Universal for home movie use. These prints are not top quality, but watchable, and even the most complete existing version of this print today is incomplete from years of splicing. These 16mm prints sometimes make it to the underground video market and are best to watch for story, but not for quality.

If you think about all of the mishandling in between, you realize how much has been tampered with the film so far. To add insult to injury, most prints circulating today, including Kino's and the Kevin Brownlow restoration, are actually from a re-release in 1929. When sound came around, Universal immediately redubbed Phantom in sound and re-shot about 40% of the film (whatever Lon Chaney was not in, since he was unavailable). The only quality 35mm print today is a copy made in 1950 for Eastman House in Rochester, NY of the silent cut of the sound re-release to distribute to theaters that didn't have sound systems.

So as you can see, it is really almost impossible to truly critique THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA (1925). It is a semi-lost film.

The first remains the best

[divaclv · 9/10 · 20 December 2004]

"The Phantom of the Opera" is a tale that's been oft told, but all too often it's told poorly. The story--a grand melodrama, like much of opera itself--requires a fine balance of terror and tragedy, with perhaps a bit of camp humor to lighten the proceedings, and finding the right tone is a task which has defeated many a director and actor. But it can be done, as this first of the many film incarnations proves.

For anyone needing an overview of Gaston Leroux's tale, the premise is briefly thus: during the latter decades of the Victorian Era, the great Paris Opera is troubled with whispers of a ghost--a frightening specter which visits misfortune on the company should they fail to please him. Up-and-coming singer Christine Daae (Mary Philbin), meanwhile, is more preoccupied with her singing tutor--a disembodied voice she believes to be an emissary from her dead father, who guides her to new heights but demands she put her music above all else, including and especially her handsome childhood sweetheart Raoul (Norman Kerry). Neither Phantom nor tutor is a spirit in truth, but are two different sides of the same man--a horribly disfigured, unnaturally gifted, and frighteningly passionate man, but a man nonetheless.

Despite dated acting techniques and some extremely overwrought title cards ("You must save me, Raoul--oh, save me!" Christine pleads at one point), the silent film version of "Phantom" has held up remarkably well, thanks to some evocative scenes and an unforgettable turn by Lon Chaney in the title role. The moment when the Phantom, driven by his all-consuming desire for Christine, lures the girl into his home beneath the Opera is every bit as eerie and compelling as it should be. An Escher-like series of ramps descends into the earth, leading to the sort of black subterranean lake Charon would feel at home on, and an underground apartment that seems fairly normal, until you see the coffin in the master bedroom and the mirrored torture chamber adjoining.

Any version of "Phantom," though, lives or dies by its title character, and Chaney does not disappoint. Even in his early scenes, where he appears almost solely as a shadow on the wall, he has a remarkable presence, his gestures expressive and elegant in silhouette. The audience first sees him in physical form as Christine first sees him--a masked and cloaked figure, disturbing yet with an aura of weary sadness about him. When that mask finally comes off in the film's landmark scene, Chaney's makeup genius is instantly in evidence. The wild-eyed, cadaverous skull remains the most frightening interpretations of the Phantom's disfigurement, and also the one which hews closest to Leroux's description. (To be fair, it's doubtful Chaney's makeup would have been practical in a sound film; the distortions of his nose and mouth would have made speaking--and singing--very difficult indeed.) The movie's greatest weakness is its ending, a chase scene (complete with the standard Angry Torch-Bearing Mob) that feels wedged in, probably because that's precisely what it is. The original ending stuck with Leroux's novel, where the Phantom, moved by Christine's compassion, releases her to marry her young suitor--but the first audiences, apparently not as empathetic for the character as his creator was, found this ending an unsatisfying one. Unfortunately, the current resolution denies the Phantom the redemption which has been a major part of his appeal to modern audiences, and one wishes that we had an opportunity to see Chaney portray it. But on the whole, this is a "Phantom" that remains head and shoulders above its many film successors.

Nice movie, with superb scenery

[b-a-h TNT-6 · 7/10 · 10 June 2001]

Analyzing an old silent movie using nowadays standards wouldn't be fair: the medium is too different, the acting performances require a different perspective, and when you watch it you find yourself enjoying the movie much like you would do with a painting. This is especially true for the classic The Phantom of the Opera, a movie that gets you lost in the images more than in the story itself.

Lon Chaney gives a good portrayal of the phantom, yet somewhat different from what was portrayed in later efforts with the same subject: his character comes off more like a cold blooded than a somewhat likeable character. What shines in this movie is the visual impact: the costumes are really nice, and the gothic scenery is perfect. The best scene of them all has to be the Red Death one, appropriately shot in a painting-like color, definitely one of the most beautiful images offered by old cinema.

Sure, the movie is hardly gonna provide any scares by now, and the story has been told many times. However, this is a primary example of how old cinema can still offer a very worthy experience.

Silence is golden...

[Coventry · 8/10 · 31 May 2004]

One of the most eminent horror films ever made and perhaps even the most famous silent horror movie from that time. Lon Chaney starred in over 150 films (most of them silent ones) but he'll always be remembered best for his personification of Erik, the Phantom. And justified! Even though this role was played by many respectable actors afterwards (like Claude Rains, Herbert Lom and Robert Englund) Lon Chaney is – and remains – the one and only Phantom of the Opera. The film itself is depressing and dark, with terrific photography and settings. Deep down the catacombs of the Parisian Opera building, the phantom reigns in forgotten dungeons and underground lakes. After all these years of dwelling in the opera, he has fallen in love with the unsuccessful singer, Christine. He helps her career a little and threatens to kill the prominent singer Carlotta if she doesn't hand over the her role in Faust to Christine. The until then unknown singer is thankful and meets her `master' in the catacombs. Her appreciation soon turns into fear when she finds out her benefactor is the horribly scarred Phantom of the Opera. The biggest difference between this first version and the later remakes lies in the roots of the Phantom. Here, Erik is said to be an escaped madman whereas he merely only was a hurt romanticist in later versions. His deformed appearance isn't explained and neither is shown how he falls for the beautiful, shy Christine.

At least 3 sequences in the 1925 Phantom of the Opera are legendary and still astonishing after almost 80 years. The masked bal, which the Phantoms attends as the `Red Death' is an outstanding horror sequence and truly atmospheric. The grimaces of Chaney seem to look right through the other partygoers and his search for Christine is relentless. Immediately after this scene, the crew moves to the roof of the Opera building and Chaney takes place on top of the Apollo statue. A breathtaking piece of early cinema that stands the test of time like no other. The climax of Phantom of the Opera is an extended series of chasings and battues, resulting in the dramatic (and gruesome) death of our protagonist. Rupert Julian's classic silent has got everything! An actor capable of carrying the toughest role ever written, beautiful scenery, real-life drama, sentiment and romance. And last but not least an unbearable tension… Throughout the entire film, you're looking at it with your eyes wide open.

A classic of silent horror.

[BA_Harrison · 7/10 · 1 April 2011]

Those unaccustomed to the vagaries of cinema during its infancy may struggle with The Phantom Of The Opera's overtly theatrical acting, which in this case seems to be even more exaggerated than your average silent movie (I know I struggled at times with the actors' extravagant body movements and OTT facial expressions, some of which border on the ridiculous); however, no matter how cringe-worthy these exaggerated melodramatic performances might be at times, Rupert Julian's 1925 version of The Phantom of the Opera is still a worthwhile effort thanks to loads of breathtaking visuals, a memorable performance from Lon Chaney as 'phantom' Erik, and in the version I saw (the 1929 re-issue, I believe), a rousing orchestral score that perfectly complements the imagery.

Blessed with excellent production values, superb set design and bold lighting, Phantom is a delight to behold, a visual feast that compensates for its cast's often laughable histrionics with several truly iconic moments: beautiful opera star Christina snatches the mask from ghoulish 'phantom' Erik as he plays the organ, revealing his hideously disfigured face; perched high atop a Gothic statue, cape billowing wildly in the wind, Erik watches in silent rage as Christina plans to run away with her lover; his face hidden by a grinning skull mask, Erik pursues Christina through the crowds at a masquerade ball; like Charon ferrying the dead across the river Styx, 'the phantom' guides his boat silently across an underground lake, Christina the unwilling passenger.

Vintage Silent Horror

[heatmise · 8/10 · 8 June 2001]

Lon Chaney, Sr. gives a legendary performance as well as making an everlasting horrifying spectacle of himself. The make-up and elaborate sets are truly to be held in awe, even by today's standards. The rare use of two-strip Technicolor brings dazzling effect to the incomparable masquerade ball scene. Sit back and enjoy the silent and definitive film version of a classic monster fable that sound, technology and time have yet to top. 8 Stars

The best silent film.

[theshadow908 · 7/10 · 26 June 2006]

The Phantom of the Opera tells the classic story of a deranged disfigured from birth musician who lives underneath the Paris Opera House and has an unhealthy obsession with Christine Daae, a back up singer. He makes constant demands to have her career pushed forward, and if the demands are ignored, he causes devastation to the opera house. The managers see him as a phantom haunting the Opera House. Christine believes he is the Angel of Music sent by her dead father to look over her. This is the most entertaining silent film there is.

In an age where all movies are flashy and CGI loaded, it's good sometimes to sit down and view a classic silent film where everything was done for real. For the time, the special effects and make-up are very good, and the story is as dark as it can be. This movie is the closest to Gaston Leroux's novel, but that's a bit of a downfall too. The lines are almost identical to the book, so the dialogue is really corny in some scenes. What I like the best about the movie was the ending. The ending is very brutal by 1920s standards, and I thought it was great.

I can't comment on the acting much, because to me, 1920s acting is all the same. However, I can say that Lon Chaney did a good job as always playing a weird and twisted character.

Overall, this is the most entertaining silent film there is, and it's worth a viewing from people who want to see the classics.

7/10

The Phantom of the Opera is here, inside all of our minds now and forever.

[pitsburghfuzz · 10/10 · 27 October 2009]

The classic tale of a disfigured composer who falls in love with a beautiful singer has been told many times but only once has the phantom been beautifully portrayed like the way Lon Chaney did. It was an elaborate 1925 Universal production that is legendary. The film is in my opinion the greatest silent movie I have ever seen. It is creepy, yet enticing and the production value is astounding, especially the chandelier scene. The scene that truly steals the cake is when the mask is unveiled, to what is considered the most shocking scene ever done in a silent movie. The color ballroom scene when the phantom is red death is truly uncanny, but the scene after where he is agonizing on top of the opera house with his cape blowing and tons of emotions are being expressed while his red cape is blowing in the air and he is the only color in the scene. This movie was among 400 others that were nominated or AFI's top 100 movies, but did not make it. Whether you believe it should or should not, Phantom of the Opera is a sight to behold and the Phantom of the Opera will always be here inside all of our minds.

The Phantom of the Opera: A Silent Phenomenon

[rockerphreak1025 · 7/10 · 8 February 2006]

Phantom of the Opera was filmed in 1925 and is based on the Gaston Leroux novel of the same title. The film has been around for close to 90 years and is still widely known and watched today. It has been deemed "culturally significant" by the Library of Congress and selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry. It compiled wonderful actors and directors together to form an original masterpiece.

The director uses a feeling of suspense and anxiety throughout the entire movie when he disguises certain actions and faces to keep the audience interested. For example, a man at Box Five is only portrayed as a shadowy figure. Another light factor occurs when the Phantom is about to strike and the lights flicker on and off at the Opera House. This gives the viewer a foreshadowing of what's about to happen and also, it gives a bit of a taste of the Phantom's character and how he likes to make an entrance.

Consequently, the main characters played by Lon Chaney and Mary Philbin were well portrayed by the use of Gothic costumes and elaborate facial expressions. For instance, the Phantom hypnotizes Christine by using his enormous eyes when she gets closer to his home. This scene stresses the fact that the Phantom is not an ordinary individual and possesses dangerous talents, which Lon Chaney has no problem in emphasizing. Mary Philbin's shining moment occurs when Christine against all odds, chooses to meet with Raoul, her lover. This actually ends up endangering both of their lives. The actress freely goes back and forth between a frightened and a content facial expression throughout the film, which proves to add to Christine's personality.

Furthermore, Phantom of the Opera contains various Gothic elements, making it into a romantic horror. Even a small incidence of a black cat walking across the stage, portrays a sense of superstition and a supernatural presence. The red cape that the Phantom is wearing when he spies on Christine and Raoul is a reference to death, which can be thought of as a type of unreality as well.

Overall, I recommend this movie to anyone who is looking for an escape from their ordinary life into a Gothic romance. The film itself can be lengthy at times when no real action is occurring, but in a way, it adds to the suspense that the director is trying to develop. Even its score can be thought of as an artistic addition because it adds to the mood of the entire plot. I can honestly admit that what I expected from the film by just looking at the year that it was done, was nothing what it turned out to be. I enjoyed Phantom of the Opera as much as I would have enjoyed a movie with actual sound in it.

The Best Phantom!

[Django-21 · 4/10 · 7 March 2001]

This is a silent classic (although not quite as good as Nosferatu or Metropolis) and is easily the best version of The Phantom Of The Opera. Silent film is a perfect medium for this tale, if like me you're less than fond of actual opera.

This film to me, is different from many of the later versions (the Charles Dance/Terri Polo mini series, for example) in the fact that I can't believe that Erik (The Phantom played by Lon Chaney, a master of his painstaking craft) truly loves Christine Daae (silent era starlet Mary Philbin). In this film it seems more

like a selfish need to possess her and keep her for him alone. Lon Cahaney is gleefully evil and sadistic in this version, wantonly terrorising and killing without a thought. A true monster, unlike the later more sympathetic/romantic interpretations. This is a dark film, atmospheric and thrilling. An early horror classic worth keepin alive and far superior to the later Universal "talkies" of the '30s.

Seeing this one with Mary was an unforgettable experience!

[gregcouture · 25 April 2003]

My goodness...close to fifty years ago I saw this film in the company of its leading lady, Mary Philbin. She was a friend of an unforgettable lady our family had met when we moved from New England to southern California. Our mutual friend was constantly prodding Miss Philbin, who had become quite reclusive after retiring from the screen, to get out and enjoy life. (They took a trip to Europe one summer, for instance.) One evening she persuaded Mary, who was extremely reluctant, by the way, to accompany us to the silent movie theater on Fairfax Ave., not far from Hollywood Blvd. and the site of Grauman's Chinese Theater and other first-run movie palaces, to see a revival of "The Phantom of the Opera." That old theater, not in the least luxurious and quite small, was a virtual shrine for lovers of silent films. Management had obtained a print of this film in acceptable condition, though I don't recall that the Technicolor sequence had been preserved in that print and, on that evening anyway, there was no musical accompaniment.

Mary dreaded the experience of seeing one of her old films amid a mid-Fifties audience, which she feared would find the film a subject of comical curiosity rather than a piece of genuinely enthralling entertainment. We joined the rest of the audience that night in enjoying the experience of seeing the film, however, and Mary was relieved that she had consented to accompany us (though she insisted that we shield her from any possible recognition, not too easy to do, since she had hardly changed in appearance in the quarter-century since that classic's production.) I, for one, remember being amazed at the care and expense that had obviously been lavished on its production.

Not very long after that evening, we went to a neighborhood theater in Pacific Palisades, Calif., to see James Cagney in the 1957 Universal-International biographical film about Lon Chaney, Sr., "Man of a Thousand Faces," again with Mary Philbin in our company. The unmasking scene from "The Phantom of the Opera" was rather perfunctorily recreated, with an actress playing Mary who did not resemble her. As we exited the theater, Mary and our family friend, who had quite a few early Hollywood associations (She had once been married to Ernst Lubitsch, the legendary director, when they first came to Hollywood from their native Germany.), regaled me with reminiscences about Irving Thalberg (played in the film by a young Robert Evans), whom they had both known and for whom they had quite a high regard.

Mary remained a family friend over the years until her death more than thirty years later. She led a very quiet life, for many years occupying a house she had owned since the days of her stardom (only a few blocks north on Fairfax Ave. from that silent movie revival house!) I remember her with great fondness for her modesty and extraordinary sweetness.

The darkness behind the scenes at the playhouse

[Anonymous_Maxine · 10/10 · 12 January 2005]

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.

There have been many Phantoms but only one original

[ozthegreatat42330 · 10/10 · 28 March 2007]

I have seen a number of versions of this story over the years, but my favorite is a re-release from just a few years ago of the Original with an all new Soundscore by Rick Wakeman (Keboardist and Organist from the rock group "YES")Introduced by Christopher Lee actually in the sub basement of the Paris Opera House. The Paris Opera House being only two blocks from the river Siene did actually have five sub floors and an underground lake that was below the river level. Lon Chaney's extraordinary makeup for the character Erik was never to be improved through all of the other incarnations. And while Mary Philbin's performance was excellent Chaney's performance absolutely shined as the quintessential tortured soul-cum-villain of Gaston Leroux's novel. No complete movie collection should be without this film.

La Belle et la Bête

[mjneu59 · 7/10 · 27 December 2010]

The original Lon Chaney version of the classic horror story may not be the best introduction to silent films for anyone unaccustomed to the style and pacing of pre-Vitaphone melodrama. Modern audiences are cautioned to approach it as they would any antique museum piece, forgiving the now faded visual splendor and dated histrionics to better appreciate the age and rarity of the artifact itself.

Strictly speaking, the film was never much of a true horror story. Think of it instead as a wayward cousin to Jean Cocteau's 'Beauty and the Beast', with the lovelorn and tragic title character revealed not as an enchanted fairy tale prince, but a disfigured lunatic escaped from the local insane asylum. The Gothic production design is still impressive, but after all these years it's Lon Chaney who carries the film, and his commanding presence is never more obvious than in the pivotal scene when an unsuspecting Mary Philbin unmasks him in his underground lair beneath the Paris Opera House. It's one of the defining moments of our collective movie memory, and deserves to be seen as originally intended: on the big screen with live musical accompaniment (I was fortunate to see the film, in February of 2002, at the Riviera Theatre in North Tonawanda, New York, with the talented Cary Wright on the theater's restored, vintage Wurlitzer organ).

Lon Chaney is the Man to Watch

[Vornoff-3 · 8/10 · 22 April 2011]

Having read the original book (in translation, admittedly), I feel safe in saying that it is not great literature. But, as has happened many times, a mediocre piece of literature has allowed artists to tap into a kind of archetype and rise above the material to create something more. This version probably sticks closer to the source material than any other, although my personal favorite scene is derived from Edgar Allen Poe's "Masque of the Red Death." The creeping through the catacombs, the various torture and strangulation devices, the love scene atop the Paris Opera House, all of these I recall from the book (the book is mostly action, since it has so little else to offer). And of course, the chandelier crashing into the audience, which no version has dared to skip. But, what really brought in the audiences was Lon Chaney, Sr.'s exquisitely horrible makeup, and it is this, along with his tortured performance, that make it really worthwhile today. If you have any ability to watch silent films whatsoever, this is the one to see.

Now, you shall see the evil spirit that makes my evil face...

[simeon_flake · 7/10 · 2 June 2005]

This movie is no doubt one of the all-time grand productions of the silent era--not to mention one of the more memorable, due in very large part to the talents of Lon Chaney Sr., who created one of the most memorable visages in all of filmdom as Erik the Phantom. But is "The Phantom of the Opera" a truly great movie? I would say parts of it are great, or at least memorable.

We all know about the "unmasking scene", which still packs a jolt 80 years after it was filmed. Erik's indignation as he points his accusing finger at the woman who violated his privacy, so to speak, turns to a mad sort of glee as he forces her to look upon his face ("feast your eyes--glut your soul on my accursed ugliness") and seemingly just as quickly he turns away from her, knowing now that Christine has seen what's under the mask, his love will go on unrequited. That Chaney can win sympathy for such a hideous man is a testament to his talent.

On the flipside, there's the sequence with the chandelier, that seems to take forever building up to & when it finally does come crashing down, it's all over too quickly. As the picture moves towards its climax, you may start to wonder how indeed Erik managed to stay hidden for so many years. Before the movie is over, it seems like all of Paris is beating down his door trying to get at him. Did Erik start marking his trapdoors with X's?

Overall, I might be inclined to call this more of a great spectacle than film--a "spectacle" however that can still entertain and provide more than a few indelible memories.

Pure Genius

[PumaJones · 9/10 · 22 December 2004]

This movie is one of the few horror movies that truly was beyond its time. Needless to say, Lon Chaney Sr. was capable of terrifying audiences with little more than a simple clown make up kit and some wires and hairpins. Modern films of the genre struggle for effectiveness (with awesome exception) using state of the art CGI and special FX. RIP Lon Chaney, you were a master of your art.

The sets are par excellence, I am inclined to agree with the above comment on that point. The acting was the finest that could be expected of a film that relied little on the audio and deeply upon the visual. I found myself drawn into the story, simply by what little detail is brought to the characters' depth in the text spots. The silent acting bloomed the rest into my mind. This was one of the films that helped me learn to respect the art before the "talkies".

Chaney Does it Again

[bheck1 · 7/10 · 22 July 2005]

I have seen this film many times, and I find myself being drawn into it the more I watch it. Yeah, many of the performances are overdone, and Rupert Julian was a hack of a director, but you will NEVER forget Chaney's performance. In a film of big dramatics, Chaney brings nuance, rhythm, and subtleties to his performance like no one else. ...And by the way, Chaney did not direct the Bal Masque sequence. Whoever posted that is gravely mistaken. However, according to Scott McQueen, Chaney did have a hand in some of the unmasking scene, and one brief insert shot. All I can say is, get the Milestone/Photoplay edition of the film. The quality of it is a revelation, and one of the best restorations of a silent film I have ever seen. If only Turner would release more of the Chaney films in their holdings, especially some of the Browning films. Oh, well maybe someday.

"Man's hatred has made me so"

[nickenchuggets · 9/10 · 8 June 2022]

I must admit that I've already seen this movie, but it was a long time ago and I didn't write about my viewing experiences back then. Now that I've watched it again, I can finally make an actual judgement on it. Because Lon Chaney is in this, I'm correct in saying it's one of the most well made horror movies, even if it's not all that creepy by modern standards. For me, Chaney's longevity as a great actor is not due to his ability to be creepy, but because of his ability to transform his appearance so deftly. He wasn't called "the man of 1000 faces" for nothing. In this film, he dons arguably the most disturbing costume of 1920s cinema. The story takes place in the Paris Opera House, where a play called Faust is being performed. At the performance are two brothers, Philippe (Edward Martindel) and Raoul de Chagny (Norman Kerry). This is a particular exciting experience for the latter, as his love interest Christine (Mary Philbin) is due to sing. Raoul tells Christine during a break in the play he wants to marry her, but she thinks such a move would jeopardize her duty as a performer. Soon after, the people leading the opera house are told about the alleged existence of a ghost or phantom that people have seen in one of the boxes overlooking the theater. They don't really think anything of it, but some of the performers themselves claim they've seen this ghost in the vast basements of the opera house. The phantom then tries to anonymously blackmail Christine into singing a certain role in the play tomorrow or else he'll do something regrettable. Raoul meets again with Christine, still determined on getting her to marry him, but now she's saying she hears someone or something talking to her about how to sing well. She's tempted to learn how to do this, so she rejects him again. As promised, Christine takes her new role in the opera, and the performance goes well enough. However, a man named Simon later finds the corpse of his brother Joseph backstage, who has apparently hanged himself. The phantom is still not satisfied with hearing just one performance from Christine, and sends a note to Carlotta (the girl Christine is replacing) demanding her to give up her role to Christine. However, this time Carlotta doesn't give in and Christine doesn't get her role. The phantom is enraged and causes a chandelier to crash to the audience, killing some spectators. Eventually, Christine comes face to face (or rather face to mask) with the phantom himself, whose real name is Erik (Lon Chaney). The phantom apparently loves her so much that she is allowed free passage between his underground hideout and the rest of the opera house, that is until Christine takes off his mask when he's playing an organ. Now that she can see his horrifically malformed true face, she no longer wants to see him again, but Erik says she must never be allowed to leave. Christine sneaks out of the underground to meet with Raoul in order to tell him about the horrible things she's seen, and the phantom hears the whole conversation from a statue on the roof. Christine is later abducted by the phantom, and an inspector named Ledoux is able to provide details to Raoul about Erik's past life. Ledoux and Raoul venture into the underground caverns in order to save Christine and get trapped, but Christine manages to save them by lying to Erik and saying she'll marry him if he lets them live. By this point, a large crowd armed with torches has assembled nearby and tries to kill the phantom once and for all. He takes Christine with him and tries to escape in a horse carriage, but it is overturned, allowing the mob to swarm Erik and throw him into a river. Raoul and Christine then get married. This is undoubtedly one of the most memorable horror films ever. Some of it doesn't really feel like horror, but that specific moment when Christine removes Erik's mask is just unforgettable. Even almost a century later, Chaney's makeup in this movie is truly terrifying and zombie-like. The secluded cellars of the opera house are also a sight to behold. I know that a great many things since the release of this movie have bore the name "Phantom of the Opera", but this will always be the best adaptation just because a horror actor of Chaney's talent will never again appear. I find it strange how the movie makers didn't really know the layout of the Paris Opera House considering how great this movie turned out. If Chaney and the other excellent actors in here demonstrate one thing above all others, they prove you don't need computers or advanced special effects to make horror of this magnitude. Hopefully more people become fans of his after watching this.

It might have been a lot worse

[mhesselius · 7/10 · 27 July 2010]

It's difficult to assess how good or bad "The Phantom of the Opera" is because you first have to ask "Which Phantom?" The original 1925 release is rarely seen because it only exists as a scratchy 16mm print. More widely known is the 1929 re-release and the 1930 sound release with passages of dialog on a super-imposed sound track. The 35mm 1930 release is in excellent shape, but although aesthetically superior, it was cut down and re-edited to a point where the plot often makes no sense. Entire scenes necessary to the continuity of the story are missing or out of place, and new ballet sequences with Universal studio head Carl Laemmle's niece were added. It's a shame no one has reassembled the film as it was originally released, using the 16mm footage where necessary (color tinting added of course), with scenes restored and in their proper places. There's no question that director Rupert Julian was a hack, but he does not deserve to be judged by the incomplete re-release.

Art direction by Ben Carre, the Technicolor Bal Masque sequence (a survivor of several color sequences), together with Lon Chaney's makeup and performance, and his own uncredited direction, compensate for Julian's incompetence and for cuts that were made after previews. A scene in which we see the Phantom's shadow as he plays the violin for Christine Daae in a churchyard, and in which he rolls skulls to frighten Christine's lover, Raoul de Chagny, was cut because it was too intense for 1925 audiences. Chaney objected to the part of the scene requiring him to reveal his true face to Christine's lover. He correctly assumed the scene as written would undercut the effectiveness of the unmasking. I guess it never occurred to Julian that he could photograph the Phantom from behind to capture Raoul's reaction. Likewise, a scene of rats scurrying ahead of a rat catcher in the subterranean chambers beneath the opera house was deemed too horrifying, and leaves us to wonder "Whose face was that?" and "What were Raoul and the Persian grimacing at?"

Realistically, you have to accept any film as a product of its time and take it for what it can give you. But it's a mistake to believe silent acting was always florid and overstated. It is disappointing, therefore, to see the pantomime so necessary in the silent era carried to absurd heights in this film. Chaney always worried that without competent direction he was prone to over-act. And after the unmasking he becomes a stock villain out of melodrama. Before the unmasking, however, Chaney's hand gestures are graceful, natural, and appropriate for someone who has lived a vicarious, theatrical fantasy existence beneath the Paris opera house. Also Chaney created several masks for the Phantom, each subtly evoking a different emotion. The unmasking itself is a masterpiece of direction, editing, and acting, and can still deliver a shock eighty years after it was filmed. Chaney's gruesome makeup is justly famous, and follows the Phantom's description in the Leroux novel.

Finally, we must give credit to the preview audiences for demanding a change in the emotionally overwrought ending adapted from the novel, in which the Phantom dies of a broken heart after being kissed by Christine. Preview audiences craved retribution. The Phantom was a murderer and would have tortured Raoul and the Persian to death had not Christine agreed to surrender to him sexually. Another director was brought in to film a mob pursuing the monster through the streets of Paris with flaming torches. It was not the last Universal horror film that would end this way. But Chaney's acting elevates this particular ending. He reaches into his coat and temporarily halts the mob by threatening them with a bomb that doesn't exist. He gradually opens his hand to reveal nothing and laughs madly as the mob descends upon him. It is a brilliant piece of pantomime emblematic of his genius, to threaten the audience with nothing and, as Ray Bradbury has said, make them believe it's real.

The Phantom of the Opera (1925)

[MartinTeller · 5/10 · 12 January 2012]

I always have to be careful evaluating silents. I don't want to fall into the trap of overrating something because it's "good for its time" but I also don't want to overcompensate for that just to prove a point. I just try to be honest, and really I didn't think this was very good at all, no matter what time it's from. This is my first experience with this story, and although I loathe Andrew Lloyd Webber, I have to imagine that even his version is more nuanced than this. Barebones storytelling with zero intriguing developments and drearily dull characters. I couldn't give a damn what happened to Christine (whose reaction to the phantom is no more sophisticated than "eww gross") or her generic lover. Even Lon Chaney is just a boring bogeyman with a cool makeup job. There are a few striking images and a handful of funhouse tricks at the climax, but nothing terribly exciting. Yawn.