It’s tough, because I’ve never found any of the Phantom adaptations I’ve seen particularly compelling. While the Webber musical has some great individual songs I think the overall musical is plodding–ditto the Schumacher film version starring Emmy Rossum. This silent version, starring Lon Chaney, apparently hews closer to Leroux’s original novel: so much so that the use of intertitles as a method of conveying exposition really swallows the film. It’s just SO much. The film does a good job of creating a creepy atmosphere through its production design, but ultimately it feels like one long setup to get to the iconic unmasking scene. Having seen the image for years, its shock value was diminished and the rest of the movie felt a little pointless.
Carl Laemmle brings Gaston Leroux horror-thriller to the big screen in the classic silent film The Phantom of the Opera. The story follows a Parris opera house that’s being terrorized by a fiend who threatens the new owners with deadly and disastrous consequences should they not meet his demands; meanwhile aspiring singer Christine Daae is secretly tutored by the mysterious Angel of Music, who promise to make her a star. Lon Chaney gives an iconic performance, and really transforms himself with an incredible makeup job. Additionally, the plot is remarkably faithful to the novel; save the ending. And the costumes and sets are quite impressive. It can be a bit meandering at times, but The Phantom of the Opera holds up remarkably well and deserves its place in the pantheon of Universal Monsters films.
I always thought classic universal horror wouldn’t be my cup of tea, but Eureka/MOC’s three-film faux E. A. Poe / Bela Lugosi & Boris Karloff box set convinced me otherwise. Before i delve into the classic 1930s-50s monster era though, i decided to start things off with this silent feature which is more or less considered an essential ur-text to the universal gothic style.
Unfortunately, what remains of this movie now is a hot mess. The original 1925 release version only survives in the form of horribly beat-up 16mm prints, while the original 35mm negatives (as well as several b-negatives) were then butchered for a 1929 re-release, both as a silent and a retroactively dubbed sound version. The sound version’s vitaphone discs have survived, but no complete print is known to exist that syncs up with the audio. Thus, all restorations so far are of the 1929 re-release silent version because these are the best-looking copies that survived - despite the 1925 cut (included as an extra in the BFI blu-ray and, as i already mentioned, pretty rough looking) being the way superior version, having more rhythm to its editing, feeling a lot faster although it’s something like 10-20 minutes longer.
So which version to watch, actually? I’d say both. First the restored 1929 version to appreciate the film’s visual aspects. Then the rough-looking 1925 version to appreciate its superior editing and pacing.
2/ 2 directing & technical aspect
.5 / 1 story
1 / 1 act I
.5 / 1 act II
1 / 1 act III
.5 / 1 acting
1 / 1 writing
.5 / 1 originality
0 / 1 lasting ability to make you think
0 / 0 misc
7 / 10
Shout by QuentinBlockedParent2024-01-13T04:02:02Z
I didn't really vibe with this one. im not into black and white films often and silent films arent my thing. pretty much only here for the pretty much it track