The Early Face of Horror
TCM Movie #14: The Phantom of the Opera.
I naturally had heard of the silent version of The Phantom of the Opera, both because I’m a movie buff and because of discussions connecting it to the Andrew Lloyd Webber musical (I’m thinking of these videos in particular, but be warned, there are spoilers for some of the various versions, including this one). Seeing it on the big screen seemed like a fine way to close out the film festival and fill a hole in my film education at the same time. And while it took me awhile to get back into the rhythms of watching silent movies, I found I enjoyed it very much.
The plot of the story has probably seeped into pop culture by now, but I’ll give a summary anyway. At the Paris Opera House in the late 1800’s, stagehands and stage managers alike are intimidated by the rumors of a Phantom (Lon Chaney) who haunts the place. His current reason for prowling around? He’s doing his best to make Christine Daaé (Mary Philbin) the star. He succeeds via a bit of mayhem, but when he finally meets Christine in person, she’s terrified of his appearance. Because he loves her, he agrees to let her return to the opera (instead of keeping her in his well-furnished rooms in the bowels of the opera house), but only if she doesn’t see her boyfriend Raoul (Norman Kerry) again. Naturally, she can’t keep that promise, and the plot becomes a case of kidnap and rescue. Perfect melodramatic material, in other words.
As befits a period piece and a horror film, there’s a lot of impressive technical material on . The sets are appropriately large and opulent/foreboding, depending on what’s required for the scene. There’s a scene that experiments with Technicolor-only the red has really come through, but it’s still impressive to see in a 1925 film. There’s also a great used of red in connection to the Phantom that foreshadows the use of color to make a point in later movies. And of course, there’s the Phantom makeup, which is very well done, even if the expression on Chaney’s face when it’s first revealed is more unintentionally amusing than terrifying nowadays. Anybody who dismisses silent movies as inferior productions should get a look at this movie, and perhaps they’ll reevaluate their opinion somewhat.
Storywise, I’d say the movie generally succeeds too. The Phantom is by turns sympathetic and nasty, which keeps you slightly off-balance, something I think serves the movie well. The way things play out may be a bit predictable (especially if you’re familiar with the musical), but everyone involved is playing their part well, so it doesn’t matter too much. Where the movie stumbles a little is not explaining certain plot details (like what it is about Christine that drives the Phantom to do what he does) and failing to fire a Chekov’s Gun (one that I wanted to see fired just to see how it would even work). Whether this was a deliberate decision or a case of the tropes not having been established yet (though Chekov had apparently stated his famous rule by 1889, so you’d think the writers of Phantom would know better), I can’t say, but it did catch my attention. Not enough to really bring down the movie, though.
While I don’t know if this movie had any major impact on films going forward (and if it did, it was probably in the makeup department), it’s definitely a film worth seeing, for movie buffs and non-movie buffs alike. Once you’ve got a handle on the conventions, it’s a well-executed movie on multiple fronts. Plus, as the success of the musical eighty-odd years later can prove, people like a little bit of melodrama in their life on occasion.
CAT ALERT: Twice during the movie, a cat is seen running down a flight of stairs. In fact, its second appearance makes it look like it’s the ringleader of what’s going on. Now that would have been interesting to see the explanation for…
I naturally had heard of the silent version of The Phantom of the Opera, both because I’m a movie buff and because of discussions connecting it to the Andrew Lloyd Webber musical (I’m thinking of these videos in particular, but be warned, there are spoilers for some of the various versions, including this one). Seeing it on the big screen seemed like a fine way to close out the film festival and fill a hole in my film education at the same time. And while it took me awhile to get back into the rhythms of watching silent movies, I found I enjoyed it very much.
The plot of the story has probably seeped into pop culture by now, but I’ll give a summary anyway. At the Paris Opera House in the late 1800’s, stagehands and stage managers alike are intimidated by the rumors of a Phantom (Lon Chaney) who haunts the place. His current reason for prowling around? He’s doing his best to make Christine Daaé (Mary Philbin) the star. He succeeds via a bit of mayhem, but when he finally meets Christine in person, she’s terrified of his appearance. Because he loves her, he agrees to let her return to the opera (instead of keeping her in his well-furnished rooms in the bowels of the opera house), but only if she doesn’t see her boyfriend Raoul (Norman Kerry) again. Naturally, she can’t keep that promise, and the plot becomes a case of kidnap and rescue. Perfect melodramatic material, in other words.
As befits a period piece and a horror film, there’s a lot of impressive technical material on . The sets are appropriately large and opulent/foreboding, depending on what’s required for the scene. There’s a scene that experiments with Technicolor-only the red has really come through, but it’s still impressive to see in a 1925 film. There’s also a great used of red in connection to the Phantom that foreshadows the use of color to make a point in later movies. And of course, there’s the Phantom makeup, which is very well done, even if the expression on Chaney’s face when it’s first revealed is more unintentionally amusing than terrifying nowadays. Anybody who dismisses silent movies as inferior productions should get a look at this movie, and perhaps they’ll reevaluate their opinion somewhat.
Storywise, I’d say the movie generally succeeds too. The Phantom is by turns sympathetic and nasty, which keeps you slightly off-balance, something I think serves the movie well. The way things play out may be a bit predictable (especially if you’re familiar with the musical), but everyone involved is playing their part well, so it doesn’t matter too much. Where the movie stumbles a little is not explaining certain plot details (like what it is about Christine that drives the Phantom to do what he does) and failing to fire a Chekov’s Gun (one that I wanted to see fired just to see how it would even work). Whether this was a deliberate decision or a case of the tropes not having been established yet (though Chekov had apparently stated his famous rule by 1889, so you’d think the writers of Phantom would know better), I can’t say, but it did catch my attention. Not enough to really bring down the movie, though.
While I don’t know if this movie had any major impact on films going forward (and if it did, it was probably in the makeup department), it’s definitely a film worth seeing, for movie buffs and non-movie buffs alike. Once you’ve got a handle on the conventions, it’s a well-executed movie on multiple fronts. Plus, as the success of the musical eighty-odd years later can prove, people like a little bit of melodrama in their life on occasion.
CAT ALERT: Twice during the movie, a cat is seen running down a flight of stairs. In fact, its second appearance makes it look like it’s the ringleader of what’s going on. Now that would have been interesting to see the explanation for…