Dir. Rupert Julian, Lon Chaney, Ernst Laemmle, & Edward Sedgwick (1925)
A disfigured composer falls in love with a popular opera singer.
One of my favorite things about my first trip to New York was being able to see The Phantom of the Opera on Broadway. It was an experience I will never forget, watching the legendary Andrew Lloyd Webber musical on the largest stage possible. It was a story I was, of course, familiar with, but I had never seen the musical before and, to be honest, I had no idea that a musical could be so hauntingly beautiful. Well, that's not entirely true: I saw Cats one time, and I, to this day, believe it was the most athletic event I've ever seen in person. Nonetheless, Phantom was an impressive performance, an old story that almost everyone knows about but few modern audiences have seen in its original form. Based on a serialized novel by Gaston Leroux from 1909, The Phantom of the Opera is one of the oldest horror films in existence and has spawned dozens of remakes (and the aforementioned Broadway musical) and left its mark all over horror.
Prima donna Christine (Mary Philbin) is betrothed to Raoul (Norman Kerry), but her first love is the Paris Opera. She has a secret admirer who gives her constant encouragement and threatens any who would try to eclipse her stardom: Erik, the Phantom (Lon Chaney), a man with a horribly disfigured face and who haunts the theater. Christine's rival Carlotta (Mary Fabian) continually tries to usurp the beautiful Christine, but the Phantom is having none of it, placing a "curse" on the building and generally wreaking havoc in order to secure the leading role for his beloved. But will Christine be able to look past the hideous visage of her admirer and choose to be with the man who truly loves her? Spoiler: probably not.
The notion of a monster in love with a woman who overcomes (kinda) his disability to win her affections through his passionate creativity is an interesting one to explore, and Lon Chaney's celebrated performance formed the bedrock of makeup in movies and the archetype for sympathetic monsters in horror. The use of color filters on the film help provide an inventive look to the sequences, with sepia tones, color overlays, and blue shades setting both mood and ambience for the character of each scene. Great care was given to the look of the film, though never forsaking the story itself, both pieces coming together to form a film with a very modern feel despite being almost a century old.
One of the interesting things about this film was its dependence on dialogue. Where Nosferatu used dialogue cards sparingly, with most of the intentions displayed through (over)acting rather than words, Phantom delivers a healthy balance of both. The actors all do a phenomenal job in their role, at least relative to the time, and there are plenty of inserts showing what the characters are intended to be saying as well. This is where Phantom really shines: the writing is beautiful. While this is essentially a prerequisite for a good film nowadays, in the 20's and the Silent Era of filmmaking, it was often an afterthought. Phantom improves on what came before, and it carries the rare designation of being a horror film that was quite likely one of the better films of its era.
Beauty and the Beast by way of King Kong, The Phantom of the Opera tells an emotionally resonant story whlie never failing to deliver scares when it needs to. And it would have been scary at the time, too. Chaney's scarred and gnarled face served as a model from dozens of character designs that came after, including for the multiple remakes of this film over the years. His commitment to the role makes the film, but there's so much to love here. From a pure art design perspective, the film is gorgeous, a "black and white" film that uses a ton of color through creative means, which must have absolutely blown people's minds back then. While The Wizard of Oz was not the first color film, it's largely seen as such by novice film fans because of its Technicolor design. Phantom doesn't come close to that level of color, but its brilliantly done nonetheless.
All in all, Phantom is an old film with a modern sensibility, speaking to the strength of its storytelling and the performances within. There are so many old films that are a slog to get through, even some of the more famous ones. Phantom is not one of them: it's paced well, the story develops quickly, and it's largely exciting all the way through. Granted, it is still very dated. The effects, good as they are for the time, don't stand up to modern scrutiny, nor does the progression of the story, which does leave some gaps and explains things away due in part to the limited dialogue option and also to the film's popularity as a pre-existing serial. It's still a joy to watch, however, a treat for anyone interested in Old Hollywood and the history of the horror genre. The film's lesson rings clear, however: you can do just about anything for a woman, but none of it matters if you're ugly.
Who this movie is for: Classic horror fans, Horror history buffs, Ugly musicians
Bottom line: The Phantom of the Opera is a beautiful story with a questionable lesson, and there's a reason why its legacy has lasted 99 years so far. Lon Chaney delivers a spectacular performance, and the effects utilized in the film are better than some indie films today. Sadly, as was often the case, almost none of the actors involved made the leap into talkies, and Chaney's long-lasting impact on Hollywood would have to be carried on by his son, Lon Chaney, Jr. Nevertheless, Phantom is a fantastic film that laid the groundwork for writing, score, effects work, and emotionally moving performances that few films even today can match. It's another foundational horror film, and it's one that every horror fan should watch. It's streaming now on Tubi, so get on it if you haven't seen it before.
