Horror Classics: Phantom of the Opera (1925)

Well, here we are again with another Horror Classics Centennial. That's right, the film we're discussing is 100 years old. This time around it's The Phantom of the Opera from 1925.

A Rocky Production: Making Phantom of the Opera

Based on Gaston Leroux's 1910 novel of the same name, The Phantom of the Opera was directed by Rupert Julian and starred Lon Chaney Sr. It was released on November 15, 1925. Financially, it was successful, grossing $2 million against a budget of $632,357.

Despite the financial success, the production was beyond rocky. Rupert Julian was, I gather, not easy to work with and relations between him and the rest of the cast and crew were strained from the start. How strained? Well, strained enough that Lon Chaney stopped interacting with him entirely.

Julian was apparently a really mediocre director and the crew really didn't like the guy. The first preview of the film on January 26, 1925 did really badly and a new director was brought in. I couldn't find whether Julian was fired or if he left voluntarily. The new director, Edward Sedgewick, re-did the movie and a second preview was set for April 26, 1925.

The April preview did worse than the previous one, the audience actually booed the film until it was switched off. Another re-do was performed and previewed on September 6, 1925. I couldn't find anything on the audience's reaction to the September 6 preview, but I assume it went well because that's the final version of the film - at least until the sound re-release in 1929.

Now, one aspect of the production that I found interesting was that Chaney did his own makeup. This is something that carried over from his portrayal of Quasimodo in the 1923 adaptation of Victor Hugo's Hunchback of Notre Dame. Commenting on his Phantom makeup, Chaney said quote:

"In The Phantom of the Opera, people exclaimed at my weird make-up. I achieved the Death's Head of that role without wearing a mask. It was the use of paints in the right shades and the right places—not the obvious parts of the face—which gave the complete illusion of horror ... It's all a matter of combining paints and lights to form the right illusion." - Lon Chaney

In addition to the face paint, he used a skullcap, glued his ears to his head, and stuffed cotton wads into his mouth to raise/accentuate his cheekbones. As for his nose, well, that's the wires he used...ouch. The result was...well, see for yourselves:

Shocking, ain't it? Well, the audiences of the time thought so too. There were reports of screaming and fainting when people saw the film the first time. Oh, how I wish I could've seen that!

Apart from being a cool makeup job, it's also the most accurate portrayal of the phantom's appearance.

The Story

The film's story follows the book fairly closely - with a changes which I'll cover in a bit. A young opera singer, Christine Daae, becomes the focus of a mysterious figure at the Paris Opera House known only as 'the Phantom'.

This phantom has been teaching her to sing and causes chaos to drive the young singer's career forward. He's also competing for her affection with one Raoul de Chagny, Christine's childhood sweetheart.

What I Did and Didn't Like

As a silent film, this one does require an audience to pay attention. I loved the story, it's very well-done and the comedic moments are great.

The makeup and lighting work is amazing and the performances are fantastic. I also really liked the costumes, they looked really good. It doesn't look like a low-budget flick at all.

That said, I do have one issue. This film is slow, as in really slow. The full duration is 107 minutes, but it feels so much longer in some places.

An Accurate Adaptation?

So, I mentioned that Chaney's makeup is the most book-accurate portrayal of the Phantom. With that in mind, is this an accurate adaptation? Let's find out.

• French detective Ledoux was originally a Persian who met the Phantom once.
• Following on the previous point, instead of hailing from Persia, the Phantom is a prison escapee.
• Finally, the ending of the film was changed a few times. Originally, the Phantom died of a broken heart after Christine leaves with Raoul. The reaction to that was remarkably negative and the ending was changed so that the Phantom would be hunted and killed by an angry mob.

Personally, I think they should've kept the original book's ending where Christine gives the Phantom a proper burial after his death 'of love', but that's just me.

Is it Worth a Watch?

So, we've reached the ultimate question: is the 1925 Phantom of the Opera worth watching? Honestly, I think so, but I also think it's something that you'd have to be used to. Silent films are great, but if you're not used to them or into them, then you're just going to bore yourself.

As always, however, I leave the final decision to you. Check it out yourselves and draw your own conclusions.

Next time on Horror Classics, we'll look at the 1943 Phantom of the Opera.