Horror Classics: The Phantom of the Opera (1943)

Last time in Horror Classics we looked at the 1925 version of The Phantom of the Opera. Well, this time around we're looking at Universal Studios' second iteration of the story from 1943.

Behind the Scenes of a Remake

Much like the original, the 1943 production of Phantom of the Opera had a somewhat rocky production. The initial idea got its start in 1935 and was originally set in modern Paris (so 1930s/40s Paris). Interestingly, the Phantom in that version was meant to be a traumatized World War I veteran who suffered delusions of disfigurement.

Sadly, this version lingered in development hell for a while before the film's producers, Carl Laemmle and his son Carl Laemmle Jr., were booted from the production. After that, the film seems to have vanished into the abyss - for about 6 years.

A new remake got started in November of 1941 with a man named Henry Koster brought on to direct. Koster initially wanted Boris Karloff to play the Phantom, but Karloff became unavailable before production could get going. Eventually, Koster was also booted from the production and Arthur Lubin was brought in to replace him. It wasn't long before a final casting was made. Claude Rains would play the Phantom, Nelson Eddy would play Raoul, and Susanna Foster would play Christine.

The Phantom of the Opera was released in August of 1943 and grossed $1.6 million (domestically) against a budget of $1.75 million. So, it lost money - around $1 million, unless my math is off. The film grossed $2,3 million internationally, so the film was successful. The reception to the film, at the time, was mixed. For instance, the Independent Film Bulletin preferred the 1925 film.

"the new film has too much opera and too little excitement for mass audiences. The lengthy operatic passages (which are splendidly sung and should attract music lovers) will not set so well with the horror fans who will be drawn by anticipation of a real blood-and-thunder thriller. In brief, it seems that the new Phantom of the Opera will not satisfy music lovers or horror lovers. However, it is a ballyhoo natural and where sold energetically by the showman it should garner good grosses." - Independent Film Bulletin

Also, sidenote: I had to look up 'ballyhoo' in this context. It means that it has a lot of potential for extravagant publicity.

Not all reviews were critical, however, with Film Daily liking the new approach.

"By toning down the gruesome details and playing up what light moments the subject affords, Universal has widened the film's appeal to women and those who are not out-and-out shocker fans. The box office potentialities of the film have been additionally enhanced by refraining from making the phantom, as played by Claude Rains, the hideous and repellent creature that Lon Chaney made him in the original version." - Film Daily

These are just two reviews of the time, but modern audiences have been far more forgiving of the film. Now, there was a sequel planned for the following year, but it was cancelled.

The Plot

A violinist named Enrique Claudin is dismissed from the Paris Opera after he loses the use of his hands. He's been funding the vocal lessons of a young singer named Christine Dubois, so he doesn't have much money left. To make ends meet, he submits a concerto for publishing. Unfortunately, after a misunderstanding, he ends up fleeing murder charges and hiding in the tunnels under the opera house.

From here, the film mostly follows the typical formula with the Phantom pulling strings and causing chaos to ensure that Christine's career blossoms - including messing with a more experienced/popular singer.

What did I Like?

The story is an interesting take on the story. The book's phantom was a musician - that much is accurate - but he isn't running from murder charges. Then again, I haven't read the book in years so I could be wrong.

I also really liked how Christine focused more on her career than you'd find in typical '40s flicks. She's not really a typical damsel in distress which is nice.

The costumes are also rich and vibrantly colored and the music is nice.

What Didn't I Like?

The only thing I wasn't a major fan of was the many musical pieces. They're nice, don't get me wrong, but they drag the pacing to a crawl. Yes, I know I should've expected the opera bits, and I did. What I didn't expect, however, was how much they'd slow the film down.

Verdict: Not Perfect, but also Not Terrible

So, my final verdict? Well...it's not a perfect film. It's not terrible, but it sort of lacks the impact of the 1925 film. If you haven't seen this one, then I'd say check it out - if only out of curiosity.