The Phantom of the Opera 1925

by
Lon Chaney as Erik, the Phantom and Mary Philbin as Christine Daae Phantom of the Opera, Picture image

Lon Chaney as Erik, the Phantom and Mary Philbin as Christine Daae

Despite what some people think, the 1925 version of  The Phantom of the Opera is not the first film version. There was an earlier one that now lost. This version was also reissused in  1929.

Of all the movie versions of Phantom this one is the most culturally ingrained and till Webber’s musical is one of the more seminal versions of Leroux book. It was a landmark film not only for the Universal Monster genre but sets and make-up. Like in The Hunchback of Notre Dame two years earlier, Lon Chaney did his own make-up and it was a real set-up from Quasimodo. People were terrified of Chaney’s Erik. But also the look and mood of the movie is great.

As far as the movie goes as adaptation of the novel it follows short, especially of how it COULD have been. Number one, the characters are all pretty darn simplistic. Erik just comes off as crazy; albeit with dramatic crazy in love but it doesn’t go as deep as in the book. He doesn’t even get the redemption that makes him a bittersweet figure.

Raoul is also different. He is not the whining stalker he is in the novel but more dashing and the typical lead of the time. He is also played by Norman Kerry who played Phoebus in the 1923 version. Mary Philbin’s Christine is one point but again she not a wish-washy as she is the book.

For the most part, scene per scene, beat by beat the movie plays out close to the book while streamline things that is TILL the ending. In this movie Christine agrees to marry Erik and instead of him dying a alone of a broken-hearted, he grabs Christine and is chased and killed by a mob. Which is ridiculous. Chaney didn’t care for this ending but it tested better with audiences. The original ending that was shot, is more faithful, with Erik’s redemption of letting Christine go and dying at his organ.  They also shot the scene where Erik plays the violin at the graveyard. So the movie could have been more like the book. Though the chase does go by Notre Dame.

All in all, the 1925 isn’t a bad movie and is a fairly good version of book. But I would say watch it more for this movie’s importance and not for the story and the characters.

 

 

 

Horrible Hunchbacks and other Deformed Dudes; Phantom of the Opera

by
Lon Chaney as the Phantom of the Opera With Mary Philbin picture image

Lon Chaney as The Phantom of the Opera with Mary Philbin as Christine Daae

Finally a deformed dude from movie(s) that I’m familiar with. Prior to Hunchback I was big into the Phantom of Opera so I have seen a lot of the movie/ musical version of this.

Phantom of the Opera comes from  book  written by Gaston Leroux from 1909 and was made into several popular movies namely the 1925 version starting former Quasimodo, Lon Chaney and 1943 version starting Claude Rains, though it was the 1986 musical by Andrew Lloyd Webber that made it a Household name.

The basic plot of Phantom is a deformed musical and all around genius, a.k.a Erik, lives under a Paris opera house where he falls in love with an aspiring opera diva, Christine Daae. Erik is obsessed Christine and kills though who get in his way. Unlike our pal Frollo, Erik is in love with Christine to fair degree. In a way Erik is a combo of Quasimodo and Frollo. He’s tragic and dreams of beauty and love but he is crazy.

Erik’s appearance and back story changes from version to version. In the book he looks like a corpse with a skull head and gray skin. The book was the basis for Chaney’s make-up. In the 1943 version, he was burnt with acid. The Webber musical used a half make so the performer could singer easier. The deformity therefore only affect one side of his face. Typically  the deformity has a hug lip, exposed areas and doesn’t look very nice. The 2004 version just looked like a bad sunburn.

Well the brings us to the end and it’s time to re-read Phantom, I better get reading.

1928 version of The Man who Laughs

by
Conrad Veidt as Gwynplaine and Mary Philbin as Dea The man who laughs picture image

Conrad Veidt as Gwynplaine and Mary Philbin as Dea

I just finished watching the 1928 The Man Who Laughs. Maybe it’s that I have a low attention span for silent films based on books I don’t really like or maybe it was because I have been on a crazy Modern Family watching binge, either way this movie was work to finish.

I will admit I was a little interested in seeing this movie as Mary Philbin, who was in Phantom, Conrad Veidt who I just saw in another movie recently where he plays a Frolloesque character and Brandon Hurst who played Frollo in the 1923 version. Here Hurst plays the villain again, man he is type-cast as Hugoian villains. So I didn’t not want to watch it but then it started…

Like the book the plot just goes Zoom-By. I still didn’t really get a feeling for any of the characters, in fact we lost Homo’s sensitivity and Ursus’ grumpiness but we didn’t get long histories of the peerage system OR that snow storm as sea scene, so take you pick at which one was better.

Conrad Veidt as Gwynplaine and Olga V. Baklanova as Josiana The man who laughs picture image

Conrad Veidt as Gwynplaine and Olga V. Baklanova as Josiana

Really, the only good thing about this movie is Veidt’s facial or rather eye emotions. The look of Gwynplaine it so otherworldly that is the only thing memorable about anything along with Veidt’s acting. The other people aren’t bad but there isn’t much to go on really.

The ending was a mixed bag too. The lovers live and that is fine, I actually think the ending didn’t make much sense in the book, Hugo just wanted a tragic ending so it was trite but before they can get to the happy ending there is a big dumb chase because silent movies love big dumb chases at the end, ask Phantom of the Opera. And if that wasn’t bad or dumb enough Homo kills Barky. It doesn’t really matter, Barky was a lame villain anyway but still he could have just drown which would have been at least a call back to the book. Also Homo was a dog not a wolf, that isn’t a complaint just a fact, was more likely easier on the production.

Now here are some weird things;

-The lady who played Josiana, Olga V. Baklanova, looked like Madonna, the singer…. good thing they didn’t remake this movie in Madonna’s heyday. Josiana also got a monkey,. Apparently Baklanova’s resemblance to Madonna has been noted by modern critic…… and people on IMBD but if you have eyes you can see it too, it not subtle.
-I don’t know what the heck they did to David’s character. I thought he was suppose to be sophisticated but he acted so derpy in this movie. Was he meant to be a flop?
-This movie is ALL over the place with its costumes and set pieces timeframe. Like it said 17th century (pretty sure), at the start but the costumes range from the 1700s to late Victorian to the 1920’s. They had no idea of what period this story takes place in. But you know that didn’t REALLY bother me but you know what did a little bit, the amusement park rides. This movie has a rides at the 17th century fair. This just looked so out of place.
-as of 2015 there hasn’t been an American remake of this movie and the 1928 movie it is the ONLY American version.
-This version is the basis for the Joker’s look, not a weird thing just awesome…

Basically with the this version of the book the best thing you can say is the make-up and the acting were decent but the rest of it felt moldy. I wish the characters were better developed but then we wouldn’t have gotten that chase scene…….. can’t win…….it’s either a snow storm or a chase.