When I received the Universal Monsters box set, I was surprised that the Phantom was one of the Universal Monsters, especially since Phantom of the Opera predates Dracula. But of course, I was thinking of the famous 1926 version starring Lon Chaney -- this is the 1943 version starring the Invisible Man himself (and also the father of the Wolf Man), Claude Rains. Really? Claude Rains? Yep.
Also, this one is in color.
After Carol and I watched this, I checked Wikipedia to see what's considered a Universal Classic Monster and apparently there is some debate. According to Wikipedia, the series starts with The Hunchback of Notre Dame in 1923, includes both the 1926 and 1943 versions of Phantom, and goes until 1960. I think the Wikipedia entry is way too generous with the designation.
In any event, the 1943 color version is included in the "official" box set, so that's what we watched.
The story is pretty much the same across all versions. A guy obsesses over a young ingenue in the Paris Opera, Christine, and when he is horribly disfigured, becomes her unwanted career booster, mostly by murdering all her competitors. In this case, Claude Rains plays Erique Claudin, a violinist in the Opera who is fired for a medical condition. His retirement plan is a piano concerto he's written and when it's rejected by a famous publisher, he thinks it's been stolen, murders the guy and gets acid thrown in his face for his trouble. Ironically, he concludes it was stolen when he hears it being played, not realizing that it's being played by the famed composer Franz Liszt, who thinks it's brilliant and wants to get it published. Having thrown away his future in a moment of anger, Claudin takes up residence in his old Opera House to "help" Christine.
 |
| You've got something on your face |
There is a lot to unpack here. First up, Claude Rains is way too old for the part. When he shows up in the film, I thought he was a supporting player, not the Phantom. Plus, his motivations for helping Christine aren't really clear here. He doesn't seem to want her sexually, he just wants to help her. (Apparently, they cut out from the script the revelation that he's her father.) Since there's no real motivation, his actions seem rather disconnected from everything else.
Next up, not being in black and white drains a lot of the "Universal Monster" look from the film. It's a beautiful film and the Opera sets are pretty spectacular, but it doesn't seem part of the same series. Interestingly, the Opera set is the same one used in the 1926 film and it still stands today, having been used in many movies over the years!
 |
| Nice set! Note chandelier for future carnage. |
The other problem with the look of the film is that there's very little atmosphere. Almost all the Phantom's appearances and attacks take place in well lit rooms and hallways, not really creating any kind of scary mood. Plus, the lack of darkness and shadow makes it seem strange that he's not easier to catch.
Also, there's a shitload of opera singing in this. WAY TOO MUCH opera singing in this.
And finally, the Phantom mask is not remotely intimidating or scary. Seriously, check this out:
 |
| Not shown: Anything scary |
I did like Christine's would-be suitors, Anatole and Raoul, the comic relief in the film, who compete with each other for her affections and take the lead in hunting down the Phantom. Hilariously, in a dangerous scene near the end of the film when the two heroes, played by Nelson Eddy and Edgar Barrier, hustle Christine to safety through a collapsing cave, the producers made sure they had stunt doubles. They made no such accommodation for Christine, played by Susanna Foster, apparently considering her much more expendable.
 |
| It's okay if we lose the one in the middle. |
Overall I enjoyed the movie, but wish it had more atmosphere and actual scares. It's my least favorite of the Universal Monster movies, and definitely the one that feels least like it belongs.
Before we go, let's take a look at the 1926 version of the Phantom.
 |
| Yaaugh!!! |
2 comments:
Well, when you put it THAT way …
I saw this version when I was a kid, in the 1970s, watching all the monster movies I could when they showed up on the TV box. I had seen Rains in The Invisible Man, and I remember liking his version of Phantom of the Opera well enough. I didn't know there was an earlier version that was considered a CINEMA CLASSIC.
I eventually saw the Lon Chaney version, and there is no question that it's by far the better adaptation and it deserves its reputation. But the 1943 version is a lot of fun, the color is beautiful, Rains isn't bad at all.
And as for the idea that there is "way too much opera" … my friend, there is no such thing as too much opera.
Wow, we have a different take on opera. :-)
I agree, the film is gorgeous.
Post a Comment