![]() ![]() The story has been streamlined a bit, its pace quickened substantially, and a gaudy new ending has replaced the low-key (but also sort of sappy) conclusion of the book, but on the whole, this movie is extremely faithful to its source material. The 1925 silent version represents, to the best of my knowledge, the only serious attempt ever made to film Gaston Leroux’s novel more or less as he wrote it. And it is this original, definitive Phantom of the Opera that I draw your attention to now. It is a legitimate cinematic milestone, and despite the fact that comparatively few people today have actually seen it, it is nevertheless a part of the mythology of 20th-century America in much the same way as Universal’s later Dracula and Frankenstein, and just about everybody has seen at least a still or two of the remarkably effective makeup that Chaney created for the role. ![]() That film featured Lon Chaney Sr., one of the greatest stars of the silent era, in the title role, at a time when he was at the peak of his powers. ![]() You see, Universal had already committed The Phantom of the Opera to film once before, with such breathtaking success that only an idiot would tempt fate by trying to top it. That movie was a big-ass mistake, of the sort that major studios usually make when they try to out-do themselves. ![]() But that was a different Phantom of the Opera- the crappy one from 1943 with Claude Rains just kind of hanging out not getting a chance to do anything because all the director cared about was the goddamned singing. Before you go and ask me, yes- I did in fact just review The Phantom of the Opera not that long ago. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |