Wanderer
04-15-2002, 04:57 PM
1925:
The Lon Chaney silent version remains gripping throughout and reasonably faithful to the original novel. Of all the actors to have played the Phantom, Chaney is the one who most resembles the novel’s in physical appearance. His self-applied makeup is appropriately un-nerving and he remains a fearsome sight throughout. The very young Mary Philbin is affectingly vulnerable as Christine and has a terrific chemistry with Chaney. It also has an eccentric charm to it, being a silent film whose story is so focused on music.
1945:
If you REALLY like opera or classical violin music methinks this is the Phantom movie for you, as it includes very lengthy, drawn out operatic sequences performed with flair by golden throats Nelson Eddy and Sussanah Foster. Claude Rains also get to perform some stirring violin pieces. In fact, there is much more opera than Phantom in this rather tame translation. Of all the versions this strikes me as the most "cute" and family friendly, if the least passionate.
1960s Hammer Version:
Have not seen it.
1989:
Those responsible for this ought to be garroted. In this unintentionally hilarious farce Erik (Robert Englund – best known as Freddy Kruger in the “Nightmare On Elm Street” movies) is a hansom musician who sells his soul to Satan so his music will live forever. Satan makes Erik ugly, saying: “They will love you for your music, but nothing else”. Erik goes on a killing spree, stitching the skin of his victims to his face so he can be hansom again. Then Erik uses his supernatural powers (?) to travel forward in time to 20th century New York and seduce American singer Christine Day (Jill Schoeler) – thus getting his revenge on the devil by making Christine love him. I’ve got no problem with a film that deviates from the book, but even when judged as a standalone work this is ludicrous slasher claptrap.
1990:
The television movie with Charles Dance strays a long way from the book. Yet it is still a very moving piece of work that in my mind should have gone to theatres instead of that godawful Freddy Kruger version. Dance makes for a dapper, dashing Phantom and unlike in other versions Christine does reciprocate his feelings for her. In this version The Phantom is more prone to practical jokes than acts of violence in order to keep the opera running in check, the bit where he drops the rats on Carlotta’s hair is classic! I also like the way that The Phantom has several different masks and the one he wears depends on the mood he’s in. The audience never actually SEE the Phantom’s face in this one, we just see the other characters react to it. This is a good thing, a bit of imagination can come up with far more terrifying things than all the make up in the world. Sorry, Mr. Chaney. This work was my first exposure to the Phantom mythology so I hold a special place for it in my heart.
1998:
Dario Argento’s 1998 Italian film version offers a speculative “what if” re-telling of The Phantom legend. In this version The Phantom (Julian Sands) is not disfigured or even a composer. He doesn’t wear a mask. He is a man “scarred on the inside”, a reclusive hermit hiding away from the big-bad world that has been so cruel to him. The Phantom in this movie is alienated from society not because of his appearance, but because of his abnormal psychic powers and ability to communicate with animals. The Phantom comes out of his retreat when he hears the voice of beautiful soprano Christine (Asia Argento). They meet and both of them fall in love at first sight. They enjoy a very passionate, intensely sexual, relationship and Christine helps the Phantom regain his trust in humanity. But when Christine later falls for Raoul (Andrea Di Stephano) The Phantom is filled with a sudden surge of psychotic jealously and plans to make all those who have wronged him in life pay in blood. Methinks this is one only for the most open minded of Phantom fans. Still, I have to applaud Argento for at least TRYING to take The Phantom in a bold new direction.
The Lon Chaney silent version remains gripping throughout and reasonably faithful to the original novel. Of all the actors to have played the Phantom, Chaney is the one who most resembles the novel’s in physical appearance. His self-applied makeup is appropriately un-nerving and he remains a fearsome sight throughout. The very young Mary Philbin is affectingly vulnerable as Christine and has a terrific chemistry with Chaney. It also has an eccentric charm to it, being a silent film whose story is so focused on music.
1945:
If you REALLY like opera or classical violin music methinks this is the Phantom movie for you, as it includes very lengthy, drawn out operatic sequences performed with flair by golden throats Nelson Eddy and Sussanah Foster. Claude Rains also get to perform some stirring violin pieces. In fact, there is much more opera than Phantom in this rather tame translation. Of all the versions this strikes me as the most "cute" and family friendly, if the least passionate.
1960s Hammer Version:
Have not seen it.
1989:
Those responsible for this ought to be garroted. In this unintentionally hilarious farce Erik (Robert Englund – best known as Freddy Kruger in the “Nightmare On Elm Street” movies) is a hansom musician who sells his soul to Satan so his music will live forever. Satan makes Erik ugly, saying: “They will love you for your music, but nothing else”. Erik goes on a killing spree, stitching the skin of his victims to his face so he can be hansom again. Then Erik uses his supernatural powers (?) to travel forward in time to 20th century New York and seduce American singer Christine Day (Jill Schoeler) – thus getting his revenge on the devil by making Christine love him. I’ve got no problem with a film that deviates from the book, but even when judged as a standalone work this is ludicrous slasher claptrap.
1990:
The television movie with Charles Dance strays a long way from the book. Yet it is still a very moving piece of work that in my mind should have gone to theatres instead of that godawful Freddy Kruger version. Dance makes for a dapper, dashing Phantom and unlike in other versions Christine does reciprocate his feelings for her. In this version The Phantom is more prone to practical jokes than acts of violence in order to keep the opera running in check, the bit where he drops the rats on Carlotta’s hair is classic! I also like the way that The Phantom has several different masks and the one he wears depends on the mood he’s in. The audience never actually SEE the Phantom’s face in this one, we just see the other characters react to it. This is a good thing, a bit of imagination can come up with far more terrifying things than all the make up in the world. Sorry, Mr. Chaney. This work was my first exposure to the Phantom mythology so I hold a special place for it in my heart.
1998:
Dario Argento’s 1998 Italian film version offers a speculative “what if” re-telling of The Phantom legend. In this version The Phantom (Julian Sands) is not disfigured or even a composer. He doesn’t wear a mask. He is a man “scarred on the inside”, a reclusive hermit hiding away from the big-bad world that has been so cruel to him. The Phantom in this movie is alienated from society not because of his appearance, but because of his abnormal psychic powers and ability to communicate with animals. The Phantom comes out of his retreat when he hears the voice of beautiful soprano Christine (Asia Argento). They meet and both of them fall in love at first sight. They enjoy a very passionate, intensely sexual, relationship and Christine helps the Phantom regain his trust in humanity. But when Christine later falls for Raoul (Andrea Di Stephano) The Phantom is filled with a sudden surge of psychotic jealously and plans to make all those who have wronged him in life pay in blood. Methinks this is one only for the most open minded of Phantom fans. Still, I have to applaud Argento for at least TRYING to take The Phantom in a bold new direction.