Gaston Leroux’s: the phantom of the opera - Which is the best movie version?

Last month I posted an article (link) in which I shortly highlighted all the things I liked and disliked about the various adaptations of Agatha Christie’s ‘And then there were none’. Eventually I pinpointed a (for want of  a better word) ‘winner’. The movie I liked best of all.

The minute I pressed the ‘publish’ button my mind was already brewing with ideas for this article. Because apart from Christie’s masterpiece there is another, often adapted, book that I’ve seen every single version of: Gaston Leroux’s: ‘Le Fantôme de l'Opéra’ or The phantom of the opera.

The story

A young girl Christine gets a job at the Paris opera. But in the catacombs of the opera a disfigured man wearing an opera mask has been spotted at times. This man people call ‘the phantom’. Any unfortunate soul who has seen his face, people whisper, will suffer a ghastly death.

The phantom, Enrique as his name is, decides to secretly teach Christine to become a professional singer. Meanwhile he falls for her. While she in turn has affection for the handsome suitor Raul. How long before the possessive madness of Enrique becomes a danger to all?

The story use the classic notion of a love-triangle the French use in all their stories:

Esmeralda, Quasimodo and Phoebus.

Belle, the beast and Gaston.

And now Christine, Erique and Raul.

Why this story?

What is it that I find so great about this story? I’ve already given the answer in the above little side-note. In the Hunchback of the Notre Dame or Beauty and the Beast it are the ‘ugly’ that are good and the handsome that are evil.

This notion returns in various fairytales like Snow white in which the desire for beauty actually causes some pretty vile acts.

Going back to other stories in Western history it are always this same notion returning over and over: Lady Macbeth in the Scottish play, Grendel’s mother in Beowulf and of course a fallen angel formally called ‘Lightbringer’ or ‘Lucifer’.

Now this isn’t always the case of course: Richard III still has a hunchback. Scar still has his scar in The lion King. And many-a Bond villain has one or two defects.

However, I argue, hardly any story plays with this notion of right and wrong so well as The phantom of the opera does. The phantom is kind with Christine but utterly villainous, demented, when he deals with other people. He is two sides of the same coin: he is a full human being.

A few months ago I reviewed the movie Wonder (2017). My conclusion was that the hero of the movie (a disfigured boy) hardly had to fight for his place in the world – people fought for him. Moreover, the movie hardly shows the mental impact disfigurement (or not knowing your place in the world) gives a person.

The Phantom of the opera, to me, is a two-hundred-year-old book that answers the question Wonder could not.

Yes disfigurement gives quite an impact. And yes if people treat you like a villain you are more than likely to become one. But yes, that doesn’t mean you will lose every single bit of goodness in your heart.

So that’s what The Phantom of the Opera is to me it’s pretty much a character study of a man forced to become a villain but never born as one.

Naturally ‘character study’ is far too much credit.

The Phantom of the Opera is still basically a cardboard villain in the original book.

But what I wish to highlight here is how I preceive the character.

Which version is best?

I gave you my reasons why this movie resonates with me. Now let me give you each and every version (par one or two entries) and let me tell you about them.

There are a LOT of parodies in the world ranging from the

1955 Phantom of the Operetta,

1961 Phantom of the horse opera (featuring Woodie Woodpecker),

1974 The phantom of Paradise,

1974 The Phantom of Hollywood,

The Animaniacs

and the brilliant duo Julie Andrews & Carol Burnett with their Phantom of the Opry (link).

I won’t be looking at these adaptations though (even though a lot of these parodies are better than some on this list).

The 1928-version (+the 1931) remake.

Already a double bill. The point, here, being that the original movie was silent and then, when sound came to be, the studio dubbed this movie and re-released it with sound.

If memory serves Chaney didn’t want to do the voice work for the re-release.

This is the famous Lon Chaney-movie. The man with a thousand-faces truly cemented his name in history here as he plays the tragic villain.

Making good use of the shadow-spiel this version has a constant element of ‘lurking’ hanging over it. ‘The straw in the water’-scene, for instance, is a brilliant example.

The Phantom knows the way could be anywhere and strike at anytime. He is in complete control. And the one minute he ‘let’s go’ he is unmasked and chased by an angry mob.

The unmasking-scene of this 90-year old movie set the standard for the later adaptations.

The 1945-version.

If Lon Chaney’s version depended on the ‘unmasking’-scene the Claude Rains version actually considers it an afterthought. The movie even does away with the Phantom being part of a love triangle.

Here the Phantom is an aging violinist who does his best to (covertly) pay for the musical education of a young woman. It is strongly suggested that he is in fact her father.

However, as fate has it he becomes disfigured and has to find refuge in the cellars of the opera house. From the shadows there he continues his quest to help this girl.

The contrast with the previous version (and the many that would follow) couldn’t be greater: paternal love. It’s the version that served most of the inspiration to the later Broadway musical (even the shot of the solo mask amidst the rubble has directly been copied onto the Webber production poster).

Making good use of the sound-effects of the day this version is the first true version that places opera on the forefront. But, alas the bombastic music chosen for this adaptation all lose against a simple nursery song.

The Phantom here is a tragic figure full of weaknesses and a mind that slowly deranges.

The 1961-version.

The Hammer version. But strangely enough Hammer never truly makes use of all the silly booby traps it could use. It’s actually rather tame with a distinctive heart. Herbert Lom follows Rain’s footsteps as a disfigured genius wanting to hear his opera brought to life. I did enjoy the choice for the opera: Joan of Arc instead of Faust as both a kind of female empowerment and an allusion to a woman hearing ‘God/Maria’s voice.

Even though the book's original choice for Faust stays the most fitting.

This version is filled to the brim with those little ‘Hammer tricks’ of dark corridors and shocking revelations and it is a feast for the Technicolor eyes. Though, of course, it’s a bit grim.

The 1983-version.

This time the story takes us to Budapest. And this time the story is centred comfortably around revenge. The phantom (Maximilian Schell) sees his deceased wife in the (ever so beautiful) Jane Seymore: deaths follow. Like the 1962-version this movie too ends with the falling chandelier as the finale.

This is one of those very divisive movies. It tries to strike the balance between being totally different and yet rather similar in thematic.

I for one didn’t enjoy this leap to 1900’s Budapest. But of all the versions listed this is the one I’ll most likely change my mind about in the future.

The 1988-version.

An animated movie which, strangely enough, is the most faithful adaptation of the book. For starters: the phantom does walk around with his mask off for most of the time.

The reason for this is twofold: ever since Disney was/(is) controlling the world with

one successful animated adaptation after another other studios wanted to try their hand at the craft of telling stories.

The second reason was the sudden realization of the early 1980s that kids and television were a perfect mix.

Apart from turning the children into consumers voices spoke up to educate children as well:

that’s why there were so many cartoons about classic tales like: 20.000 leagues under the sea, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and Moby Dick.

Even though the craft behind it nowhere near the Disney standard (but it does look better than Disney’s Xerography-mess of a movie Oliver and Company released in cinemas the same year) it is quite an enthralling version.

This ‘mere’ cartoon shouldn’t be dismissed. The power of cartoons manages to make the horrible look acceptable (a trick Disney later used for its adaptation of The hunchback of the Notre Dame). No parent would let a child watch any ‘real’ version of the Phantom – but a cartoon, that’s fine. Even though I’m sure this version will terrify children as well.

The 1989-version.

I believe this adaptation truly got its cues from the Giallo horror genre. This version of The phantom looks marvellous but at the same time takes the story further away from the source than ever before. 

Just the casting of Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund) himself, setting the tale in London and New York, and upping the blood and gore tells you that ‘staying true to the story’ isn’t what this movie was striving at.

An original take on the story it certainly is!

The 1990-version.

I love this adaptation to bits. I wrote lengthily about it here: (link). True my love for this adaptation makes this whole article a bit pointless. But, then again, this mini-series does differ quite a bit from the original book. So much so that it might not ‘win out’ in this particular election.

The 1998-version.

The Argento version! Dario Argento has never been the one for subtle executions.

His most famous one took place on a beautiful empty square but was utterly gruesome.

But when this movie sprung some kind of rat-catching-kebab-machine on me I did start to wonder whether or not the master of 80s horror had lost his touch a bit. The movie doesn’t truly get any better but it has its occasional charms (Julian Sands is always a hoot).

The 2004-version.

The musical; there it is. And it’s actually pretty good.

I won’t spend a lot of time on the stage sequel: Love never dies except for the fact that

I actually enjoy the song: The beauty underneath. The rest of that show, however, is ludicrous.

True you have to get used to Andrew Lloyd Webber’s annoying habit of having characters SING ALL THE TIME –which doesn’t always work. But that’s a leftover from the stage that doesn’t translate itself to movie that easily.

Another thing you have to accept are the two male leads (Gerard Butler and Patrick Wilson) in their parts. Both of them are miscast and have, ever since, shown themselves far more capable in other fields of filmmaking (Butler in action and Wilson in pretty much everything else).

But apart from that you have Emmy Rossum shining as the ultimate Christine starting off naive but slowly learning to stand her ground against the possessive Phantom.

What makes this movie work is the great camerawork and the lavish sets. Yet, Schumacher’s version never forgets what its adapting (e.g. the candle-holding hands): the stage version. That; one could also consider a critique; that nowadays when people talk about ‘the phantom’ they refer to the stage-play instead of the original book.

Conclusion: which is best?

Let me immediately disqualify the 1990 miniseries for (being awesome) not being a movie. That makes my choice a bit harder.

Which brings me to the rest of this list. Now this is going to get personal, it’s my opinion after all:

I think I’ve already let shine through that, when it comes to The Phantom, I prefer the tragic tale over horror and bloodshed. So that a secure exit for Argento and Englund.

Also, I like the phantom to be a bit more insane than Butler’s singing rendition. Nor do I want him to sacrifice himself in a final act of goodness. So that’s an exit for the 2004, 1983 and 1963 version.

Then, finally, there’s my desire for a strong element of love being present at the core of the story (either attraction or paternal). Which all brings me to the 1943 Claude Rains version as my ultimate Phantom version.

The fact that it also has a wonderfully haunting theme-song only adds to the enjoyment of the movie.

Omissions: I haven’t seen the Chinese 1937 Ye ban ge sheng, or the Argentinian 1960 El Fantasma de la Ópera yet.