The Phantom of the Opera has seen many incarnations on the big screen (and little screen), most of them having little in common with Leroux’s story other than the name. We’ll be adding pages with more details and images from each version – for now, brief reviews of the major screen adaptations are below.
The Phantom of the Opera, starring Lon Chaney (1925), directed by Rupert Julian
If it hadn’t been for Lon Chaney, who held out for this first ever film version of Phantom to be made by Universal, Gaston Leroux’s novel might well have sunk into obscurity beyond Ken Hill or Andrew Lloyd Webber’s view. The film remains one of the most faithful movie adaptations of the story (though of course that isn’t saying much…). It’s a great pity the studio didn’t keep the original ending of the story. Chaney was the most subtle and accomplished actor of the silent era, and once you accept the conventions of films of the time he gives a truly moving, emotion-filled performance. Compare him with some of the other, rather hokey performances in the film – his is by far the most real. This movie is a must-watch for Phantom fans.
The Phantom of the Opera, starring Claude Rains (1943), directed by Arthur Lubin
Universal’s second version of the Phantom story was geared towards taking advantage of the widescreen Technicolor technology, full of opera and operetta sequences, which now tend to drag (unless you’re into the 1940’s version of that kind of thing). The story doesn’t just make radical departures from the book, it pretty much ignores it. Rains is a charismatic actor with a beautiful voice, and he has some moments of good emotion. Unfortunately the story changes really ruin it as a version of Phantom. This “Phantom” is a musician when he falls in love with Christine, whose singing lessons he pays for. He loses his position, tries to sell his compositions only to have them stolen, then is scarred by acid in a fight. There’s a sad ending, but no kiss – this Phantom is entirely a father figure. Rains gives an excellent performance in his anguished disfigurement scene, but really this film has nothing to do with the original story or characters as we know them.
The Phantom of the Opera, starring Herbert Lom (1962), directed by Terence Fisher
Hammer’s 1962 version is another than pays no heed to the original story, with a Phantom disfigured by fire and acid, camping out under the London Opera in a rather grotty mask. In fact this Phantom is more of a shabby aging composer than the perfectly-attired, passionate genius of the novel. There’s nothing wrong with Herbert Lom’s performance given the constraints of the role as written, but this movie doesn’t have a lot to recommend it to Phantom fans (again, no kiss) except for completist value. On the plus side it’s well directed, and has some good creepy atmosphere, resetting the action to Victorian London; it also gives us a sympathetic Phantom.
The Phantom of the Opera, starring Maximillian Schell (1983), directed by Robert Markowitz
Again, a fine actor is put in the role of the Phantom, but a Phantom who bears scant relation to Leroux’s. He was disfigured in a fire, Christine (Jane Seymour) is the spitting image of his dead wife. Michael York is their version of Raoul. I found this version slow and tedious in the extreme, and it’s pretty much my least favourite of the lot. My husband says I should praise Stan Winston’s make-up… but I don’t remember liking it much myself.
The Phantom of the Opera, animated (1988), directed by Al Guest, Jean Mathieson
Although the animation in this 50 minute film is crude compared to what we’re used to (no hint of an attempt to make their lips move as if they were really talking), it’s surprisingly cute and surprisingly faithful to Leroux – perhaps the most faithful of all the film versions so far. The script uses liberal quotations from the novel, and Erik even looks as Leroux described. Apparently the first time since 1925 that anyone making a film of Phantom bothered to read the book.
The Phantom of the Opera, starring Robert Englund (1989), directed by Dwight H. Little
Aka the slasher version. Robert Englund is most known for playing Freddy Kreuger, and this version capitalizes on that by being out and out horror, with graphic deaths and a gory make-up. (On the plus side, their version of Raoul dies, and what Phantom fan hasn’t secretly wanted to see that?) In fact, if you can look past the slasher movie (and time shifting) aspects of the film, it has some beautiful scenes, particularly the scene at the graveyard. The cinematography, sets and costumes are excellent, the music written by the Phantom appropriately haunting, and it uses the music (and story elements) of Faust. Until the end, where all sympathy for his Erik Destler is lost, Englund’s performance has some nice emotion and touching moments. Plus there are some pretty damn sexy shots of him, IMO.
The Phantom of the Opera, starring Charles Dance (1990, miniseries), directed by Tony Richardson
Acclaimed director Tony Richardson shot this version, based on the Kopit/Yeston musical but without the songs, at the Paris Opera House itself – so needless to say, it’s a treat to look at for Phantom fans. Dance’s Phantom is romantic, sympathetic, gentlemanly and attractive, so many fans love this version, but at nearly 3 hours it really drags. It also makes dramatic changes to the story which effect the characters, most notably Dance’s Phantom having been brought up in the depths of the opera house by his father, which rather ruins the whole never been loved, lifetime of abuse and rejection aspect of the character. We also never get to see his actual face. I find this version ends up being too sappy and soppy, but it’s absolutely worth the viewing for Phantom fans. Teri Polo makes a pretty Christine.
The Phantom of the Opera, starring Julian Sands (1998), directed by Dario Argento
Dario Argento’s Phantom is definitely not a version that will be enjoyed by people who aren’t already partial to Argento’s work. As a film it’s stylish, psychologically fascinating, utterly weird, and the most detested version amongst phans. Because, rats. The Phantom was raised by rats. And he has no physical disfigurement, as Argento realized people aren’t as horrified by disfigurement as they once were (luckily), so why not replace it with something that’ll truly disgust us and make us understand why Christine doesn’t pick him. So being Dario Argento, he trolled phantom by having his Phantom’s “disfigurement” be that he also has sex with the rats. Yup. Nope. Okay, if you can get past that, it is perhaps best read as a story where the Phantom is entirely in Christine’s head, a fantasy or delusion grown from the status of women, particularly women in the theatre, at the time, which is why I find it psychologically fascinating.
Andrew Lloyd Webber’s Phantom of the Opera, starring Gerard Butler and Emmy Rossum (2004), directed by Joel Schumacher
You already know this one. Joel Schumacher’s movie takes us a world away from the stage show or novel, into a fantasy Paris with a young and sexy cast, ornate scenery, and soap opera emotions. Singing ability was less important to him than looks, and the changes made to the characters ages and backstories completely alter the dynamics and psychological motivations of the story. Still, it’s pretty to look at, and many people adore Gerard Butler’s Phantom even though he couldn’t remotely pass as an Angel of Music to me. Emmy Rossum is mostly doe-eyed. The rest of the cast is mostly very good, with Patrick Wilson outstanding as Raoul. Have a supply of rotten tomatoes to throw at the TV when Andrew Lloyd Webber disses the original novel in the extras. Who does he think he is, Frederick Forsyth?