MovieChat Forums > The Phantom of the Opera (1925) Discussion > Closest version to the book?

Closest version to the book?

posted 15 years ago by rcbm86
12 replies | jump to latest

I've seen most of the "Phantom" movies, but it's the 1925 film that always reminds me of Gaston Leroux's story. Most of the events that took place in the movie are very similar to the book. The grasshopper & scorpion, masquerade/roof scene, the chandelier crashing before Christine disappears with the Phantom . . . . . it's even got the Persian!!!!!!!! They're all there!!!! But this is my opinion. What's yours?

"SHE'S SINGING TO BRING THE HOUSE DOWN!!!"
*CCCCCRRRRRRAAAAAASSSSSSSHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*

[–] LCShackley 15 years ago

I agree. And the "heat torture" chamber...and the bit about "hold your hand up" to avoid being strangled. I can't recall if all that was in the Lom - Rains - Lloyd Webber versions.

[–] rcbm86 15 years ago

It was in the Lon Chaney version.

[–] StrongRex 14 years ago

They did say "keep your hand at the level of your eyes" in the ALW version.

[–] skiop 13 years ago

That "heat chamber" had to be the stupidest thing in the movie.

[–] MissyH316 10 years ago

It wouldn't have been (or maybe it wouldn't have seemed as such) had the idiots at Universal not chopped up the original filming. Originally, it was shown how the "heat chamber" was more than just a souped-up sauna: it also generated images - like man-made mirages - of frightening things like lions approaching the victims.

(Source: "The Phantom of the Opera (Hollywood Archives Series) (v. 1)" by Philip J. Riley 1996)

"Think slow, act fast." --Buster Keaton  

[–] pitsburghfuzz 14 years ago

well, the 1987 cartoon was close to the Leroux novel, it even has the proper Leroux deformity. it also has the persian, the trap door, Christine kissing Erik, the flaming head, etc

Its's alive! It's alive!

[–] SepiaLife 13 years ago

I think that the film followed the basic formula of the story very well, and many of the key elements were in place. This is one of the few versions to feature Phillipe, Raoul's supportive older brother, and the Persian, who, though played in a rather stereotypical fashion, had a general sense of wisdom and calm about him that seemed to be prevalent in the character description. The chandelier was there, as well as Carlotta's over-the-top performing and Erik's torture chamber.

However, while this film can be praised in terms of following the plot line, I feel as if the character of the Phantom was somewhat misinterpreted. I feel like Lon Chaney, ever the consummate professional, really tried to break the mold of the stereotypical villain, but the popular ending of an angry mob forcing Erik into the river seemed inconsistent. With the original ending he would have seemed somewhat redeemed in a way. The idea of Erik dying of a broken heart seems far more realistic and touching than Erik being killed. However, it seems that audiences at the time of the film's release regarded the Phantom as a cold-blooded killer who needed to receive his comeuppance.

Optimism: Waiting for a ship to come in when you haven't sent one out.

[–] LadyOfTheMasque 12 years ago

Yes, that ending would've been better. It's what was originally filmed (Erik at his organ, dying of a broken heart after he let Christine go) but audiences didn't like it; they wanted him to pay for his crimes, if you will.

It's such a shame that that ending only exists in stills now.

House: Climb out of your holes, people!

[–] StrongRex 12 years ago

I feel like Lon Chaney, ever the consummate professional, really tried to break the mold of the stereotypical villain, but the popular ending of an angry mob forcing Erik into the river seemed inconsistent. With the original ending he would have seemed somewhat redeemed in a way. The idea of Erik dying of a broken heart seems far more realistic and touching than Erik being killed.

I do agree with that, but they did film and test that ending with audiences and they preferred him to get his comeuppance, as you later said.

[–] Cult_of_Kibner 10 years ago

The idea of Erik dying of a broken heart seems far more realistic and touching than Erik being killed.

How would that have been more realistic?

[–] MissyH316 9 years ago

Buzzards, I think it would've been more realistic, if only because (1) that's how Leroux wrote the ending, and (2) there were hints of the Phantom having a weak heart and desperately wanting to be loved. If they'd have stuck to their guns and left the very first release of the movie alone, it would've all made more sense.

Heck - to ME, it made MUCH more sense that the Phantom would've been "redeemed" by a kiss, considering his horrible, unloved and brutal past, than to imagine the Phantom looking like Gerard Butler with a slightly bad sunburn!

"Think slow, act fast." --Buster Keaton  

[–] playbillhound 10 years ago

I think this, along with the animated film.