When Georgette throws acid at Claudin, it spashes ALL OVER his face.
But when Christine tears off his mask at the end, all we can see is an unpleasant skin ailment on the side of his face.
You'd think he'd be a bit more scarred than that? After all, etching acid is strong stuff, and his face should be practically melted away!!
Claude Rains apparently was a bit sensitive to the whole scarring of his face thing, he kept requesting that the makeup be made less horrific until it only convered a small portion of his face. Originally it was to have covered almost all of it.
shareActually, I've been told and have read the Rains did most of the 'scarring' makeup himself - which can explain why he didn't want it to cover the majority of his face (maybe a time issue or something...perhaps a little vain?). However, you are correct - the acid was indeed thrown over his entire face and the deformity was originally meant to cover the whole face.
shareThat's ridiculous, however... the real master of make-up responsible was of course Jack Pierce, who was responsible for all of the other great Universal Horror monsters as well.
-J. Theakston
The Silent Photoplayer
http://www.geocities.com/tomservorobot/
Thank you for confirming my doubts. I read that somewhere the day before I posted the reply and it sounded a bit odd to me - my fault for believing stupid rumors. Perhaps the place I read it from confused the Rains version with the Chaney version (the aspects of Chaney doing his own makeup) - which I think would be nearly impossible because the versions are so very different - but ya never know. Sorry about that - shouldn't have posted unless I knew for sure! :o(
-K.
the deformity was originally meant to cover the whole face.
Not so sure of that, after he ran from the room, he was only clutching the disfigured side.
speaking of which, is there a website that actually shows Claude Rains' Phantom unmasked? Problem is, you don't get to see his face for a very long time.
There is documentation to the effect that studio executives were concerned about "distressing" wartime audiences whose loved ones would be returning home scarred or disfigured, and that the original (presumably full-face) makeup was "toned-down" until, in the words of Susannah Foster during a 1981 interview "all he had was a little scar on his cheek."
According to the novel, the Phantom was a nameless man who was born disfigured and abandoned by his parents shortly after they presented him with his first mask.
I've seen a single photograph of Rains unmasked in Famous Monsters of Filmland magazine, but it's a black and white frame blowup; very grainy.
He was not nameless in the original Leroux novel. His name is Erik. Chaney version gets it right, the Rains version calls him Erique (close, but no), Webber leaves him nameless. You're correct that he was born disfigured in the book, the acid thing is completely contrary to the original story. I'm not sure the book clarifies whether he was abandoned by his parents. Susan Kay's version says he ran away--I know she's not the official one, but she seemed to try to stay consistent with Leroux as much as possible, adding on rather than changing. However, I haven't read Leroux in a while so perhaps you're right. I am positive, however, that his name in the book is Erik. Sorry...sore point with me, so many people don't realize the Phantom does have a name.
shareI must disagree; In Leroux's novel as the Phantom is giving his life story he clearly states that he took the name Erik "by accident" -but does not elaborate.
So, it appears that his parents abandoned (or sold) him without ever having bothered to give him a name.
"If you don't know the answer -change the question."
I think just about everyone is getting it wrong.
Leroux mentions in the Epilogue how Erik grew up near Rouen and eventually ran away from home. No abandoning by the parents.
And on the subject of Susan Kay... let me say this: she was not consistent with Leroux at all. There are basic elements of his history that she talked about and attempted to flesh out, but she changed practically everything else. Including the entire point of the story. You read from the Counterpoint on, and it's absolutely NOTHING like Leroux at all.
Sorry. I just get cheesed when people evoke her name and her novel like she was some kind of an authority figure to be respected. If we're making comparisons with this movie compared to the original novel, Susan Kay should have jack-all to do with the discussion.
Anyhoo...
If you notice, much of the acid that is thrown at Claude Rains gets on his hands as well. One would think his hands would have been burned up pretty badly too, don't you think? I believe I do remember listening to the commentary by Scott McQueen in the bonus DVD features and, supposedly, the writers were toggling with a number of different ideas about how they would write his deformity. One idea had him getting knifed in the face by a prostitute, I think... and there was also an idea about placing the setting during the war and having Erik's deformity "imagined"... like he was just mentally unstable. Hmmm.
I'm sure The Silent Photoplayer could clarify.
*munch munch*
Also, remember how he falls into the sewer water after the acid incident. That can't exactly have improved his looks either. One can only think of how it would have been if Rains had agreed to wear a full-scale monster make-up. It would certainly have had the potential to be equally as great as Chaney's, IMO.
shareRemember it was 1943 the height of WWII and Universal studio heads were concerned with the men returning home scarred and burned from war. So Universal decided to tone down the Make-up. 60 plus years later it may seem like they whimped out and cheated us out of an even better monster movie but for the time I think they made the right decision.
Claude Rains make-up is the way it is because he didn't want to be typecast as a "horror" actor and he didn't want to be completly covered up like he was in The Invisible Man.
shareits a movie want can i say its not my favorite phantom movie
If any, the 25 version is the most accurate, until the end anyway. It's rediculous how noone can be consistant. There is one story. His face is supposed to be deformed from birth. (Phantom, the musical, portrays it as a defect from his mother taking some form of suicide drug while impregnated) But in every movie version they feel the need to build it up so much. The story isn't about his face, it's about love and rejection. It's about bitterness and scorn. Noone seems to ever get the point right.
share[deleted]
He/she is referring to the Yeston/Kopit version, which i haven't seen but do plan to get the soundtrack to.
JACK: Never let go, Rose
(she sneezes and drops him.)
ROSE: (after a pause) Oops.
The story isn't about his face, it's about love and rejection. It's about bitterness and scorn. Noone seems to ever get the point right.
That is true but there are some moments where that's all the focus is, on his face, characters try to describe it, what some claim to have witnessed like Joseph Buquet before he got hanged.
ANIMAL LOVERS UNITE
http://homevideo.universalstudios.com/monsters/phantom.html
On this page is a clip of the Phantom's unmasking and his face being acided. And the chandelier crahsing and Carlotta screaming 'OMFFFFFFFFG!' or something to that effect.
www.thedailypunctillio.tk
http://www.scriptbuddy.com/community/
^ My 'Phantom' screenplay!
I read the Susan Kay, saw the movie and, read the Leroux. From what I have gathered, I think his face was deformed from birth. But I don't really think the story is meant to be about the deformity. What I gather from it is that it is about love so strong the Phantom is willing to kill for it or do anything else he must to have it. Which is a beautiful feeling. But it is also about rejection and having that love shattered.
(I'm not going to get into my opinions on shattering it, they aren't so nice regarding Christine.)
why would you keep acid in your room?
shareHe didn't keep acid in his room. In the Claude Rains version, Erique is a violinist who also composes. He goes to the music shop where he has left his latest and best composition and finds the owner flattering a famous musician, Chopin, and offering him Erique's composition as if it were for sale. Erique confronts the owner and as he starts to throttle him, an assistant comes in with some developing fluid in a pan. God knows why she has it, i don't remember the explanation, but when Erique wheels around on hearing her scream, she throws the pan of it into his face. He screams and runs out, finally going down a manhole to the sewers where he splashes water (eeeew!) on his face. he makes his way to the opera house by way of the sewers and there he stays. He got the mask from a production of an opera, along with his cape. in one scene he only wears a hooded cape.
This is available on video now, I think, and for all i know, on DVD, too. Claude Rains was always worth seeing. He had made his American debut as The Invisible Man, but he refused to do the sequels made of it. Before he came to the States, he was Charles Laughton's drama teacher in a London school. He was the sexiest old man I ever saw, even in his sixties.
The famous composer in the movie was actually Franz Liszt. They weren't actually trying to steal Eriques music. He just got that idea because he was hearing it played in the other room after the lady told him it wasn't there. That's where he thought they stole it and killed the owner.
shareJust to answer the earlier question on why there was acid at the publishers; they were using acid to etch into engravings of music so they could put the engravings on the printers.
There was dialogue: “It’s a shame; Plail (sp?) is in there with his etchings, why don’t they tell him he isn’t seeing anyone today instead of torturing him like this”
Then when Rains walks into the room with the publisher and his assistant “Now my dear, the acid; Careful! Or you’ll burn yourself hardly”
Actually, to date, the most faithful adaption of Phantom of the Opera was the Emerald City animated version that came out in 1987. Much of the dialogue is taken, word for word, from the original novel. Plus it comes with a more faithful ending. Love, compassion, and redemption... good times.
Chaney's though, I grant you, is right on its heels. Lon nailed the character down spectacularly. (PLUS his was the only film to feature the Phantom strangling someone underwater... which is just sexy and horrific.) How awesome would it have been if they had stuck with the original ending they had filmed? *sighs*
*munch munch*
[deleted]
How awesome would it have been if they had stuck with the original ending they had filmed? *sighs*
Here is Claude Rains as "The Phantom" unmasked:
https://www.google.ca/search?q=phantom%20of%20the%20opera%201943&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=_l-EUY2sA9GGqwHM54HoAw&biw=1009&bih=607&sei=AmCEUfyLEsSmqwHclYCIDg#imgrc=nXQxMVEtyRc1fM%3A%3BMC4iuzKSazFKNM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fscreamsheet.files.wordpress.com%252F2012%252F02%252Ferique-unmasked.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fscreamsheet.wordpress.com%252F2012%252F02%252F01%252Fthe-phantom-of-the-opera-the-1943-film%252F%3B500%3B375
Cheers!
Sincerely,
Steve.
I have wondered one thing about the makeup for Claude Rains as the Phantom. I believe one of his eyes was affected, was it not? I know from his biography that Claude Rains was a World War I veteran who was almost blinded in one eye as the result of a mustard gas attack. I've wondered if the Phantom's affected eye was Claude Rains' real bad eye. It would have made sense if that had been the case. Does anyone know?
share