‘If I am the Phantom, it is because man’s hatred has made me so…’
It’s sad that silent cinema is so easily dismissed by modern audiences because there is so much craft and ingenuity to be discovered and enjoyed in the early days of the moving image. I thought I knew what to expect from Universal’s famous adaptation of Gaston Leroux’s iconic novel The Phantom of the Opera, but its innovation constantly surprised me…
There is a theatre. It has a phantom (Lon Chaney). He falls in love with backing singer Christine Daaé (Mary Philbin). Chaos and destruction ensues. It really is that simple. It is the incredible set design, haunting make up and compelling performances that add a rich layer of complexity to what is at its heart a simple fairy tale.
It’s astonishing that a film released 100 years ago can look better than many films released today, but that is undoubtedly the case here. Some of the set pieces, involving many extras and lots of moving parts, are a match of anything in Metropolis or the oeuvre of D.W. Griffith. Chaney steals the show, delivering a terrifying and tragic portrayal of the Phantom, but all the acting is at least competent, even allowing for the overly melodramatic style of the era. Most impressive of all, however, is the fact that Chaney created his own make-up for the role – a skill for which he was almost as renowned as he was for his acting. The end product is one of the most iconic reveals in the history of cinema. It remains a chilling moment.
The Phantom of the Opera may have dated, but Chaney’s performance is still sensational, the set design still captivating, and the plot is still impossible to resist – one of the best silent horror films.
