This one is an interesting case. I started watching the film, expecting a more-or-less faithful adaption of the original story, but I soon discovered that Lubin's "Phantom of the Opera" is only loosely based on Leroux's classic book. Gone are the mysterious ghost haunting the Paris Opera House, the young Christine Daeé and her childhood friend, the Viscount De Chagny. Yet, this story is not all that different in essence, for this "Phantom" too is a tragic character who goes mad when the world turns his back to him.
The Paris Opera House is an ordinary place. No hauntings, only a silly legend of a ghost with a long nose and a long, red beard, which is indeed a legend. Young Christine Dubois is a promising singer, currently part of the chorus and understudy to the female lead, Biancarolli. Her heart is apparently claimed by two men: Inspector Raoul D'Aubert and her co-worker ,baritone Anatole Garron. But except for these two gentlemen, another one takes great interest in Christine's career and well-being. A man in his fifties, a poor violinist who has been working in the Opera House for most of his life.
This ordinary set-up changes when the violinist, Erique Claudin, loses his musical touch and is "suspended" (essentially fired). The poor man tries to sell his music and keep promoting (in secret) Christine's career. His efforts are turned down and in his frustration, a misunderstanding pushes him to murder a music publisher. The publisher's assistant (or wife, or daughter, or I don't know) throws acid in his face, disfiguring it. Claudin, hunted by the police, secludes himself beneath the Opera House and wears a prop mask, thus becoming the embodiment of the legend of the "Opera Ghost".
At first, I wasn't particularly happy with the movie. For a good twenty minutes in, all is just the story set-up. Logical, but quite boring, especially when you're expecting something entirely different. However, once the story really kicked off, I found myself very amused by the re-interpretation. The Phantom is really not the protagonist anymore, but rather the reason behind the different situations the other characters (Christine and her two ambitious lovers) will have to come through. In context it's not really bad. The film is entirely different in style and atmosphere and colors than other adaptations. It's not as dark. There is no Gothic aroma. The mystery surrounding the character of the Phantom has been removed completely. It's not a romantic take either. It's classic Hollywood of the era. It's a straightforward story of a poor guy turning wacko and a set of characters trying to figure out a murder mystery.
While I generally enjoyed this different take and the film as a whole, there were a few things that just didn't sit well with me. The writers or the director decided it would be a good idea to give a good amount of exposition to the actual plays performed in the Opera House, in the movie. Even from the start, one can get bored watching a little too much of the play performed on-stage at the moment. It's annoying and tiring, if you're not interested in this kind of thing and it's very much distracting from the film's overall pacing and purpose. It sounds minimal, but it happens three times and especially in the last one, when the chandelier crashes, it makes that moment very anti-climatic. Another big issue is that Claudin's obsession with Christine is never really explained. Raoul and Anatole theorize that he's in love with her. We, the audience, are led to believe that he has a more "fatherly" interest in her. Either way, we never learn.
(Trivia: a quick look at imdb.com shows that an earlier draft included the information that Claudin was, in fact, Christine's father, who had left her and her mother to pursue a musical career. That was cut later from the script, leaving us with the question. Worse, yet, Christine mentions a strange fascination toward him, in the end, which is never apparent in the film.)
Lubin's direction is just right for this film. From the shots of the Opera House, down to the cuts between Christine singing and the Phantom hearing her from the sewers. Only downside is the whole plays thing I mentioned earlier. The cast is mostly satisfying. Claude Rains took a while to get used to as the Phantom, but he brings the right feel to this interpretation of the character and, while the connection we make, isn't as deep as in other adaptations, you can genuinely feel sorry for him and his fate. Also very enjoyable are Nelson Eddy and Edgar Barrier in the roles of the two rivals for Christine's heart. Their comical, rivalry scenes together are golden. Less noticeable, but really not bad, is Suzanna Foster as Christine.
It seems to be a quite expensive production. Honestly, my ear-drums hurt a lot after the film was over, but I suppose that should be expected from a film that old. The sets and the costumes were nearly flawless in quality; actually, the Opera House set is the very same set used in the 1925 "Phantom of the Opera". That set is still standing today and is the longest standing set in the history of motion pictures. I was less impressed with the special effects, be it the chandelier crash (which I found lacking even compared to Julian's version) and the make-up on the Phantom, which was both underwhelming (it looked like a bad sunburn) and a logical error (since it covered only a portion of the right of his face, while the acid was thrown all over his face).
It was interesting, that much I'll give it. And enjoyable, for what it was. I'm not a fan of this interpretation, but I did quite like it. Radical takes on classic stories are refreshing and, if nothing else, make for excellent comparison measure for the source material. I won't be revisiting it for a while, but it's very much worth a look.
0 σχόλια:
Post a Comment