It’s hard to argue with the reputation of this film. In 1925, it was drawing on the conventions of
the horror/thriller and codifying them to the point that we still recognize
these same genre elements 90 years later.
Phantom is a bona fide touchstone American film.
One of the strengths here is the movie’s extraordinary
images. We’re visually hooked starting at the opening scenes of streams of people flowing to the Paris
Opera, up its stairs and into its lavish performance hall. This is not a chamber movie but instead an epic which set in a single, grand building. Whether the faux
Egyptian statuary back stage or the chiaroscuro of the Phantom’s abode, the frame
here is always filled with interesting things to look at, and most shots as much about the background and set as they are about the characters.
The Phantom does his part, too, to keep the visuals
interesting. When the film shifts to a
color sequence at the masked ball, the Phantom steals this bright scene with
his glowing red costume, and when he spies on the couple from atop the statue
they’re reclining under, his cape billows into the air like a wide streamer of
blood. Even his horrible face provokes
interest with his lipless mouth showing his teeth, his patchy hair and his
dark, sunken eyes that look like those of a skull. Director Rupert Julian uses this face
especially well when the Phantom is driving his team of horses to flee the
angry crowd.
There are also unmistakably Expressionist gestures with
lighting in this film. The claustrophobic
opening is all vaulted arches slashed by single source lighting and a bent
figure carrying another light. Shadows
leap on walls throughout the film, too. In
fact, the first time we see the Phantom, he’s nothing but a shadow on one of
these walls, and we’re treated to other silhouettes throughout. Soon after the vault scene, we see shadows of
ballerinas prancing on a wall, and we watch a silhouette constructed as the
Phantom puts Christine on a horse and they ride off, stretching and deforming
their shadow in their wake. Phantom
freely avails itself of such Expressionist visual gestures.
And the confident, fluid editing here moves the film along
while engaging us. The early opera section is almost
a montage as the movie tells us the story of people arriving at the Opera house
and settling in for a performance with short clips of each phase of the action. Later, the film tells the story of the fall
of the chandelier by cutting from the fall itself to many quick glances at the
consequences of its slamming onto the patrons.
We see the same technique around other thriller/action points like the
kidnapping of Christine and the pursuit of the Phantom. Phantom of the Opera succeeds at least in
part thanks to its editing techniques.
But in contrast to his success in other aspects of the film, Julien’s
decisions with respect to acting stifle our engagement. Perhaps channeling Expressionist vocabulary
that creates an eerie, disoriented feeling in those films, Julian guides his
actors into performances that are closer to pantomime than portrayal and that
suck the life out of characters. With
this directorial choice, Phantom becomes a series of tableaux with actors’ limbs
flung wide and held for effect rather than a series of scenes with humans
working out their desires and beliefs. In
one scene, for example, the Phantom’s elevated hand with fingers stretched
apart and bent resembles a characteristic gesture of Max Schreck’s Nosferatu. In the Murnau film, with its consistently
macabre tone, this gesture contributes to our sense of how unnatural the
vampire is. However, this same gesture feels
like stilted acting in Phantom because the world of this later film is
realistic with its business owners, detectives, cousins and art patrons. Expressionist gestures work well in consistent, Expressionist projects, but offered in a realistic aetting, they simply feel false. This is one reason Chaney’s naturalistic
Quasimodo is far more engaging than his artificial Phantom. And it’s one reason we hardly care at all
about Christine or her beau, Raoul, as the actors pantomime their characters
instead of create them.
Phantom of the Opera is a brilliant film to watch on
screen. Its visuals thrill, and its
editing engages. However, the unfortunate
choice of acting style here is so inappropriate for the rest of the movie that
we can’t stay connected. Through Phantom,
we can see how German Expressionism became a key part of B-movie horror.
