October 29, 2025 • 30 mins
Welcome back to The Film Dept. Podcast!
To celebrate the 100th year anniversary of THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA (1925), and to get into the Halloween season spirit, our hosts spent this class session discussing several iterations of the Phantom of the Opera.
They discuss the symbolism of masks, revenge, and more in this episode in thanks to our partner movie house The Beverly Theater!
Chapters
00:00 Introduction to The Phantom of the Opera
3:13 Comparing Phantom Adaptations
6:17 The Evolution of the Phantom's Character
10:05 Acting in Silent Films vs. Modern Adaptations
11:30 The Role of Music in Storytelling
14:05 The Reveal Scene: Impact and Interpretation
18:14 The Symbolism of Masks and Identity
23:03 The Midpoint and Stakes in the Story
26:00 Revenge and Consequences in Different Versions
29:31 Final Thoughts
Watch this episode (and all previous episodes) on UNLV College of Fine Arts Podcasts:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLgbLVA87WVDTKLP095pINKBeHXSe6brRn
Email us: thefilmdeptpod@gmail.com
Credits:
HOSTS - Lex de Asis, Matthew Trudeau, Robby Baker
PRODUCERS - Tom Bjelic, Sam Decker
PRODUCERS - Vance Mellen, Theresa Twa
EXECUTIVE PRODUCED BY - Adam Paul, Roudi Boroumand
PRODUCTION COORDINATORS- Isa Privetera, Tatyana Odobasic-Cuevas
SOUND CREW - Brandon Aguilar, Hunter Cole, Marcie Gentile
KEY GRIP- William Stanfield
EDITORS - Molly Bilbray-Axelrod, Asher Garduno
For The Beverly:
Kip Kelly, Founding Creative Director | Chief Experience Officer
Alexi Harber, General Manager
Ivy Ergunes, Marketing Manager
To read the hosts' reviews, head over to:
https://thefilmdeptpodcast.substack.com/
Once again, The Film Department has teamed up with the mad geniuses of The Beverly Theater. Imagined by The Rogers Foundation, The Beverly Theater brings cinematic connectivity, novel collaborations, live happenings, cultural portals, and a zest for independent spirits to DTLV. With a mission to stage uncommon cinematic, literary, and live experiences, The Beverly Theater is Las Vegas’ first and only independent film house, storytelling arena, and live music venue.
For the latest screenings and events at The Beverly, visit thebeverlytheater.com The Film Department Podcast is supported by UNLV Film.
At the film department of the University of Nevada Las Vegas, every story has a beginning.With degree programs for undergraduates and graduates, state of the art equipment and facilities, incredible professional internships around the world, and expert guest speakers, students discover the power and potential of cinema as they prepare for the film and television industry… and beyond.
Learn more at UNLV.EDU/FILM UNLV Film. Find your voice. Tell your story.
To celebrate the 100th year anniversary of THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA (1925), and to get into the Halloween season spirit, our hosts spent this class session discussing several iterations of the Phantom of the Opera.
They discuss the symbolism of masks, revenge, and more in this episode in thanks to our partner movie house The Beverly Theater!
Chapters
00:00 Introduction to The Phantom of the Opera
3:13 Comparing Phantom Adaptations
6:17 The Evolution of the Phantom's Character
10:05 Acting in Silent Films vs. Modern Adaptations
11:30 The Role of Music in Storytelling
14:05 The Reveal Scene: Impact and Interpretation
18:14 The Symbolism of Masks and Identity
23:03 The Midpoint and Stakes in the Story
26:00 Revenge and Consequences in Different Versions
29:31 Final Thoughts
Watch this episode (and all previous episodes) on UNLV College of Fine Arts Podcasts:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLgbLVA87WVDTKLP095pINKBeHXSe6brRn
Email us: thefilmdeptpod@gmail.com
Credits:
HOSTS - Lex de Asis, Matthew Trudeau, Robby Baker
PRODUCERS - Tom Bjelic, Sam Decker
PRODUCERS - Vance Mellen, Theresa Twa
EXECUTIVE PRODUCED BY - Adam Paul, Roudi Boroumand
PRODUCTION COORDINATORS- Isa Privetera, Tatyana Odobasic-Cuevas
SOUND CREW - Brandon Aguilar, Hunter Cole, Marcie Gentile
KEY GRIP- William Stanfield
EDITORS - Molly Bilbray-Axelrod, Asher Garduno
For The Beverly:
Kip Kelly, Founding Creative Director | Chief Experience Officer
Alexi Harber, General Manager
Ivy Ergunes, Marketing Manager
To read the hosts' reviews, head over to:
https://thefilmdeptpodcast.substack.com/
Once again, The Film Department has teamed up with the mad geniuses of The Beverly Theater. Imagined by The Rogers Foundation, The Beverly Theater brings cinematic connectivity, novel collaborations, live happenings, cultural portals, and a zest for independent spirits to DTLV. With a mission to stage uncommon cinematic, literary, and live experiences, The Beverly Theater is Las Vegas’ first and only independent film house, storytelling arena, and live music venue.
For the latest screenings and events at The Beverly, visit thebeverlytheater.com The Film Department Podcast is supported by UNLV Film.
At the film department of the University of Nevada Las Vegas, every story has a beginning.With degree programs for undergraduates and graduates, state of the art equipment and facilities, incredible professional internships around the world, and expert guest speakers, students discover the power and potential of cinema as they prepare for the film and television industry… and beyond.
Learn more at UNLV.EDU/FILM UNLV Film. Find your voice. Tell your story.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
The Film Department is supported by UNLV Film.
(00:04):
At the Film Department of the University of Nevada Las Vegas, every story has a beginning.
With degree programs for undergraduates and graduates, state-of-the-art equipment and
facilities, incredible professional internships around the world, and expert guest speakers,
students discover the power and potential of cinema as they prepare for the film and
(00:24):
television industry and beyond.
Learn more at unlv.edu/film.
UNLV Film.
Find your voice.
Tell your story.
[MUSIC]
Welcome to the Film Department, the movie review podcast of UNLV Film.
(00:47):
Before we get started, we want to give a huge shout out and thank you to the Beverly
Theater, our partner movie house, the only independent theater in Las Vegas.
Thank you so much. They have slash passes available for their week program this month, all horror
films, including coming up.
They got killer clowns from Outer Space, the Blair Witch Project, and Corpse Bride.
Today we're going to talk about the 1925 Phantom of the Opera film with Lon Chaney.
(01:10):
Let's jump right into it.
What do you guys think?
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
[LAUGHTER]
It was amazing.
No, I think it is probably one of my favorite classics.
There's so many things I can say actually, but I will say the practical effects are probably
my favorite, Lon Chaney's.
(01:30):
Yes, no.
He did all of his own makeup, which is the craziest part to me, the reveal where Christine
takes the mask off.
Yes.
And he opens his mouth all wide and his nose is sticking up like that.
It's my favorite.
Out of all of the universal classic horror films, I've only seen this and the invisible
man from 1933.
(01:50):
And both the effects are arguably better than some movies today.
Oh, yeah.
I love that you bring that up because a lot of modern cinema has, even though we have really
intense CGI that we can use, but some of those practical effects that they use back in
in this case in the '20s and everything just looks so great on camera.
(02:13):
Yes.
And well, I mean, I'm sure we have Lon Cheney to thank for this specifically.
I know he also did his own makeup.
I think it was for Hunchback.
I think so, yeah.
Yeah, I'm blanking.
I'm blanking.
Yeah.
I think it was Hunchback, which I've never seen, but I've seen what he looked like.
And it's really good.
If he did all of his own makeup for Hunchback as well and it amazed me how he was an actor
(02:35):
and not just a special effects artist.
Well, sometimes the actor really has to take control of what they do when it comes to
their makeup.
And multiple instances had to do my own makeup for a few shows that I've been a part of.
And so I 100% get the whole, well, I know what works for me and what I need in order to
(02:55):
make myself look good.
So why don't I just do it?
I get it.
I've had to contour my abs before it's an art really.
Oh man, those things aren't real.
Believe it or not, believe it or not.
Anyway, let's get back to Phantom.
Yeah.
I mean, just general review.
I'm sure we've all seen the 2004 musicals.
Yes.
There's a million adaptations.
Yes.
I can trust.
How do we feel about this?
(03:15):
For sure.
No.
If we're talking about practical effects right now, I think the 1989 version with Robert Engler
is a great one to talk about, especially because, you know, our iconic Freddie Krueger.
So yeah, what are your thoughts?
I mean, so at the end of the 1989 Phantom of the Opera with Robert England, I feel like
he kind of just looks like Freddie Krueger again, which makes me wonder if that's what
(03:38):
they were going for.
I know this was a few years after the first one had come out.
So I'm curious to know if that's what they were going for.
That kind of became the horror film king at that.
Yeah.
You know, Freddie Krueger is so iconic.
And so with the fact that both characters, in this case, spoilers, are burn victims, it's
very understandable that they would have a very similar aesthetic to them.
(03:59):
And I 100% agree with you when you say that he looked just like Freddie Krueger.
It's crazy to get cast type as a burn victim.
No.
No, even the texture of his face too.
I was telling you guys, the chart before we were in me, it just did not.
But it's still so different from every other version I've seen.
The 2004 and the 1925.
(04:20):
Yes.
The 1925, he looks like a Gremlin officer.
Yeah.
Like Dracula, like some type of messed up vampire.
Yeah.
Yeah.
His face just has all the features of a plain skull.
But it's exaggerated in the same way.
I don't know how to explain it.
The way that they do the phantom in every iteration is always a little bit more unique than
(04:43):
the last.
I mean, going off of the 1925 versus the 2004, you know, you got the full face in 1925,
which I'm not sure.
Which I'm not sure.
Which I'm not sure.
Oh, yes, absolutely.
And then you compare it to 2004 with Gerard Butler's, it's only half the face in Granada,
(05:05):
that's just the musical.
Yeah.
And so, but in so many different iterations of Phantom of the Opera, there's even one
where you watch as he actually had an accident and he had his face burned by acid.
Yes.
I've seen that one.
I know what you're talking about where he's like, it's after he becomes the phantom.
Correct.
He gets worse.
(05:25):
And then of course, once again, with Robert Englund and everything, he's a burned victim
and this one having made a specific deal with the devil and everything.
And that's kind of his price to pay.
I really enjoy it because of the fact that it gives a little bit more depth to, you know,
why is he the way he is?
You know, is it because he was born this way?
(05:47):
Did he have some kind of thing happen to him?
You know, because, and I think we all said this when we were watching the 1989, like Robert
Englund is a good looking guy.
Yeah.
You know, and so watching him go from this very gorgeous person into this, you know, horrific
monster.
Yeah.
(06:07):
Yeah.
And in, I love that you say monster because of the fact that in that version, you know, there's
a lot more of a supernatural element to it.
Yes.
Yes.
100%.
Well, and just talking about the evolution of the phantoms, look and his character, he, from
the very beginning in the book in the 1925 film, he's just a monster.
(06:31):
He's just a, kind of a creepy guy.
And then as time has gone on and with the introduction of the musical, especially he's become
a bit of a romantic symbol and that mask, especially, it goes from being this creepy mask where
you can barely see his eyes and it's covering everything just part of his face and you're
getting this handsome side, you're getting this masked, mysterious, like it's, it's, it's,
(06:52):
it's like become smut almost.
Right.
That's that unsuspective figure.
Well, I mean, it is, it is, it is, it is, yeah, he has to have a level of handsomeness.
Yeah.
That's why I could never play phantom.
Oh my god.
No, you can't.
Yeah, it's okay.
You could be Raul.
Oh, okay.
I'll take it.
Or as in the 1989, you could be Richard.
(07:13):
Richard?
Yeah.
Yeah.
Little easier pronounced.
Right.
Yeah, yeah.
I mean, can we also talk about the psychology behind phantom as we see from 1995 to '89
to '04?
We get, you know, just straight up, like infatuation versus, we, and we move forward, we get
obsession.
(07:33):
It's, it's a whole, well, it's a spectrum.
Yes.
It's a spectrum from, from obsession to infatuation to actual love.
Yes.
And none of them ever actually get to the love side.
They start with infatuation or leaning towards obsession and by the end, it's just complete
obsession.
And then in the, in the '04 one, we also see Christine kind of have that infatuation
(07:53):
as well.
Right.
Yeah.
Right.
Yeah.
And I think that's the wonderful thing about the Andrew Lloyd Webber, you know, musical
adaptation is even after the story of what we know to be the phantom of the opera is done,
he carries on with it into love, never dies, which is the direct sequel to it.
(08:14):
And I think that if you really want to see just how much those characters evolve from that
experience, it is a wonderful watch.
And I won't go too far into it because that's not our topic right now.
But I do agree.
And I think that the obsession is absolutely there.
And I think that it's just overall fun to watch.
(08:40):
It's a decline in a way.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Well, and I feel like that's the case with every version you watch.
You're getting the same story.
Yes.
They hit the basic plotline.
Like, watching these three very different versions of the same story, the beginning was
all like shop for shut-
Not shop for shop.
Right.
(09:00):
It was the same.
It was the same, you know, starting with Carlotta being this, this diva and this opera princess.
She's the star to the phantom being jealous, the phantom.
But the phantom is like jealous.
He's like, no, no, no, I don't want this for Carlotta.
I want this for the girl that I've become infatuated with.
So I'm going to, you know, throw my wrench into the gears.
(09:22):
Right.
Let's get something else cooking.
I love that you bring that up because of the fact that, yes, he puts,
Christine forward in each one of these adaptations.
And I love that you see in the background of each one of these pieces the building of
Don Juan triumphant, which is his masterpiece, his opera that is presented at the end, and
(09:45):
where the inspiration for that was Christine, you know, from the moment he laid eyes on
her, that's what he's writing.
This is his full thing that he's working towards.
And so in order to get to the point of where she can be that female lead in it, he has
to, you know, make way for it by pushing her forward.
Yeah.
Yeah.
(10:06):
I see what you mean.
I see what you mean.
Yeah.
Sorry.
You were going to say something.
I was going to say, I was kind of going to divert a little bit.
What is the actor saying that plays Christine in the 1925 version?
I'm blanking out, but I wanted to talk a little bit about like the acting aspect because
remember, I think we were talking about it a little bit earlier where we were like,
there's a lot of, you know, people don't really, they didn't really like her performance.
(10:30):
I want to see what your guys just take because I personally really, really did like her performance
in here.
I thought it was pretty perfect.
I liked it a lot.
I mean, I think with it being 1925, it's a silent film.
It was still what, two or three years from the first movie with dialogue coming out.
Like they kind of had to play more into it, like a Charlie Chaplin type thing.
Yeah.
So when she was like this, she was like, yeah, that's a really show, the body of the
(10:53):
language and everything, because what else are we going to rely on?
Exactly.
And that's not bad acting.
That's playing to the times.
Right.
I mean, if you call that the acting, she nailed it.
Right.
I have to 100% agree with you on that.
Watching a silent film versus, you know, the 1989 where it's a little bit more natural
and everything versus the musical, you know, there's such a contrast between how each
(11:18):
one of these characters has to play up what they're doing.
Yes.
I would definitely have to disagree with people.
I think that her performance was fantastic, especially for what she was doing at the time.
Well, you know, and you bring up a good point of the musical.
The musical is my introduction to this story.
I've not read the book.
I had never seen the movies.
And so it's kind of hard, it was hard to imagine what this story would be like not as
(11:43):
a musical.
It's phantom of the opera, opera being this big, beautiful musical piece.
Right.
Right.
And it's not a musical before this.
It's kind of that kind of shock me.
And so the music of the 2004 really plays into the charm of the characters, the fear of
the characters, the aggression of the characters, and they didn't have that for any of the other
versions that we watched.
(12:03):
So especially for 1925, which is silent, there's no dialogue.
Right.
So when you put that into the perspective, yes, they nailed it even more.
Raoul, phantom, Christine, all of them, the detective.
I'm bringing on the detective's name now too.
And all of them, like they played the part so well without the benefit of dialogue, without
(12:24):
the benefit of music, without the benefit of the charm.
It's a part of performance, yeah, the other way.
Yeah, I just like you, my first introduction to phantom was with the 04 actually, which then
evolved into the stage adaptation of it.
And for me, going back and watching the story just enhances it even more for me because
(12:48):
of the fact that I started with the musical.
And so I can see these different layers of the characters and how they potentially evolved
from, you know, being silent things on a screen to everyone is loud and singing and there's
elephants in the background, you know, it's such a spectacle from beginning to finish.
(13:10):
Yeah.
Well, and it plays into specific scenes too, not just like the story is a whole.
The best example I can think of is so in the musical just before Christine takes the phantoms
mask off.
It's very romantic.
It's very like, you know, it's cheesy.
It's sensual.
That's a good way to put it.
And then she takes the mask off and then he gets all aggressive.
I mean, I can't remember the words of the song, but he's like yelling at her in song.
(13:34):
Right.
In the 1925 version of the same scene.
It's just creepy.
It is creepy.
He's not singing to her.
No, there's no romance factor.
It's just, okay, dude, you kidnap her for your lunch.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, and maybe it's because we have that more obsession, infatuation viewpoint
(13:55):
rather than the romance.
Yes.
Either way, I was like, please Christine get out of here.
Yeah, I would get out on a ride.
I know.
Okay, this isn't, this isn't as romantic as I remember it being.
I will say this though for the 1925 versus the '04, I think that phantom is, I think,
in a way more human in the 1925 because of the fact that you actually get to know him as
(14:21):
not only phantom, but as Eric.
Yes.
Yes.
It's the fact that he almost pulls a golem smeagle thing where he talks about Eric in this
third person.
Eric has unfortunately had to fall from grace because of this, uh, didn't think about
that.
Yeah, because of this disfigurement.
And that is something that you don't really express in the, in the musical and, uh, or rather
(14:46):
the '04, I want to stick to the movie rather than the stage.
But you know, it's, it's one of those things where separating these two characters, whereas
in phantom of the opera, the musical, he's just phantom.
You know, you don't get to know his name because he has only been this opera ghost.
He was treated from day one as, uh, is in what they said in the movie, The Devil's Child.
(15:12):
I'll be honest.
I, so I only ever listened to it for the longest time.
I thought the phantom was like some supernatural character before I watched the movie.
Yeah.
No, he's just like a, like, an operatic Batman.
Like he just knows a lot.
He can just get around quickly.
Like, that's all, that's what his superpower is.
He is a designer.
He is a musician.
He is a magician.
(15:33):
And that's something that carried through with every single one of the adaptations is the
fact that the guy is a magician.
There's a reason why just like what you said, he's a musical Batman.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Musical Batman is the greatest term ever.
He's dark.
He's mysterious.
He wears a mask.
You mentioned the name part, which I do want to touch back on.
(15:56):
Um, and then he's 25.
Yes.
We only see him, or we see him talking about Eric in the third person.
But he kind of disregards that in the other adaptations that we were looking at in the
before and I didn't know his name was Eric.
Yeah, exactly.
So I think it plays a part in identity as well because he kind of felt so alienated that
(16:16):
from his original identity that he kind of just had to be just phantom.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I feel like that speaks a lot for like how everyone else treated him very alienated.
I think that you can read a little bit more into that in terms of the masks.
Yeah.
Over the years because in 1925, the whole face is covered.
You mentioned the veil and just the creepy dullness of it.
(16:40):
Yeah.
And then as you progress forward in the Robert Englund, he, and I'm sorry, Trigger Warning
everyone, he actually, you know, he takes human flesh and he soars it onto his skin and
puts on makeup.
That's his mask.
Right.
And then he's skin grafts the hard way.
Yeah.
Right.
And with the, with the 04, he has the half mask.
(17:02):
Yeah.
And so there is that sense of beauty there.
There is that sense of humanity there.
And he's able to hide away that, that darkness.
And so when that darkness is revealed, he loses that humanity.
He feels like it is completely gone.
And that's all that people want to see at that.
(17:24):
Yeah.
You know what I thought was so funny watching the 1925 version.
So in the 2004 and in the 1989, Christine knows he's the phantom right away.
Right.
Yeah.
In the 1925 and maybe I got this wrong, maybe I just miss something.
At one point, after long before he took her down in the bow and into his like dungeon
lair spot, she points and the title card goes up.
(17:47):
You're the phantom and I thought that was so, I was like, you didn't, you didn't gather
that already.
You didn't, you didn't pick up on that.
Yeah.
He could have been a rat catcher.
Who knows?
Yeah, for sure, for sure.
Well, and there was that detective character that was kind of a red herring both to the audience
and the characters.
Is this like, is this, I was watching it with a friend and she was like, is that the phantom?
(18:08):
I was like, no, that's not the phantom.
I had seen the reveal scene already.
I was like, no, calm down.
Well, he was wearing a fez.
Obviously he's an inspector.
The fez makes it obvious.
But yeah, no, I'm still laughing at the music of Batman.
What did you guys think of that big, the reveal scene especially?
(18:31):
The reveal scene especially I thought was beautiful in a creepy way.
He looked right at the arrow and he was looking right at me.
He did that.
I kind of wanted to like turn around because I was like, is he looking behind?
I'm gonna do, look and ride at me.
Are you talking to him?
Yeah, exactly.
What do you, sorry, you're gonna have to tell me which version because I like 25.
(18:53):
Yes.
Oh gosh, the reveal.
I think the fact that it is so jarring is my favorite part of it.
I think that it's not what you fully expect because especially if you didn't grow up with
the 1925 and you did start off with a Gerard Butler like I did, it really is, well like it's
(19:16):
just that, jarring, you know, you're not expecting for this whole face to be deformed the way
that it is.
You guys know that when they first showed it at Universal, some people in the audience fainted.
I would believe it.
Freaked me out.
I hadn't eaten all day.
I could have fainted.
Yeah.
I did faint.
I just didn't want to show it.
Oh okay, just trying to say face.
(19:36):
Yeah, absolutely.
Same face.
What I will say is when, so when the mask came off, actually, let me go back.
Before the mask came off, I was kind of like, oh, you know, is the phantom?
It's this look, you know, it's iconic but I wasn't like blown away.
It's the phantom.
It's the mask.
It's the veil.
It's the everything.
(19:56):
And I kind of was like, how is this considered one of the classic Universal Monsters?
Like I didn't get it.
I didn't get it.
And then seeing the reveal, his mask of the red death, that part where he's up on the statue,
I was like, I get it now.
Right.
I see why this would go down in history as something terrifying.
That scene with Raoul and Christine under the statue where they're kind of plotting, they're
(20:18):
going to get away.
Which also I thought was like, oh, yeah, she never gave anything to the phantom.
Yeah.
He just kind of inferred it, which goes back into the infatuation.
But he's up there.
And I'm like, first of all, how do you guys not see him?
He's wearing this big red jacket.
I did not feel the presence.
Yeah, yeah.
I'm freaking out.
They're totally calm talking about their escape plan.
He's listening in, but he's looking.
(20:39):
His eyes are all dry.
He's so menacing.
I still can't get past the nose.
The nose is the funniest thing.
He's got this thing.
He knows which I know that he did use like wire.
Yeah.
It pulls his nose up.
What did you guys think?
Oh gosh.
Oh gosh.
So I'm going to start with the mask of the red death.
I think that is one of the most iconic phantom moments because of the fact that it is in the
(21:02):
middle of the celebration, the mask of raid.
Everyone is, you know, celebrating.
And then all of a sudden, this figure with the skull mask and dressed in Ruby blood red
just comes in and just disrupts the whole thing.
I want to say that I think that the 1925 might be my favorite of the three that we watched.
(21:27):
I would agree with that.
I would agree, no.
With the symbolism of it all.
Yeah.
It's a skull mask.
It almost looks like his face.
Exactly.
Like he's death.
It's more realistic to the character he is than the phantom mask.
Which is also creepy.
It's still creepy.
It's just the skull.
Yeah.
And Robert England also had a skull on everything, but I feel like because of the horror element
(21:52):
already in there, I think that he didn't necessarily need it.
No, no, yeah.
I agree with that.
I agree with that.
Like it was almost less scary because he was wearing it.
Right.
You know, the dude is scary without it.
You know, it's like Willem Dafoe and Spider-Man.
You're scary without the mask.
Yeah.
Well, with Robert Englund's version specifically, they did him up to make it look like he
(22:14):
has been patching his face up.
So they kind of tried to combine the handsome factor with something's not right factor.
And that was very disturbing to me.
That was very like something ain't right.
It's not right with this guy.
I will admit with this whole red death in the 1925 version, there was a part of me like
when the big reveal happened.
(22:34):
There was a part of me that kind of like almost rooted for him just because of how grand
or like the whole reveal was.
I was really taken back.
I was like, wow, like what am I looking at?
I can't remember exactly what part.
I think it might have been after the statue scene.
He's coming down those stairs and there's that group of like gestures there.
And one of them points and is like, that's the phantom of the new fiends.
(22:56):
Right.
That was very 1925 silent film to be out of it.
I loved it.
I could see Charlie Chaplin doing that.
Oh, yeah.
For sure.
Jokes on you.
He was in the movie.
I'm just kidding, he wasn't.
He was.
He didn't see him.
He was right there.
I know.
Because it wasn't necessarily featured in the 1989, however, in the 1925 and the 2004.
(23:18):
That roof scene and seeing the pure emotion that that the phantom goes through.
I think that is the scene that really makes the film.
Yeah.
Because of the fact that like we've been saying, there's this infatuation of between him and
Christine this entire time and then to see the man get utterly crushed, you know, he was
(23:43):
he was he thought he was being truly vulnerable.
Right.
And going to from the 1925, Christine is the only person who knows who Eric is.
She's the only face in seeing his face.
Absolutely.
And even in the in the 2004, even though Madame jury has a background with him, Christine
is still the only person who has seen his face and then more or less still kind of stuck
(24:06):
around with it, you know, and it's that vulnerability.
And so when Raoul suddenly steps into the picture and he sees this, it is just so emotionally
great to watch.
You know, so also talking about the statue scene in screenwriting class, we've learned that
(24:27):
the midpoint of the movie is where the stakes are raised.
Yes.
What you did notice with the 1925 version is that the very midpoint was right when she takes
the mask off of them.
Yes.
That big reveal.
And I thought, oh, this is interesting.
The stakes are being raised.
It was this big dramatic thing.
Yeah.
With the 2004 version, I'm pretty sure that's the midpoint where the phantom yes, realizes
(24:48):
he's been betrayed and she disobeyed him and all of this pressure he put on this relationship
that he was one side invested in.
Yeah.
It was all not a lie, but like she's going off with some other man who's not disfigured
and played Ed Warren in the conjuring.
Like I would feel the same way if my, if the love of my life ran away with Ed Warren in
(25:12):
the conjuring.
It's, that's when the stakes are raised.
That's when things got really intense and that's when the phantom was like, you're going
to regret it.
That's how he ends his big song in 2004 is you will regret it.
Right.
Really, you will curse the day you did not do all that the phantom asked of you.
Yeah.
(25:33):
Gosh, there's my musical theater coming out.
And I got, I, I, I, I, once again, I just, I love this scene in particular.
And oh goodness, where was I going with this?
That's why are you going with it?
That's okay.
Well, actually, I do want to talk about like the level of revenge though in each film
(25:55):
that we watched.
I feel like, yes, that was something we have not seen in any of the versions.
Now I kind of want to read the book.
I know.
I feel like the 1925 version would be probably more faithful to the book.
I know it wasn't the first version of the phantom of the album, but the first one was lost
to the film in film.
But I feel like it would have to be the most faithful to the source material.
(26:16):
I do, I actually really enjoyed the fact that how they put revenge on both sides, revenge
on phantom and also the people and how they all came together.
What is something we didn't see in the other ones?
Yeah, the ending.
The ending.
Spoiler alert.
Spoiler.
The 25 version, like they kill them.
They did.
They take them out.
Right.
I like, I'm like, in, I'm watching the scene, I'm imagining the like, you know, just the,
(26:39):
like, I don't know, I'm imagining some like GTA 5 stock, like, take them out and then throwing
them into the, into the river, over the lake or whatever.
They could stomp him and then drown him.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And then we don't see that in any version.
It's one of the, it's a lost ending.
I feel like in the adaptations, well, I feel like this goes back way to the beginning where we're
(27:02):
talking about the like charm factor of the phantom, developing over time.
Yeah.
Like you don't want to see that in the 2004.
No, you don't.
And you want to see him have his heroic moment.
Yeah.
I have, so one of my best friends in the world, he is such a huge phantom of the opera fan.
And I know he roots for the phantom.
Yeah.
Watch it.
Watching the version.
Well, I don't know if he's seen the other versions, but I will say this now that I have seen the
(27:26):
other versions, I've probably never root for the phantom again in 2004.
Honestly, same.
But when you watch that movie, you don't have any other source material to go off of your
rooting form.
You want him to have his heroic moment.
You almost are like, I don't want Christine to go with the charming, normal guy.
And then you rewatch it and you're like, wait, hold on.
He was just like asking her out to dinner at the beginning.
(27:47):
Yeah.
He wasn't being pompous or crazy.
He was being, he was the actual
Charm factor and we were mislead.
We were led to believe otherwise.
Yeah.
See, I would have to disagree with you to a certain degree on whether or not I'm rooting
for the phantom.
Yeah.
And the reason why is just, especially in the versions where it's the deformity from birth,
(28:09):
where the other versions where whether or not he got burned or he got, you know, acid
on his face and everything, I think just having that, and just going to once again, dialogue
from the 04, especially is he says a mask was his first form of clothing that he got
(28:30):
Yeah.
A face that earned a mother's fear and loathing or something like that.
Yes, that's exactly the line.
I love rhyming.
And I think that showing how crushed a human being can be just by not being shown the same
human affection as literally anyone else.
(28:51):
I still have to root for him because of the fact that he is a secluded human being.
He doesn't know all of these other things.
He doesn't know what love truly is until the very end.
Especially as a developing human though.
Yeah.
That is a very critical fact.
And maybe I shouldn't say rooting for him or rooting against him, but more in the context
of like who I want Christine to end up with.
(29:13):
Oh, that's right.
I would root for the phantom.
And now seeing the 1925 version, I would root for Raoul.
Yeah.
That's entirely fair.
And if that what you, you enjoy maybe don't watch Love Never Dies.
Fair enough I've never seen Love Never Dies I've never seen it.
Neither have I.
It's really good.
Well, anyways that feels like a great place to leave off.
Ladies and gentlemen thank you so much for listening in
go check out The Beverly Theater the wake program this month,
they've got some really really great things lined up,
go check out Phantom of the Opera 1925.
Definitely
If you haven't seen it, I hadn't seen it before this I really really loved it.
(29:33):
But yeah thank you so much for coming to class today with us.
Yeah thank you guys.
Thank you.
And we'll talk to you next time.
(29:57):
(30:18):
The Film Department is supported by UNLV Film.
(00:04):
At the Film Department of the University of Nevada Las Vegas, every story has a beginning.
With degree programs for undergraduates and graduates, state-of-the-art equipment and
facilities, incredible professional internships around the world, and expert guest speakers,
students discover the power and potential of cinema as they prepare for the film and
(00:24):
television industry and beyond.
Learn more at unlv.edu/film.
UNLV Film.
Find your voice.
Tell your story.
[MUSIC]
Welcome to the Film Department, the movie review podcast of UNLV Film.
(00:47):
Before we get started, we want to give a huge shout out and thank you to the Beverly
Theater, our partner movie house, the only independent theater in Las Vegas.
Thank you so much. They have slash passes available for their week program this month, all horror
films, including coming up.
They got killer clowns from Outer Space, the Blair Witch Project, and Corpse Bride.
Today we're going to talk about the 1925 Phantom of the Opera film with Lon Chaney.
(01:10):
Let's jump right into it.
What do you guys think?
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
[LAUGHTER]
It was amazing.
No, I think it is probably one of my favorite classics.
There's so many things I can say actually, but I will say the practical effects are probably
my favorite, Lon Chaney's.
(01:30):
Yes, no.
He did all of his own makeup, which is the craziest part to me, the reveal where Christine
takes the mask off.
Yes.
And he opens his mouth all wide and his nose is sticking up like that.
It's my favorite.
Out of all of the universal classic horror films, I've only seen this and the invisible
man from 1933.
(01:50):
And both the effects are arguably better than some movies today.
Oh, yeah.
I love that you bring that up because a lot of modern cinema has, even though we have really
intense CGI that we can use, but some of those practical effects that they use back in
in this case in the '20s and everything just looks so great on camera.
(02:13):
Yes.
And well, I mean, I'm sure we have Lon Cheney to thank for this specifically.
I know he also did his own makeup.
I think it was for Hunchback.
I think so, yeah.
Yeah, I'm blanking.
I'm blanking.
Yeah.
I think it was Hunchback, which I've never seen, but I've seen what he looked like.
And it's really good.
If he did all of his own makeup for Hunchback as well and it amazed me how he was an actor
(02:35):
and not just a special effects artist.
Well, sometimes the actor really has to take control of what they do when it comes to
their makeup.
And multiple instances had to do my own makeup for a few shows that I've been a part of.
And so I 100% get the whole, well, I know what works for me and what I need in order to
(02:55):
make myself look good.
So why don't I just do it?
I get it.
I've had to contour my abs before it's an art really.
Oh man, those things aren't real.
Believe it or not, believe it or not.
Anyway, let's get back to Phantom.
Yeah.
I mean, just general review.
I'm sure we've all seen the 2004 musicals.
Yes.
There's a million adaptations.
Yes.
I can trust.
How do we feel about this?
(03:15):
For sure.
No.
If we're talking about practical effects right now, I think the 1989 version with Robert Engler
is a great one to talk about, especially because, you know, our iconic Freddie Krueger.
So yeah, what are your thoughts?
I mean, so at the end of the 1989 Phantom of the Opera with Robert England, I feel like
he kind of just looks like Freddie Krueger again, which makes me wonder if that's what
(03:38):
they were going for.
I know this was a few years after the first one had come out.
So I'm curious to know if that's what they were going for.
That kind of became the horror film king at that.
Yeah.
You know, Freddie Krueger is so iconic.
And so with the fact that both characters, in this case, spoilers, are burn victims, it's
very understandable that they would have a very similar aesthetic to them.
(03:59):
And I 100% agree with you when you say that he looked just like Freddie Krueger.
It's crazy to get cast type as a burn victim.
No.
No, even the texture of his face too.
I was telling you guys, the chart before we were in me, it just did not.
But it's still so different from every other version I've seen.
The 2004 and the 1925.
(04:20):
Yes.
The 1925, he looks like a Gremlin officer.
Yeah.
Like Dracula, like some type of messed up vampire.
Yeah.
Yeah.
His face just has all the features of a plain skull.
But it's exaggerated in the same way.
I don't know how to explain it.
The way that they do the phantom in every iteration is always a little bit more unique than
(04:43):
the last.
I mean, going off of the 1925 versus the 2004, you know, you got the full face in 1925,
which I'm not sure.
Which I'm not sure.
Which I'm not sure.
Oh, yes, absolutely.
And then you compare it to 2004 with Gerard Butler's, it's only half the face in Granada,
(05:05):
that's just the musical.
Yeah.
And so, but in so many different iterations of Phantom of the Opera, there's even one
where you watch as he actually had an accident and he had his face burned by acid.
Yes.
I've seen that one.
I know what you're talking about where he's like, it's after he becomes the phantom.
Correct.
He gets worse.
(05:25):
And then of course, once again, with Robert Englund and everything, he's a burned victim
and this one having made a specific deal with the devil and everything.
And that's kind of his price to pay.
I really enjoy it because of the fact that it gives a little bit more depth to, you know,
why is he the way he is?
You know, is it because he was born this way?
(05:47):
Did he have some kind of thing happen to him?
You know, because, and I think we all said this when we were watching the 1989, like Robert
Englund is a good looking guy.
Yeah.
You know, and so watching him go from this very gorgeous person into this, you know, horrific
monster.
Yeah.
(06:07):
Yeah.
And in, I love that you say monster because of the fact that in that version, you know, there's
a lot more of a supernatural element to it.
Yes.
Yes.
100%.
Well, and just talking about the evolution of the phantoms, look and his character, he, from
the very beginning in the book in the 1925 film, he's just a monster.
(06:31):
He's just a, kind of a creepy guy.
And then as time has gone on and with the introduction of the musical, especially he's become
a bit of a romantic symbol and that mask, especially, it goes from being this creepy mask where
you can barely see his eyes and it's covering everything just part of his face and you're
getting this handsome side, you're getting this masked, mysterious, like it's, it's, it's,
(06:52):
it's like become smut almost.
Right.
That's that unsuspective figure.
Well, I mean, it is, it is, it is, it is, yeah, he has to have a level of handsomeness.
Yeah.
That's why I could never play phantom.
Oh my god.
No, you can't.
Yeah, it's okay.
You could be Raul.
Oh, okay.
I'll take it.
Or as in the 1989, you could be Richard.
(07:13):
Richard?
Yeah.
Yeah.
Little easier pronounced.
Right.
Yeah, yeah.
I mean, can we also talk about the psychology behind phantom as we see from 1995 to '89
to '04?
We get, you know, just straight up, like infatuation versus, we, and we move forward, we get
obsession.
(07:33):
It's, it's a whole, well, it's a spectrum.
Yes.
It's a spectrum from, from obsession to infatuation to actual love.
Yes.
And none of them ever actually get to the love side.
They start with infatuation or leaning towards obsession and by the end, it's just complete
obsession.
And then in the, in the '04 one, we also see Christine kind of have that infatuation
(07:53):
as well.
Right.
Yeah.
Right.
Yeah.
And I think that's the wonderful thing about the Andrew Lloyd Webber, you know, musical
adaptation is even after the story of what we know to be the phantom of the opera is done,
he carries on with it into love, never dies, which is the direct sequel to it.
(08:14):
And I think that if you really want to see just how much those characters evolve from that
experience, it is a wonderful watch.
And I won't go too far into it because that's not our topic right now.
But I do agree.
And I think that the obsession is absolutely there.
And I think that it's just overall fun to watch.
(08:40):
It's a decline in a way.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Well, and I feel like that's the case with every version you watch.
You're getting the same story.
Yes.
They hit the basic plotline.
Like, watching these three very different versions of the same story, the beginning was
all like shop for shut-
Not shop for shop.
Right.
(09:00):
It was the same.
It was the same, you know, starting with Carlotta being this, this diva and this opera princess.
She's the star to the phantom being jealous, the phantom.
But the phantom is like jealous.
He's like, no, no, no, I don't want this for Carlotta.
I want this for the girl that I've become infatuated with.
So I'm going to, you know, throw my wrench into the gears.
(09:22):
Right.
Let's get something else cooking.
I love that you bring that up because of the fact that, yes, he puts,
Christine forward in each one of these adaptations.
And I love that you see in the background of each one of these pieces the building of
Don Juan triumphant, which is his masterpiece, his opera that is presented at the end, and
(09:45):
where the inspiration for that was Christine, you know, from the moment he laid eyes on
her, that's what he's writing.
This is his full thing that he's working towards.
And so in order to get to the point of where she can be that female lead in it, he has
to, you know, make way for it by pushing her forward.
Yeah.
Yeah.
(10:06):
I see what you mean.
I see what you mean.
Yeah.
Sorry.
You were going to say something.
I was going to say, I was kind of going to divert a little bit.
What is the actor saying that plays Christine in the 1925 version?
I'm blanking out, but I wanted to talk a little bit about like the acting aspect because
remember, I think we were talking about it a little bit earlier where we were like,
there's a lot of, you know, people don't really, they didn't really like her performance.
(10:30):
I want to see what your guys just take because I personally really, really did like her performance
in here.
I thought it was pretty perfect.
I liked it a lot.
I mean, I think with it being 1925, it's a silent film.
It was still what, two or three years from the first movie with dialogue coming out.
Like they kind of had to play more into it, like a Charlie Chaplin type thing.
Yeah.
So when she was like this, she was like, yeah, that's a really show, the body of the
(10:53):
language and everything, because what else are we going to rely on?
Exactly.
And that's not bad acting.
That's playing to the times.
Right.
I mean, if you call that the acting, she nailed it.
Right.
I have to 100% agree with you on that.
Watching a silent film versus, you know, the 1989 where it's a little bit more natural
and everything versus the musical, you know, there's such a contrast between how each
(11:18):
one of these characters has to play up what they're doing.
Yes.
I would definitely have to disagree with people.
I think that her performance was fantastic, especially for what she was doing at the time.
Well, you know, and you bring up a good point of the musical.
The musical is my introduction to this story.
I've not read the book.
I had never seen the movies.
And so it's kind of hard, it was hard to imagine what this story would be like not as
(11:43):
a musical.
It's phantom of the opera, opera being this big, beautiful musical piece.
Right.
Right.
And it's not a musical before this.
It's kind of that kind of shock me.
And so the music of the 2004 really plays into the charm of the characters, the fear of
the characters, the aggression of the characters, and they didn't have that for any of the other
versions that we watched.
(12:03):
So especially for 1925, which is silent, there's no dialogue.
Right.
So when you put that into the perspective, yes, they nailed it even more.
Raoul, phantom, Christine, all of them, the detective.
I'm bringing on the detective's name now too.
And all of them, like they played the part so well without the benefit of dialogue, without
(12:24):
the benefit of music, without the benefit of the charm.
It's a part of performance, yeah, the other way.
Yeah, I just like you, my first introduction to phantom was with the 04 actually, which then
evolved into the stage adaptation of it.
And for me, going back and watching the story just enhances it even more for me because
(12:48):
of the fact that I started with the musical.
And so I can see these different layers of the characters and how they potentially evolved
from, you know, being silent things on a screen to everyone is loud and singing and there's
elephants in the background, you know, it's such a spectacle from beginning to finish.
(13:10):
Yeah.
Well, and it plays into specific scenes too, not just like the story is a whole.
The best example I can think of is so in the musical just before Christine takes the phantoms
mask off.
It's very romantic.
It's very like, you know, it's cheesy.
It's sensual.
That's a good way to put it.
And then she takes the mask off and then he gets all aggressive.
I mean, I can't remember the words of the song, but he's like yelling at her in song.
(13:34):
Right.
In the 1925 version of the same scene.
It's just creepy.
It is creepy.
He's not singing to her.
No, there's no romance factor.
It's just, okay, dude, you kidnap her for your lunch.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, and maybe it's because we have that more obsession, infatuation viewpoint
(13:55):
rather than the romance.
Yes.
Either way, I was like, please Christine get out of here.
Yeah, I would get out on a ride.
I know.
Okay, this isn't, this isn't as romantic as I remember it being.
I will say this though for the 1925 versus the '04, I think that phantom is, I think,
in a way more human in the 1925 because of the fact that you actually get to know him as
(14:21):
not only phantom, but as Eric.
Yes.
Yes.
It's the fact that he almost pulls a golem smeagle thing where he talks about Eric in this
third person.
Eric has unfortunately had to fall from grace because of this, uh, didn't think about
that.
Yeah, because of this disfigurement.
And that is something that you don't really express in the, in the musical and, uh, or rather
(14:46):
the '04, I want to stick to the movie rather than the stage.
But you know, it's, it's one of those things where separating these two characters, whereas
in phantom of the opera, the musical, he's just phantom.
You know, you don't get to know his name because he has only been this opera ghost.
He was treated from day one as, uh, is in what they said in the movie, The Devil's Child.
(15:12):
I'll be honest.
I, so I only ever listened to it for the longest time.
I thought the phantom was like some supernatural character before I watched the movie.
Yeah.
No, he's just like a, like, an operatic Batman.
Like he just knows a lot.
He can just get around quickly.
Like, that's all, that's what his superpower is.
He is a designer.
He is a musician.
He is a magician.
(15:33):
And that's something that carried through with every single one of the adaptations is the
fact that the guy is a magician.
There's a reason why just like what you said, he's a musical Batman.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Musical Batman is the greatest term ever.
He's dark.
He's mysterious.
He wears a mask.
You mentioned the name part, which I do want to touch back on.
(15:56):
Um, and then he's 25.
Yes.
We only see him, or we see him talking about Eric in the third person.
But he kind of disregards that in the other adaptations that we were looking at in the
before and I didn't know his name was Eric.
Yeah, exactly.
So I think it plays a part in identity as well because he kind of felt so alienated that
(16:16):
from his original identity that he kind of just had to be just phantom.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I feel like that speaks a lot for like how everyone else treated him very alienated.
I think that you can read a little bit more into that in terms of the masks.
Yeah.
Over the years because in 1925, the whole face is covered.
You mentioned the veil and just the creepy dullness of it.
(16:40):
Yeah.
And then as you progress forward in the Robert Englund, he, and I'm sorry, Trigger Warning
everyone, he actually, you know, he takes human flesh and he soars it onto his skin and
puts on makeup.
That's his mask.
Right.
And then he's skin grafts the hard way.
Yeah.
Right.
And with the, with the 04, he has the half mask.
(17:02):
Yeah.
And so there is that sense of beauty there.
There is that sense of humanity there.
And he's able to hide away that, that darkness.
And so when that darkness is revealed, he loses that humanity.
He feels like it is completely gone.
And that's all that people want to see at that.
(17:24):
Yeah.
You know what I thought was so funny watching the 1925 version.
So in the 2004 and in the 1989, Christine knows he's the phantom right away.
Right.
Yeah.
In the 1925 and maybe I got this wrong, maybe I just miss something.
At one point, after long before he took her down in the bow and into his like dungeon
lair spot, she points and the title card goes up.
(17:47):
You're the phantom and I thought that was so, I was like, you didn't, you didn't gather
that already.
You didn't, you didn't pick up on that.
Yeah.
He could have been a rat catcher.
Who knows?
Yeah, for sure, for sure.
Well, and there was that detective character that was kind of a red herring both to the audience
and the characters.
Is this like, is this, I was watching it with a friend and she was like, is that the phantom?
(18:08):
I was like, no, that's not the phantom.
I had seen the reveal scene already.
I was like, no, calm down.
Well, he was wearing a fez.
Obviously he's an inspector.
The fez makes it obvious.
But yeah, no, I'm still laughing at the music of Batman.
What did you guys think of that big, the reveal scene especially?
(18:31):
The reveal scene especially I thought was beautiful in a creepy way.
He looked right at the arrow and he was looking right at me.
He did that.
I kind of wanted to like turn around because I was like, is he looking behind?
I'm gonna do, look and ride at me.
Are you talking to him?
Yeah, exactly.
What do you, sorry, you're gonna have to tell me which version because I like 25.
(18:53):
Yes.
Oh gosh, the reveal.
I think the fact that it is so jarring is my favorite part of it.
I think that it's not what you fully expect because especially if you didn't grow up with
the 1925 and you did start off with a Gerard Butler like I did, it really is, well like it's
(19:16):
just that, jarring, you know, you're not expecting for this whole face to be deformed the way
that it is.
You guys know that when they first showed it at Universal, some people in the audience fainted.
I would believe it.
Freaked me out.
I hadn't eaten all day.
I could have fainted.
Yeah.
I did faint.
I just didn't want to show it.
Oh okay, just trying to say face.
(19:36):
Yeah, absolutely.
Same face.
What I will say is when, so when the mask came off, actually, let me go back.
Before the mask came off, I was kind of like, oh, you know, is the phantom?
It's this look, you know, it's iconic but I wasn't like blown away.
It's the phantom.
It's the mask.
It's the veil.
It's the everything.
(19:56):
And I kind of was like, how is this considered one of the classic Universal Monsters?
Like I didn't get it.
I didn't get it.
And then seeing the reveal, his mask of the red death, that part where he's up on the statue,
I was like, I get it now.
Right.
I see why this would go down in history as something terrifying.
That scene with Raoul and Christine under the statue where they're kind of plotting, they're
(20:18):
going to get away.
Which also I thought was like, oh, yeah, she never gave anything to the phantom.
Yeah.
He just kind of inferred it, which goes back into the infatuation.
But he's up there.
And I'm like, first of all, how do you guys not see him?
He's wearing this big red jacket.
I did not feel the presence.
Yeah, yeah.
I'm freaking out.
They're totally calm talking about their escape plan.
He's listening in, but he's looking.
(20:39):
His eyes are all dry.
He's so menacing.
I still can't get past the nose.
The nose is the funniest thing.
He's got this thing.
He knows which I know that he did use like wire.
Yeah.
It pulls his nose up.
What did you guys think?
Oh gosh.
Oh gosh.
So I'm going to start with the mask of the red death.
I think that is one of the most iconic phantom moments because of the fact that it is in the
(21:02):
middle of the celebration, the mask of raid.
Everyone is, you know, celebrating.
And then all of a sudden, this figure with the skull mask and dressed in Ruby blood red
just comes in and just disrupts the whole thing.
I want to say that I think that the 1925 might be my favorite of the three that we watched.
(21:27):
I would agree with that.
I would agree, no.
With the symbolism of it all.
Yeah.
It's a skull mask.
It almost looks like his face.
Exactly.
Like he's death.
It's more realistic to the character he is than the phantom mask.
Which is also creepy.
It's still creepy.
It's just the skull.
Yeah.
And Robert England also had a skull on everything, but I feel like because of the horror element
(21:52):
already in there, I think that he didn't necessarily need it.
No, no, yeah.
I agree with that.
I agree with that.
Like it was almost less scary because he was wearing it.
Right.
You know, the dude is scary without it.
You know, it's like Willem Dafoe and Spider-Man.
You're scary without the mask.
Yeah.
Well, with Robert Englund's version specifically, they did him up to make it look like he
(22:14):
has been patching his face up.
So they kind of tried to combine the handsome factor with something's not right factor.
And that was very disturbing to me.
That was very like something ain't right.
It's not right with this guy.
I will admit with this whole red death in the 1925 version, there was a part of me like
when the big reveal happened.
(22:34):
There was a part of me that kind of like almost rooted for him just because of how grand
or like the whole reveal was.
I was really taken back.
I was like, wow, like what am I looking at?
I can't remember exactly what part.
I think it might have been after the statue scene.
He's coming down those stairs and there's that group of like gestures there.
And one of them points and is like, that's the phantom of the new fiends.
(22:56):
Right.
That was very 1925 silent film to be out of it.
I loved it.
I could see Charlie Chaplin doing that.
Oh, yeah.
For sure.
Jokes on you.
He was in the movie.
I'm just kidding, he wasn't.
He was.
He didn't see him.
He was right there.
I know.
Because it wasn't necessarily featured in the 1989, however, in the 1925 and the 2004.
(23:18):
That roof scene and seeing the pure emotion that that the phantom goes through.
I think that is the scene that really makes the film.
Yeah.
Because of the fact that like we've been saying, there's this infatuation of between him and
Christine this entire time and then to see the man get utterly crushed, you know, he was
(23:43):
he was he thought he was being truly vulnerable.
Right.
And going to from the 1925, Christine is the only person who knows who Eric is.
She's the only face in seeing his face.
Absolutely.
And even in the in the 2004, even though Madame jury has a background with him, Christine
is still the only person who has seen his face and then more or less still kind of stuck
(24:06):
around with it, you know, and it's that vulnerability.
And so when Raoul suddenly steps into the picture and he sees this, it is just so emotionally
great to watch.
You know, so also talking about the statue scene in screenwriting class, we've learned that
(24:27):
the midpoint of the movie is where the stakes are raised.
Yes.
What you did notice with the 1925 version is that the very midpoint was right when she takes
the mask off of them.
Yes.
That big reveal.
And I thought, oh, this is interesting.
The stakes are being raised.
It was this big dramatic thing.
Yeah.
With the 2004 version, I'm pretty sure that's the midpoint where the phantom yes, realizes
(24:48):
he's been betrayed and she disobeyed him and all of this pressure he put on this relationship
that he was one side invested in.
Yeah.
It was all not a lie, but like she's going off with some other man who's not disfigured
and played Ed Warren in the conjuring.
Like I would feel the same way if my, if the love of my life ran away with Ed Warren in
(25:12):
the conjuring.
It's, that's when the stakes are raised.
That's when things got really intense and that's when the phantom was like, you're going
to regret it.
That's how he ends his big song in 2004 is you will regret it.
Right.
Really, you will curse the day you did not do all that the phantom asked of you.
Yeah.
(25:33):
Gosh, there's my musical theater coming out.
And I got, I, I, I, I, once again, I just, I love this scene in particular.
And oh goodness, where was I going with this?
That's why are you going with it?
That's okay.
Well, actually, I do want to talk about like the level of revenge though in each film
(25:55):
that we watched.
I feel like, yes, that was something we have not seen in any of the versions.
Now I kind of want to read the book.
I know.
I feel like the 1925 version would be probably more faithful to the book.
I know it wasn't the first version of the phantom of the album, but the first one was lost
to the film in film.
But I feel like it would have to be the most faithful to the source material.
(26:16):
I do, I actually really enjoyed the fact that how they put revenge on both sides, revenge
on phantom and also the people and how they all came together.
What is something we didn't see in the other ones?
Yeah, the ending.
The ending.
Spoiler alert.
Spoiler.
The 25 version, like they kill them.
They did.
They take them out.
Right.
I like, I'm like, in, I'm watching the scene, I'm imagining the like, you know, just the,
(26:39):
like, I don't know, I'm imagining some like GTA 5 stock, like, take them out and then throwing
them into the, into the river, over the lake or whatever.
They could stomp him and then drown him.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And then we don't see that in any version.
It's one of the, it's a lost ending.
I feel like in the adaptations, well, I feel like this goes back way to the beginning where we're
(27:02):
talking about the like charm factor of the phantom, developing over time.
Yeah.
Like you don't want to see that in the 2004.
No, you don't.
And you want to see him have his heroic moment.
Yeah.
I have, so one of my best friends in the world, he is such a huge phantom of the opera fan.
And I know he roots for the phantom.
Yeah.
Watch it.
Watching the version.
Well, I don't know if he's seen the other versions, but I will say this now that I have seen the
(27:26):
other versions, I've probably never root for the phantom again in 2004.
Honestly, same.
But when you watch that movie, you don't have any other source material to go off of your
rooting form.
You want him to have his heroic moment.
You almost are like, I don't want Christine to go with the charming, normal guy.
And then you rewatch it and you're like, wait, hold on.
He was just like asking her out to dinner at the beginning.
(27:47):
Yeah.
He wasn't being pompous or crazy.
He was being, he was the actual
Charm factor and we were mislead.
We were led to believe otherwise.
Yeah.
See, I would have to disagree with you to a certain degree on whether or not I'm rooting
for the phantom.
Yeah.
And the reason why is just, especially in the versions where it's the deformity from birth,
(28:09):
where the other versions where whether or not he got burned or he got, you know, acid
on his face and everything, I think just having that, and just going to once again, dialogue
from the 04, especially is he says a mask was his first form of clothing that he got
(28:30):
Yeah.
A face that earned a mother's fear and loathing or something like that.
Yes, that's exactly the line.
I love rhyming.
And I think that showing how crushed a human being can be just by not being shown the same
human affection as literally anyone else.
(28:51):
I still have to root for him because of the fact that he is a secluded human being.
He doesn't know all of these other things.
He doesn't know what love truly is until the very end.
Especially as a developing human though.
Yeah.
That is a very critical fact.
And maybe I shouldn't say rooting for him or rooting against him, but more in the context
of like who I want Christine to end up with.
(29:13):
Oh, that's right.
I would root for the phantom.
And now seeing the 1925 version, I would root for Raoul.
Yeah.
That's entirely fair.
And if that what you, you enjoy maybe don't watch Love Never Dies.
Fair enough I've never seen Love Never Dies I've never seen it.
Neither have I.
It's really good.
Well, anyways that feels like a great place to leave off.
Ladies and gentlemen thank you so much for listening in
go check out The Beverly Theater the wake program this month,
they've got some really really great things lined up,
go check out Phantom of the Opera 1925.
Definitely
If you haven't seen it, I hadn't seen it before this I really really loved it.
(29:33):
But yeah thank you so much for coming to class today with us.
Yeah thank you guys.
Thank you.
And we'll talk to you next time.
(29:57):
(30:18):
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Are You A Charlotte?
In 1997, actress Kristin Davis’ life was forever changed when she took on the role of Charlotte York in Sex and the City. As we watched Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte navigate relationships in NYC, the show helped push once unacceptable conversation topics out of the shadows and altered the narrative around women and sex. We all saw ourselves in them as they searched for fulfillment in life, sex and friendships. Now, Kristin Davis wants to connect with you, the fans, and share untold stories and all the behind the scenes. Together, with Kristin and special guests, what will begin with Sex and the City will evolve into talks about themes that are still so relevant today. "Are you a Charlotte?" is much more than just rewatching this beloved show, it brings the past and the present together as we talk with heart, humor and of course some optimism.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.