Lon Chaney as Erik, the Phantom and Mary Philbin as Christine Daae Phantom of the Opera, Picture image

Lon Chaney as Erik, the Phantom and Mary Philbin as Christine Daae

Despite what some people think, the 1925 version of  The Phantom of the Opera is not the first film version. There was an earlier one that now lost. This version was also reissused in  1929.

Of all the movie versions of Phantom this one is the most culturally ingrained and till Webber’s musical is one of the more seminal versions of Leroux book. It was a landmark film not only for the Universal Monster genre but sets and make-up. Like in The Hunchback of Notre Dame two years earlier, Lon Chaney did his own make-up and it was a real set-up from Quasimodo. People were terrified of Chaney’s Erik. But also the look and mood of the movie is great.

As far as the movie goes as adaptation of the novel it follows short, especially of how it COULD have been. Number one, the characters are all pretty darn simplistic. Erik just comes off as crazy; albeit with dramatic crazy in love but it doesn’t go as deep as in the book. He doesn’t even get the redemption that makes him a bittersweet figure.

Raoul is also different. He is not the whining stalker he is in the novel but more dashing and the typical lead of the time. He is also played by Norman Kerry who played Phoebus in the 1923 version. Mary Philbin’s Christine is one point but again she not a wish-washy as she is the book.

For the most part, scene per scene, beat by beat the movie plays out close to the book while streamline things that is TILL the ending. In this movie Christine agrees to marry Erik and instead of him dying a alone of a broken-hearted, he grabs Christine and is chased and killed by a mob. Which is ridiculous. Chaney didn’t care for this ending but it tested better with audiences. The original ending that was shot, is more faithful, with Erik’s redemption of letting Christine go and dying at his organ.  They also shot the scene where Erik plays the violin at the graveyard. So the movie could have been more like the book. Though the chase does go by Notre Dame.

All in all, the 1925 isn’t a bad movie and is a fairly good version of book. But I would say watch it more for this movie’s importance and not for the story and the characters.

 

 

 

Phoebus (Norman Kerry) 1923 Hunchback of Notre Dame picture image

Phoebus (Norman Kerry) 1923 Hunchback of Notre Dame

Phoebus in the 1923 version of  The Hunchback Notre dame is one of the few Phoebus that gets a bit of a character arc like in the book. In the book after getting stab he more or less gives up his cheating ways and dedicates himself to his Fiancée Fleur de Lys and submits to the tragedy of marriage.

 

Phoebus (Norman Kerry) revealing Esmeralda's bare shoulder (Patsy Ruth Miller) 1923 Hunchback of Notre Dame image picture

Phoebus (Norman Kerry) revealing Esmeralda’s bare shoulder (Patsy Ruth Miller) 1923 Hunchback of Notre Dame

In this version, Phoebus, after saving Esmeralda from the kidnapping attempt tries to seduce her but he is moved by her sweetness and innocence that his desire turns to true love. And with that Phoebus becomes the romantic hero who tries to marry her even though she is not in he same social class as him.

 

Phoebus (Norman Kerry) 1923 Hunchback of Notre Dame picture image

Phoebus (Norman Kerry) 1923 Hunchback of Notre Dame

Besides being in love and getting stab by Not-Frollo (Jehan), Phoebus doesn’t do that much within the overall plot. He does reinforce that whole class system which the movie makes into a sub-plot but he himself is not bothered by it, so it’s not issue for him as a character. He does have a few amusing scenes with Gringoire and some overdramatic bits but other than he’s pretty dull.

Phoebus (Norman Kerry) and Esmeralda (Patsy Ruth Miller) 1923 Hunchback of Notre Dame picture image

Phoebus (Norman Kerry) and Esmeralda (Patsy Ruth Miller) 1923 Hunchback of Notre Dame

 

Really his biggest purpose in the film is getting stab and giving Esmeralda a happy ending. Much like Not-Frollo, Phoebus is pretty dull when he turns into a romantic hero, he was was more interesting when he was being smarmy.

Phoebus (Norman Kerry) 1923 Hunchback of Notre Dame picture image

Phoebus (Norman Kerry) 1923 Hunchback of Notre Dame

Next Time – Clopin

Clopin (Ernest Torrence) 1923 Hunchback of Notre Dame picture image

Clopin (Ernest Torrence) 1923 Hunchback of Notre Dame

Jehan 1923 Hunchback of Notre Dame Brandon Hurst picture image

Jehan (Brandon Hurst) 1923 Hunchback of Notre Dame

The Frollo character in the 1923 version of the Hunchback of Notre Dame is the worst depiction of the character in any of the prominent adaptations. What do I mean when I say the Frollo character? Well he is the character who acts on his lust for Esmeralda and gets the plot moving. What makes Frollo a compelling character is his inner struggle about desiring a girl and even if he is not a priest he needs to be battling against something that is contrary to his way of being/thinking. Either it’s his own pride of his purity or his bigoted opinion of the Gypsies. This is the hallmark to his character,  without it all you have is a creepy pervert and that is exactly what this Frollo is; an evil creepy pervert.

 

Jehan Frollo (Brandon Hurst) Hunchback of Notre Dame 1923 picture image

Jehan Frollo (Brandon Hurst) Hunchback of Notre Dame 1923

This version is the first time the Frollo character was split into two characters who are brothers; Jehan, the younger  is the licentious lecher (the Frollo Character)  and the  saintly older Claude (or in the case of the 1923 version Dom Claudio). This method was employed in the 1939 version however it worked in that movie as Jehan Frollo had depth and some complexity. In the 1923 version there is no depth to Jehan, he is nothing more than a spoiled perverted brat.

 

Jehan and Esmeralda 1923 Hunchback of Notre Dame Brandon Hurst and Patsy Ruth Miller picture image

Jehan (Brandon Hurst) trying to overpower Esmeralda (Patsy Ruth Miller))

In a nutshell, Jehan was a priest but he decided he preferred sins to virtues. This brief bit of backstory is presented in one inter-text card. So what could have been an integral part of the movie is reduce to a sentence. Now to be fair, movies in the early 20s didn’t really flesh out villains, they were bad, so at least we get a text card that somewhat acknowledges the book. However even giving the movie a stylistic pass, Jehan is still weak. Maybe if he delighted in his evil or in his desires that would have been more enjoyable as a character. There are a few moments of hammy 20’s over-acting that are enjoyable but other than that he just very weak and not very memorable. He is just devoid of any interest, personality or passion. All he is a creepy perverted stalker.

 

Jehan 1923 Hunchback of Notre Dame Brandon Hurst picture image

Jehan (Brandon Hurst) 1923 Hunchback of Notre Dame

 

Next Time – Phoebus

Phoebus 1923 Hunchback of Notre Dame Norman Kerry picture image

Phoebus (Norman Kerry) 1923 Hunchback of Notre Dame