The phantom of the opera is primarily a character straight out of the teeming imagination and unbridled by Gaston Leroux, lawyer, journalist and being seated, born in 1868. A writer, who in tranquil ambiance and the temperament of a bon vivant has released his soul inspired a gallery of characters in the most troubled and most black folk literature.
There are some forty works, blending styles with delight police, fantastic and romantic, not without a certain mocking humor that almost makes them a category full of French literature.
And just like their author, the stories in the guise of their membership in the popular style and charm typical nineteenth, are nonetheless terribly gloomy and peculiar. There is not a story leroussien which is marked by wandering, revenge, in short, by despair in all its forms. All the heroes, or should we say anti-hero Leroux, (and we obviously exclude Rouletabille) are doomed to destruction and death. They all have a common destiny irremediable, and a common reason that fulfilled: love. Or rather the rejection of love exacerbated Obsessive, grown in a heart and soul are not conducive to see flourish without deviations.
Larsan (The Mystery of the Yellow Room and The Perfume of the Lady in Black), Benedict Martinez / Gabriel (The doll and the bloody machine to murder), Patrick (The heart burgled) Johnattan Smith (Man of night), Cheri-bibi, and of course Erik (The Phantom of the Opera), we find - besides alliteration recurring in some of those names - the fates similar to despair, but also real maladjustments in their world and their moral time, highlighted by changing their identities or non-existent, or the various cover-ups which show, behaving like the shadows they have become, or they seem to become.
It would take whole pages to make the analogy, and it is not my purpose here. I propose to trace in effect during this article (probably two, maybe three games), the changing character of the Phantom of the Opera since its inception in 1910, and its different faces, more or less strongly to nuanced through the history of cinema and music, adaptations in its most notable.
Part 1: Lon Chaney (1925): the pioneer.
Lon Chaney. A pioneer, a superstar, an invincible. Gaston Leroux has actually had a chance to see and appreciate this adaptation of the silent film shot in 1925 by Rupert Julian. A classic Universal Studios, which despite its very ancient in the realization, and ultra-dramatized interpretations of the era, remains one of the best - and truest - the novel. Lon Chaney, Engineering makeup, for the purposes of this film, invented a prosthesis rather barbaric placed inside the mouth, connected to a system of invisible son, now her nose and cheeks in this aspect rather terrifying
Moreover, one can not deny the effect in the viewer, enhanced by a sublime music, which for its part, has not aged a bit ...
Unlike the rest of the cast, Lon Chaney is sober. Sober as can be the character at least. Erik
For this, it is literally monstrous, somewhat disturbed, and a bombastic egotism great, can also to shake the feeling. Although he has in him all the faults of the world, he manages to touch, to arouse pity, as Erik's novel manages to do so by the pen if only by Gaston Leroux.
If the film is showing its age, Lon Chaney opts for its part in a game that is surprisingly modern (gestures are supported but are measured, as called for her character. It is a feature which is found in or almost all adjustments, but I will later), efficient, tragic, which captured the essence and remains an absolute reference on the subject. It is established that the actor was and still is to this day the ghost that has brought the best of his literary counterpart.
Part 2: Claude Rains (1943): the melancholic figure of paternalism
I can (unfortunately) not dwell much on this interpretation or on film, new product by Universal, for the simple reason that I only saw him once, and that the memory I have kept is not particularly unforgettable ...
Claude Rains was a "great", I judge to be seen in Notorious of Hitchcock or in The invisible man of 1933, two eminently good movies where the actor is equally so.
This version of the Phantom of 1943, however, left me with marble due to a truly sanitized scenario, which passed through the mill all the elements in the atmosphere fantastic, instaurarant burlesque is there no need to see, even add characters whose ridicule is not even proven. Really, it is difficult to discern the idea wanted to be developed in this scenario more approximate and disrespectful ... Some clumsy innuendo, just as poverty psychological characters, spoil the whole spirit and essence of the original story. For loyalty, we can forget ...
Part 3: Herbert Lom (1962): The Phantom of the Hammer.
foremost, I urge you to visit Children of the Night, which the author has done a very nice review of this film and its context, even if I disagree completely his enthusiasm.
This version of the myth is indeed very strange, especially "Hammerienne. By this term I mean that even if it looks ominous and gloomy, its content, interpretation and revision of the original story fail to convince. It inevitably makes me think the version of the Hound of the Baskervilles, produced by the same Hammer. Their peculiar tone, or slightly "clinic" (in fact this is a feeling very difficult to define, but is a purely visual impression, as expressed by the empty sets counted and unnatural, is omnipresent ), perpetually oscillate between two extreme and tragic comedy ... In some so, nothing really seems spontaneous, like the ghost of Herbert Lom who takes on a missing, as if beyond the body, his mind also had no right to expression.
On the other hand, the violent love for Christine Erik feels no longer exists in this version. The interpretation of Herbert Lom is thus entirely consistent with the essence of the scenario. There is no place for passion, an essential element of the original character, a pompous and flamboyant genius.
The Phantom of the Hammer thinks only of his music, not Christine, which only gives him his voice. Because finally recall that Christine Daae Leroux gave his voice, but also his soul, if not his heart unconscious the Angel of Music ... In the novel, Raoul, a prey to jealousy, n'interpelle Does not the young woman well:
[...] If Erik was beautiful, you love me, Christine?
- Wretch why tempt fate? ... Why ask me things that I hide deep in my consciousness as one hides a sin? "
This aspect apoétisé devoid romantic version of the Hammer, and lack of ambiguity also feelings of Christine, are largely responsible for my non-adherence to its content and form.
Part 4: William Finley (1970) - an introduction to modern Faustian myth.
Brian de Palma in 1976 realizes The Phantom of Paradise , film introducing a new double in the original frame, namely the possibility of transposing contemporary while achieving a direct link to this myth Faust, by creating the character Swann sort of modern Mephistopheles, playing human souls and urging them to forfeiture. If the link with Goethe's Faust has always been undeniable in Leroux's novel, including (a priori only) by the omnipresence of Charles Gounod's opera, which remains a benchmark in all key stages of the work, it nevertheless remains difficult to perceive when it comes to make any connection with the character of the ghost. By its very essence, the novel has excluded this hypothesis, is summarized in a strictly musical allegory. If Erik is exceptionally elusive, with every appearance of a ghost gothic, it is nevertheless a man with terrible human suffering, and his mortal destiny. The devil and all his covenants have no place in this frame realistic - if one may say, since the ghost of Leroy, was born damned. What is not so bad ...
Unless the parallel is more easily established between Goethe's Marguerite / Gounod and Christine Leroux, but I will later.
Besides, this film very strange, especially to the atmosphere heavy and cynical, ghost makes a pure soul, which the devil is played. The new element introduced a fantastic dimension missing from the original frame, but also removes a certain ambivalence central character. Erik, do not forget, is a character that hardly captures the border that separates good from evil ... It will commit crimes in the name of love (and its absolute), in the belief in its own right. And yet, the reader again and again continue to be pitied. And Gaston Leroux, his creator, he will write no other in his epilogue, in a tone revolted
Poor unhappy Erik! Is he complaining? Should we curse him? He only asked to be someone like everyone else! But he was too ugly! And he had to hide his genius or do tricks with, when, with an ordinary face, it would have been one of the noblest of the human race! He had a heart to hold the empire of the world, and he had to eventually settle for a cellar . "
The film of Brian de Palma therefore insists on both the Faustian tragedy of his fate, he removing the burden of a guilty soul by demonic intervention Swann.
If it can be quite deluded by this film (and if it was my first viewing), and oppressed by the atmosphere that sometimes borders on delirium massive, one can draw beautiful reflections. It also has the merit of having introduced a new dimension in history, which will also be resumed several years later in the version of Dwight Little (1989).
Part 5: Maximillian Schell (1983) - the monolith and inconsistency
After watching this version, one is led to ask fundamentally the following question: Does the story still only a report with the original frame? The answer to this question, as the script is fairly nondescript.
First the premise of the previous films has been significantly recovered, that the central character is a musician and sound mind, who, following an event of common gravity, is horribly disfigured and feels animated by a righteous vengeance to all mankind ... Until then, nothing really transcendent, or very new, even if this theory is already debatable on the merits, puisqu'Erik is it not make sense now, and long, being cursed by life, by men?
Is it necessary to recall that the phantom of the opera is a being has always been isolated, rejected, and he holds the world in a growing contempt. Then the ingenue Christine appears as a dream of ultimate purity, and he's holding beyond contempt. So there is a transmutation of the soul of the character, which is thus absent from the adaptations that have made a preferred explanation Cartesian its own curse. For explanations, there is not any and that is precisely his misery (except Faustian features - see the next version).
But back to Maximillian Schell, a distinguished and prolific German actor, who tries to find its place in this adaptation full of nonsense. Because the scenario is approximate, a pathetically inadequate, and that interpretations are desperate flatness. We'll forgive Jane Seymour who does what she can, while we may chuckle expressions of monotonous Schell, whose voice seems to come from beyond the grave ... The ghost does not he seduces Christine with her voice, the ultimate expression of his immense soul? We are witnessing a series of inconsistencies without interest, which is not found or the flamboyance of the ghost nor the grandiloquance exacerbated his feelings.
The viewer will spend his way ...
Part 6: Robert Englund or Faustian allegory: beauty and horror Black (1989)
That version certainly unusual, that it is important to approach with caution. Not because it would be a sad and brutal transposition genre film, but simply because it gives off a poisonous charm which can not would perhaps never succumb ...
This adaptation by Dwight Little is evil, literally as figuratively. We can only emphasize its many qualities that are diametrically opposed, however, the plot of the novel and perhaps even to its essence, without touching the central character. And this is where lies without any doubt its success. Because beyond a devilishly original screenplay, served by careful interpretation, there is this latent romanticism that affects both the horror and melancholy, without ever fading.
Robert Englund (best known for his role of Freddy Krugger) has certainly embodied the character most terrible of all existing adaptations to date. The curse that pursues him, and forced him to indulge in crimes of violence untenable envelope his soul with a veil still more fatal.
Faustian myth is deliberately applied here without any conceit. The phantom Faust . Neither more nor less. And he bears the curse perennial. Because the sand
aspect doubt the most innovative of this adaptation is that of making an immortal character of Erik, who pursues the object of his love - and its madness - to unchanged through the centuries.
The eternal romantic tragedy of this character yet animated by a black horror, is a constant accuracy, despite the cliches in which it could sink. Robert Englund is in many respects surprising, as Jill Schoelen, who plays Christine a new, tangible face a ghost of such darkness. At once charmed and horrified by pygmalion straight out of Hell, its interpretation is largely responsible for the effect felt in a viewer who wanted incredulous ...
So, yes, indeed, it is far from the essence of the original character, simple human being damned by nature. But this film has highlighted his side eminently fantastic, as we perceive the opening of the novel. Erik is not there a spectrum that blends into the walls, invisible, elusive, giving all an illusion of being unreal and fantastic?
is on this premise that this film is masterful, served by a soundtrack of a thrilling splendor (note the violin solo at the cemetery, which could be "The Resurrection of Lazarus" evoked by Gaston Leroux Anyway ... I like to believe ^_^).
An adaptation must-see although it is not recommended for sensitive souls ...
Also note, a very nice article about the film's blog Children of the Night
Part 7: Charles Dance: When elegance tu melancholia (1990)
This adaptation occurred in 1990 for American television, inspired by the musical Yeston and Kopit written a few years ago, he remains true to say that the frame. This version has the distinction of resting on a character remains of its first to its last appearance, an absolute model of romance. He keeps in common with its literary model and its predecessors this genius of music and art. It moves away from a pervasive melancholy, and a reservoir, a modesty which had until then never existed. The folly of this phantom is thereby measured, and its acts of violence are conducted with a coolness which never tolerates any overflow. This phantom has no excess: he lives on the margins of a society that simply can not tolerate a lively spirit of such an absolute. So he drags his grief and unfathomable loneliness in an underground opera, which he pulls the strings for twenty years. There is rain or shine, with the tacit approval of the director in place. So well done without a life wave, until the director is replaced, and a very young woman penniless, joins the opera in the hope of singing before she they are not relegated to the laundry due to the jealousy of the prima donna.
Erik is interested in the enchanting voice of Christine, and gets to know her without having to subject him to blackmail, manipulation or other of madness ... How could he do not love her, in such conditions, since the ghost plays precisely the role of a friend, a selfless benefactor? The black role is therefore supported by La Carlotta (brilliantly played by Andra Féréol), and Erik is still a perfect allegory of the Angel who deploys her protective wings around the young and innocent Christine. There is a greatness of soul in this phantom, the original character had at Leroy but here is tenfold without delay. After the eulogy, they will think maybe he fell into the abyss of maudlin romanticism ... Think again! Because the coldness of certain expedients remains ... And there is all the finesse of the game that Faur greet Charles Dance, this apparent willingness to get rid of the troublemakers so rather quickly. The character has carefully avoided the pitfalls, and paradox remains unresolved.
Another point to mention is of course the use of "real" sets, those of the Palais Garnier in Paris, which gives a richness and a vibrant aesthetic to an adaptation that remains without doubt one of the best of its kind.
View Article dedicated to this TV movie on the blog: The Phantom of the Opera - 1990
Part 8: David Staller: esthete bombastic background music cutesy (1991)
