You may notice how Lon Chaney was very expressive with his hands as he acted. Fun fact is that both of his parents were deaf and he knew sign language. He really knew how to make his hands speak for his emotions of anger, hate, fear, ect.
Michael Crawford, the original Phantom in Andrew Lloyd Webber’s musical, used his hands a lot in the role as well (something he continues to do in performance even after his long run in Phantom). I wouldn’t be surprised if he was inspired by Chaney.
It may be almost a hundred years old, but man, Phantom's makeup is scary. That scene of him as the Red Death overlooking the conversation is actually chilling.
It's an excellent make-up, but it's not scary. Not even a bit. *Erik* (not Phantom) is just a human being that was abused and broken because of his face.
One thing that intrigues me is something about the rooftop scene that every adaptor throughout history seems to have missed. In the book, during Raoul and Christine's conversation on the roof, it describes _somebody_ watching them, and seems to imply that it's Erik eavesdropping out of jealousy. Later on though, during the POV chapters, it's revealed to have actually been the Persian, watching them to ensure their safety from Erik. It's a very subtle reveal, so it's not surprising that it was missed. Still, it's an interesting twist that has never been depicted in any adaptation, ever.
After nearly a century old, this is still hands down the finest and most faithful adaptation of Gaston Leroux's story. Nobody has ever topped Lon Chaney's brilliant portrayal of the tortured Erik, nor has any subsequent version captured the chilling atmosphere this classic generates at each viewing.
This is the best version on You Tube for the 1929 re-edit of the Phantom, Image Entertainment from 2011, David Shepard was responsible for the restoration.
A few things. The acting in this is amazing. I mean just incredible. The cinematography is honestly better than a lot of what we see today. It’s nice that it’s very true to the original book. Great restoration, and whoever did the soundtrack, I love you. Maybe this is more of a social commentary, but I like that I’d shows Christine afraid of the phantom. Nowadays with obsessive love and toxic relationships being the new norm and romanticized/sexualized, it’s nice to see the woman being actually afraid after a masked man who is secretive pops out of a mirror and does give her details, kidnaps her, is obsessed, is one sided in his love, etc.. The original book is always sympathetic, but never romanticized his behavior. And yes a part of Christine loves him, but she wasn’t going to put up with this sort of stuff. And that’s refreshing to see. Edit: tho I’m sorry that the ending went the adventure/scary movie route. The original ending is such a beautiful message.
i agree so much. it was so nice to see christine afraid of the phantom. it’s exhausting to see so many people romanticize his behavior and wish christine had chosen him, when in reality what the phantom had done was horrible. this movie did a great job showing how bad the phantom really was. of course christine would fear that man.
"nowadays obsession with toxic relationships" = women liking complex media that isnt sanitized and your puritan complex being offended by it. Did you ever read the novel? Christine's feelings towards Erik (aka a survivor of abuse with neglected mental illness) are much more complex than fear.
@@KenzieSchmidt-tm9wjit's exhausting to see moralists people like you policing what people should or shouldnt do. People ship Erik/Christine (and also sympathize for Erik) without the need to justify his actions. Cope ❤ Edit: Gaston Leroux himself was upset with the changed ending... so... uhm "the movie did a great job showing Erik bad" nu-huh ☝🏽🫣
After all these years, I finally watched this version and honestly, after 100 years later, it still holds up really well! I was really surprised. I usually find it a bit hard to stay focused while watching a silent film, but I was quite captivated during many of the scenes. And Lon Chaney still commands our attention, even after all these years. This is a small thing, but I love how Christine saved herself from the Phantom by jumping out of the carriage at the end. I was expecting someone else to save her, but no, she saved herself! That is SO progressive for 1925! I liked that she wasn't a complete damsel in distress and showed some bravery and courage, which was very unexpected for a film of this era. It's just a small part of the film, but it really sealed the deal for me.
The ending we see today is the second version of the ending. Originally, the 1925 film was to end like the book, with Christine’s kiss redeeming The Phantom, and him shortly thereafter dying at his organ. Test audiences hated it. So, it was cut and what we see today was filmed. Several other scenes were filmed, added, and removed before we got to the film we see today. Most of what was cut is lost to time and only still images of those scenes exist.
If you think this is "progressive", you should read the original novel. Christine didn't only save herself, she saved Erik, Raoul, The Persian and everyone else. She saved Erik from himself, she always had everything under control. It was Raoul who ruins everything during the story, actually, Erik was pratically her slave, her loyal dog that would do anything and everything for he- ...actually she didn't even need to be saved to be fair. The original ending is so much better, although Leroux himself wrote a sequel to the movie since, spoiler, Erik wasn't dead 🙏🏼 too bad the sequel never came out, since Leroux and Chaney both died... a tragedy 😢 But the point is: this story itself was always progressive for its time. Christine is strong and independent (remember she is orphan, single and has no man to be her "owner"), Raoul is an abusive and non-trustful character even being the protagonist, The Persian is a dark-skinned man with heroism and importance, Erik is a sympathetic and victimized aniti-hero that *clearly* has mental problems and still ended up being a better person than the protagonist himself - the deformed, mentally ill, and "vulgar" man is the tragic hero, not the conventionally handsome nobleman.
@@TrentonBlessWrestlemania489yes exactly, the only difference is the time the original ending takes to happen, and probably the cause of death too. It seem that Lon Chaney's Erik has some short of heart problems, specially when he puts his hand on his chest after Christine took off his mask... i think maybe because of strong emotions and body exhaustion? Although this Erik is only 32-33, he's not that old to have heart problems. Which leads me to think that, maybe, he developed a fragile health after years of abuse and isolation... yeah, getting arrested in the Devil Island's because he had mental illness is insane. The way mentally ill people were treated back in the 19th century is awful, so imagine an orphan, mentally ill and deformed person? 😢 While in the original novel, he takes some days to die. The cause of his death are confusing, but it wasn't because of Christine's kiss. Maybe he unalived himself, or maybe he was already sick or injured, idk... what I do know is that it seemes like Gaston wrote the ending with preassure. The novel was originally posted as jornal chapters, between 1909-1910, and as any other novel, the readers *did* influnce the progress. Which makes me wonder if Erik wasn't suppose to die originally... maybe Christine would even stay with him (much better ugh🙄 if she doesn't want him, i want). Anyway. It's heartbreaking in every way.
I read somewhere that the scence where Christine reveals the phantom erik, it was so scary that people in the audience actually screamed and fainted in the theatre.
Unfortunately, this is true. The monstrous drama and stupidy of these people is the scariest thing. Poor Erik. And to think that this kind (and worses kinds) of monstrosity happens to deformed people in real life...
Another factoid: apparently Mary Philbin’s first sight of Lon Chaney in makeup was when he turned towards her right after the unmasking, so her scream was genuine. Apparently only the director had seen Chaney’s makeup before the reveal, so it freaked the whole crew out.
They did back then. They also tended to get lost in the fantasy of the film & believe for a moment it was real. It was reported people(mostly women) ran screaming out of their seats into the well-lighted hallway
@@mieshocked1450 To be fair, Erik was no choir boy nor some poor Quasimodo with a golden heart. He was a prolific serial-killer, -abuser and worse, an ugly soul. Hurt feelings are no excuse. The book tells the story behind that character in full though I must say this movie probably did better in showing his true nature than the more modern ones do, who transformed him into a semi-decent looking merely misunderstood tragic hero.
@@PrimeCircuit To be fair, i can see you have *no idea* of who Erik was in the novel and much less what this movie did to the story, and it's pretty funny. Yes, he is a poor boy, abused by his parents, used as an object in a freakshow for years, tortured in Persia and rejected by everyone. "Hurted feelings" is your @ss. Hurted feelings is what your kind of "purity-police-stan" person get when they see someone standing up to an actual victim of abuse, like Erik. He was ABUSED and TORTURED, during years. It's good to see you haven't the SLIGHEST idea of what a serial killer is, Erik killed literally 1 person on his own voluntion and it was self-defense; he was forced to kill people in Persia by the King while also being abused by him (but it's always the victim's fault, according to you). Wow! I admire how Erik can be an abuser without abusing anyone, he is such a mysterious man, ins't him??? 🤔 This movie is exactly the opposite of what the novel is. I get it, you NEVER read the novel and if you read, your poor brain couldn't understand even the trivial about Erik's character, but let me explain to you step by step, baby: Erik loved Christine, NEVER threaten her life and was able to let her go because her happiness was more important than his. Here, his tragic past is ignored and he's turned into a monster without redemption, the final scene is a disgusting trash ending that ruined everything about the original ending. Erik was a broken, tortured yet good man desperate to be loved. He and Christine were friends until he became possessive. He knew trying to force her love was wrong and impossible, and even she showed him the kindness and compassion he deserved (something YOU are unable to do), this is why the original ending is great and beautiful. But this movie turned Erik into but a obssessive criminal, something he never was. And it's obvious that some people who have ANY IDEA of who Erik is and what the original story is about would love the ending. And how about the toxic, stalker and abusive viscount that Christine married? Oh no, this one is rich and pretty, we don't talk about him :3 I'm not using Erik's horrible past to say "haha kidnap is ok", i'm saying the truth, that he was a flawed yet good person that needed redemption (and he got it, in the novel). But you think he's evil and murderous and psycho, again, proving you missed everything and have zero empathy for ACTUAL victims of abuse. Keep being hipocrit and ignorant though, you're doing great!
That part at 30:10 where his hand comes out of the left frame still makes me take a breath whenever I havent watched this in a while.... I think it's because it looks like there isn't much room between christine and the left side of the screen so you dont expect someone to come up behind her there, unlike if she was closer to the right side, and there was more obvious space to watch for someone coming up behind her. Assuming that was done on purpose, it's really clever. It was probably even more startling at the time.
I watched this film for the first time recently at a theater for Halloween. It had original orchestration from its organ. It was beautiful and I love this film.
I want to live in an alternate universe where they kept the original ending to this movie instead of changing it to the mob scene crap after the test audience. This Erik never got his character arc/redemption, and it's just such a shame because the rest of the portrayal was accurate. But Erik without the redemption is just..............not the same character. He hints at there being good in him here, but we never really actually get to see it (unlike in the book, where we do). A tragedy of the ages that I will never get over lol
Hello Blackngold Cuttlefish: The best thing you can do and any one else (like me) would have to use Mr. Peabody's Way Back Machine--maybe Sherman might come to? and go back to San Francisco when the sneak peek movie was screened for audiences, that would be the best advice I can give.
Not too familiar with the plot before watching this just now, I was most definitely rooting him to get some redemption and even survive. He reminds me of Creature from the Black Lagoon.
@@sageantone7291 nobody has been able to recover it, but we can hold out hope that someday someone will get a hold of it! (Hopefully sooner rather than later!)
It's incredible what he accomplished here: for the first half of the movie he has a mask on that covers his entire face, and in the second half he wears the most uncomfortable makeup (he actually ended up bleeding multiple times because of the makeup), yet for the entire movie he manages to express so much emotion
@@mieshocked1450 ... Excuse me? Let's see... tension... chill... fear... those all apply to nearly all versions of Phantom, though there are many other beautiful aspects of the story. The original book is a Gothic horror/mystery/romance. The tension, chills, and fear are exactly what makes the story so appealing to many fans, combined with all the heartwarming scenes. A story, especially one like Phantom, absolutely needs tension; the entire story would fall apart if there wasn't the dread, fear, and hints of love ever-present. I understand that you don't want to see it as a horror story because you are so adamant that Erik isn't a monster. I would agree, but that doesn't change the overall atmosphere of the story itself. It's a beautiful story, one in which the "antagonist" gets a lovely and heartbreaking redemption arc. Exactly how would you describe the scene when Christine has to choose between the scorpion and the grasshopper? Was she not experiencing tension and fear? To say that there is no tension is an insult to the story and the author himself.
@@anastasiavaganov8831 when I say it is not a horror story, is because Erik's face shouldn't inspire horror. The story is a mystery gothic romance, yes, but linking "fear and horror" to Erik's face is the problem. People seem to forget about the beautiful, romantic heartwarming message it has (such as Erik's lovely and tragic moments). And he is not exactly an antagonist, he is much more like an unhinged anti-hero. No one is perfect in the story, there are no "heroes or villains". The closest thing to a heroine is Christine, she is brave, kind and independent. A bit childish sometimes, though.
the continuity department on this movie is incredible! if you look at the design of the rooms in the Phantoms Lair, ti actually matches up to exactly where the trapdoor under the rug is! round of applause!
I do have to say 'Kudos' to the makeup artist who did the work on the actor playing Inspector Ledoux and the actor himself. He has most mysterious eyes before it is revealed that he is of the Secret Police that anyone would suspect him either being the Phantom in disguise or elite with the Phantom. Kudos!
In the book there is a character called The Persian who knew Erik from the past and helped Raoul out. Given the costume and the make up of the character of Ledoux in this film that was clearly supposed to be him but the writers cooked up some nonsensical police/devil's island subplot as they wanted no loose ends of backstory etc for movie-goers, and the Persian became a French cop.
This is, by far, the best version. For me, the music suits the ambience of the movie. I've seen the 1925 version but with different music that just don't suit the setting of the mood at all. Thank you so much for sharing!
May the universe bless you cause this movie is my all time favorite movie. I watched this as a little kid and it's the exact version I watched and I love this film so much. I thought I'd never find it again. Thank you so so much. Now I can show my boyfriend this perfect film.
Thank you so much for this!! I just watched this with my husband and we’re fans of the musical but this film is amazing! The colour and music added makes it much better and there are so many scenes that I was just amazed at seeing in the 1920s! ❤
I have this same version and I find the music is so fitting for the sequences, more than other symphonic arrangement. Thank you for uploading a very clear version!
It may be almost a hundred years old, but man, Phantom's makeup is really scary That scene of him as the Red Death overlooking the conversation is actually chilling The Phantom Of The Opera 1925/1943/2004 will always be one of my favorite movies of all time
AT 43:52 Mary Philbin accidentally knocked into the Violin that is hanging on the wall And it starts to rock.........IVE BEEN WATCHING THIS MOVIE FOR OVER 50 years and just noticed this TODAY !!!!!!! Great Print !!! ....let’s try to find the COMPLETE 1919 Miracle Man ....SOMEBODY out there has a copy !
What I really like about these films being on YT, U can pause the vid & actually read the txt cards, & U can speed up the vid if U feel like it's moving too slow.
first saw this forty or so yrs ago. a brilliant film, truly a cinematic masterpiece . the lighting, choreography, actors all top notch. thank you for broadcasting this film. 🥂❤️
Ben Huether: the original ending is most likely gone. What would be better in finding would be the cemetery scene, that would explain some loose ends in the story. But again this seems to be gone!
@@b.d6642 Christine refers to her father (who is dead) but by having the cemetery scene re-instated it would clarify that point. PLUS and IF you are paying careful attention in the scene where Erik forces Christine to choose between the scorpion or the grasshopper which one to turn, Christine looks upward towards her father in heaven and asks him for guidance. You know this if you read her lips--there are no sub title cards for what she is saying at that point.
What a great film, gorgeous to look at, and wow, nearly 100 years later, the look Chaney created for the Phantom is iconic. Great quality on this. The tinting works really well, and this score that goes along with it is superb.
Wow, this was my first silent movie other than the🎼 and vocals during certain scenes I am amazed at the Theatrical talents who such wonderful and emotional moving parts Bravo👏👏🎊🎉💝 and the ending heart stopping marvelous..
Debra C. Solomon Solomon indeed. This is one of my favorite silent films. Lon Cheney was so good at conveying emotions through his face and hands. And the makeup work was wonderfully done by Cheney. So glad you liked it.
Though this is a favorite, I feel "Hunchback of Notre Dame" comes in first as Chaney's masterpiece of conveyed emotion- which still puts today's acting to shame. Much of his brilliance came from being raised by two mute/deaf parents & how he learned to communicate with them.
Just such a wonderful film from.the Era of Lang, Pabst and Metropolis and Caligari to name a few..the wonderful German surreal expressionist film of the 20's and 30's.
35:56 - 40:09 this whole part is so cute, romantic yet heartbreaking the same time! It's so good to see Erik expressing his feelings for Christine ❤️ but what bothers me is how much forcely scared she is!!! It's so childish and unnecessary, poor Erik 😢
@@sin3358 The whole story* i mean, the novel is the original. And yes, i know this metaphor, i'm a phan (phantom of the opera fan) since 7 years, i love this 1925 movie but the ending was terrible. And surely kidnapping Christine was a bad thing, but it wouldn't happen if Erik was treated as the worthy person he was. I hate what adaptations turn Christine into. She looks like a dumb child scared for nothing. She is way better and stronger in the novel, even if she's still childish.
@@mieshocked1450 The original novel is set around 1900s ,so no wonder even at the time of this movie's release ,people were stupid. It's only after stories like Beauty and the Beast , Hunchback of Notre Dame that people got the "Empathy" for broken ,ugly souls. Let's just say ,we should be grateful to be born in this era.
@@sundus928 Both Beauty and the Beast and The Hunchback of Notre Dame came before The Phantom of the Opera. Even today, people are still stupid, but at least society is starting to fight against every type of opression. Our days is undeniable better than the past.
Actually this print is the 1929/1930 edition which was drastically altered to accommodate a sonorized soundtrack. It is, however, the only edition I know of that contains the mysterious "man with a lantern" sequence.
Seriously just finished viewing it and thanks TH-cam for posting the entire 🎥 it was my very first time seeing this Iconic classic Horror Film that I will see dailies on film documentaries of horror or in film books. The Movie is Good seriously very good with action thriller scenes and love how Channey moved about in the Opera house with his mysterious ways as the PHANTOMMMM HEHEHEHEH! A toast 🥂to you Channey wherever you are in the afterlife,🌈 you did phenomenally well-I AMM YOUR ANGELLL OF MUSICCCCC🌹
I love the whole part when Christine goes to Erik's lair for the first time, he confesses his love for her even though he's shy, it's so cute and heartwarming! ❤️ If at least the ending was correct! 😭😭
I've recently discovered how cool these old movies are. First I watched metropolis and was like HOLY CARP! And now this gem. There so relaxing and so much less stimulating and even play in the imagination like live theater. exciting.
A "relative" through marriage actually was in the "skull" costume around minute 50:00.. This version is different, however, from a non-colorized version where the Phantom goes down a single staircase...not sure which is the original cut... ....He was an extra and the story goes Lon Chaney was tired so they put Frank into the costume and he was the one going down the stairs!! Frank also was in The Four Horsemen in the tango scene in the audience and later in the club, dancing behind Valentino's left shoulder as he and Alice Terry in the white-plumed hat danced. Norman Kerry, of course, was one of Valentino's early friend in Hollywood...rooming with him...
💜💜💜💜💜💜💜💜💜 I am beyond lucky to actually own this incredible film that came as an(I believe) 25 to 50 classic nonverbal b&w and older early horror films collection and I ABSOLUTELY ADORED this version; especially how similar to the book(that I also adore) that it is!
You may notice how Lon Chaney was very expressive with his hands as he acted. Fun fact is that both of his parents were deaf and he knew sign language. He really knew how to make his hands speak for his emotions of anger, hate, fear, ect.
Indeed. The perfect actor for the silent era.
That is so interesting. I used to do so much research on this guy. I dont know how this fact slipped by me
@@TrentonBlessWrestlemania489 Perdona como se llama la canción del minuto 7?? Gracias!!!
Michael Crawford, the original Phantom in Andrew Lloyd Webber’s musical, used his hands a lot in the role as well (something he continues to do in performance even after his long run in Phantom). I wouldn’t be surprised if he was inspired by Chaney.
That's an awesome piece of trivia, thanks!
It may be almost a hundred years old, but man, Phantom's makeup is scary. That scene of him as the Red Death overlooking the conversation is actually chilling.
It's an excellent make-up, but it's not scary. Not even a bit. *Erik* (not Phantom) is just a human being that was abused and broken because of his face.
Pp
Best thing about the make up is that Lon Chanley did it himself.
@@mieshocked1450 actually it would have been scary in 1925 but not in 2022.
@@dollyrawlins5470 understandable.
One thing that intrigues me is something about the rooftop scene that every adaptor throughout history seems to have missed. In the book, during Raoul and Christine's conversation on the roof, it describes _somebody_ watching them, and seems to imply that it's Erik eavesdropping out of jealousy. Later on though, during the POV chapters, it's revealed to have actually been the Persian, watching them to ensure their safety from Erik. It's a very subtle reveal, so it's not surprising that it was missed. Still, it's an interesting twist that has never been depicted in any adaptation, ever.
It’s a shame that The Persian is usually left out of the majority of adaptations of the story. Just another layer to the mystery of The Phantom.
Wait... It was the Persian all along???!?!?
Would have been nice if ALW made it Mdm Giry and gave her a song instead of the Phantom, since she is the Persian's replacement.
Fun fact my great great grandmother was one of the ballerinas in the opening scene of the opera in this movie
Awesome!
That's really neat!
Wow😊
How exciting! She is now cemented in cinematic history!
Really? Lucky her!😂
After nearly a century old, this is still hands down the finest and most faithful adaptation of Gaston Leroux's story. Nobody has ever topped Lon Chaney's brilliant portrayal of the tortured Erik, nor has any subsequent version captured the chilling atmosphere this classic generates at each viewing.
I think the 2004 one is also great
The lake sequence's where pure magic. Chaney going in was real drama.
@@VoxTheUkrainianComradesame
Totally agree. A very well phrased comment.
For me it is amazing that it is almost 100 years old and I can watch it on youtube
Okay, this is by far the best quality version of this film I've seen here.
kriitikko It is certainly a very good quality, but dont you think that the 1929 version here on TH-cam is better?
This is the best version on You Tube for the 1929 re-edit of the Phantom, Image Entertainment from 2011, David Shepard was responsible for the restoration.
It has been “colorized” in a few sections
I honestly find the expressionless mask creepier than the Phantom/Chaney’s unmasked deformity.
Same. It gave me the willies for sure.
Absolutely, if he didn't wear that creepy mask Christine would be less scared
And Erik is pretty fine though
REAL 😭😭😭
@@mieshocked1450real☺️
A few things.
The acting in this is amazing. I mean just incredible. The cinematography is honestly better than a lot of what we see today.
It’s nice that it’s very true to the original book.
Great restoration, and whoever did the soundtrack, I love you.
Maybe this is more of a social commentary, but I like that I’d shows Christine afraid of the phantom. Nowadays with obsessive love and toxic relationships being the new norm and romanticized/sexualized, it’s nice to see the woman being actually afraid after a masked man who is secretive pops out of a mirror and does give her details, kidnaps her, is obsessed, is one sided in his love, etc.. The original book is always sympathetic, but never romanticized his behavior. And yes a part of Christine loves him, but she wasn’t going to put up with this sort of stuff. And that’s refreshing to see.
Edit: tho I’m sorry that the ending went the adventure/scary movie route. The original ending is such a beautiful message.
i agree so much. it was so nice to see christine afraid of the phantom. it’s exhausting to see so many people romanticize his behavior and wish christine had chosen him, when in reality what the phantom had done was horrible. this movie did a great job showing how bad the phantom really was. of course christine would fear that man.
"nowadays obsession with toxic relationships" = women liking complex media that isnt sanitized and your puritan complex being offended by it. Did you ever read the novel? Christine's feelings towards Erik (aka a survivor of abuse with neglected mental illness) are much more complex than fear.
@@KenzieSchmidt-tm9wjit's exhausting to see moralists people like you policing what people should or shouldnt do.
People ship Erik/Christine (and also sympathize for Erik) without the need to justify his actions. Cope ❤
Edit: Gaston Leroux himself was upset with the changed ending... so... uhm "the movie did a great job showing Erik bad" nu-huh ☝🏽🫣
After all these years, I finally watched this version and honestly, after 100 years later, it still holds up really well! I was really surprised. I usually find it a bit hard to stay focused while watching a silent film, but I was quite captivated during many of the scenes. And Lon Chaney still commands our attention, even after all these years.
This is a small thing, but I love how Christine saved herself from the Phantom by jumping out of the carriage at the end. I was expecting someone else to save her, but no, she saved herself! That is SO progressive for 1925! I liked that she wasn't a complete damsel in distress and showed some bravery and courage, which was very unexpected for a film of this era. It's just a small part of the film, but it really sealed the deal for me.
The ending we see today is the second version of the ending. Originally, the 1925 film was to end like the book, with Christine’s kiss redeeming The Phantom, and him shortly thereafter dying at his organ. Test audiences hated it. So, it was cut and what we see today was filmed. Several other scenes were filmed, added, and removed before we got to the film we see today. Most of what was cut is lost to time and only still images of those scenes exist.
If you think this is "progressive", you should read the original novel. Christine didn't only save herself, she saved Erik, Raoul, The Persian and everyone else. She saved Erik from himself, she always had everything under control. It was Raoul who ruins everything during the story, actually, Erik was pratically her slave, her loyal dog that would do anything and everything for he- ...actually she didn't even need to be saved to be fair. The original ending is so much better, although Leroux himself wrote a sequel to the movie since, spoiler, Erik wasn't dead 🙏🏼 too bad the sequel never came out, since Leroux and Chaney both died... a tragedy 😢
But the point is: this story itself was always progressive for its time. Christine is strong and independent (remember she is orphan, single and has no man to be her "owner"), Raoul is an abusive and non-trustful character even being the protagonist, The Persian is a dark-skinned man with heroism and importance, Erik is a sympathetic and victimized aniti-hero that *clearly* has mental problems and still ended up being a better person than the protagonist himself - the deformed, mentally ill, and "vulgar" man is the tragic hero, not the conventionally handsome nobleman.
@@TrentonBlessWrestlemania489yes exactly, the only difference is the time the original ending takes to happen, and probably the cause of death too. It seem that Lon Chaney's Erik has some short of heart problems, specially when he puts his hand on his chest after Christine took off his mask... i think maybe because of strong emotions and body exhaustion? Although this Erik is only 32-33, he's not that old to have heart problems. Which leads me to think that, maybe, he developed a fragile health after years of abuse and isolation... yeah, getting arrested in the Devil Island's because he had mental illness is insane. The way mentally ill people were treated back in the 19th century is awful, so imagine an orphan, mentally ill and deformed person? 😢
While in the original novel, he takes some days to die. The cause of his death are confusing, but it wasn't because of Christine's kiss. Maybe he unalived himself, or maybe he was already sick or injured, idk... what I do know is that it seemes like Gaston wrote the ending with preassure. The novel was originally posted as jornal chapters, between 1909-1910, and as any other novel, the readers *did* influnce the progress. Which makes me wonder if Erik wasn't suppose to die originally... maybe Christine would even stay with him (much better ugh🙄 if she doesn't want him, i want). Anyway. It's heartbreaking in every way.
I read somewhere that the scence where Christine reveals the phantom erik, it was so scary that people in the audience actually screamed and fainted in the theatre.
Unfortunately, this is true. The monstrous drama and stupidy of these people is the scariest thing. Poor Erik. And to think that this kind (and worses kinds) of monstrosity happens to deformed people in real life...
Another factoid: apparently Mary Philbin’s first sight of Lon Chaney in makeup was when he turned towards her right after the unmasking, so her scream was genuine. Apparently only the director had seen Chaney’s makeup before the reveal, so it freaked the whole crew out.
They did back then. They also tended to get lost in the fantasy of the film & believe for a moment it was real. It was reported people(mostly women) ran screaming out of their seats into the well-lighted hallway
@@mieshocked1450 To be fair, Erik was no choir boy nor some poor Quasimodo with a golden heart. He was a prolific serial-killer, -abuser and worse, an ugly soul. Hurt feelings are no excuse. The book tells the story behind that character in full though I must say this movie probably did better in showing his true nature than the more modern ones do, who transformed him into a semi-decent looking merely misunderstood tragic hero.
@@PrimeCircuit To be fair, i can see you have *no idea* of who Erik was in the novel and much less what this movie did to the story, and it's pretty funny. Yes, he is a poor boy, abused by his parents, used as an object in a freakshow for years, tortured in Persia and rejected by everyone. "Hurted feelings" is your @ss. Hurted feelings is what your kind of "purity-police-stan" person get when they see someone standing up to an actual victim of abuse, like Erik. He was ABUSED and TORTURED, during years. It's good to see you haven't the SLIGHEST idea of what a serial killer is, Erik killed literally 1 person on his own voluntion and it was self-defense; he was forced to kill people in Persia by the King while also being abused by him (but it's always the victim's fault, according to you). Wow! I admire how Erik can be an abuser without abusing anyone, he is such a mysterious man, ins't him??? 🤔
This movie is exactly the opposite of what the novel is. I get it, you NEVER read the novel and if you read, your poor brain couldn't understand even the trivial about Erik's character, but let me explain to you step by step, baby: Erik loved Christine, NEVER threaten her life and was able to let her go because her happiness was more important than his. Here, his tragic past is ignored and he's turned into a monster without redemption, the final scene is a disgusting trash ending that ruined everything about the original ending. Erik was a broken, tortured yet good man desperate to be loved. He and Christine were friends until he became possessive. He knew trying to force her love was wrong and impossible, and even she showed him the kindness and compassion he deserved (something YOU are unable to do), this is why the original ending is great and beautiful.
But this movie turned Erik into but a obssessive criminal, something he never was. And it's obvious that some people who have ANY IDEA of who Erik is and what the original story is about would love the ending. And how about the toxic, stalker and abusive viscount that Christine married? Oh no, this one is rich and pretty, we don't talk about him :3
I'm not using Erik's horrible past to say "haha kidnap is ok", i'm saying the truth, that he was a flawed yet good person that needed redemption (and he got it, in the novel). But you think he's evil and murderous and psycho, again, proving you missed everything and have zero empathy for ACTUAL victims of abuse. Keep being hipocrit and ignorant though, you're doing great!
That part at 30:10 where his hand comes out of the left frame still makes me take a breath whenever I havent watched this in a while.... I think it's because it looks like there isn't much room between christine and the left side of the screen so you dont expect someone to come up behind her there, unlike if she was closer to the right side, and there was more obvious space to watch for someone coming up behind her. Assuming that was done on purpose, it's really clever. It was probably even more startling at the time.
I love the musical, but this version is fantastic! Chaney's makeup really seals it.
I watched this film for the first time recently at a theater for Halloween. It had original orchestration from its organ. It was beautiful and I love this film.
I want to live in an alternate universe where they kept the original ending to this movie instead of changing it to the mob scene crap after the test audience. This Erik never got his character arc/redemption, and it's just such a shame because the rest of the portrayal was accurate. But Erik without the redemption is just..............not the same character. He hints at there being good in him here, but we never really actually get to see it (unlike in the book, where we do). A tragedy of the ages that I will never get over lol
Hello Blackngold Cuttlefish: The best thing you can do and any one else (like me) would have to use Mr. Peabody's Way Back Machine--maybe Sherman might come to? and go back to San Francisco when the sneak peek movie was screened for audiences, that would be the best advice I can give.
All right, let's do it! let's make it happen ;P
Not too familiar with the plot before watching this just now, I was most definitely rooting him to get some redemption and even survive. He reminds me of Creature from the Black Lagoon.
Doesn't it exist somewhere?
@@sageantone7291 nobody has been able to recover it, but we can hold out hope that someday someone will get a hold of it! (Hopefully sooner rather than later!)
Amazing. Lon Chaney is one of my biggest inspirations. The way he played characters and his movements were incredible.
I just love the way he moves his hands. For a lot of this film we only see his hands.
@@TrentonBlessWrestlemania489 Agreed!
@@k0rny672 I suppose it helps he grew up using sign language. They say he didn't speak until he was like 5. Or at least that's what I've heard.
@@TrentonBlessWrestlemania489 yeah, wasn't his parents deaf?
It's incredible what he accomplished here: for the first half of the movie he has a mask on that covers his entire face, and in the second half he wears the most uncomfortable makeup (he actually ended up bleeding multiple times because of the makeup), yet for the entire movie he manages to express so much emotion
This is an incredible restoration, my goodness.
I know it's a breathtaking presentation for how old the source material is
Nothing compares to this. The tension, the chills, the fear.
Yes, tension, chill, fear... everything that _no_ Phantom of the Opera has since it's *NOT A HORROR STORY.*
@@mieshocked1450 ... Excuse me? Let's see... tension... chill... fear... those all apply to nearly all versions of Phantom, though there are many other beautiful aspects of the story. The original book is a Gothic horror/mystery/romance. The tension, chills, and fear are exactly what makes the story so appealing to many fans, combined with all the heartwarming scenes. A story, especially one like Phantom, absolutely needs tension; the entire story would fall apart if there wasn't the dread, fear, and hints of love ever-present. I understand that you don't want to see it as a horror story because you are so adamant that Erik isn't a monster. I would agree, but that doesn't change the overall atmosphere of the story itself. It's a beautiful story, one in which the "antagonist" gets a lovely and heartbreaking redemption arc. Exactly how would you describe the scene when Christine has to choose between the scorpion and the grasshopper? Was she not experiencing tension and fear? To say that there is no tension is an insult to the story and the author himself.
@@anastasiavaganov8831 when I say it is not a horror story, is because Erik's face shouldn't inspire horror. The story is a mystery gothic romance, yes, but linking "fear and horror" to Erik's face is the problem. People seem to forget about the beautiful, romantic heartwarming message it has (such as Erik's lovely and tragic moments). And he is not exactly an antagonist, he is much more like an unhinged anti-hero. No one is perfect in the story, there are no "heroes or villains". The closest thing to a heroine is Christine, she is brave, kind and independent. A bit childish sometimes, though.
the continuity department on this movie is incredible! if you look at the design of the rooms in the Phantoms Lair, ti actually matches up to exactly where the trapdoor under the rug is! round of applause!
I do have to say 'Kudos' to the makeup artist who did the work on the actor playing Inspector Ledoux and the actor himself. He has most mysterious eyes before it is revealed that he is of the Secret Police that anyone would suspect him either being the Phantom in disguise or elite with the Phantom. Kudos!
In the book there is a character called The Persian who knew Erik from the past and helped Raoul out. Given the costume and the make up of the character of Ledoux in this film that was clearly supposed to be him but the writers cooked up some nonsensical police/devil's island subplot as they wanted no loose ends of backstory etc for movie-goers, and the Persian became a French cop.
This is, by far, the best version. For me, the music suits the ambience of the movie. I've seen the 1925 version but with different music that just don't suit the setting of the mood at all. Thank you so much for sharing!
May the universe bless you cause this movie is my all time favorite movie. I watched this as a little kid and it's the exact version I watched and I love this film so much. I thought I'd never find it again. Thank you so so much. Now I can show my boyfriend this perfect film.
The Phantom of the Opera is a mixture of Orpheus and Eudydice with Persephone and Hades. Besides having a bit of the Hunchback of Notre Dame.
You're saying stories can be inspired by other stories?
Well, no 💩 Sherlock.
Thank you so much for this!! I just watched this with my husband and we’re fans of the musical but this film is amazing! The colour and music added makes it much better and there are so many scenes that I was just amazed at seeing in the 1920s! ❤
The book is also amazing if you haven't read it
The melody from 54:30 to 56:50 is very reminiscent of davy jones + calypso's love song...
i hear it
WOW MAN YOU'RE RIGHT
This is the best version of Phantom of the opera. Music, editing, quality, and color tone is top notch.
Damn, Lon Chaney is phenomenal
Best version on TH-cam. I watch it every October
Such an excellent movie! It holds up well after 100 years
I love this version of the film. The quality of the film is amazing when paired with the music. Thanks for this gem of a movie.
Do you happen to know which version this is - I'd like to buy it , but don't want to end up with a rubbish copy! Thanks?
This is the 1929 version, score by Gabriel Thibaudeau.
What happened to the version with the music by Carl Davis?
10:15 His face was like "Why the hell are these people staring at me?" lol
Exelent film! 👏👏👏👏👏
my new obsession is watching insanely old movies for no reason i will not be elaborating further.
I have been since I was 17
This version of this film is breathtaking! Literally!
This is beautiful music, it really compliments the film quite well.
Classics such as these will never go out of fashion or be viewed as 'passe'.... Thanks for posting this slice of cinematic history! 👍👍👍
I have this same version and I find the music is so fitting for the sequences, more than other symphonic arrangement. Thank you for uploading a very clear version!
This is the best version ever with this wonderful music score
Pure GOLD !………Lon Chaney Was The Greatest Actor in Film History .
Definitely the finest of his era and among the greatest actors to ever live.
This movie will soon be 100 years old
It may be almost a hundred years old, but man, Phantom's makeup is really scary
That scene of him as the Red Death overlooking the conversation is actually chilling
The Phantom Of The Opera 1925/1943/2004 will always be one of my favorite movies of all time
Wonderful that you posted this. I have always been fascinated with the book, musical adaptations, soundtracks, and film versions of this classic.
the score is amazing, especially in the third act
Agreed! Need to know who did this and if it's available anywhere.
The actress whom the phantom loves, she's "SO BEAUTIFUL!!!"
Her name was Mary Philbin. She was the early film's ''Scream Queens''
Great restoration. Shows you don't need shed loads of CGI to make a good film.
What a phenomenal film
This is a beautifully clear print of the film! Thank you so much!
Poor Erik! He’s skin and bones! He needs meat on his bones for sure! I’m not sure when the last time he’s eaten. Poor love!
AT 43:52 Mary Philbin accidentally knocked into the Violin that is hanging on the wall And it starts to rock.........IVE BEEN WATCHING THIS MOVIE FOR OVER 50 years and just noticed this TODAY !!!!!!! Great Print !!! ....let’s try to find the COMPLETE 1919 Miracle Man ....SOMEBODY out there has a copy !
Fantastic. I enjoyed every minute. Lon Chaney's character is positively terrifying!
15:10 I never knew about Rasputin living and working in Paris as a conductor! Whoa! lol
What a beautiful and tragic masterpiece.. one of if not the best silent film of all time
What I really like about these films being on YT, U can pause the vid & actually read the txt cards, & U can speed up the vid if U feel like it's moving too slow.
first saw this forty or so yrs ago. a brilliant film, truly a cinematic masterpiece . the lighting, choreography, actors all top notch. thank you for broadcasting this film. 🥂❤️
Great to have the opportunity to watch this awesome classic on you tube.
Thank you for sharing 💖
Love this movie so much!!
One if the greatest stories in entertainment indeed.
I hope they eventually find the original alternative ending to the film.
Since the original nitrate footage would at this point be 95+ years old, it would have turned too goo long ago.
Ben Huether: the original ending is most likely gone. What would be better in finding would be the cemetery scene, that would explain some loose ends in the story. But again this seems to be gone!
@@emilsuda4101 what loose ends?
@@b.d6642 Christine refers to her father (who is dead) but by having the cemetery scene re-instated it would clarify that point. PLUS and IF you are paying careful attention in the scene where Erik forces Christine to choose between the scorpion or the grasshopper which one to turn, Christine looks upward towards her father in heaven and asks him for guidance. You know this if you read her lips--there are no sub title cards for what she is saying at that point.
What a great film, gorgeous to look at, and wow, nearly 100 years later, the look Chaney created for the Phantom is iconic. Great quality on this. The tinting works really well, and this score that goes along with it is superb.
26:52 Not gonna lie, her scream was hilarious.
Hahahaha! Thank you.
Groucho Marx: What was that? A High C or Vitamin D?
Wow, this was my first silent movie other than the🎼 and vocals during certain scenes I am amazed at the Theatrical talents who such wonderful and emotional moving parts Bravo👏👏🎊🎉💝 and the ending heart stopping marvelous..
Debra C. Solomon Solomon indeed. This is one of my favorite silent films. Lon Cheney was so good at conveying emotions through his face and hands. And the makeup work was wonderfully done by Cheney. So glad you liked it.
@@TrentonBlessWrestlemania489 0
Lon chaney truly was the man of a thousand faces hes the one who started classic horror hos son lon chaney jr topped it with the wolf man
How about his grandson/granddaughter and great-grandson/granddaughter?
@@raveast I'm not trying to get into argument about the chaneys that's ones I grew up with Sr and jr
@@lloydsmith522 I only ask about his grandchild or the great-grandchild,pardon because I'm not grew up with them.
@@raveast Ronald chaney is stilll alive he brought back the wolf man remake with benicio del Toro and anthony Hopkins hes 65
26:53 very well done chandelier
Incredible movie.
This is the version I want on DVD. It's so clean an crisp! So well restored!
Just sat through that, holy shit that was incredible.
It would be cool to see a modern silent film
I haven't seen it, but I think The Artist is basically a modern silent film
@@MrFuglybear it's a good one. Worth looking up if you like silent films
@@MrFuglybear yes! I’ve seen it and it’s what introduced me to the silent film genre. Very good!
I can recommend a modern silent film Blancanieves, it's amazing.
@@arpadczyliwampir oooooo what’s the plot?
Though this is a favorite, I feel "Hunchback of Notre Dame" comes in first as Chaney's masterpiece of conveyed emotion- which still puts today's acting to shame. Much of his brilliance came from being raised by two mute/deaf parents & how he learned to communicate with them.
If there was an actor born for silent cinema, it was Lon Chaney.
Awesome! Grazie!
Just such a wonderful film from.the Era of Lang, Pabst and Metropolis and Caligari to name a few..the wonderful German surreal expressionist film of the 20's and 30's.
I watched the whole movie...loved it!!
Silent Films, say more than the talkies, to this day.....
Steady there
hurr durr back in my day durrr
@@ughcreature ok post-modernist
01:27:00 the ending with the music is so beautiful
35:56 - 40:09 this whole part is so cute, romantic yet heartbreaking the same time! It's so good to see Erik expressing his feelings for Christine ❤️ but what bothers me is how much forcely scared she is!!! It's so childish and unnecessary, poor Erik 😢
To be fair, this whole movie is a whole metaphor about how people treat ugliness. Although, Erik kidnapping Christine wasn't a good thing at all
@@sin3358 The whole story* i mean, the novel is the original. And yes, i know this metaphor, i'm a phan (phantom of the opera fan) since 7 years, i love this 1925 movie but the ending was terrible. And surely kidnapping Christine was a bad thing, but it wouldn't happen if Erik was treated as the worthy person he was.
I hate what adaptations turn Christine into. She looks like a dumb child scared for nothing. She is way better and stronger in the novel, even if she's still childish.
@@mieshocked1450 The original novel is set around 1900s ,so no wonder even at the time of this movie's release ,people were stupid. It's only after stories like Beauty and the Beast , Hunchback of Notre Dame that people got the "Empathy" for broken ,ugly souls. Let's just say ,we should be grateful to be born in this era.
@@sundus928 Both Beauty and the Beast and The Hunchback of Notre Dame came before The Phantom of the Opera. Even today, people are still stupid, but at least society is starting to fight against every type of opression. Our days is undeniable better than the past.
Actually this print is the 1929/1930 edition which was drastically altered to accommodate a sonorized soundtrack. It is, however, the only edition I know of that contains the mysterious "man with a lantern" sequence.
WOW!!!!!! What an ending--
This was simply amazing! The music, set design, locations. xx
Omg this is a good one. Chilling!
Seriously just finished viewing it and thanks TH-cam for posting the entire 🎥 it was my very first time seeing this Iconic classic Horror Film that I will see dailies on film documentaries of horror or in film books. The Movie is Good seriously very good with action thriller scenes and love how Channey moved about in the Opera house with his mysterious ways as the PHANTOMMMM HEHEHEHEH! A toast 🥂to you Channey wherever you are in the afterlife,🌈 you did phenomenally well-I AMM YOUR ANGELLL OF MUSICCCCC🌹
When the phantom was playing the organ he knew she was going to unmask him because he saw the curiosity in her eyes.
It might be almost 100 years old but its still a classic film.
Love this movie, great quality
Masterpiece!THX!
Thank you so much for sharing this
I love the whole part when Christine goes to Erik's lair for the first time, he confesses his love for her even though he's shy, it's so cute and heartwarming! ❤️ If at least the ending was correct! 😭😭
Véééry good quality here. Astounding scenes and music!
Yes it is! This is the 2011 Image Entertainment restoration. Soundscore is tremendous.
Is this movie really 100 years old in two years time? Flipping heck!
Crazy, huh?
@@TrentonBlessWrestlemania489
I know and I actually like this version a lot more than the others
I've recently discovered how cool these old movies are. First I watched metropolis and was like HOLY CARP! And now this gem.
There so relaxing and so much less stimulating and even play in the imagination like live theater.
exciting.
Many thanks.
loved it!, Hated the fact that the mob killed Erik, other than that, it was Good!.
All I can say about The Masquerade scene in this version is, “And what a Masquerade!” Indeed it is!
A "relative" through marriage actually was in the "skull" costume around minute 50:00.. This version is different, however, from a non-colorized version where the Phantom goes down a single staircase...not sure which is the original cut...
....He was an extra and the story goes Lon Chaney was tired so they put Frank into the costume and he was the one going down the stairs!! Frank also was in The Four Horsemen in the tango scene in the audience and later in the club, dancing behind Valentino's left shoulder as he and Alice Terry in the white-plumed hat danced. Norman Kerry, of course, was one of Valentino's early friend in Hollywood...rooming with him...
Of all the different versions of this story, I wonder which one is closest to the book.
57:42 I love this part 😌🤌
19:25 raoul like “the hellllll”
This the best movie version of Phantom of the Opera!
he didn't deserve to die in that way...and even at the end, he jested to the wild crowd!
very good film.
If ever you have an opportunity to hear Clark Wilson play his organ score for this film, take it.
I have never before been so gripped by a soundtrack.
I’ll have to find that version.
💜💜💜💜💜💜💜💜💜
I am beyond lucky to actually own this incredible film that came as an(I believe) 25 to 50 classic nonverbal b&w and older early horror films collection and I ABSOLUTELY ADORED this version; especially how similar to the book(that I also adore) that it is!