Ode to a Film Phantom

Robert Englund is one of my favorite horror film actors of all time. His movies, regardless of their quality compared to each other and to others in the genre, have always entertained me. Of course, he's most famous for playing Freddy Krueger in the Nightmare on Elm Street series (the most recent remake notwithstanding). It's his 1989 version of The Phantom of the Opera, however, that holds a special place in my heart.

This version of Phantom was directed by Dwight H. Little and starred Englund as Erik Destler, Jill Schoelen as Christine Day, Stephanie Lawrence as Carlotta, Alex Hyde-White as Richard, and Bill Nighy as Carlotta's lover. As the names suggest, this is not a straight-up adaptation of Leroux's novel. Rather than the Paris Opera House, this story takes place in Victorian-era London. Well, the bulk of it, anyway -- there's also a bit set in modern times with a sort of reincarnation/time-travel plot device to connect the two eras. In some ways, that aspect is similar to Bram Stoker's Francis Ford Coppola's Dracula, but in my view, the film overall seems to have more in common with John Badham's criminally underrated version of the classic vampire's story (which starred Frank Langella as the Count). Both are very different from the original novel in terms of plot, yet they evoke the mood and atmosphere of their respective books in a way that's perhaps more faithful than the vast majority of other adaptations.

Faithfulness to the book's plot isn't necessarily faithfulness to the book's spirit. Returning to the Dracula example, I'd argue that while Coppola's version followed the novel's plot closer than perhaps any other film adaptation, for me, it doesn't convey the book's dark sensuality or the title character's nature nearly as well as Badham's version. In a similar vein, one of my literature professors argued that the film Clueless (starring Alicia Silverstone), despite being being a teen romantic comedy set in the '90s, conveys Jane Austen's worldview much more faithfully than the period-correct 2005 film version of Pride and Prejudice (starring Keira Knightley).

Phantom is interesting in that it's a pop culture phenomenon defined almost exclusively by its adaptations. Few people have read Leroux's novel compared to those who've seen one or more film versions or a stage production based on the story. The adaptations of Phantom come in such a wide variety that few of them have the original's plot -- many have the Phantom getting his disfigurement later in life as the result of an accident (or, in the case of Englund's film, a Faustian pact with the Devil) rather than being born with it. And then, of course, there's Dario Argento's film version, in which the Phantom isn't physically deformed at all.

I think it's fair to say that there has never really been a fully faithful adaptation, on film or on stage, of Leroux's novel. The 1925 version starring Lon Chaney almost succeeded, but because of studio pressure, they ended up having to severely mutilate the ending. Compared to that, the lack of a graveyard scene (which was filmed but didn't make the final cut) and the absence of an "Angel of Music" subplot didn't really upset me that much. Andrew Lloyd Webber's musical hit many of the book's major plot points, including the scenes I mentioned, as well as the Phantom sending notes to taunt the opera house managers and even the "Little Lotte" bit. On the other hand, its story arc in Act 2 is very different from the book although it does keep the redemptive ending. (And then, of course, there's the debate over how faithful an adaptation of the stage version the 2004 film is, despite having more or less the same script. The actors and director definitely make a huge difference.)

The Englund version made many changes to the plot in addition to the Victorian England setting. Rather than a typical mask, this version of Erik sews the skin of his victims onto his ravaged face in order to look fairly normal. That adds an extra dose of gruesomeness to the scene where Christine unmasks him since she's essentially ripping his face off. This unmasking (defacing?) reveals one of the more impressive Phantom disfigurements on film -- quite a bit more elaborate than Englund's "Freddy" makeup, and certainly scarier than anything Gerard Butler, Claude Rains, or Herbert Lom have to show us.

Another difference from the novel is that this version lacks a chandelier crash and kills off the Raoul-character Richard in the end. However, it includes the graveyard scene (being one of only two film versions that does), and the cinematography is simply gorgeous. It also has my personal favorite version of Don Juan Triumphant out of all the adaptations I've seen -- Misha Segal's score for the film is just sublime.

Another thing about the film that, in my view, makes it well worth watching is Erik's twisted sense of humor, a trait that few other adaptations have retained from the novel. The one-liners fall as hard and as frequently as the bodies in this version, and it's definitely one of the most quotable adaptations because of that. Englund's Erik seems to have more of a taste for gore than Leroux's -- rather than a Punjab lasso (which would still probably leave some nasty red marks on an unfortunate victim's neck), he opts for a knife with which he skins his victims alive. And in a very memorable scene, he ensures that Carlotta's head ends up in the soup bowl in the middle of the Masquerade Ball. (His Red Death outfit, by the way, is simply awesome.) As you might imagine, this isn't a film for the squeamish.

Yet, Englund's Erik also portrays some other aspects of the character very well. The scenes in which he's teaching Jill Schoelen's Christine to sing are very well-done despite her wooden acting; he makes it work. (To be fair, I didn't find any film Christine I've seen so far to be very impressive acting-wise.) Englund's childlike excitement at seeing Christine perform the lead in Faust struck me as very true to Leroux's Erik. And although he doesn't sing in any capacity (he isn't dubbed by a professional singer either), his speaking voice fits the character really well and his organ-playing seems pretty authentic. He did a rather neat interview about the film for UpcomingHorrorMovies.com as well. (It's unfortunate that whoever transcribed the interview kept spelling the character's name as "Eric.") I especially like how Englund refers to Gaston Leroux as "the Stephen King of his generation." The same site also had awesome Phantom-related interviews with Ron Chaney (great-grandson of the legendary Lon Chaney) and Paul Stanley (KISS frontman who played the Phantom in the Toronto production of ALW's musical).

So in all, I think the Dwight H. Little / Robert Englund version of POTO is an excellent film that all Phans should see at least once. While it doesn't follow the plot of Leroux's novel, I think it captures certain aspects of the story and characters that other versions don't. Perhaps the best way to describe it is as "a thinking person's slasher" -- while there is a lot of blood and gore, there's also a strong plot and good character development to back it up. Not every Phan will enjoy it, of course . . . but I think a fair percentage will be entertained and perhaps even gain new insight into the story.


I remain your obedient servant,
I.A.E.