Hello boils and ghouls, here we are with the final non-musical film to bear the Phantom name - or at least the last one my lazy ass could dredge up* from the depths of stream land. Does this movie fix the problems of the 1943 version while being a worthy follow up to the silent original? Well flay a guy you don't like and sew his skin onto your face, because I'm here to tell you all about 1989's "The Phantom of the Opera" directed by Dwight H. Little and starring Freddie Krueger himself Robert Englund.
So in answer to the first question: I'd say this movie does fix a lot of problems with the 1943 adaptation. It's filmed with a lot of style and the music is used to complement the pacing versus shattering it all to hell. But this adaptation introduces it's own problems too. As you can probably guess from the casting of Englund, this version of the Phantom is basically just a slasher film, only set in the Phantom of the Opera universe. So while there are things I quite liked about this film it's also kinda dumb (And for the record I don't always use "dumb" as an insult, I've liked a lot of movies that I lovingly call "dumb").
My biggest problem with this movie, as a Phantom movie specifically (I have other problems as just a movie in general), is that the Phantom doesn't wear the fucking opera mask! Instead the Phantom sews skin onto his disfigured face and then puts makeup on top of that. Yes makeup, so when he terrorizes people at the opera house he just looks like a dude wearing black. I get this lends to some fantastic makeup effects and some creepy moments where he's sewing skin onto his face, but it's a major disappointment to a fan of the iconic image of the Phantom (Although, the twist on the typical "Christine unmasking the Phantom" scene was an unexpected surprise). I'm generally okay with screwing with conventions (Which I'm sure is what they were trying to do), but the problem here is the end result is nowhere near as effective as the classic we all know and love. Now there are a couple of scenes where he wears the iconic hat and wraps a black scarf around his face so that only one eye and the scarred flesh around it are seen. Those do make for effective images, if only they had really run with that idea instead of the stupid makeup idea.
There are other changes to the traditional story too, and some things that stay unchanged. I could go through them all, but that is the definition of tedium, and why they invented Wikipedia. I will say that the plot, in an abstract sense, is essentially the same as the previous iterations of the story. The Phantom becomes obsessed with Christine Day (Yes, Day, what the fuck? Another serious problem), and pushes all critics and potential hindrances to her career out of the way. Only in this case the Phantom brutally murders these people and then skins them. He also just kills random other people who fuck with him - there's a bizarre scene where he's attacked by muggers after leaving a bar, and man does he fuck their world up pretty hard. Good for showing off some gruesome murders I suppose - but yes, this is a movie where the Phantom of the Opera strolls out of the opera, picks up a prostitute, calls her "Christine" during sex, and then works on a composition in a tavern. Like I said, dumb.
I will say it is actually filmed deftly, the cinematography is fun, and Little knew exactly how the Phantom should be framed, as hero shots abound (Or should I say villain shots). There's a scene in a cemetery I especially like where the Phantom lures Christine into his carriage. He's seen in the shadows and fog, just out of view, playing a tragic song on his violin; all the while telling Christine that he is the angel of music her late father always talked about. It's seductive and scary, and perfectly nails the allure of the Phantom at this point in the story, and exemplifies Christine's dichotomous attitude towards this "angel." Frightened and also intrigued, but Christine's curiosity always gets the better of her. It must be said here that Englund makes a wonderful Phantom, his voice strikes the perfect balance between menace and seduction, and I was surprised at how alluring his voice could be in the character's quieter moments. Plus he's a fucking pro when it comes to acting through lots of makeup, which is definitely needed for a movie like this.
A major change when compared to other adaptations, but I hear is actually closer to the book, is the Faustian back story of the Phantom. Here, the Phantom actually made a pact with the devil to be loved for his music, and the cost was his face - thus meaning people would only love him for his music. This I also imagine has a lot to do with his mass-murder skinning faces thing. I mean a normal bloke (This version is based in London so I'm allowed to use the word)) in a disfigured face predicament would just wear a mask. It takes a special kind of fucked up to sew other people's faces on your own. I really love this take on the Phantom (Sans the skin sewing), and gives another twist to his doomed obsession. I just wish that these ideas, Faust mixed with Phantom, were in a better movie that could really open up and delve into them more.
The big disappointment here is that we have a great setup and a great performance by Englund as the Phantom, in a movie that basically devolves into predictable slasher movie schlock - even with the requisite "It's over - Oh My God It's Not Over!" last scare (Which falls flat on its ass I might add). I guess I just wish this would have been a straighter take on the story, with the same set up and excellent special effects. On that note, the effects are great, the makeup is incredible and it's always a relief to see practical special effects used for everything. But seriously? No chandelier scene?! I was actually looking forward to seeing that set piece with a modern twist and in a movie that had the stomach for the gore that would actually cause.
So do I recommend "The Phantom of the Opera" given everything I've just said? Well, it is just a dumb slasher flick, but it's a dumb slasher flick with a sweet Gothic tone retelling Phantom of the Opera. And really, as far as dumb slasher flicks go, it's one of the better ones I've seen - although maybe my opinion is colored by all the god-awful ones we endured in the 90s** and the shitty torture porn we have today. Still, if you want to turn your brain off and watch a slasher flick that's based on a classic piece of literature then give it a shot. Still, I can't help but wish that something more would have come from it, something deeper, and maybe something less forgettable.
*There's one from the 60s I tried to get my hands on, but since it's not streaming anywhere I said "fuck it," maybe next year.
**And yeah I know there have been shitty slasher films since their inception, but something about that 80s sheen makes everything better.
No comments:
Post a Comment