THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA (1925) vs. THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA (2004)

Many versions of this classic movie exist, both on the big and small screen, especially since Andrew Lloyd Webber brought the musical to the stage in 1986.  But as this is a blog written specifically to compare the original to the remake, so then shall we look at the first and most recent films.

While one is the beloved adaptation of the celebrated novel written by Gaston Leroux, the other is strictly adapted from Andrew Lloyd Webber's book and stage play.  The classic and unforgettable organ in Webber's version is powerful and instrumental, pun intended, in its driving force in announcing the phantom and using its deep tones to strike fear in the hearts of the audience.

SYNOPSIS (1925): A mad, disfigured composer seeks love with a lovely young opera singer. Source: IMDb.com

SYNOPSIS (2004): A young soprano becomes the obsession of a disfigured musical genius who lives beneath the Paris Opera House. Source: IMDb.com

The synopses for both films are relatively similar.  Notice that the original paints the phantom as a mad, deranged figure--understandable as the original is considered a horror film--whereas the remake makes him out to be a musical genius--fitting for an adaptation based on a stage play.

DIRECTOR: Rupert Julian vs. Joel Schumacher

Right off the bat I want to cringe at even the mention of Schumacher's name.  While he had several good films early in his career and decent films in recent years, he is probably most well-known for effectively ruining the Batman franchise with Batman Forever and Batman & Robin in the mid- to late-90s (which he was actually nominated for a Razzie as worst director for the latter film), forcing a brilliant reboot of the franchise in the late 2000s by Christopher Nolan.

That being said, he actually did a decent job at directing the remake of Phantom of the Opera.  Granted, he had a lot of great material to work with.

Still, Schumacher could not overcome the direction of Rupert Julian's silent film original.  The ground-breaking film, in its blurry and shaky shooting, upped the creepy factor brilliantly and intensified the fear by setting up for the audience in gruesome detail how grotesque the disfigurement of the phantom actually was long before he was unmasked.

Even though I viewed the 2004 remake shortly after it was released, a good ten years before I watched the original, I had the thought after watching the earlier film as I typically do after watching Japanese anime.

I prefer to watch my anime with English subtitles rather than the English dubbed version.  Hearing the audio in English, despite having A-list actors with great acting skill, takes away from the artistry of viewing it with Japanese dialog.

In the same way, some films are just better in black-and-white--and, in this particular case, some movies just come across the screen better as a silent film.  It really adds to the audience experience having the limitations of not being able to produce sound to your moving picture and being forced to create suspense by the actors' ability to act as well as the written "dialog" cue cards that are common in silent films, as well as using orchestral music to set the tones throughout the picture.

WINNER: Original, Rupert Julian

SCREENPLAY: Gaston Leroux vs. Andrew Lloyd Webber

I will be the first to admit that I don't typically like horror films.  Modern day horror focuses too much on the gore to create fear in the viewer rather than character-driven acting and film techniques that earlier movies used to instill in the audience a sense of pure and utter dread.

This case is no different.  The original film was a horror film but the remake was more of a romantic-drama set as a musical.  So while the stories were similar and were centered on the same characters, the two different styles really don't make this match-up fair.  An argument could be made for either film depending on which genre you prefer.

One is not better than the other; rather the two styles are complimentary to their respective films in a way that wouldn't come across as well had the original been a musical or the remake been a horror film.  The earlier film works better as a horror film for the reasons mentioned above in the DIRECTOR category; and, thus, the newer film works better as a musical.

WINNER: Both

CAST/ACTING: Lon Chaney, Mary Philbin, & Norman Kerry vs. Gerard Butler, Emmy Rossum, & Patrick Wilson

The remake has a great cast, with also a good supporting cast that includes Minnie Driver as Carlotta, the Prima Donna of the opera house.  Her character is hated as the phantom prefers the voice over the younger, more innocent, more seductive singer.  Carlotta is loud, obnoxious, and prideful of her talents (to which only she can recognize) and is played brilliantly by Driver.  The acting of the main actors isn't terrible either; in fact, Emmy Rossum was nominated for an Oscar for her portrayal as Christine.

However, I have to give the edge to the acting skills of the original film.  Because it was a silent film and, as I outline before, they had to rely on their pure acting skill using facial expressions and body movement to bring the characters to life as they didn't have the luxury of using their voices for dialog and tone.  It takes a much higher skill level as an actor to strike fear in the audience by a mere look or a certain way the actor moves.

Not to mention that the original phantom was truly disfigured, a skeletal face with no nose shrouded in a dark over-sized cloak.  The remake's phantom was a handsome man, dare I say dashing, with half of his face severely burned which is the reason for the mask.  Both perceptions of the character are essential to the feel of their respective movies; the original makeup designed to be more horrifying where the makeup in the remake was more in line for the romantic audience.

CAST WINNER: Remake; ACTING WINNER: Original

SCORE/MUSIC: Uncredited/Unknown vs. Andrew Lloyd Webber

The original movie uses classical music to set the tones of jovial scenes versus the horrific scenes where the phantom is prominent.  The remake uses more modern musical-style numbers that are beloved to this day by many fans of the theater but still uses its style to create a memorable experience.  Both movies, again, utilize their particular styles in a way that define the genre and era when each movie was released.

The remake's Phantom of the Opera soundtrack could be listened to and enjoyed without the movie to accompany it.  Whereas the original work is crucial to the movie in a way that doesn't translate or stand alone as a solely musical accomplishment.

Heck, even Gerard Butler has a pretty decent singing voice as The Phantom!

WINNER: Remake, Andrew Lloyd Webber

The Phantom of the Opera (1925):

• Rotten Tomatoes: 90% or 8.4/10 average rating
• IMDb.com: 7.7/10 from 11,511 users
• Metacritic: none

The Phantom of the Opera (2004):

• Rotten Tomatoes: 32% or 5.0/10 average rating
• IMDb.com: 7.4/10 from 91,213 users
• Metacritic:  40/100

OVERALL WINNER: Another tie!

Looks like you, the reader, will have to vote for yourself again. I definitely didn't think this was going to be a close entry either.  I am partial to the original 1925 The Phantom of the Opera myself.

Rotten Tomatoes wasn't very kind to the remake, as you can see.  The comparison is closer in rating on the IMDb.com website; but everyone seems to take in to account Rotten Tomatoes as the "go to" nowadays for the rating of films.

Take a watch of both films though, per my suggestion of course.  There's a lot to enjoy about both films.  It would be a shame to miss out on one or the other.

You can also check out the review of the original in the same book as I mentioned in the Psycho post: 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die by Steven Jay Schneider, 2011.