El fantasma de la ópera

The Phantom Of The Opera is a 1943 adaptation of the classic novel of the same name, directed by Arthur Lubin and starring Claude Rains, Susanna Foster and Nelson Eddy. I think I'm not alone when I say that the best part of this film is the gorgeous and colorful cinematography and beautiful sets and costumes which make this a visually outstanding film however aside from this I think it is very forgettable. The acting is OK and that's really it, even Claude Rains, one of the greatest actors of all time isn't particularly memourable in this film. I'm also not the biggest fan of the movie's tone, it just feels too light hearted and almost goofy, ruining most of the suspense, at least for me. 6.8/10

Poor old Enrique Claudin doesn't have much luck – and what he does have is all bad. An adept but unremarkable violinist with the Paris Opera House, he secretly worships Christine Dubois, the young understudy to the snooty leading songstress, and even goes so far as to anonymously spend all his money on singing lessons for her even though she is barely conscious of his existence. Enrique loses his job when he starts losing the feeling in his fingers. Then he mistakenly believes the musical manuscript he has been working on has been stolen by no less a light than Franz Liszt (Lord only knows how he wandered into this). Gripped by a violent rage, Enrique throttles the bad-tempered music publisher who prevents him from retrieving his manuscript and ends up with a face full of acid courtesy of the publisher's panicky secretary. Evading capture by the police, Enrique hides in the sewers beneath the Opera House and, like a tomato that's rolled under the cooker, grows dark and warped in the darkness.

Gaston Laroux's Phantom of the Opera is one of those stories that filmmakers feel compelled to retell every couple of years, so there's not a great deal to set this apart from all those other versions. Universal's use of colour is uncharacteristically sumptuous, and given that this tale falls nominally into the horror category for which they were famed, it stands by comparison to their other output of the time as something of a prestige production. There's not really much horror to speak of – although, by modern standards, none of the 40s horror films are likely to scare anyone over the age of five, so it's not out of the ordinary there. In fact it would arguably be more accurate to describe it as a musical given the amount of time that's given over to opera numbers that do little other than pause the action.

Claude Rains gives a typically polished performance as the tormented Claudin, although the failure of the script to get under his character's (scorched) skin once he assumes the identity of the Phantom leaves the actor with little to work with once he dons the mask and descends into B-movie madness. Nobody else in the cast really stands out. Susanna Foster makes a rather unmemorable ingénue (who shows worrying indications of following the same path as the prima donna she replaces given the way some of their lines are nearly identical), and leaves you wondering why poor old Claudin got so hot and bothered over her in the first place. Nelson Eddy and Edgar Barrier provide some light relief as the troupe's baritone and the investigating police officer, both of whom also fall under Miss Foster's mysterious spell.

Phantom of the Opera provides a good example of 40s Hollywood expertise (although it looks more like an MGM film than a Universal), and is entertaining enough even though it rarely provides anything that's likely to stick in the mind. Arthur Lubin at least attempts moments of artistry – for example by having the camera repeatedly passing sources of light – candelabras, chandeliers, etc – to suggest the fatal fascination Claudin's object of unrequited love holds for him.

Before writing a film article on Claude Rains for CLASSIC IMAGES (December 2000), I took another look at 'Phantom' to appraise his performance. He's one of those rare actors who can make you feel sympathy when he plays the ill-treated violinist so that you understand why he turns into 'The Phantom'. His performance is just one asset of this handsome technicolor adaptation of the famous story. Why carp about the changes made for this version? It stands on its own as an entertaining melodrama studded with operatic sequences that give it added dimension. Nelson Eddy has never been in better voice and Susanna Foster is certainly up to the demands of her singing role. The comic aspects of the story are a bit overdone and the only weakness of the film is giving Eddy and Edgar Barrier silly routines as they compete for the hand of Foster. Aside from that, this can still be enjoyed as a horror story set against the Paris Opera background. The sets are rich and detailed. Understandably, the film won Academy Awards for color cinematography and color art direction. Edward Ward's haunting score was also nominated and contributes greatly to the overall enjoyment of the film. The horror is muted in this version--but the rich musical highlights are a compensation. Absorbing entertainment.

This 1943 version is a remake of the 1925 version from the same studio (Universal). Probably the most vivid and effective use of Technicolor I have seen. Lush photography, great crane shots and an impressive Paris Opera House! The operatic scenes are very well done--and they are important to the story line. Very entertaining, especially since there is no graphic violence or gore--except the Phantom's face. Nelson Eddy is in top voice. One of Hollywood's most versatile actors, Claude Rains is remarkable in the lead role. Just the year before he was the memorable Prefect of Police in "Casablanca." This production is mounted first class in every way.

The DVD release is a fantastic transfer from an original old Technicolor master.

I'm not sure if I'd call this a horror movie(it's certainly a drama).It is the result of good acting,filming,and glorious color!!!!!!!I've never seen a Universal horror movie in color other than this!The story isn't a real adaption of Gaston Leroux's novel.It has several changes made that make it different from the book.It's a must-see for movie lovers.Horror or otherwise.