Saw the 1943 version of The Phantom of the Opera (thanks, Paul!) It was an opulent film about the famous tale of the disfigured man living under the Paris opera house, murdering singers, dropping chandeliers, and generally causing a ruckus. This film laid bare (for me anyway) the underlying idea behind the phantom. He is the monstrous truth behind the pretty lie. The opera house is chosen as the setting for the way that the theater's majestic stage hides a rat's nest of catwalks, dressing rooms, and crawlspaces just behind it. Petty and genuinely evil actions are hidden behind an alleged quest for perfection in art. A sweet and demure role hides a vicious and cruel woman, a dignified crowd of high-society men and women hides the exploitation of laboring masses, and, more viscerally, a pretty body hides ugly entrails. There's so many directions you can take this in! I'll have to see more films, but I think someone should really revisit this story (someone who isn't Andrew Lloyd Webber that is. He turned this juicy hypocrisy into some very tame satire.)
Anyway, back to this film. All of the above, I think, is hinted. I took it much further than the film did. The film is very restrained, very gracious, very opulent. It was produced in the 40s and although I swear the above is all in there (in the form of hints and allusions,) it's never, ever, made even slightly explicit. I was often frustrated by the film not embracing what was to me an obvious and rewarding interpretation of the central phantom myth.
Anyway, the film introduces the phantom pre-disfigurement. He is a genial but aged violinist whose apparently healthy body is giving out on him. He has a nervous twitch which causes errors in his playing. He is embarrassed about this problem, but tries to cling on to the opera which he loves. He quickly finds, though, that the theater which claims to be so sentimental and loving turns hard and cruel very quickly. This is the ugly truth behind the lie: that theater is a business. His ancient and decrepit body reflects the opera house. Notice that it is later revealed to be rotting from the inside, another hint a hidden corruption.
I spent most of the film noticing other hidden evils and fantasizing about what I would do with the story, so I may well have ignored some obvious counter-currents and sub-themes. that said, here are two film-connections I noticed: The film opens with the director telling Christine that she must choose between her singing or her love-life. This false dilemma is mirrored by the false choice of which suitor to pick. They are identical. This false dilemma is repeated in The Red Shoes, a similarly opulent stage-film. Also, the scene with the chandelier falling is amazing. I can't find the reference, but I think Hitchcock may once have mentioned it as an influence (if memory serves maybe perhaps.)
The film was interesting. I think I read more onto it than into it, but it entertained me even so. It's fairly tame, being an artifact of the 40s. It focuses mostly on glamor and schmaltz. It's a bit cloying at times (I could have done without the whole warring suitors subplot, for example) but these bits are small and quick and I forgive them. Then there's also this vague feeling of depth I get from it. In addition to the above free-associations about facades and ugly truths and so on, the very last scene has a maid congratulating Christine on an excellent performance. Is she congratulating Christine, or the actress portraying Christine? There's something going on here. I'm not totally sure what that is (see above for guesses) but it keeps me awake and interested. Interesting film.
No comments:
Post a Comment