Fri Dec 06, 2013 12:39 pm
You guys need to listen to Scott McQueen's audio commentary on the Milestone Video DVD version of Phantom of the Opera.
Here is Scott McQueen's post from alt.movies.silent on September 9, 2000 on this subject:
This issue of the versions of Chaney's PHANTOM just doesn't go away, and there doesn't seem to be a definitive answer. Here is what we know:
The 1925 ("Astor Theater") version: this is what opened in NYC in September after all the monkeying around. It was in 10 reels. It only survives in 16mm Universal Show-at-Home copies that were reduction printed in the 1930s, by which time the domestic "A" negative was very heavily worn. John Hampton had several copies of this, which he cannabalized, yet still never got a full 100% print. Hampton allowed one of these to be duped in the 1960s, which is why there are collector prints about. The Packard Foundation now has Hampton's original Show-at-Homes, and have funded a restoration at UCLA which Bob Gitt has been overseeing. The 35mm blow-up work is superb, and the best possible allowing for the indifferent quality of the source material and the printed-in cinches and scratches. However, authentic 1925 Main Titles are still proving elusive...so check your closets & cellars. No word on when UCLA will consider this done. Bob did locate a 35mm dupe negative of a 1925 version in Italy, but the quality is said to be indifferent, though it offered one shot that appears nowhere else. The 1925 version is a VERY full 2 reels longer than the reissue print, with a different continuity (i.e. placement of chandelier fall).
While sound discs are known for the 1930 sound version, there is no corresponding bona fide picture. The surviving copy ,the common Phantom, was obtained as a 35mm acetate print in 1950 by Jim Card from Universal. It is likely that it was the only negative Universal had at that date, and clearly it was decomposing when the print was struck (perfs break into picture, the sequence in Christine's undergrounf bedroom rippling and hypoing). It was clearly stated in 1929-30 by U that PHANTOM was "sound on disc only". No paperwork has surfaced re: a foreign version, but all of the evidence is that the GEH print is a non-dialogue Music & Effects version for Europe. It is from a "B" (or "C") alternate camera negative, alongside and often at a different elevation than the "A" camera. All of the intertitles are physically spliced into the 35mm print, so they were printed up seperately either from title rolls (my guess) or flash frames. None of the newly-shot dialogue scenes are included, but the Faust "Jewel Song" is, at 24 fps (shot on Agfa negative, by the way!) with a new performer. The "old" Carlotta retained in the silent footage is now called "Carlotta's Mother" via a changed title. All of the intertitles are simplied and refilmed. Those cards with live background plates (inlcuding the Main Title) of the Phantom are newly shot with a double for Chaney. The Main Titles, by the way, have been truncated -- probably by Jim Card; look at the jump cut, which removes the production credits including cameramen...this same card carried the "Western Electric Sound System" credit.
In the domestic version of the talkie, as much old footage was used as could be dalvaged, and Joseph Buquet & the ballerinas were looped with "synthetic dialogue" in the manner of CHINATOWN NIGHTS.
Now, the Man With the Lantern. He does NOT appear in the domestic talking version. He appears in the Eastman House print, in a long 24 fps take, with the Phantom's double/shadow gliding by. It is likely that THIS scene alone was for foreign dialogue so the picture could be advertised as "talking" in other countries. Either A) the long shot allowed for asynchronous dubbing, or, B) there were inserts created for the major language territories and positive assembled to the prints (this is how Universal handled the various European and Latin emcees for THE KING OF JAZZ in 29-30!). The figure is wardrobed like Snitz Edwards (he is NOT Snitz) so it is possible that he was meant to be Florine Papillion. I have another theory.
The dupes of the Show-at-Home contain the Main Titles and the Man With Lantern, lifted from the Eastman House print. BUT! They also contain a Medium Shot of the Man which is clearly from different preprint! There is a different pattern of tram lines and wear, suggesting that this shot was cut in to the master print being duped. Also, in MS this guy looks nothing like Snitz, much uglier and heavier -- and the generic Parisian workman's clothes and cap leave one other alternative: he is Jospeh Buquet's brother -- the SOB who is found strangled by the Phantom later. Makes narrative sense.
QUESTION: what the hell print did THAT shot come from?
Unfortunately I found no corroboration of this when I was researching at Universal in the '80s, and since then U's PHANTOM holdings have, uh, been "liberated", shall we say, by a "historian" armed with carte blanche from Mr. Wasserman. So if the answers were once at the studio, they're gone now.
PHANTOM still lacks color inserts. In Reel 1, the shots of the audience arriving, with the uniformed soldiers "fashion show" as it were, was originally in Prizma (U tested both Prizma & Technicolor). Contemporary reviews indicate that "all views" in the auditorium were in color, yet this is not born out by continuities -- I believe that SOME long shots of the house curtain were color. The "Apollo's Lyre" sequence was blue tinted (or toned) with red Handschlegl, which I helped Kevin Brownlow replicate for this recent version (the intertitles here were originally all in GREEN, but Kevin elected to keep them uniform with the scene). The second half of the Masked Ball, from the lovers' return from the room through Florine's fainting number, was also Tech, and again it was my privilige to replicate this for Photoplay's version which will be on TCM. The tints were very interesting, and in no version are done correctly -- for example, the flashing of the chandelier prior to falling was amber/blue/amber/blue to action, and similar color cutting was done in the torture chamber with the waves of heat and light. The Phantom's rooms "below stairs" (including the unmasking) were entirely in B&W. The "Honeymoon in Viroflay" tag that closed Reel 10 (still in the Show-at-Home in B&W) was also -- once -- in Technicolor.
The Technicolor masked ball sequence was rescued by David Shephered years ago, and is from a 1930 dye transfer copy. In the latest versions restored by both Shephered and Photoplay, an effort was made to remove the heavy amber color, which was a by-product of the early 2-color process (perhaps varnish to keep the print from scratching). This version has a much wider range of colors than we have seen previously, and the color is clearly more accurate to the 2-color primaries and what colors were actually under camera -- Mary Philbin's gown is now salmon-pink as it should be, not gold. For purists, who want the IB color warts and all, there is adequate preservation of excellent quality already accomplised on a one-to-one basis by both UCLA and Mr. Shepherd.
Photoplay's version, by the way, is the best looking edition I have seen. Sharp, steady, nicely tinted. The heavily decomposed section prior to the unmasking was blow-up from the Hampton 16mm at UCLA, which will give you an idea of the pictorial qualities of the two surviving editions. Unfortunately, the Eastman House print was struck with a block in the track position, so the far left of image is lost forever, and the movie is now best shown with something approaching Movietone (1.17) aperture.
Whew!
Am I reading this correctly. An entire missing reel is included that has never been seen in any other previous Video edition as part of the BFI Blu-ray release?
The 1925 version is vastly superior to the drastically altered 1930 sound re-issue. It's not even remotely the same movie. If only a 35 millimeter print of the original release could be found. Or even a well struck first edition SHOW AT HOME print. Because what survives seems to be several generations removed from a first edition.
What we have today is a complete shambles - and it was more or less a shambles back in 1925 too!
