Which is the BEST Blu-Ray of "Phantom Of The Opera" to get??

[SilentsPlease]

What interested me was the reel 5 of the talkie version. This is the 12 minutes following the fall of the chandelier, so unfortunately there's very little talking (in fact, Philbin's brief exclamation is not accompanied by picture, which had deteriorated). What was fascinating was the voice, in the sound discs, that I presumed to be a stand-in for Chaney. The voice that commands Christine to "step through the mirror" actually belongs to a new character, apparently a servant to the Phantom. After he commands Christine, a body-double for the masked Phantom appears and raises a hand in command; the servant bows and withdraws. Presumably this servant was also the voice in the sound discs that proclaims "she is singing to bring down the chandelier."

Is this "new" character supposed to be this character (screenshot from Image Blu-ray) that Raoul and Ledoux meet underground? Or was a new character concocted out of thin air?

The noteworthy thing of this reel for me is that the whole scene where Christine walks into her dressing room and into the mirror comprises of shots that I had never seen before. Actress Mary Philbin also looks older, and these shots are in great picture quality - all indicating the shots were filmed much later.

[gordonovitch]

The scene with the disembodied face is an adaptation of an incident in the novel that occurs likewise as Raoul and the Persian (the Ledoux character in the film) search for the phantom's hideout. Out of the darkness the two see a vividly lit head float down the corridor--it appears to be on fire (they dub it "the fiery face"). Turns out, though, the face belongs to "the ratcatcher," presumably an employee of the Opera charged with rodent control. In the book, as the character passes, a swarm of rats pour over around (and up) the legs of the protagonists. Leroux, the author, doesn't connect the ratcatcher in any way to the phantom.

Gordon Thomas

[Donald Binks]

I am somewhat bemused at the comments which in essence boil down to an extra two seconds of colour here or another bit of film cut in here or there. To me the 1929 or correctly 1930 silent version of the talkie - or whatever it is that has been floating around masquerading as "The Phantom of the Opera" all these years is something of a travesty. One could never ascertain who the "mysterious Persian" actually was - and the crude way he is explained as an agent of the secret police is quite ludicrous film parlance.

Nevertheless I have been intrigued by the 1925 Phantom for over 40 years - reading as much about it as I could possibly find. I have come to the conclusion that the 16mm print that remains is about the closest we shall come (at this stage in the proceedings) to what the original film may have looked like when it got into cinemas in the final cut. One always lives in hope of course that more original footage may turn up somewhere - including more of the colour scenes.

[radiotelefonia]

[gordonovitch]

I hope my post concerning "the ratcatcher" didn't confuse. The mysterious character of the Persian in the novel eventually reveals himself as, indeed, from Persia, where he knew Erik and had the opportunity to save his life--before Erik landed in Paris and assumed his role as the opera ghost. After Christine is abducted by the phantom, the Persian joins forces with Raoul to rescue Christine. In the film, the character of the Persian is replaced by the agent of the secret police, Ledoux, but their adventures in the cellars, including the torture chamber, are remarkably true (although streamlined) to those in the novel.

Gordon Thomas

[ClayKing]

I am somewhat bemused at the comments which in essence boil down to an extra two seconds of colour here or another bit of film cut in here or there. To me the 1929 or correctly 1930 silent version of the talkie - or whatever it is that has been floating around masquerading as "The Phantom of the Opera" all these years is something of a travesty. One could never ascertain who the "mysterious Persian" actually was - and the crude way he is explained as an agent of the secret police is quite ludicrous film parlance.

...except that the character "Ledoux" is also identified as such in the 1925 version. That the character is wearing a Persian lamb hat implies that the book was followed during filming, but prior to release "the Persian" was renamed "Ledoux," probably to simplify the story line.

So many changes were apparently made before the final 1925 release how do we know that version isn't a travesty compared to the earlier cuts?

[Donald Binks]

So many changes were apparently made before the final 1925 release how do we know that version isn't a travesty compared to the earlier cuts?

Absolutely. I don't think we will ever for sure know what cut was shown in the bulk of cinemas in 1925-6. All I am saying is that the 16mm version that is available is closer to the "original" silent version than the 1930 re-issue.

It's just an opinion, but I thought the handling of 'the mysterious Persian's" introduction clumsily handled. Maybe we can blame this entirely on Rupert Julian.

[Great Hierophant]

If you want to get the version closest to the original book, it would have to be the Los Angeles Preview Version. There Arthur Edmund Carewe's character is "The Persian", there are more characters and scenes from the book like Madame Valerius and the Graveyard scene and the Phantom dies at the end of a heart attack. The San Francisco and General Release versions have the Phantom killed by a mob after the carriage scene, which most people believe to be the grander ending.

[gordonovitch]

If you want to get the version closest to the original book, it would have to be the Los Angeles Preview Version. There Arthur Edmund Carewe's character is "The Persian", there are more characters and scenes from the book like Madame Valerius and the Graveyard scene and the Phantom dies at the end of a heart attack. The San Francisco and General Release versions have the Phantom killed by a mob after the carriage scene, which most people believe to be the grander ending.

Thanks for these clarifications. In the film Ledoux, who has that era's look of a dark-eyed "exotic," is clearly wearing what is specified in the novel as a astrakhan hat, so the fact of their originally filming him as the Persian makes total sense. As you mention, the preview reportedly adapted the novel's denouement, in which Leroux has Erik's dark side redeemed by Christine kissing him on the forehead and exclaiming, "poor Erik." The phantom's sudden switcheroo to kind and accommodating toward the lovers (before dying of a broken heart) is utterly unconvincing in the book, and I'm grateful for the phantom's end in the final release where Chaney gets to do that fabulous bit with his clenched fist.

Gordon Thomas

[Mike Gebert]

Erik, like Darth Vader, is much more interesting with as little backstory as possible.

[ClayKing]

Here are two screencaps of the Phantom "voice" from the talkie reel 5:

[gordonovitch]

Erik, like Darth Vader, is much more interesting with as little backstory as possible.

Yes! Now that I've subjugated myself to reading the novel, I couldn't agree more.

Gordon Thomas

[Jack Theakston]

I reviewed the BFI blu-ray last night and was not impressed. The transfer of the Eastman House print is sharp, but marred horribly by the tinting. It's hard to tell, but the Technicolor and Handschiegl scenes seem to be cut in from PAL rather than re-transferred. D'Arcy Corrigan as the Man with the Lantern is still clipped, as are the original end credits (arg!) The Lantern Man sequence is at least thrown in as an extra, and is clear enough that you can almost make out what he’s saying.

The 1925 version is as clear a transfer as is going to come from one of those Movie Wonderland dupes. Generally speaking it looks good, although a lot of the blemishes could have been cleaned up if a little money had been thrown at it. It's still straight B&W, not tinted. The piano score by Ed Bussey is uninspired, and doesn't even source the Gounod music at the appropriate points. The man with the lantern, who is part of the original film, and whom Photoplay still seems to think is from the 1930 sound re-issue, is completely eliminated in a sloppy video edit. I guess Photoplay really hates that man and his lantern.

Both trailers are included in new, clearer transfers, which is a delight to see. The sound re-issue trailer has a different track than the Milestone transfer of it, both of which I’m fairly certain have been cobbled together from the film’s soundtrack discs expressly for those video presentations.

The thing to buy this set for is the 11-minute excerpt from the 1930 re-issue. It starts out with a cut-in (I think) from the Photoplay restoration and leads into the actual footage. What is something of a revelation is that the continuity of the dressing room scene is changed. In the original, and in the Eastman House print (and even the sound trailer), Raoul enters Christine’s dressing room first, hides in it, and then she comes in and goes through the mirror. The way they reshot it, she goes through the mirror, followed by the previous shot of Raoul entering her room, which is intercut with a 1930 Norman Kerry coming into her dressing room, tripping on a rug, looking around and then leaving. I’m not sure why they did this other than perhaps to have a brief moment where Mary Philbin is talking as she’s going through the mirror. As was speculated and we can now see, that is indeed Phillips Smalley as the Phantom’s emissary and a very unconvincing double for Chaney casting his shadow on the wall. I'm fairly certain this is supposed to be another character rather than the D'Arcy Corrigan character or the Rat Catcher, otherwise they would have likely re-shot those scenes, too. The transfer of the track is quite clear and is at the correct speed—there’s even a moment where you can hear one of the orchestra players cough. About 3/4 into the reel, the Photoplay edition fills in the missing part of the end of the reel.

Also unusual in the extant 1930 reel are the intertitles, which are the same as the Eastman House print. In another surviving segment of this re-issue as well as the Technicolor segment (also from a 1930 print), the titles are re-written and re-set in a Roman font rather than the then-usual Pastel intertitle font.

[Great Hierophant]

I reviewed the BFI blu-ray last night and was not impressed. The transfer of the Eastman House print is sharp, but marred horribly by the tinting. It's hard to tell, but the Technicolor and Handschiegl scenes seem to be cut in from PAL rather than re-transferred. D'Arcy Corrigan as the Man with the Lantern is still clipped, as are the original end credits (arg!) The Lantern Man sequence is at least thrown in as an extra, and is clear enough that you can almost make out what he’s saying.

The 1925 version is as clear a transfer as is going to come from one of those Movie Wonderland dupes. Generally speaking it looks good, although a lot of the blemishes could have been cleaned up if a little money had been thrown at it. It's still straight B&W, not tinted. The piano score by Ed Bussey is uninspired, and doesn't even source the Gounod music at the appropriate points. The man with the lantern, who is part of the original film, and whom Photoplay still seems to think is from the 1930 sound re-issue, is completely eliminated in a sloppy video edit. I guess Photoplay really hates that man and his lantern.

Both trailers are included in new, clearer transfers, which is a delight to see. The sound re-issue trailer has a different track than the Milestone transfer of it, both of which I’m fairly certain have been cobbled together from the film’s soundtrack discs expressly for those video presentations.

The thing to buy this set for is the 11-minute excerpt from the 1930 re-issue. It starts out with a cut-in (I think) from the Photoplay restoration and leads into the actual footage. What is something of a revelation is that the continuity of the dressing room scene is changed. In the original, and in the Eastman House print (and even the sound trailer), Raoul enters Christine’s dressing room first, hides in it, and then she comes in and goes through the mirror. The way they reshot it, she goes through the mirror, followed by the previous shot of Raoul entering her room, which is intercut with a 1930 Norman Kerry coming into her dressing room, tripping on a rug, looking around and then leaving. I’m not sure why they did this other than perhaps to have a brief moment where Mary Philbin is talking as she’s going through the mirror. As was speculated and we can now see, that is indeed Phillips Smalley as the Phantom’s emissary and a very unconvincing double for Chaney casting his shadow on the wall. I'm fairly certain this is supposed to be another character rather than the D'Arcy Corrigan character or the Rat Catcher, otherwise they would have likely re-shot those scenes, too. The transfer of the track is quite clear and is at the correct speed—there’s even a moment where you can hear one of the orchestra players cough. About 3/4 into the reel, the Photoplay edition fills in the missing part of the end of the reel.

Also unusual in the extant 1930 reel are the intertitles, which are the same as the Eastman House print. In another surviving segment of this re-issue as well as the Technicolor segment (also from a 1930 print), the titles are re-written and re-set in a Roman font rather than the then-usual Pastel intertitle font.

This certainly whets my appetite to see the new disc, despite its limitations. The porting over from the PAL would seem to explain the windowboxed presentation of the Technicolor sequence. Ovbiously this edition is really based off work that is almost twenty years old (the 1996 Photoplay Restoration) at this point.

The audio track disc for the 1929 re-release trailer has not survived.

The Man with a Lantern is briefly included in the Hampton-derived 1925 version, but whether audiences in 1925 actually saw him is an open question. The title card with "The PHANTOM OF THE OPERA" merging together is a 1929 innovation. Someone could have put the Man with a Lantern in there by mistake, as he appears so briefly.

[Jack Theakston]

Ovbiously this edition is really based off work that is almost twenty years old (the 1996 Photoplay Restoration) at this point.

It's based off of it, but it doesn't mean they couldn't have done better. The colorized pieces, for example, could have been in hi-def by laying the chroma channel onto the new HD transfer. And I don't understand why the Technicolor section wasn't newly-sourced.

The Man with a Lantern is briefly included in the Hampton-derived 1925 version, but whether audiences in 1925 actually saw him is an open question. The title card with "The PHANTOM OF THE OPERA" merging together is a 1929 innovation. Someone could have put the Man with a Lantern in there by mistake, as he appears so briefly.

I doubt it. He shows up after the opening narrative titles and there's a medium shot of him that's not in the Eastman House print. And he's not in the 1930 version at all. I think people got the impression that it was supposed to be a sound sequence just based on the fact that in the Eastman House print, there's a long, extended take of him talking.

[David Alp]

I think it's one of the dupes. I don't know how to properly describe it, but there are segments of the opening titles where the Show-at-Home stops, and then we see the last frame printed for a couple seconds. The lighter damage on the evident dupe continues, but the heavy wear of the Show-at-Home stays frozen in time until it suddenly starts back up again. The "Produced in its entirety at Universal City, California" title also seems to be a flash frame, I guess, as the Show-at-Home damage is frozen for the entire duration with only the apparent dupe's wear visible.

Yes I see what you mean Allen regarding flash frames with different writing!! At 00:03 there are two frames directly underneath the writing: "NORMAN KERRY" - (so it goes along the top of the Paris building) "Celebrated Novel By Gaston Leroux" (but it is NOT in the same font or format as what is shown at 00:01 , and also you have to pause it really quickly to find it!!!!!! It's only partially visible for literally one or two frames, and as it was either fading in or fading out it is difficult to read! And you have to be ever so fast with the pause button to find it! I thought it read "Based Brated novel By Gaston Leroy" for awhile??? I just couldn't work it out!

[Jack Theakston]

"Carl Laemmle presents"

[Michael O'Regan]

One basic question:
If I have the Reelclassics set, do I need this?

[Great Hierophant]

One basic question:
If I have the Reelclassics set, do I need this?

For the newly discovered Reel 5 of the Talkie version, yes. All other visual material should exist on the Reelclassics DVD. However, any of the Blu-ray editions will show a marked improvement in video quality for the Eastman House print. First, because it is being shown in hi-def, and second because Reelclassics only had access to 16mm film.

[ClayKing]

Back in the early 'sixties Grigg's Moviedrome sold 8mm prints of 'Phantom (possibly 16mm as well). I believe their version was the one I rented from Willougbhy or Peerless, huge camera stores in Manhattan. I seem to recall a music credit (to two people) and in my adolescent naivety wondered why there would be such a credit for a silent film. Is it possible the film had the original titles for the 1930 talkie version? Please don't suggest that my memory from 50 years ago is foggy

[Great Hierophant]

Back in the early 'sixties Grigg's Moviedrome sold 8mm prints of 'Phantom (possibly 16mm as well). I believe their version was the one I rented from Willougbhy or Peerless, huge camera stores in Manhattan. I seem to recall a music credit (to two people) and in my adolescent naivety wondered why there would be such a credit for a silent film. Is it possible the film had the original titles for the 1930 talkie version? Please don't suggest that my memory from 50 years ago is foggy

It is not impossible, but perhaps the credit was for John Griggs, who provided a voice for the Man with a Lantern, and Lee Ervin, who provided the organ score. You wouldn't have heard it if your print did not have an optical or magnetic soundtrack.

[ClayKing]

Back in the early 'sixties Grigg's Moviedrome sold 8mm prints of 'Phantom (possibly 16mm as well). I believe their version was the one I rented from Willougbhy or Peerless, huge camera stores in Manhattan. I seem to recall a music credit (to two people) and in my adolescent naivety wondered why there would be such a credit for a silent film. Is it possible the film had the original titles for the 1930 talkie version? Please don't suggest that my memory from 50 years ago is foggy

It is not impossible, but perhaps the credit was for John Griggs, who provided a voice for the Man with a Lantern, and Lee Ervin, who provided the organ score. You wouldn't have heard it if your print did not have an optical or magnetic soundtrack.

They were Universal's titles, and at that time I don't recall Griggs offering anything on the title with mag or optical sound. The credits were near the bottom of other technical credits such as photography, editing, as I recall. Perhaps someone who still has a Griggs print can satisfy my curiosity or correct my memory.

[Great Hierophant]

Ask at http://www.reelclassicdvd.com/silent_era.htm" target="_blank.

[Jack Theakston]

Rich, Thunderbird offered a print-down of the Eastman House print, but they also offered a one-reel cut-down under their "Silent Screams" banner of the abduction/unmasking sequence from a 1930 print complete with re-written/re-set titles and missing shot of Chaney rubbing his hands together as he sits down at the organ. As far as I know, they never reprinted the rest, and I always wondered what happened to that print.

[Great Hierophant]

I got my BFI disc today, and have the following comments to make :

The amount of real 1929 footage, with 1929 Philbin and Kerry and the Phantom's servant is just about one minute. The rest of the footage is the same footage that can be seen in the Eastman House Print. The tinted footage in the sequence on the disk is taken directly from their full restoration, anything in B&W was taken from the Library of Congress.

The Man with a Lantern is shown without tint and at 24fps, so if anyone fancies themselves a good lip-reader, now is the time to try and figure out what he is trying to say. However, if you want those few seconds of him in the Hampton Print, you need to find another version.

I know continuity was going to be a problem, but whoever Mary Philbin's hairstylist was in 1929 should have been fired. Her closely cropped hairstyle in the 1929 footage makes her look fifteen years older instead of five. Similarly, Kerry's shot with him tripping over the rug was something that clearly called for a second take. At least Kerry still looks good. The silent vs. the sound speeds give the film a very hyperkinetic look. Considering the strangeness of what this version must have looked like in its entirety "goat-glanding" (a nuttier form of quakery is hard to find) is a very apt term to describe these reissued talkies. I can only imagine what Birth of a Nation must have looked like when it was converted.

The Photoplay Eastman House Restoration did not need to boost some of the tints in an oversaturated manner.

The HD scan of the Hampton Print makes that print far more watchable than any other disc I have seen, even if there are some odd freeze frames of some of the titles in the beginning. I think this probably has something to do with the removal of the man with a lantern and keeping the score in sync. These piano scores on these Blu-rays are no patch on Mirsalis' magnificent score for the Hampton Print on the Milestone DVD.

Weird that even though Photoplay Productions was behind this disc, there are so few of the extras from the Milestone disc, which they were also a large part. No audio commentary, no use of the sound discs outside Reel 5, no image galleries or interviews. On the other hand there is a booklet and a documentary on Chaney.

[milefilms]

Weird that even though Photoplay Productions was behind this disc, there are so few of the extras from the Milestone disc, which they were also a large part. No audio commentary, no use of the sound discs outside Reel 5, no image galleries or interviews. On the other hand there is a booklet and a documentary on Chaney.

The bonus features and sound discs on Milestone's (our) DVD were all produced by the wonderful Scott MacQueen for our release with the assistance of Greg Kimble, Rob Farr, and dozens of other people. It was my idea to hire Jon Mirsalis for the 1925 version's score, but that didn't take much brains on my part. Jon's score is marvelous.

[radiotelefonia]

A pan regional ad (examples from Canada and Australia):

[David Alp]

Okay, so I have finally watched my BFI blu-ray of "Phantom Of The Opera" and have to agree with Jack that I was not blown away by it. There are pro's and con's to the movie/package as a whole.

Pro's:

1- When we see the 1930 version of the movie, and they are not using the tinting, it is the clearest I have ever seen "Phantom"! It truly is amazing how clear it is. The high definition really is good and as long as the tinting is either yellow, gold, sepia, or just plain old black and white it is fantastic picture quality.

2- It is nice to finally have a decent black and white print of the 1925 version on blu-ray. I am SO pleased they included the original 1925 version on the blu-ray disc, and not on one of the DVD's.

Con's

1- When we see the 1930 version of the movie and they use the colour tinting of Red, Blue or Purple it is totally over-saturated and I cannot see the actors expressions on their faces? In fact I can't see much detail at all; for example the final scene when the Phantom is caught by the mob in the streets of Paris. He clenches his fist as if he has something inside it! The scene is over-saturated blue. He opens his hand and reveals that it was a trick, there is nothing inside his hand at all, and the mob get him. The scene was ruined by the blue saturation of colour. Unless its my TV settings?

2- No commentary track at all!? Why is this? On the previous version of "Phantom" we had a commentary track by Scott McQueen.

3- No alternate music/effects track either. On the Milestone DVD from a few years ago we had that really interesting 1930 "hybrid" music/talking & Effects track that was added. (For example one of the ballerina's was heard to say "Oh did you hear that - he had no nose" and it was (as best as possible) synchronized with the lips of the actors. We don't get that track with this blu-ray?

4- We get a total of 3 Discs in the package, but only one of them is a blu-ray?? The other 2 are DVD's. Why is this? (I have to admit I still need to check what is on the DVD's so watch this space).

5- On the "Extra" "Reel 5 from the lost 1929 sound re-issue" (have they got that year right? I have been advised on here there was no 1929 sound re-issue; only a 1930 re-issue?) Anyway I digress; there are only three sentences spoken in the entire 12 minutes??????? And only one sentence is synchronized to lips: "Come through the mirror, have no fear." (by the Phantoms emissary). Sadly Mary Philbins' dialogue plays out over black screen as the picture portion has not survived. The rest of the 11 minutes are silent, with just sound effects such as the water splashing, the clip clop of the horses hooves, etc.

6- The Technicolor sequence is in a boxed off presentation for some reason? It has black bars at top and bottom?


Anyway; to sum up, I am glad to have this blu-ray, but my absolute favourite version of "Phantom" is still the "Ultimate Edition" MILESTONE hybrid DVD with the 1930 music and the brief "talkie" sequences and the sound effects (also from 1930).

[Great Hierophant]

As I try to explain further elsewhere, http://nerdlypleasures.blogspot.com/201 ... opera.html" target="_blank, I no longer prefer to use the terms "1925 version" or "1929 version" to refer to the versions of this film. I find these terms to be too imprecise when talking about what we actually can see today. It is debatable if the Talkie Re-release, the scenes for which were shot in 1929, was actually released in theaters in the calendar year 1929. Then when you talk about either the international sound version with the Man with a Lantern or the domestic silent re-release version, which could have been released in 1930, it gets even more complicated. Instead, I simply call this the (George) Eastman (House) Print. For what is commonly referred to as the "1925 version", but which is not 100% accurate to anything audiences saw in 1925-1926, I call that the (John) Hampton (Show-at-Home Duplications Compilation) Print. Both titles refer to the source from which the film elements derive.

[Gaucho]

Dennis - are there plans to (re)release the Milestone version on BD?

Happy New Year all