In remaking Universal's monster movies, Hammer's films tend to stand out for their emphasis on bosoms, gore and Technicolor. Since Universal had already made an Oscar-winning Technicolor version of "Phantom of the Opera" (1943), that left only the other two factors to distinguish this one; yet, for the most part, Hammer ignored them in this case. There's one gory scene where a rat catcher is stabbed in the eye, which may be the best part, but has nothing to do with the rest of the narrative. The rest of which is surprisingly tame and dull--partly reworking the story of the 1943 picture, which was already a big departure from Gaston Leroux's novel, for the worse I'd argue, and otherwise adding elements that transform the Phantom into not-such-a-bad guy. That's one of the last things I wanted to see, especially after Claude Rains had already made the character into a tragic and pathetic halfwit, and Andrew Lloyd Webber's later adaptation (made into a movie in 2004) altered him into a romantic figure. Here, Hammer gives us a Phantom who's mostly a victim and who otherwise helps Christine.
In the 1943 version, a misunderstanding had Rains's "Erique Claudin" believe his music was being stolen, which ended up with acid disfiguring his face. Hammer adjusts this, in a story that we're first told and later shown via flashback, to its "Professor" actually having his music stolen, resulting in acid disfiguring his face. The stolen music plot would later be reused again, to better effect, in "Phantom of the Paradise" (1974). Thankfully, Hammer didn't reuse the storyline of Erique living in poverty to anonymously support Christine's singing lessons; instead, the Professor has his hunchback assistant abduct her so he may provide lessons to her himself in his subterranean lair. Sourcing out an abduction is the worst thing that the Phantom definitively does here, except for, perhaps, slapping her, and unlike in the book and other adaptations, there's no indication of sexual perversity to it. It's just about the stupid music. The baddies here are the underdeveloped hunchback, with his random acts of violence, and the producer who stole credit for the opera and uses its lead to lure starlets to his casting couch.
The opera, however, is a lousy musical rendition of the tragedy of Joan of Arc. It replaces "Faust" in the original story, which was an apt play-within-a-play because it reflected the main outer narrative. John of Arc, on the other hand, has nothing to do with the main story about the Phantom or the romance between Christine and Harry (standing in for the original Raoul), which actually occupies most of the runtime. At most, it alludes to the story's French origins. This is the same problem that the 1943 version had with its irrelevant opera, although, at least, that production had actual trained opera singers. Both films also remove the use of mirrors in entering the Phantom's lair, although this one adds a scene where Harry plays with a peephole film flipbook, which partially replaces the self-reflexive aspect of the mirrors.
That the opera house (the real Wimbledom Theatre in London) is substantially smaller than the recreated Palais Garnier built for the 1925 Universal film and reused for the 1943 version doesn't help this one stand out in a crowded field of cinematic adaptations, either. Compared to the unnecessary additional villains and de-vilification of the Phantom, the opera setting is the least of the production's problems.
Also of note, Bach's "Toccata and Fugue in D minor" was likely associated with the Phantom as early as the 1925 silent film, as, reportedly, the piece had early on become a cliché in horror films, but this seems to be the first Phantom to include it within a synchronized score, and the association has continued with a variation of it in the 2004 movie.
In the 1943 version, a misunderstanding had Rains's "Erique Claudin" believe his music was being stolen, which ended up with acid disfiguring his face. Hammer adjusts this, in a story that we're first told and later shown via flashback, to its "Professor" actually having his music stolen, resulting in acid disfiguring his face. The stolen music plot would later be reused again, to better effect, in "Phantom of the Paradise" (1974). Thankfully, Hammer didn't reuse the storyline of Erique living in poverty to anonymously support Christine's singing lessons; instead, the Professor has his hunchback assistant abduct her so he may provide lessons to her himself in his subterranean lair. Sourcing out an abduction is the worst thing that the Phantom definitively does here, except for, perhaps, slapping her, and unlike in the book and other adaptations, there's no indication of sexual perversity to it. It's just about the stupid music. The baddies here are the underdeveloped hunchback, with his random acts of violence, and the producer who stole credit for the opera and uses its lead to lure starlets to his casting couch.
The opera, however, is a lousy musical rendition of the tragedy of Joan of Arc. It replaces "Faust" in the original story, which was an apt play-within-a-play because it reflected the main outer narrative. John of Arc, on the other hand, has nothing to do with the main story about the Phantom or the romance between Christine and Harry (standing in for the original Raoul), which actually occupies most of the runtime. At most, it alludes to the story's French origins. This is the same problem that the 1943 version had with its irrelevant opera, although, at least, that production had actual trained opera singers. Both films also remove the use of mirrors in entering the Phantom's lair, although this one adds a scene where Harry plays with a peephole film flipbook, which partially replaces the self-reflexive aspect of the mirrors.
That the opera house (the real Wimbledom Theatre in London) is substantially smaller than the recreated Palais Garnier built for the 1925 Universal film and reused for the 1943 version doesn't help this one stand out in a crowded field of cinematic adaptations, either. Compared to the unnecessary additional villains and de-vilification of the Phantom, the opera setting is the least of the production's problems.
Also of note, Bach's "Toccata and Fugue in D minor" was likely associated with the Phantom as early as the 1925 silent film, as, reportedly, the piece had early on become a cliché in horror films, but this seems to be the first Phantom to include it within a synchronized score, and the association has continued with a variation of it in the 2004 movie.