#lon chaney erik

[achildsfirstsorrow]

Quick Chaney in my style, he’s gotta be one of my faves 🖤

[blackghostm2oart]

Really stupid idea of different phantoms interacting (Lon Chaney’s, Leroux’s and Gerik)

You can actually see my art gradually getting worse, lmao. I did cook with the first pic tho

Caption: *Late at night minding his own business*

Leroux!Erik is a bit of an ass :)

“Mon dieu! I’m a quite handsome fella compared to you!”

A reasonable response:

And then we have this clueless mf being ✨sMeXy✨

“Bonne nuit, moiseurs.”

Leroux!Erik: “Let’s kill him”

LonChaney!Erik: “Oui” in French Sign Language

Gerik: “W-What!!!”

So… I like to hc Lon Chaney’s Erik as mute (how could he have teached Christine? I have no clue honestly, heh) simply because they couldn’t get Lon Chaney’s voice in the dubbed version of PotO 1925 :)

[anithemonsterlover]

...we need more chaney erik fan content, i said it.

[femmeleatherface]

this random detail in the silent film version of poto is interesting

it makes me wonder if this is a holdover from the original, pre-whitewashed cut and was supposed to imply that the daroga is maybe renting box 5 for erik. there are other interpretations of whose name this could be of course (chief of which being erik is using a pseudonymn), but idk, it's a fun idea! it would align with what the film was doing using the daroga as a red herring for the phantom, and their original connection before the whitewashing happened

[strangelittlelad]

So I was thinking about it and-

[phantomato13]

Was rewatching Phantom of the Opera (1925) with my brother and he made the stupidest joke ever. Imagine Lon Chaney's Erik wearing a diaper cause he's too busy playing his organ 😭😭

[thyfore]

He’s very “gongeous” to me

[chaptertwo-thepacnw]

the phantom |2024|

[secretsofthewilde]

Hey wtf do you mean next year will be 100 years since we got a mainstream book accurate film adaptation of The Phantom of the Opera?

[festerwounds]

lon chaney phantom i will love you 4ever

[tortoise-n33ds-purpose]

Erik Does the "Shoulder Touch"

[anithemonsterlover]

Overall thoughts and opinions on the most famous Phantom adaptations / most famous Eriks

Because these things are fun, i thought maybe it could be interesting for me to reunite my overall thoughts on the most popular adaptations, because everybody has opinions on them (and maybe my takes are super cold and vanilla). Still, it's fun!

I'm also gonna go with the most popular because there are like a million Phantom adaptations and I don't have the energy to rank them all. (i'm also mostly doing the ones that are series / shows / musicals- the books i would pretty much mostly mention the Leroux OG and Kay, and i'm already going somewhere with the second one). (Forgive me all Ken Hill / Song at Midnight / MazM fans)

-The 1925 silent film with Lon Chaney: I'm really biased, but I admit this is my favorite Phantom adaptation, even if i know as a film it's rather limited by the constraints of the era (bad acting, slow pacing, the weird whitewashing of the Persian etc etc). It downplays the tragic romantic elements of the story (Christine is very one-dimensional and seems more afraid of Erik than empathetic), and Erik is written a little too "generic evil villain", but there are elements to suggest that there's more to Erik than meets the eye, and why he's an engaging figure in the first place. Yeah, like most, i hate the ending, but it's saved by overall faithfulness to the novel (he's born deformed! he has a death's head! he has a life of tragedy! he loves Christine! you can't imagine the number of adaptations that don't get these simple things RIGHT), and the subtle moments Chaney adds to make his Erik more three dimensional (the moment in the Apollo's Lyre scene where he holds his mouth in pain lives in my head rent free) It has my favorite movie Erik, and that's all that matters to me. <3 8/10

-The 1943 film with Claude Rains: I always call this film "missed potential". It looks beautiful, it sounds beautiful, it has good quotes, I like the film delving more into Christine's character; but the Abbott and Costello comedy of the two Raouls is out of place, and the writing of Erique is kinda of a mess (and considering he's the most important character in POTO...YEAH a good adaptation depends a lot on his writing). You don't really understand what is his connection with Christine, and how his initial sympathetic scenes kinda clash with his more violent streak (he gets thrown acid in the first place because he kills a man pre-Phantom); making the character come off as a little inconsistent and not as sympathetic as he should be. This movie also started the "disfigured in an accident, no Persian" versions of Phantom that I feel kinda cheapen the story later on (a lifetime of tragedy is what shaped Erik, not "one bad day"). A real shame, because Rains carries an elegance to Erik that I think helps with the imagery of the character (a monster trying so much to be "human"). Hmm...6.5/10

-The 1962 with Herbert Lom. This one also changes a bit, and normally i'd be bitching and moaning about it, but i prefer the changes here to the Claude Rains version since they're more consistent in portraying Erik's character. You feel for his music being stolen, and want to see this artist have such a simple dream as seeing his creation come true. People don't like it erases his obsession with Christine, but i think here it works, since you can believe his passion for his art is what drives him. (Also, i think this movie is what started the trend of Phantom adaptations having another villain, which is something explored better in Phantom of the Paradise). It doesn't look as nice as the Claude Rains film, tho, and something in the acting stops it from going the most. 6/10

-Phantom of the Paradise: A BLAST. It changes a lot about the source material, but considering even the setting is different, everything works to its advantage. Winslow is the first Phantom that really delves well into the "tragic monster" element of the character, with even his violent tendencies being a consistent trait from the start of the story (he attacks Philbin for making an inoffensive comment about the Juicy Fruits). The imagery is distinctive, Swan is a very compelling villain, and the songs are fantastic. Winslow's sacrifice, like Lindsay Ellis said, is simply a progression from his acts in the novel (yes, I believe Erik would sacrifice himself to guarantee Christine's safety, post development). What only sucks is that I don't feel you buy Winslow's passion for Christine / Phoenix, and she comes off as inconsistent in her ambition and not as empathetic (still, she sings very nicely and I love that the actress resembles Mary Philbin (1925 Christine) at times). Also while the Faustian elements add to the movie, i'm not sure how they can relate to Erik's' character in general (not to mention the Dorian Gray element). Also the pacing in the last 10 minutes is rushed and kinda sucks. But still...As a movie? It's my favorite. 9/10

-The Maximilliam Schell 1983 made for TV film: My least favorite, and it all has to do with how slow and dull the pacing is, you just don't get the sense of dread or tragedy. The reincarnated wife subplot is really random, and it makes Sandor pathetic and delusional instead of empathetic and tragic. And i'll take bad over boring any day of the week. 2/10

-ALW's musical (add here the 25th version too): Oh ho ho, the one piece of media that got us all into Phantom I think. It's a big, bombastic musical, and you can see the appeal. While i don't like some characters are turned more one-dimensional (Raoul, Christine); I do like how it pushes forward Erik's trauma, and how it has broken him; he's not a good man, no, but not a monster, either. And this idea that abuse victims can turn cruel as well...But, you know, they still deserve love. Perhaps they always did! And the focus on the romance which puritans complain about...Boy you will not be ready to hear me when i tell you the original novel implies Christine is indeed into both Raoul and Erik, for different reasons lol. I dont like the omission of the Persian, but I like that this cements that again, Erik wasn't a rando who one day snapped, it was a life of tragedy that turned him into what he is....We can dislike it, we can like it, but we can admit it has influenced our perception of the story in more ways than one. 8/10.

-The 1988 cartoon: The most faithful adaptation of the novel is also the cheapest movie of the bunch. Whew lads...Tho I do like Erik's character. He's got the redemption, the deformity, the sense of humor (when i read Erik i often headcanon him having this Erik's voice). I also like Christine, she's not written as a bland damsel, she shows a bit of an attitude. And hey, rare Persian appearance! I even like the ending, with the cast showing compassion towards Erik's misfortune. It's just that the technical limitations of the movie avoid the film from reaching high status. 6.5/10

-1989 with Robert Englund: An unpopular opinion, but I love this film. It's strange in that it's both very faithful to the novel, adapting the gothic horror of the elements, but it changes way too much Erik's character (the crux of the story) into somebody who isn't really tragic or sympathetic. A musician who sells his soul to the devil (an element it took from Phantom of the Paradise...I have the theory that Phantom adaptations take elements from each other more than from the novel) and gains immortality...and kills people for no reason??? Normally, in another adaptation, I would dislike a lot this change, but Englund's interpretation turns the character into more layers than simply a psychopathic asshole. He gets the "allure" and horror of Erik, which is a big part of the character. I feel with a more book accurate backstory, and impulse more the angle of "doomed dark lover" with Christine (yes his love is also...downplayed), this would easily be one of the more popular Eriks. Yeah it steals a lot from Nightmare on Elm Street, but there's an interesting movie in here, amidst the music and the beautiful cinematography...8/10.

-The 1990 miniseries with Charles Dance: Cherik! The phandom darling! This one is strange since i feel it diverges from the novel as much as the Robert Englund version, yet it's one of the most beloved adaptations. It offers an interesting interpretation of Erik, he's not as cruel, but the movie delves more into the aspect of him being a doomed romantic lover. He's not as manipulative to his Christine (i'd argue this is one version of the story where they should've gotten together imo), and has a gentler approach to life. The series takes the element of the book of him having arrested development and runs with it. Still tho, the gentler approach kinda cuts the tragedy of the character; what with loving parents and all being something Erik DIDNT have growing up. The appearance of the father is what dulls the film, and makes Erik come off as more dependent and childish. Still, Charles Dance gives his Erik a quiet dignity, that avoids the character falling into a manchild interpretation. 7/10 (not bad, just that i like my Eriks more lonely and threatening)

-The 1998 film of Dario Argento: Y'all owe Gerard Butler an apology, lol. This is the ONE truly shit adaptation of Phantom, lol. It feels like a fever dream. It's more gross than scary, it's not tragic, it's not romantic, Erik is not in any way sympathetic or complex or alluring...Like the fuck lol. 3/10 (and that 3 is because it makes me laugh...)

-Wishbone "Pantin' at the Opera" episode: Eh, "Phantom for kids", not a interpretation of the story I like, but it's accurate to the novel, which makes it stand out. And it gives Erik a rare happy ending! Tho, as expected since it's for kids, it downplays a lot of the more complex themes. Still...gotta praise the accuracy. 5/10

-2004 with Gerard Butler: I don't think it's as bad as the phandom made it out for years. It could be better, but i think the technical details and the bad makeup are what drag the film down, since it doesn't diverge massively from the story or themes (except the weird grooming thing...ew). This Erik is interesting in that much like Cherik, he grew up inside the Opera House, and it's an unique view of the character, that he's got arrested development due to never leaving his own "house" growing up (a bit of a plot hole then how he learned magic, engineering, architecture, etc etc, but eeeeh). He's also more vulnerable and emotional compared to the stage counterpart, who seems more self assured and angry. It's not horrible, just average, and could be better. 6.5/10

-The cartoon episode of the Triplets with Phantom (aired in the 2000s-something): Phantom for kids again. it's not an interpretation of the story in general that i like (too fluffy for my liking), but this episode gets the points of the story; Christine's complex feelings and Erik's redemption, while still keeping his initial wickedness (he even gets a sorta happy ending! my boy!). also it's funny at times, so there's that. 6/10

-Love Never Dies: This is...frustrating. I'm of the unpopular opinion that a sequel focused on Erik can work, but I feel his story with Christine is over, and dragging it back again just places the characters in square one, their development null. As an original story, it can be a potential good drama, but with these established characters, a lot of the emotions feel forced and manufactured. 5/10

So overall...My favorite versions of Erik and the story are...the musical and Chaney? And Paradise and Robert Englund for the wild out there versions. But there's always something missing, i can't always point to one and go "THAT is the definitive Erik". Erik is a very complex character, made of light and shadows, and the movies never reflect that.

I don't think most of these movies are good, we like them because they're Phantom content, but still, it's interesting to observe how this story has changed reflecting the interests of society at the time being. Before, we wanted this cruel monster punished...Then we turned him into an 80s slasher...And now in the monster fucker era we see him as a potential romantic lead...Huh.

[femmeleatherface]

i tortured myself by reading the poto (1925) shooting script! there were good things and bad things and if i don't infodump about them i will explode

really long and rambly disclaimer: this isn't the original-original draft (which from my understanding is where the rosy hours of mazandaran sequence came from, but don't quote me on that), nor is it the same as the los angeles premiere cut (which from my understanding included the redemptive love ending for erik, which was apparently never scripted and got shot on the fly while they struggled to figure out how to end the film, But Again Do Not Quote Me). that said, you can see traces of the original script and some of the sequences lost with the los angeles premiere cut, and some of the choices made are... interesting!

long post so thoughts under the cut

complete list of items i am mad or at least disappointed we didn't get in some capacity:

the frame narrative. for some reason they had the story come from the files of m. faure instead of anyone actually involved in the narrative like christine or the daroga, but still. would have been cool

a close, honestly sweet relationship between joseph and simon buquet. if you're going to spend so much time focusing on joseph's death, maybe making us care about him is a good thing??? wild concept

la sorelli's knife <3 also just a role for her in general

erik using a trapdoor to spirit away cesar the horse. i don't know if they ever actually filmed this or what since it seems a little complicated, but the way it's written gives me major looney tunes vibes:

130-D ANOTHER PART OF CELLAR #5 OR #6 IF WE HAVE THE SET. MED. SHOT NEAR THE BIG OPERA HOUSE FORGE A groom currying a great white stallion while a Hercules of a smithy is preparing to put new shoes on the stallion. We plant the stallion fastened to a ring bolt in the stone wall by a strap and is parallel with the wall. The blacksmith is holding up the hoof of the great white stallion to measure a shoe, then he moves over to the forge and with his back to the horse pumps the bellows and sings to himself -- then a strange thing happens, a section of the wall and floor upon which the white stallion stands suddenly turns as if upon an axle and the white stallion vanishes leaving apparently the same wall floor and ring bolt - the smithy lifts the red hot shoe from the forge and prepares to hammer it. He casualy looks around toward the place where the horse was, gasps and drops the hammer. Then thinking perhaps one of the stablemen played a joke, he calls to him - they join him and he asks them about the horse.

so! much! daroga!!!! obviously he is the highlight to me. he gets so many more little scenes and i will say they get pretty repetitive after a while (he shows up, is mysterious for a paragraph, leaves, rinse & repeat), so i get why they changed things. but what i find interesting (and most agonizing to lose) about this particular version is that he's shown to be a pretty compassionate man, aloof but overall very kind and caring about others, even before we know what his deal is. he has a scene with raoul where he shoots him a look of "friendly compassion" while raoul is the exact opposite. it's... a wonderful characterization. what the fuck. also i get the sense that he regularly visits erik's house offscreen and maybe every time he's leaving/entering the cellars we are supposed to infer after the fact that he's paying erik a visit. MANY QUESTIONS. anyway this daroga is amazing and wonderful and i love him. we were robbed.

the "erik visible behind the mirror looking at christine" shot before ALW made it cool:

[181.] SEMI C.V. CHRISTINE ON COUCH Suddenly part of the mirror beind her becomes transparent, revealing the upper portion of the masked face.

mme valerius! she's christine's biological grandmother in this script rather than an adoptive mother, but waves hand. her relationship with christine is very sweet. definitely understand why they cut her, though, she shows up in one scene and isn't even mentioned anywhere else. but what she gets is nice

the cemetery at perros scene. it's SO atmospheric and probably was gorgeous-looking in black and white. unlike some of the scenes in this script we know they actually filmed it because we can see extant photos of it and UGH. UGH!!!!! MAD!!!!!!!

erik has a black mask. i get why they didn't do this one too because it wouldn't have shown up well in a black and white medium, but oh... it would have been nice...

the unmasking scene being partially colorized like the bal de masque. i am a sucker for silent film experimentation, this could have been neat

also the rat catcher (as a rat catcher vs. some random guy) having a colorized red scarf around his neck to make him look decapitated. very morbid. love it

the comic relief played by snitz edwards being the guy who touches red death. from a storytelling and filmmaking standpoint it makes sense (brings new characters into the original story, less actors to pay, etc.) and i'm honestly surprised this didn't make it to the final cut. also, erik's "don't touch me i am red death" warning is on his cloak like in the novel and that is one of my favorite book details so it delights me they were originally going to do it in the film

this erik line:

"WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH MY BAG? DON'T YOU KNOW THAT IS THE BAG OF LIFE AND DEATH!"

more understanding of/sympathy for erik from him expressing his desires in general

subjectivity in the torture scene. raoul imagines a forest fire and a lion in his delirium and maybe it wouldn't have worked but i love the stark contrast of that with the daroga's perspective of the frankly banal reality of the torture chamber immediately after (if only because it's a great daroga moment)

also the daroga being more levelheaded during the torture scene in general like in the book. i don't think they necessarily changed this in the final cut, but i do think they shortened the torture scene to a degree and used shots such that the daroga actively searching for a way out based on his preexisting knowledge is a little hard to infer, whereas on the page it is very obvious

this beautiful moment between christine and erik:

[535.] MED CLOSE UP ERICK AND CHRISTINE AMBER Christine gazes up at him earnestly and the picture is held for an instant. Erick realizes that the final moment is at hand and there is sense of terror in his manner. She asks him in a trembling voice: "DO YOU SWEAR TO ME THAT THE SCORPION IS THE ONE TO TURN?" BACK: For the first time Erick shows fear. In a hushed way he answers her: "YES... IF YOU WISH TO BE MY BRIDE." BACK: Quietly she turns from him. [536.] CLOSE UP CHRISTINE AMBER Without an instant's hesitation, but with thorough consciousness of what she is doing she turns the scorpion. [537.] A LONGER SHOT AMBER Erick walks toward her - a man crushed. Christine in this instant has become his master. Christine turns calmly to meet him.

but also i am extremely glad we didn't get these things:

a long, tedious history of the opera house. so much exposition that is mostly not interesting and only barely ties into the story. yawns. we dodged a bullet on this one

just raoul's entire starting characterization. the raoul we got is hardly amazing but wow. this guy is... literally everything raoul is not supposed to be: cool, suave, dashingly romantic, a womanizer. he's basically every 1920s he-man romantic lead and I Do Not Care For It. he gets better the further the script goes along/the closer the script follows the book, but woof. bad. BAD!

reveal of erik's face and the chandelier scene way too early. 35 pages into a 126 page script, or about 30 minutes in if we follow the 1 page = about 1 minute rule. that would have KILLED the suspense of erik's character and undercut the unmasking scene with christine later. and probably also messed with the pacing and sense of stakes. speaking of:

messy pacing. the most egregious offender of this is the beginning. the first fifty pages cover a single night, in which we: meet our characters, introduce the opera ghost concept, get even MORE boring exposition about the opera house, get three "wow the persian is so mysterious who is that guy" moments, set up the plot with erik wanting christine to sing, the murder of joseph buquet (also setting up his relationship with simon so we're sad about joseph biting the dust later), stealing cesare, the chandelier scene, an erik face reveal, raoul finding out about erik, and a whole bunch of other stuff that i can't even remember because it just comes nonstop all at once. the order is... weird, and the story does not benefit because there is just no dang moment to breathe and get to know any of these people. also HOW DOES ERIK HAVE TIME TO DO ALL THIS MAYHEM IN ONE NIGHT. HOW!!!!!!!!

erik's name is erick. for some reason??? it's like they couldn't decide between the eric and erik spellings and just decided to mash them together for... some reason...

subplot with philippe and his wife trying to send raoul to monaco. i do like giving philippe more to do to make his death is more meaningful, but this... is not the way. philippe calls the cops on raoul when he ends up becoming an army deserter, and i get the desire to add stakes, but I Do Not Care About Any Of This

the rising action for the climax is way too complicated. we do not need christine and raoul planning to leave after the bal de masque and then having their plans foiled because raoul gets thrown in prison, only for him to manipulate philippe into letting him out and then give christine a new plan to run away with her after the show, have erik find out about this and be mad because he was the one helped the cops catch raoul at the bal de masque (also he found out about raoul's prison escape and the new runaway plan because erik's apparently a peeping tom who watches christine get dressed in her dressing room, charming), and THEN get to erik kidnapping christine during the performance because apparently he is great at coming up with elaborate kidnapping schemes on the spot. we do not need it. we do not.

the daroga gets less important rather than more important at the end: this is something you can see in the extant versions, but it's especially frustrating in the shooting script because so much of his character was built up, but after the grasshopper and the scorpion sequence he just... exists. becomes one with the mob and that's it. at least in the extant cuts he gets to be the ONE person who ushers in the mob, semi-justifying his presence after he guides raoul to erik's house. in this script he ushers the mob in with simon buquet and raoul (because yes, the mob ending apparently existed in some form dating back to this script if not earlier--UGH!!!!!), which doesn't make the daroga feel really useful or necessary as a character at the end. also he and erik don't even get one scene together in the entire script, which is flabbergasting to me because the trajectory of the story is clearly steering toward some kind of confrontation between them at the end, but nope. my guess this is all a casualty of the constant ending rewrites and the daroga's character being one of the more difficult characters to adapt to 1920s hollywood movie standards, but i'm still mad. this daroga was so good and even during pre-production was getting done so dirty

philippe.... lives????? how did that even happen, what. just what. he went and was drowned but sike! he's alive! what the fuck.

[luneemeritus]

[thyfore]

Every time I look for fanart of this guy I just get the newer Erik’s, where’s the Lon Chaney appreciation.

Also the little thing he’s holding is called a winclet

[mistressofthelair]

Love my boy