Dario Argento spent years trying to bring his version of The Phantom of the Opera to life.
Argento has said that he’s always been fascinated by the story of the mysterious and deformed man living underneath the Paris Opera. He has described watching Arthur Lubin’s 1943 version of the tale as one of the formative events of his childhood. In the ’70s, when he was at the height of his popularity, Argento sought to film his own version of the story in Moscow. When that didn’t work out, Argento put his plans for the Phantom aside. It wasn’t until he was filming Trauma and caught a television airing of the 1925 Phantom of the Opera that Argento returned to the project. Argento’s version of The Phantom of the Opera was released in 1998 and was dismissed by most critics. Even today, it has a reputation for being Argento’s worst film. It’s also not an easy one to see. Whereas most of Argento’s films are always streaming somewhere, The Phantom of the Opera usually is not.
Argento’s Phantom of the Opera opens in Paris in the 19th century. A baby is placed in a basket and, much like Moses, is set adrift in a river. A group of empathetic rats save the baby. The baby grows up to be the Phantom of the Opera (Julian Sands), a classically handsome man who lives in the sewers and protects the rats from anyone who might try to harm them. (Just as rats are killed if they leave the sewers, humans are killed if they enter them.) After the Phantom hears Christine Daaé (Asia Argento) singing alone on the stage of the Paris Opera, he approaches her in the empty theater and tells her that her singing has brought light to his heart. The Phantom and Christine develop a telepathic bond, and she becomes the only person whom he allows to enter the sewers and live. Sometimes Christine loves the Phantom and sometimes she doesn’t. Sometimes the Phantom is a tragically romantic figure and sometimes he’s just a black-clad figure who bites people’s tongues out of their mouths. The Phantom becomes obsessed with Christine, and Christine becomes just as obsessed with the Phantom. Meanwhile, Christine’s other suitor—the aristocratic Raoul (Andrea Di Stefano)—smokes opium, hallucinates that Christine has turned into a prostitute, and languidly watches as two men jump into a pool and fight over the merits of Rimbaud. Painter Edgar Degas makes a cameo appearance but manages to avoid the Phantom’s wrath.
As I mentioned earlier, The Phantom of the Opera is not one of Argento’s more highly regarded films. It’s a slow-paced film, one in which the action often seems to go off on strange tangents that don’t really pay off in the long run. (The opium den brings to mind the deliberately ugly orgy scenes that Tinto Brass directed for Caligula, just without the subversive snap.) Argento attempts to portray the Phantom as both an achingly romantic figure and the type of sociopath who brutally kills anyone who enters the sewer. If he were only killing the rat catchers, the Phantom’s actions could be understood. But as soon as he kills two lovers who just happened to be looking for some privacy, it becomes impossible to sympathize with him. Argento’s attempt to portray The Phantom of the Opera as a story of romance sits uncomfortably with scenes in which the Phantom forces himself on Christine.
That said, I actually like Julian Sands’s performance as the Phantom. Argento’s Phantom is not disfigured in any way and, while that may go against the spirit of the story, at least it means Julian Sands didn’t have to wear a mask while filming his role. Sands exudes a cool, sexy danger, and that makes him just right for Argento’s version of the character. Asia Argento plays Christine as someone who only looks innocent, and it does bring an interesting subtext to the story. Indeed, if not for the prologue featuring the rats saving the Phantom as a baby, one could interpret the Phantom as a manifestation of Christine’s own psychosis. As for the rats, they are yet another example of Argento suggesting that animals have special telepathic powers. For all the criticism Argento has taken for the mystical animals he has included in his later films, it appears to be an idea Argento really likes. Personally, I think there’s a quirky charm to it, but I seem to be in the minority.
I can defend elements of The Phantom of the Opera, but I can’t really defend the film as a whole. It’s a bit too cluttered in its storytelling, and the mix of grand romance and brutal violence doesn’t really work. If this film had been made earlier in Argento’s career, perhaps he could have recreated the grandeur of Paris, but at a time when his films were no longer automatic box-office hits and when the Italian film industry itself was struggling, The Phantom of the Opera often looks cheap and unconvincing. Every director has the occasional misfire. Dario Argento has The Phantom of the Opera.
The (Reviewed) Films of Dario Argento:
