I have only seen Lon Chaney and Gerard Butler as the Phantom of the Opera. I have read many times that Claude Reins is the ultimate Phantom, what do you all think.
I haven't seen but I must confess I find it hard to imagine anyone do better than Chaney.
While the 1943 version is technically superior to the 1925 film, Rains is inferior to Chaney for two reasons.
Chaney's phantom was born a hideous creature (according to the book) and his entire life follows that line. By the time he becomes the Phantom of the Opera, he is totally insane, a murderer, and who knows what else. Chaney plays him as a monster, but not without some redeeming humanity, particularly in his relationship with Christine. Even so, he is a fearsome demon.
In the Rains version, Erik is born without disfigurment and becomes a musician/composer. When he believes his music has been stolen by a publisher, he attacks the man and the publisher's secretary throws a pan of photographic developer in his face, thus scarring him with deep burns.
Whereas Chaney was larger than life as the Phantom, Rains sounded like a mewling child caught with his hand in the cookie jar. And it is a shame, really, because Rains had a magnificent voice. Listen to his vocal inflection in The Invisible Man, full of menace and fury. Then listen to him as the Phantom. I think part of the problem was that by 1943, Rains was an A-list actor and was afraid of playing too villainous a role. He undercuts the menace of the character with a malted milk delivery that removes most of the danger so necessary for the character.
Chaney played a full size pipe organ and, even though it was a silent film, it gave him that larger than life dimension as he sat banging away on the key board. Rains played a violin and that does not conjure up images of a majestic monster lurking in the shadows ready to pounce on the unwary passerby.
If I seem hash on the subject of the 1943 film, it is only because so much of it disappoints after the first viewing when you realize the Phantom is basically buried beneath pages of operatic music and light comedy (courtesy of the two male suitors for Christine's hand).
As disappointing as it may be, it is still worth the purchase price of the dvd and is infinitely better than the terrible Hammer remake of 1962.
Personally, I prefer the 1943 Rains version of the phantom. I don't really see him as childish mewling with his hand caught in any cookie jar.
It's the overall take on the character that I think works in this film.
As you've said, the silent Chaney phantom movie was based largely on the Leroux novel, where the phantom was already a monster of sorts, and there are lots of other figures running around the cellars of the opera house besides Erik. His past was merely hinted at in the movie, but he did have a nice long run devising torture chambers for persian queens, and so forth. In short, he was for a long time already a monster by the time he came to the opera house.
The '43 film gave him a completely different origin, and left his motivations up to debate: whether or not he was was merely infatuated with Christine, or was in fact someone from her home country, possibly even her father, or other relative.
Motivations aside, in the '43 movie, before he became the Phantom he was no monster. He was portrayed as a meek character, somewhat loopy, hard on his luck and possibly near the verge of some sort of breakdown. When he percieved his life's work as being stolen, he snapped and actually killed someone. After that murderous outburst, the acid scarring completes his deconstruction. I believe the '43 version of the Phantom works best when you take into account what the character was before, and what he became. What does it take for a grown man to go from a meek violinist to a costumed terrorist? How would a formerly meek individual behave after they've snapped, and started wearing said costume?
My favorite shots from the '43 movie are those wide shots where we see him simply standing there, in the cellars, listening to the performance above. I also liked his little twitches and pauses when he was looking around before he started cutting the chain that held the chandelier. There was lots of little body language throughout the film to indicate he was nuts. And I always grin when I get to the part towards the end where he gushes on in a happy way to a terrified Christine about how the dark is friendly. He really was far gone.
I'll readily agree, however, that the '43 movie was TOTALLY mired in those two prancing fools competing over Christine, almost to the extent that they completely overshadow the phantom himself. I'll always say the best parts were the phantom himself, because I like Rain's take on crazy. It ultimately proved to be a quiet, steady, calm kind of crazy, which in many ways can be more frightening than a raving psychotic.
They are both good for different reasons, Even the Herbert Lom which is essentially a remake of this one, as oppsed to the Lon Chaney one or a filmed version of the novel.
If you want a more noble Phantom this is the best one. If you want for lack of a better word Doomsday watch Herbert Lom. If you want pure sadism and longing, watch Chaney's.
I actually think that the Robert Englund version sticks a lot closer to the original novel than most people give it credit for. Englund stayed true to the villain. I can care less of the setting is changed as long as the characters resemble the personalities.
It's not a necessity that these things stick verbatum to the novel....when you have a classic story such as this that will undoubtedly be continued to be remade and retold in the future, it's interesting to have slightly different perspectives and adaptations of the same story.
I find it difficult to compare the 1925 and 1943 films due to the technical limitations of the 1925 silent film - and maybe that's just me not being used to silent films. The title cards and frequent cuts make it feel like a glorified comic strip. However I do enjoy the tone of the 1925 silent film and Lon Cheney's genuinely hair-raising appearance/performance.
I of course like Claude Rains from 'The Invisible Man' and 'The Wolf Man'.....I wouldn't say his performance is like a child with a hand in the cookie jar - I think maybe they were trying to show somebody obsessed with a passion. That's what turns him into a monster. They tried to make the 1943 version a little more "family" friendly maybe? They obviously have some comic relief in there - that sort of slapstick comedy certainly wasn't uncommon to its time. That's why I mentioned I like the tone of the 1925 film, but I still find the 1943 version more complex and engaging (again, probably because of the technological gap of the two films).