In my review of 1920’s The Garage, I admitted silent films are rarely covered on 18 Cinema Lane. Acknowledging the one hundredth anniversary of a movie is even rarer. This is a reason why I selected 1925’s The Phantom of the Opera for the Silent Pioneers Blogathon! But reviewing this film also presents a full circle moment for me. Before 2025, I had seen pieces of The Phantom of the Opera from 1925. That’s because those pieces are featured at the beginning of Phantom of the Megaplex (which happens to be celebrating its 25^th anniversary this year). As a fan of that movie, I felt I owed it to myself to finally check out the film that paved the way for countless cinematic projects. Though this is my first time seeing 1925’s The Phantom of the Opera in its entirety, I am familiar with its story. This is due to seeing parts of 2004’s adaptation of The Phantom of the Opera. So, without further delay, let’s start this review!

Things I liked about the film:

Color coded film: Silent films have a reputation for appearing in black and white. But in The Phantom of the Opera, only the Phantom’s lair is presented in this hue. This is because the Paris Opera House is color coded based on where a scene takes place. Outdoor scenes appear in blue. Scenes taking place backstage, and even a ballet performance, are presented in pink. The only scenes fully in color are those during the Bal Masque de l’Opera. Color coding the movie’s scenery gives each part of the story its own distinct significance. It definitely gives The Phantom of the Opera a unique identity!

The acting: When you think of 1925’s The Phantom of the Opera, you think of Lon Chaney. Though he spent the movie with his face covered by make-up or a mask, Lon utilized the use of his eyes and body language to give the Phantom emotion. During the Bal Masque de l’Opera, the Phantom discovers someone betrayed his trust. His eyes not only appear very wide, they even look pained. The Phantom falls back in his seat, emphasizing how shocked he is by the betrayal. Even though Lon stole the show, there are other performances I liked in The Phantom of the Opera! Mary Philbin portrays Christine Daae. Through a variety of acting techniques, Mary shows the audience what her character is thinking and feeling. A perfect example is when Christine meets the Phantom for the first time. Shocked by his appearance, she leans back against the wall, trying to move as far from him as possible. Christine’s eyes are wide and her jaw drops in horror, illustrating how unsettled she is by the Phantom.

The on-screen chemistry: As I just said in this review, Mary Philbin portrays Christine Daae. Throughout The Phantom of the Opera, Christine shares romantic feelings with Raoul, portrayed by Norman Kerry. When these characters shared moments together, their interactions were romantically tender. The love between Christine and Raoul feels like it radiates off the screen. Mary and Norman’s on-screen chemistry was very sweet, making their characters’ scenes together feel genuine. Their performances, as well as the screenwriting, made Raoul and Christine’s relationship one of the best parts of The Phantom of the Opera! I wish Mary and Norman shared more scenes together.

What I didn’t like about the film:

Underutilized characters: There were a few underutilized characters in The Phantom of the Opera. Two of them are the new owners of the Opera House. At the beginning of the movie, the ownership of the Opera House changed hands. Not only are the new owners informed of the Phantom’s existence, they are presented with evidence he actually exists. Yet, these owners don’t do anything to remove the Phantom from the Opera House or protect their business from the Phantom. A major reason for this is how the characters were underutilized, making limited appearances throughout the story.

Little sense of urgency: Like I said in my review, the new owners of the Opera House don’t do anything to remove the Phantom from the Opera House or protect their business from the Phantom. Any time the Phantom makes threats to ruin the show or even when Christine disappeared, there was little sense of urgency to prevent the Phantom’s chaotic plans. The day after Christine went missing, there was a newspaper article written about her disappearance. But no search party was organized to look for her. Even Raoul’s suspicions don’t appear raised when he receives a mysterious note from Christine. When Christine returns at the Bal Masque de l’Opera, no one notices except for Raoul. With all this said, the Phantom doesn’t seem as big of a concern to the Opera House’s community as he should be.

Unanswered questions: For this part of my review, I will spoil The Phantom of the Opera. If you haven’t seen this film and are planning on watching it, skip ahead to the part of my review titled ‘My overall impression’.

The 1925 version of The Phantom of the Opera attempts to give the Phantom a backstory. But this attempt leaves the audience with more questions than answers. On a notecard addressing the Phantom’s history, it states he is a “master of Black Art”. This statement is never given an explanation, especially since the Phantom isn’t shown adopting magic or supernatural powers. The notecard also states the Phantom was “exiled to Devil’s Island for criminal insane” and that he “escaped”. No explanation is provided why he was taken to the island in the first place. Did the Phantom actually commit a crime or was he falsely accused, with taking over the Opera House and causing chaos his form of revenge? These are two examples of unanswered questions in The Phantom of the Opera.

My overall impression:

1925’s The Phantom of the Opera is considered a classic, not just from the Silent Film Era, but within film history. So, imagine my shock when I discovered the movie was never included on any of American Film Institute’s 100 movies lists. When this film was first released, it brought something new to cinema’s table. The Phantom of the Opera paved the way when it came to the power of make-up. The 1925 picture also showed the world the expansive nature of storytelling through a cinematic lens. This is why, in my opinion, the story of the Phantom and his opera house is better suited for film than the stage. Lon Chaney is one of the most celebrated actors of all time. His role as the titular character proves why that statement holds true. Lon’s ability to transform into the Phantom makes his performance captivating. Beyond the make-up, he effectively uses his eyes and body language to bring emotion to his character. Though the film has its flaws, The Phantom of the Opera still holds up, even a hundred years later. Color coding for each area of the Opera House gave the production a unique identity, as well as distinct significance to these spaces. In a world where silent films are not as common as they once were, I’m thankful for the restoration efforts made for The Phantom of the Opera.

Overall score: 7.5-7.6 out of 10

Have you seen 1925’s The Phantom of the Opera? Which story do you wish had been adapted into a silent film? Let me know in the comment section below!

Have fun at the opera!

Sally Silverscreen