The Phantom of the Opera 1913????

[driekus13]

I found this online does anyone know if this version with Nelson Eddy is real????
https://www.amazon.com/Phantom-Oper...ef=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1245952795&sr=8-2

 

[Anton Phibes]

I found this online does anyone know if this version with Nelson Eddy is real????
https://www.amazon.com/Phantom-Oper...ef=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1245952795&sr=8-2

Yes, its real--but it was made in 1943, is in color and has Claude Rains as the Phantom of the Opera. It wasnt made in 1913. The earliest Phantom was Lon Chaney's in 1925.




Product Details
Actors: Nelson Eddy, Susanna Foster, Claude Rains, Edgar Barrier, Leo Carrillo

Pit violinist Claudin hopelessly loves rising operatic soprano Christine Dubois (as do baritone Anatole and police inspector Raoul) and secretly aids her career. But Claudin loses both his touch and his job, murders a rascally music publisher in a fit of madness, and has his face etched with acid. Soon, mysterious crimes plague the Paris Opera House, blamed on a legendary ""phantom"" whom none can find in the mazes and catacombs. But both of Christine's lovers have plans to ferret him out.

 

[Mr. Midnight Dreary]

If Chaney was the first phantom what is the deal with this lost film: 1916 Phantom

 

[Anton Phibes]

If Chaney was the first phantom what is the deal with this lost film: 1916 Phantom

OK--first American Phantom, and definitely the best until someone actually sees this "other" film, and can make a comparison.. Which isnt likely to happen. Some folks apparently dont even believe the film ever existed were it not for obscure cryptic references every now and again.

This obscure German entry must be one heckuva lost film, Ive never even seen a still of it, and I never knew it existed.. Even London After Midnight has left some residue of its existence in the form of stills. Kind of weird.

 

[Anton Phibes]

Here's a little tidbit I found. This film may not be lost so much as never produced.:

"The film receives very scant mention in a few German reference books. It has a censorship date of March 1916 but I've found no indication of a premiere date or any reviews".
--Henry Nicolella

So yeah--I am thinking Chaney was the first Phantom (American or otherwise). Until I see at least a still or SOMETHING that proves it once existed. Cinema was still pretty new then, and there was a war going on. This project may have never even seen the light of day. There are plenty of projects that are greenlit, get scripts and potential actors and actresses and then the project gets scrapped. When Bela Lugosi was slated to play the role of the monster in Frankenstein (before he turned it down), there were movie poster designs from the art department touting him as the monster that still survive today. Why would it be any different in 1916? Besides, I consider myself pretty "up on things" in the classic horror genre and I had absolutely never heard of this. It's existence could simply be urban legend.

 

[Mr. Midnight Dreary]

Interesting, I figured you could bring to light some information about this. So what is this censorship date mean exactly, that the film was submitted for review to pass the censorship code or what?

Where did imdb get information on these actors?

Quite curious; It would be nice to cross this 1916 version off of my "lost films I wish I could have seen" list.

 

[Anton Phibes]

Interesting, I figured you could bring to light some information about this. So what is this censorship date mean exactly, that the film was submitted for review to pass the censorship code or what?

Where did imdb get information on these actors?

Quite curious; It would be nice to cross this 1916 version off of my "lost films I wish I could have seen" list.

Honestly, I would love to cry "first ever Phantom film that predates Chaney's found--as good as Nosferatu". It would be a great story.

I dunno--I have visited several different forums for information on the film's existence. One fella said he did the actual write up on the imdb, but someone else later added the plot synopsis as he only knew who the principal stars were/were to be. As for the censorship nod--maybe it was filmed, reviewed by a censors board and the film was destroyed in the war, or simply rejected. Who can say? But it seems freakishly abnormal for a film to have been made and not a single shred of evidence exists. Neither still, film, lobby card, movie poster, etc. Its just too weird for me to believe it was actually filmed. I mean, even Edison's Frankenstein had some proof it existed that survived--and then they actually found the film.
<object width="640" height="390"><param name="movie" value="https://www.youtube.com/v/TcLxsOJK9bs&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="https://www.youtube.com/v/TcLxsOJK9bs&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></embed></object>


I have also read lots of books on horror films, and never even heard this thing mentioned in any of them. Chaney's Phantom has been regarded as the first time the novel was made into a feature for years. If you google London after midnight, you get tons of stills, movie poster, and lobby cards. If you google Edison's Frankenstein you get stills. If you google this 1916 version of Phantom all you get is some writing. Seems overly fishy to me. If the film ever pops up, I will humbly say I was wrong. But I am going to take the Missouri stance on this and say "show me" before I believe in its existence. But thanks for adding to my knowledge.