Though the released film does not affirm a biological connection between the phantom and his protГ©gГ©, the Hollywood Reporter felt compelled to say that вЂњthe performance by Rains leaves no other conclusion possibleвЂќ than Claudin, the broken-down violinist, is ChristineвЂ™s father.вЂќ Hogle explains in The Undergrounds of Phantom of the Opera:ДЇar more than the Chaney film, the 1943 version does raise the issue in Leroux of a deep erotic attraction of a father for a daughter, just as James Twitchell has shown (283-85). Removing the confirmation from the script does not prevent it from being the most obvious explanation of the dynamic between Enrique and Christine, asВ Jerrold E. It has been argued that incest is a none-too-subtle undertone of the story itself. However, the fact is that the removal of any reference to the relationship actually makes the dynamic between the two more creepy. With World War II going on at the same time, I wonder if there was a conscious attempt to play down the horror aspect of the production, and just play it as a gaudy spectacle. To be entirely fair, the rest of the movie plays down the brutality of the story, and Phantom of the Operafocuses more on the technicolour glory of the opera and the costumes than it does on any of the characters or the monster. ThereвЂ™s no denying that itвЂ™s there, but itвЂ™s certainly no less explicit than the creepy necrophiliac subtext that runs through The Mummy. It seems strange that the studio would baulk at the theme. It is vaguely reassuring to know that studios have been hacking up movies for quite some time, and finished cuts of movies that donвЂ™t make any sense are by no means a modern invention. However, the studio figured that thereвЂ™d be a none-too-subtle incest theme there when the Phantom abducts Christine and takes her into the sewers with him, so they hastily deleted the subplot вЂ“ including scenes that had already been filmed between the two leads. He was a father trying to look out for his daughter. It turns out that Erique was to be revealed as ChristineвЂ™s father, who had abandoned her mother and felt guilty about it. Watching the movie, itвЂ™s quite clear that the story itself underwent quite a bit of revision both during and after shooting, and thereвЂ™s a sense of absence at the heart of the film. In fact, in the finished cut of the film, a lot of inexplicable things happen вЂ“ towards the climax, Garron deflects RaoulвЂ™s gun in order to save the phantom, despite the fact that the man is a mass-murderer. Erique Claudin is mysteriously (and anonymously) sponsoring young opera starlet Christine Dubois, but we never really find out why. However, the biggest problem is the fact that the central relationship is very poorly defined. The PhantomвЂ™s brutality is retained вЂ“ heвЂ™s still a repeated murderer and the story keeps the most iconic of the set-pieces вЂ“ but the Phantom feels more like an ineffectual loser than a true movie monster. I wonder if thatвЂ™s also the reason that heвЂ™s never really portrayed as that much of a monster, even in the depths of his insanity. Apparently Claude Rains was afraid of being typecast as a вЂњfreakвЂќ, and so the eponymous characterвЂ™s scars are significantly downplayed. Of course, the production history of Phantom of the Opera suggests that there are a lot of reasons why the finished product ends up so mangled.

The phantom of the opera movie 1943