cinema history class: phantom of the opera (1925)

The session: Happy (Belated) 100th Birthday to the Phantom of the Opera
Keith shows us three classic Lon Chaney silent films and a documentary about his career

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.

Week 1: Phantom of the Opera (1925)
Directed by Rupert Julian

My Level of Prior Knowledge:
I'd seen a few versions of Phantom, and I knew of this version. But I had never seen it before.

Plot Synopsis:
A mysterious, disfigured man secretly living beneath the Paris Opera House becomes obsessed with a young soprano and manipulates events to make her a star. He haunts the opera with threats and sabotage while demanding her devotion.

Reaction and Other Folderol:
I’m very aware, watching something like this, that I’m bringing a 1970s–1980s movie brain to a 1925 film. I’m used to decades of technical advancement—better cameras, better editing, better everything. But that’s kind of the point: those later filmmakers got to stand on the shoulders of giants. Lon Chaney didn’t have that luxury. And yet, the visuals here are striking in ways that still land. The sets feel expansive, the compositions are deliberate, and the famous moments don’t feel like museum pieces—they feel like someone figuring out, in real time, how to make cinema unsettling.

And then there’s Chaney himself. The performance is great, but it’s the makeup—and how it’s used—that really sticks. The design is grotesque, but it’s the interplay with shadow that elevates it. The face isn’t just revealed; it’s unleashed. Even now, you can see how carefully it’s staged for maximum impact. It’s not just “good for its time.” It’s good, period.

There’s also a rough edge here that I kind of appreciate—something that later, code-era movies tended to sand down. This version feels a little more jagged, a little less concerned with smoothing everything into something polite or morally tidy. The tone can lurch, the emotions can spike, and the whole thing has a slightly unhinged quality that works in its favor. It feels closer to something raw and theatrical, rather than something carefully regulated.

All of which makes it hard for me to “grade” in the usual sense. I’m not really comparing it to its contemporaries—I’m comparing it to everything that came after it, which isn’t exactly fair. But given how much of this feels foundational—how much of it is first draft of the language of horror filmmaking—I’m comfortable just going with a 10. Just like Joe!

cinema history class: he who gets slapped (1924)

The session: Happy (Belated) 100th Birthday to the Phantom of the Opera
Keith shows us three classic Lon Chaney silent films and a documentary about his career

This is not a trailer in the way we think of trailers, but it was the best I could find. As near as I understand, trailers (as we know them today) weren't really a thing when this movie was first released.

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.

Week 1: He Who Gets Slapped (1924)
Directed by Victor Seastrom

My Level of Prior Knowledge:
Never heard of it.

Plot Synopsis:
A brilliant scientist is betrayed by his patron and humiliated in front of society. Years later, he reinvents himself as a clown whose act revolves around being repeatedly slapped—turning his personal disgrace into public spectacle. Beneath the performance, he harbors unresolved pain that erupts when he becomes entangled in a dangerous romantic triangle at the circus.

Reaction and Other Folderol:
Before getting into He Who Gets Slapped, I have to note something about the clowns. These are not your standard cheerful, balloon-animal-adjacent clowns. The makeup—especially on Lon Chaney’s titular character—is sharper, harsher, and just…off. The corners aren’t rounded into smiles; they feel pointed, almost weaponized. Combined with Chaney’s intensely expressive face, it creates this constant sense that something is about to snap. I spent a good chunk of the movie convinced he was going to go completely psycho and take everyone down with him—and honestly, if this had been made in the 1970s, I’m pretty sure it would have, with Chaney going full Charles Bronson on the entire cast. The film never quite becomes that movie—but it absolutely wants you to feel like it could.

And that ties into something else: this is a tough one for me to “grade.” It sits so far outside my usual movie-going experience—the pacing, the acting style, the visual language—that I’m never quite sure what scale I’m even using. I can recognize what it’s doing, and I can admire it, but translating that into a neat little number feels almost beside the point.

The story itself is actually very simple. Betrayal, humiliation, reinvention, and then things spiral from there. No complicated plotting, no twists for the sake of twists—just a straight line from emotional wound to inevitable consequences. If anything, that simplicity lets everything else—performance, visuals, mood—do the heavy lifting.

Speaking of betrayal: I hated the professor’s wife. Truly. No nuance, no sympathy—just a straight shot of “I hope this ends badly for you.” So when her boyfriend ultimately leaves her, it lands as deeply satisfying. It feels deliberate, almost moral in its structure, and—this may be my imagination—it has a kind of Russian-literature flavor to it. Actions have consequences, and those consequences are not gentle. And that kind of makers sense, given that the movie was based on a Russian play.

Visually, there are some striking touches, especially the recurring spinning world imagery. It’s simple, but effective—a literalization of disorientation, ego, and collapse. It sticks with you.

But make no mistake: this is a miserable film. Not “bittersweet,” not “melancholy”—miserable. It’s steeped in humiliation and emotional damage, and it never really lets up. Add in the unsettling clown imagery, and it becomes genuinely disturbing in places.

At the center of all of it is Chaney, and he’s incredible. The man was doing things with makeup and facial expression that still feel advanced. Every look, every twitch of the mouth, every stare—he’s completely magnetic. You can’t take your eyes off him, even when you might kind of want to.

Also worth noting: the score in the version we saw was excellent. With a silent film, that matters a lot, and this one absolutely enhanced the mood without overwhelming it.

Joe missed this one, but we all know how that would have gone. He’d have given it a 10. Frankly, I’m pretty sure he’d give anything with Lon Chaney a 10. And you know what? He might not be wrong.

cinema history class: the navy vs. the night monsters

The session: Spring is in the Air, and the Plants are Growing
Keith shows four movies about carnivorous plants.

As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL.

Week 4: The Navy vs. the Night Monsters (1966)
Directed by Michael A. Hoey

My Level of Prior Knowledge:
Never heard of it.

Plot Synopsis:

On a remote Pacific island, a Navy meteorological team encounters a mysterious outbreak of fast-growing, seemingly intelligent plant life that begins to overrun the base. As the vegetation turns aggressive and traps the personnel in a tightening perimeter, the sailors struggle to understand what they’re up against—and how to survive it.

Plot:
Watching The Navy vs. the Night Monsters is a bit of a slow burn at first, with a lot of foggy confusion and people talking past each other before the movie really finds its footing. There’s a stretch early on where you’re bracing yourself for pure nonsense—but then the film pauses to actually explain itself, and surprisingly, it more or less holds together. Once the premise is laid out, you can see the bones of a legitimately solid 1950s-style sci-fi concept hiding underneath the murk.

And when it works, it really works. The carnivorous trees have a certain pulpy menace to them, and the scene where a sailor loses his arm lands with a jolt that feels a notch above what you’d expect from something this obscure. For a moment, you can glimpse the movie it could have been.

But that’s where the frustration creeps in. This is clearly trying to be one of those classic mid-century sci-fi entries—isolated setting, creeping threat, military response—but it never quite escapes the feeling that everything is happening in a space the size of Keith’s projection room on a low-attendance night. Characters stand, sit, or crouch and deliver dialogue because there’s nowhere to go, and the film leans heavily on stock military footage to fake a scale it simply doesn’t have.

And that’s the real issue: not that it’s bad, but that it’s small. The idea deserved something bigger, more kinetic, more alive. Instead, it feels like a promising blueprint that never got the resources—or maybe the confidence—to fully build itself out.

Still, you can’t help but think that, in some alternate universe where the vines stretched just a little farther and the sets were just a little bigger… Joe would have recognized the potential and given it a 10.