KenNetti - The Entertainment Database

Even though Gaston Leroux's original 1911 novel "The Phantom of the Opera" is regarded as one of the Gothic masterpieces, it has never been very original; the novel loans quite heavily from George L. Du Maurier's "Trilby", Bram Stoker's "Dracula" and the detective mysteries and mummy stories by Arthur Conan Doyle. Neither is Leroux's novel a significantly great piece of literature. As the partially clumsy narrative leaves too many things to be deduced by the reader, it is no wonder that the novel has inspired an endless amount of different interpretations and adaptations. Quite ironically, most of the cinematic Phantoms are not even based on Leroux's original, only inspired by it.

In this little tribute KenNetti analyses eleven mainstream Phantom adaptations, digs up some sources, and sheds hopefully some new light on a very old subject. This tribute is by no means a complete sampling on Phantoms, since the amount of interpretations and adaptations is nowadays overwhelming. The following eleven adaptations could be summed up with the famous phrase "nobody's perfect". All these movies and musicals have their positive and negative sides.

1925
The Phantom of the Opera
The Universal Classic
starring Lon Chaney

+ the most faithful to the original book,
magnificent sets and strong Gothic
horror atmosphere
- yet it takes several liberties and
is unfortunately slow-moving
and overacted

1943
Phantom of the Opera
The Universal Remake
starring Claude Rains

+ the lovers of classical music and
real operatic singing will like this
- too much emphasis on American musical
comedy; not enough Gothic horror
atmosphere and very little
actual horror

1962
The Phantom of the Opera
The Hammer Version
starring Herbert Lom

+ spellbinding Hammer "Golden Age"
touch with strong atmosphere;
introducing the first truly
human Phantom, while
emphasizing the potential evil
in each human being
- maybe even too kind
and gentle Phantom;
the horror quality decreases
towards the end

1974
Phantom of the Paradise
Starring William Finley
and Paul Williams' music

+ witty adaptation, well-balanced
whole of horror, fun and believability
- the humour may be too wacky
for some viewers

1983
The Phantom of the Opera
A Television Movie
starring Maximillian Schell

+ intriguing, promising start...
- ...which develops into mundane,
inane direction

1986
The Phantom of the Opera
The Stage Musical by
Andrew Lloyd Webber

+ exciting and epic magic show with
music blending pop, rock and symphony
- overblown production focuses more
on illusion than on real emotion

1989
The Phantom of the Opera
The Gore-Feast Version
starring Robert Englund

+ surprisingly faithful to the original book;
quite good balance between bloody gore
and stylish Gothic atmosphere
with romantic undertones
- the time travelling (with its anticlimax)
has no other point than offering
bridge to a sequel

1990
The Phantom of the Opera
A Television Two-Part Miniseries
starring Charles Dance

+ Arthur Kopit's screenplay aims
for emotional, believable story;
musically quite a treat for
real opera lovers
- stretched to unnecessary length
and horror omitted almost
completely; the liberties taken
with the story have very little
resemblance to the original book
by Gaston Leroux

1991
Phantom
A Stage Musical by
Maury Yeston & Arthur Kopit

+ emotional, humane, believable story
with completely new perspectives;
more authentic Parisian
1890s music (than in
Webber's musical)
- the liberties taken with the story
have very little resemblance
to the original book by
Gaston Leroux

1998
Il Fantasma dell'Opera
Dario Argento's Version
starring Julian Sands

+ bizarre interpretation improves
with each viewing
- too bizarre, uneven and
gory to fall in love with
at a first glance

2004
Andrew Lloyd Webber's
The Phantom of the Opera
The Movie Version
starring Gerard Butler

+ a sensual mix of Webber and Kopit
- too pretty, too light, too bright;
and where's the horror?!

A l s o - i n c l u d e d
in the analysis:
the three movies that
had significant influence
on later Phantom adaptations
(which developed the distorted
popular image of the
Phantom of the Opera)

1931
Svengali
Based on George L.
Du Maurier's "Trilby"

+ excellent movie version of the
novel that inspired Gaston Leroux
to create the original Phantom
+ the movie also shows great evidence
that John Barrymore should
really have played Dracula
in Universal's classic
- for today's tastes, a bit slow
with maybe too-comedic
prologue

1933
Mystery of the
Wax Museum
The real inspiration for
Universal's 1943 Phantom remake

+ extremely influential movie;
very spooky at its best;
with great performance
by Lionel Atwill
- for today's tastes, a bit slow
and some actors may be
found irritating

1953
House of Wax
The remake of the
"Mystery" - in 3D

+ continued the highly influential
tradition; featuring the most
horrifying (and yet realistic)
"face of fire" monster;
and a great performance
by Vincent Price
- other actors are a bit
"too American"

Gaston Leroux's The Phantom of the Opera is an embodiment of investigative journalism mixed with strong Gothic horror tones. As Leroux tells in the book's introduction, the novel is based on fact - but this kind of method is actually one of the essentials in true Gothic literature. However, the novel indeed takes some real-life incidents of the Paris Opera House and expands them into fictional, epic proportions. For example, the chandelier did never drop on an audience, but one of its counterweights did fall, in an 1896 accident. The actual Opera de Paris, Palais Garnier provides an exquisite setting for an ominous, exciting Gothic atmosphere. The opera house designed by Charles Garnier featured 17 floors (five of them beneath the stage) and labyrinthine cellars with a subterranean lake.

With literary models such as Arthur Conan Doyle and Edgar Allan Poe, Leroux created his own fictional take on the Paris Opera House mysteries. Even though the basic idea of the Leroux novel is another interpretation on the ever-popular tale of Beauty and the Beast, the novel's story about an older, crazed musician falling desperately in love with the young beautifully-voiced female singer had already been told by George Du Maurier in "Trilby" in 1894 (which transformed into a very atmospheric Hollywood movie, Svengali, in 1931). The corpse-like yet powerful appearance of the title character in Leroux's Phantom of the Opera could be easily traced to Conan Doyle's mummy characters (such as "Lot No. 249" written in 1892) and Bram Stoker's "Dracula" (1897). In one of the most chilling highlights of the Leroux novel (Chapter XIII) the Phantom's horrifying eyes - "like blazing coals" - are staring in the darkness of a bedroom in the same fashion as Dracula and some later Conan Doyle mummies did.*

*Please notice:
For this analysis, despite extensive efforts, I have not been able of tracing the exact source for Conan Doyle's other mummies (except the original "Lot No. 249"). My first acquaintance to "Lot No. 249" was the "Pickwick Tell-a-Tale" book & tape series produced in the early 1980s by the British Pickwick International in association with Ladybird Books Ltd. In this simplified format, precisely under the label of "Ladybird Horror Classics", the story was called simply as "The Mummy", while indicating that the storyline had been adapted "from stories by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle". This Ladybird version, "retold" by Raymond Sibley (and later reprinted without the audio recording), includes two nightmarish scenes that are not from the original "Lot No. 249"; the later one of these scenes is strongly reminiscent of the Chapter XIII's bedroom scene in Leroux's original Phantom of the Opera. Currently KenNetti can not claim for sure who has copied who, but the resemblance between the authentic "Lot No. 249" mummy and Leroux's character of Phantom is nevertheless intriguing - since Leroux was reportedly an admirer of Conan Doyle's works.

Nearly all movie and stage versions of the Leroux novel emphasize the Phantom's unmasking scene despite of the fact that the creature's facial and bodily appearance is not a secret in the original novel. Already in Chapter I does Leroux give the following description about the Phantom; (the underlined words were printed in italics in the original novel): "He is extraordinarily thin and his dress-coat hangs on a skeleton frame. His eyes are so deep that you can hardly see the fixed pupils. All you see is two big black holes, as in a dead man's skull. His skin, which is stretched across his bones like a drumhead, is not white, but a dirty yellow. His nose is so little worth talking about that you can't see it side-face; and the absence of that nose is a horrible thing to look at. All the hair he has is three or four long dark locks on his forehead and behind the ears."

Not a single mainstream production (movie or stage) has presented the Phantom as Leroux described him. Especially in the beginning of the novel the Phantom makes significant appearances in big crowds without a mask - and continues in this startling fashion throughout the book. A few times he does hide his face because of Christine, who is the young opera singer he teaches and loves. (During the farewell dinner of the retiring managers the Phantom wears a fake nose - which may sound hilarious, but is a necessity for obvious reasons). Thus, the aforementioned unmasking scene in the middle of the book isn't as significant as it has been interpreted in nearly every single movie and musical. The original unmasking scene has not much of a purpose except revealing the "Angel of Music" to Christine. Thanks to Leroux's eccentric narrative choices even the first-time reader, unacquainted to all Phantoms, can easily guess who the mysterious teacher is.

The Phantom's horrific appearance is not explained by Leroux. In the novel's conclusion the author only mentions that the Phantom, named only as Erik, was born deformed. As the son of a master-mason, Erik lived his early childhood "in a small town not far from Rouen" but ultimately ran away "from his father's house, where his ugliness was a subject of horror and terror to his parents." Erik is described as a "living corpse" already in his youth, when he toured - apparently by his own free will - several fairs, before ending up in Persia as an assassin and architect for a powerful Shah.

Leroux's Phantom has other passions in addition to his obsession for Christine. "Don Juan Triumphant" is Erik's own operatic work which he must finish before he can move to the final showdown with Christine. The historical and fictional Don Juan - womanizer, murderer and sinner of many sorts - may provide further clues to Phantom's character. Leroux's Phantom is also a great magician.

Some analysts claim that the real suspense element in Leroux's novel comes from the suggestion that the Phantom could be Christine's own deceased father. However, considering the novel's unnecessary detective-mystery structure and its partially clumsy narrative, it's highly doubtful that Leroux's attempt was to write a psychoanalysis on suppressed incest. A fact remains, that all the analysts searching for sexual references will find them from Leroux's original novel, because the book leaves extensive amount of things to be concluded by the reader.

As another passionate analyst, the undersigned can only emphasize a detail that no one ever seems to notice from the original book. In Chapter III, regarding the retiring managers, Leroux writes: "None will ever be a true Parisian who has not learnt to wear a mask of gaiety over his sorrows and one of sadness, boredom, or indifference over his inward joy. You know that one of your friends is in trouble; do not try to console him; he will tell you that he is already comforted; but, should he have met with good fortune, be careful how you congratulate him: he thinks it so natural that he is surprised that you should speak of it. In Paris, our lives are one masked ball; and the foyer of the ballet is the last place in which two such sophisticated persons as MM Debienne and Poligny would have made the mistake of betraying their sorrow, however genuine."

In the very same foyer of the Opera House the Phantom is seen unmasked - and a little bit later, he sits in the dinner table with a fake nose. Are these very witty, philosophical remarks by Gaston Leroux?

If the controversially lost 1916 silent Das Gespenst im Opernhaus is not counted, the 1925 silent movie is the very first adaptation of Leroux's The Phantom of the Opera. Considered a masterpiece by many movie historians, the 1925 version, produced by Universal Pictures in Hollywood, is probably most known because of its star Lon Chaney - "the Man of a Thousand faces". The movie had a very troubled production; although the original director Rupert Julian completed the first version of the movie, Edward Sedgwick was hired to shoot retakes and extra scenes with comedy and action. Then Carl Laemmle, president of Universal, removed most of Sedgwick's work, but left the new ending intact. Some four years after the premiere, in 1929, Universal produced an "All-Talking All-Singing" sound version of the same movie, but complicated things by releasing also a new silent version of it. With all these different versions of the basically same movie, one must be extra careful in choosing the original.

Starting with the 1925 original, the unmasking of the Phantom became the climactic point in nearly all adaptations that followed. The unmasking is surely one of the most iconoclastic moments in horror film genre - but, as already pointed out in the original novel's review, the importance of this specific unmasking has been misinterpreted badly. The facial appearance of the Phantom in Gaston Leroux's novel is not exactly a secret. Yes, Chaney (also known as Lon Chaney Sr.) looks quite ghastly as the Phantom, but is still a long way from the "living corpse" described by Leroux in the original novel.

Chaney was a great actor of his own time and a remarkable make-up artist, but unfortunately his Phantom performance has not stood the test of time. The performance was surely impressive to the 1925 audiences, but nowadays one will need a great amount of imagination to appreciate Chaney's 85-year-old silent abomination. Melodramatic over-acting doesn't even make this movie unintentionally funny; to be able of watching and enjoying this, one needs patience, right mood, and a very big screen.

Compared to the other mainstream Phantom productions, the 1925 Phantom of the Opera is the most faithful to the book - but not as faithful as it could have been. Chaney's Phantom wears a skull mask during the masquerade sequence (featuring early two-colour Technicolor footage). After the unmasking, Chaney is seen in his Phantom make-up for the rest of the film - including the quite excellent "underwater" sequence at the subterranean lake. The chandelier crash and the Phantom on top of the lyre are exquisitely done highlights. Other sequences that were quite important in the novel - Christine's visit to her father's grave, the chilling "masterstroke" scene in Chapter XIII, and the original ending - didn't make it into the movie. The angry mob chasing the Phantom at the climax became a standard in Universal horrors (such as the Frankenstein movies), but the chase has absolutely nothing to do with Leroux's original novel.

Luckily, as in Leroux's original novel, Charles Gounod's "Faust" opera (1859) was featured in the 1925 movie and even more prominently in the 1929 sound version. Goethe's original Faust, with its themes of blind infatuation, lust and blood-red pacts with the Devil, is one of the most recurring ingredients in later adaptations of The Phantom of the Opera. The music of the restored 1925 Phantom of the Opera (extended perhaps with the 1929 opera scenes) has been produced several times with several different composers. KenNetti recommends the score of Channel 4 Silents presentation (1997), which was composed and conducted by Carl Davis (and released on Silva Screen Records). The Davis score is fully symphonic.

Universal's 1925 The Phantom of the Opera is definitely not a bad movie, but its masterpiece-status can easily be questioned.

Universal Pictures announced The Return of the Phantom as early as in 1929, but due to several reasons they ended up in stead reissuing the 1925 movie with sound (as told above). Universal kept the film rights to Gaston Leroux's original 1911 novel, but they didn't attempt to produce a remake until the 1943 version.

However, the rival movie company Warner Bros. didn't waste time in early 1930s by producing three Phantom-like horror classics Svengali (1931), The Mad Genius (1931) and Mystery of the Wax Museum (1933). Warner's decision to produce these movies may have been inspired by the box-office triumph of Universal's The Phantom of the Opera (especially the 1929 reissue), but it is rather misleading to claim that these movies would have been significantly influenced by Phantom. Svengali was the movie version of George Du Maurier's "Trilby" (1894) - the story that clearly inspired Gaston Leroux in writing his 1911 Phantom. The premise of Svengali (an older embittered man-genius getting enthralled by a younger woman representing his absolution) was repeated in The Mad Genius and then transported also slightly into the 1933 Mystery of the Wax Museum. Despite of its famous unmasking climax, Mystery of the Wax Museum has very little to do with the 1925 Phantom and even less with the 1911 original novel. With its starting point of a great artist getting betrayed and badly burned, Warner's Mystery of the Wax Museum became the true inspiration for later cinematic Phantom versions - starting with Universal's 1943 Phantom of the Opera remake.

World War II mixed many things. During the war years, movie producers became very cautious of not shocking audiences too much. Universal's 1943 Phantom of the Opera was one these casualties - the horrors of the great horror classic were toned down almost entirely. However, since the 1925 silent classic had initiated the importance of the unmasking scene, the remake was bound to continue the tradition. Claude Rains was ultimately selected to the title role (possibly because of his horror past in such gems like The Invisible Man, 1933, and The Wolf Man, 1941), but the actor himself objected to heavy horror make-up. Concocted by four writers, the 1943 Phantom created an inferior interpretation of the "living corpse" by making him a man who turns into a murderous monster because of one misunderstanding and a half-burnt face. The remake devised a totally unnecessary and ridiculous subplot to explain the disfigured face - thus giving birth to the acid-in-the-face-premise which was re-used in several Phantom versions.

Claude Rains gives actually a beautiful performance in the role of Erique Claudin, a violinist who transforms into the Phantom. Unfortunately Rains' humble physical stature does not paint a very menacing picture of the ghost. The character's motives are also unfortunately muddled - but this is not Rains' fault. The writers of the 1943 remake had indeed noticed the controversial element in Leroux's original novel - the suggestion that the Phantom could be Christine's own deceased father - and thus Claudin was indeed conceived as Christine's father, without her knowing it. However, in fear of incestuous overtones the final movie didn't reveal Claudin as Christine's father, even though the man's motives are much easier to understand as they were originally intended.

The music of the 1943 Phantom of the Opera is an impressive achievement when considering how the opera segments were created. Due to problems caused by the war, composer Edward Ward had to create fictional operas for the movie, using classical music that was in public domain. The Phantom's opera "Don Juan Triumphant" (from the original novel) was replaced by an elegant and beautiful "Lullaby of the Bells" which was also composed by Edward Ward. The lullaby, serving as an important link between the Phantom and Christine, survives the unintentional humour when the classical composer Franz Liszt (1811-1886) is brought to perform it in the movie's hasty conclusion. Ward's original score features an exciting chase and provides perfect otherwordly atmosphere for the subterranean lake.

Beautiful soprano Susanna Foster and natural blond baritone Nelson Eddy (with dyed hair) give their very best to the operatic arias, but unfortunately neither of them is blessed with any acting skills. One can also question Arthur Lubin's directing skills (especially during the scene where Christine reacts to one of the murders saying aloud "Murdered??" with a hilarious emphasis provided by Edward Ward's orchestra). Since the only serious acting and drama is on the shoulders of poor Claude Rains, the movie seems badly imbalanced - and further muddled with extensive irritating comedy between Christine's two suitors, Eddy's Anatole Garron and Edgar Barrier's Inspector Raoul D'Aubert (whose character combines unsuccesfully the Persian and Raoul de Chagny from the original novel). The well-done chandelier crash and the police pursuit following Claudin's disfigurement are actually the only dramatic scenes in the movie. Everything else - a couple of murders, Christine's abduction, the Phantom's unmasking and demise - are treated simply too hastily. As an end result, the 1943 Phantom of the Opera is unfortunately half-baked, clumsy and pointless as a Gothic horror movie.

The British movie company Hammer Film Productions achieved international success with their colourful "Gothic horrors" - The Curse of Frankenstein (1957), Horror of Dracula (1958) and The Mummy (1959). Universal Pictures became one of the most important financiers of Hammer's "Golden Age" - and thus the Phantom was offered to Hammer for another remake.

Originally Hammer's treatment of The Phantom of the Opera was prepared for the legendary movie actor Cary Grant. It has, however, never been noted clearly was Grant considered for the title role or only for the romantic lead. Since Hammer's producer-writer Anthony Hinds (pseudonym John Elder) fashioned a script in which all the murderous violence was removed from the character of Phantom, it is at least strongly implied that Grant was going to play the Phantom. But due to a quirk of fate - and possibly some strong advice from Grant's manager - the legendary actor retreated from the movie project. Hammer did continue with the project by finding a last-minute Phantom in Herbert Lom, while the romantic lead was given to Edward de Souza. As usual, Hinds did not have time to rewrite the entire script and thus the kinder, gentler Phantom remained intact, while a loyal dwarf companion did all the dirty job. British distributor Rank Film Distributors apparently saw the movie's potential for family entertainment and thus demanded a few cuts - the most famous involving the Phantom's unmasking scene, which was reportedly left uncut in America. The end result was a movie that is still considered very tame (as Hammer Horror) by most critics.

As Hammer historians Marcus Hearn and Alan Barnes point out, this movie's censorship difficulties should not be taken for a revolutionary artistic direction - but KenNetti reminds that with all its shortcomings, Hammer's The Phantom of the Opera is one of the studio's happy accidents: it could easily be the most noble and humane adaptations of the familiar story. The movie easily surpasses Universal's terrible 1943 remake and is a clear forerunner of the Arthur Kopit & Maury Yeston musical Phantom (1990).

After Hammer's bloated and silly The Brides of Dracula (1960), their approach to the Phantom story seems intimate and believable. Some viewers may not like that the grand Paris Opera House has changed to Albany Theatre in London (actually the modest Wimbledon Theatre combined with footage shot at the atmospheric Hammer "home" studios at Bray). The villain of the story is not the title character, but a pretentious and slimy Lord Ambrose D'Arcy, who is magnificently portrayed by Michael Gough. With the aid of soprano Patricia "Pat" Clark's singing voice, actress Heather Sears is one of the most lovely Christines there ever was. There is actual chemistry between Sears and de Souza, which happens quite rarely in Hammer movies. But the true star of the movie is Herbert Lom - giving an extraordinary performance with one eye, as the creepy mask hides the rest of his face entirely. In a role that depends extensively on body language and voice, Lom shows true talent in keeping away from over-acting. Director Terence Fisher goes back to the origins of Hammer Horror by proving that less is more - and this technique is beautifully supported by Arthur Grant's cinematography. The Phantom's first appearance on the top of the stairs is almost as powerful and epic as Christopher Lee's entrance in 1958 Horror of Dracula.

Composer-conductor Edwin Astley provides one of the most satisfying scores for Hammer Horror. Astley's music is both haunting and evocative, ferocious and gentle - and towards the end, soaring to gorgeous heights as the Phantom's life's work is performed on stage with Christine singing "I hear your voice". Replacing the "Don Juan Triumphant" from the original Leroux novel, Astley's opera tells the story of Saint Joan d'Arc. Even though this fictional opera may not please real opera lovers, the main song - Christine's touching solo - is exceptional; it is also the movie's love theme.

The Phantom's past - the tragic accident that disfigured Professor Petrie severely - reveals connections with the Warner Bros' 1933 classic Mystery of the Wax Museum which had inspired a direct (and much more gruesome) remake already in 1953 as House of Wax. Hammer's Phantom adaptation loans the fateful music print shop sequence from Universal's 1943 Phantom of the Opera, but in Hammer's version the music theft really happens, which causes Professor Petrie to seek vengeance. Unfortunately the print shop catches fire, and while mistaking a bucket of acid for water, the Professor gets badly scarred. The facial make-up of Herbert Lom's Phantom is significantly different, perhaps a bit more imaginative, than the more realistic burns on Claude Rains' face (in the 1943 version) - but Lom's Phantom also represents Gaston Leroux's "living corpse" idea much better with the truly macabre skin colour. Lom's unmasked Phantom face may at first seem unimpressive - largely because it's glimpsed very briefly at the movie's climax - but actually his face is one of the most gruesome when analysed in freeze-frame: the one-eye mask gets a very clear explanation; the acid has eaten the flesh completely away in one specific spot, revealing a yellowish cheek-bone; and the gray skin colour is definitely real. However, the one-eye mask (that make-up artist Roy Ashton created, reportedly, in "five minutes") is actually much more frightening than the Phantom's actual face, since the mask makes him nearly featureless - as if he would have no face at all.

The quite surprising chandelier crash is completely justified in storytelling terms. The impish dwarf blinding a rat catcher may at first seem the oddest scene in the entire movie, but with a little imagination the gruesome act finds its place in the story whole. Maybe the dwarf feels sympathy for the Phantom so extensively, that he doesn't want anyone else having the luxury of two eyes. More importantly, the rat catcher stabbing seems to be a feint, so that the Phantom gets a private moment with Christine.

Hammer's 1962 The Phantom of the Opera is an intriguing movie with spellbinding atmosphere and powerful performances. It has nearly everything from chilling suspense to shocking horror and beautiful romance.

1986
The Phantom of the Opera
The Musical by Andrew Lloyd Webber
Review coming up!

2004
Andrew Lloyd Webber's
The Phantom of the Opera
The Movie Musical Version
Review coming up!

The "Phantoms" Logo Image
featuring a Phantom figure from
the Wasalandia "Haunted House"
attraction, in Vaasa, Finland
/ Original photo by Pia Lindström /
Enhanced by Kenneth Sundberg

P r i n c i p a l
information & image sources
Gaston Leroux: The Phantom of the Opera
(Wordsworth Editions Limited, 1995 /
Introduction by Peter Haining)
Scott McQueen: Audio-Commentary &
"Phantom Unmasked" DVD Documentary
(2002, Universal Studios)
Michael R. Pitts: Horror Film Stars
(McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers, 1991)
The Mummy - Ladybird Horror Classics
(Retold by Raymond Sibley /
Ladybird Books Ltd, 1985)
Marcus Hearn & Alan Barnes:
The Hammer Story - The Authorised History of
Hammer Films (Titan Books / Titan
Publishing Group Ltd, 1997, 2007)
Legrand, Karney, etc: Chronicle of the Cinema
(1995, Dorling Kindersley Publishing, Inc.
/ Chronik Verlag)
Carl Davis: The Phantom of the Opera
(1997, Silva Screen Records Ltd /
Channel Four Television Corporation
& Photoplay Productions Ltd /
Liner notes writer unknown)
The program booklet of the Helsinki
City Theatre 1993 production of
"Phantom" (program editors:
Kristiina Lyytinen & Ritva Holmberg,
Helsingin Kaupunginteatteri)
Nigel Andrews: Horror Films
(1985, Multimedia Publications [UK] Ltd)
Cult Movies magazine (The article
by Frank J. Dello Stritto / Cult Movies)
Cinema / Kino magazines
(Kino Verlag GmbH)
Misha Segal: Phantom of the Opera -
Original Soundtrack (1989 Restless Records)
www.imdb.com / wikipedia.org
and Kenneth Sundberg

KenNetti is a totally non-commercial website by Kenneth Sundberg to pay tribute and to honour the work of the talented people behind some of the most wonderful things found on this planet. All the material is gathered here only to inform, to promote things that need to be noticed, and to entertain people all over the world. KenNetti and Kenneth Sundberg are not affiliated to any of the companies, theme parks, movies, people, ghosts or other things appearing on this site. No rights of reproduction have been granted to KenNetti or Kenneth Sundberg, except where indicated. If You feel that some image or material whatsoever should not appear on this site, please CONTACT Kenneth Sundberg so that we can quickly resolve the problem.