Yes, it is...
...Lon Chaney.
Lon Chaney (who was not known as "Lon Chaney Sr" during his lifetime) created the makeup for the characters he played himself, something he was known for. Indeed, it is where the "Man of A Thousand Faces" moniker came from. He would transform himself into the characters he played so completely that in some of the films, he was practically unrecognizable.
The Phantom of the Opera, perhaps his best-known film, was not the first character he played in a film based upon a novel or story. In 1923, he was The Hunchback of Notre Dame. That film was also made by Universal, and also featured a set built to appear as its real-life counterpart, Notre Dame Cathedral. Another was the film that featured San Francisco's Ferry Building in its opening Credits, The Penalty.
For many years, even I automatically saw in my mind an image of the 1925 Phantom whenever I heard the name, "Lon Chaney". Or "Lon Chaney Sr." Then there was a day several years ago that I got curious. I'd heard of Lon Chaney Jr., his son, whose birth name was actually Creighton Tull Chaney. His son had even begun his own film career under his own name after his father's death at age 47 in 1930. But then, it was decided (for him) that if he worked under the name "Lon Chaney Jr.", it would be more lucrative.
Hmm.
So, I decided to look up Senior.
Yes, I do like Wikipedia a lot. Naturally, this was where I started. Why? Because, not really knowing where else to start, we generally start with 1. Google, and 2. the name. And up pops the Wikipedia entry.
Now, remember that the image that always popped up in my head was of the 1925 Phantom whenever I heard the name "Lon Chaney" or, more specifically, "Lon Chaney Sr." What this means is that I was not prepared for what I saw when I opened the Wikipedia page. To their credit, they did not feature as the first photo one of Chaney as the Phantom or the Hunchback of Notre Dame. Or any other character he played where he was practically unrecognizable.
I saw this picture.
For Context, this picture is of him in a 1919 film, The Miracle Man. He actually appeared far scruffier in the first part of the film. How long that first part was is unknown, as the film is now lost. This image was one of him as his character all cleaned up. His character's name? The Frog.
The Miracle Man was also based on a novel. Well, more accurately, it was based upon a 1914 play by George M. Cohan that was, in turn, based upon a novel by Frank L. Packard.
Basing films on novels was not at all unusual in early Hollywood. As a matter of fact, so was The Penalty. It was based upon a 1913 novel of the same name by Gouverneur Morris.
Lon Chaney played Blizzard, a crime boss set on getting revenge on the doctor who needlessly amputated his legs after an accident during his childhood. To play Blizzard, Lon Chaney had to appear to not have his lower legs. In order to achieve this, he created a sort of "harness" with buckets for his knees and straps to keep his calves and feet fastened up the backs of his thighs.
Why am I discussing the Man of a Thousand faces on a website about a series of novels first published nearly 60 years after his passing?
Because.
No, I'm kidding.
It stemmed from my wanting to show how San Francisco appeared in the opening credits of a film made 74 years before Interview With the Vampire (1994). Another reason had to do with how Lon Chaney approached playing characters in films based on novels or stories.
Meticulously.
And I'm gonna need one of those Magically cleaning chandeliers in my house...
We know the Phantom of the Opera was based upon a book by Gaston Leroux published in 1911. What inspired LeRoux to write the book is an interesting story all by itself. It's worth a look, but for now, I'd like to take a look at a couple of things about the 1925 Universal film, The Phantom of the Opera.
The first is the famous Opera set. It was the reason the now demolished Stage 28 was built on the Universal lot. Construction began in 1924. As its steel frame went up, the lumber that would also be used was brought to the site on trucks with a clever advertising campaign--signage along the sides of the trucks letting the public know that lumber was going to be used to build the set of this new film.
Beneath the floor of Stage 28 was a water tank that would be used for the Phantom's subterranean lair. and from the day it was built until the day Stage 28 was demolished, the ornate theater box seats of the Paris opera house famously remained in place.
I find the history behind this film, its set and early Hollywood itself to be extremely fascinating. This is a section I'd love to really expand to include much more for its own sake. For now, I'm sure someone is wondering: Do I believe the stories about Stage 28 having been haunted by Lon Chaney's ghosts for decades after his death?
Honestly, I haven't the foggiest.
Whether it's true or not--and I have a tough time with the one that claims Lon Chaney's ghost ran around carrying the famous chandelier that was about as big as my car--the parallels are pretty interesting. Especially because the character of the Phantom was actually alive, and the rumors of Lon Chaney haunting the "Phantom Stage" mean he was an actual phantom, a ghost.
Do I think it could be true? Sure. Why? Because I do happen to believe in ghosts. Or rather, that ghosts exist. It's not the type of belief I have "faith" in. It's a belief based on one thing: seeing is believing. It's as simple as that.
One aspect that fascinates me was the way Lon Chaney approached the source material of the characters he played. He read the novels and stories he played characters in film adaptations of. The author's descriptions, the author's vision, was what guided his work in transforming himself into their characters.
Obviously, it's difficult for a novel or a story to translate to the screen in a way that tells the story as the author envisioned it. On the page, it's words that tell us what is going on, what setting it's in, what the characters say and do, and also what they think and feel. There is a lot more room for a back story on the page. But on the screen, there is a very finite amount of time to tell that story. The challenge is how to do that without basically rewriting the story the author actually created.
Clearly, the focus on this sort of authenticity was a challenge that even in Hollywood's early years, Lon Chaney accepted.
The result is that Lon Chaney brought those characters to life on the screen in a way that still grabs audiences a century later. Even makes them scream, although it's extremely limiting to say Lon Chaney was a "horror actor" in the context of what we describe as horror today, he did have a way of showing that true horror lies in what humans will do to one another when they perceive another human as "different". Or when they want something.
It's a bit like the Mayfair house as it sat for sixty years after Stella's murder. The house got dark and dusty, the garden overgrown, and the swimming pool full of muck as a ghost lamented the life and parties that once surrounded it. First Antha, then Deirdre had to grow up in that house, raised by the same aunt, Carlotta. Stella's sister, who went out of her way to make the two girls and the world think they were too mentally ill to control their own destinies. Who made sure each of them grew up without their own mothers to raise and guide them.
The reality? Carlotta had once been the Legacy designee herself until her mother, Mary Beth, changed it to Stella. Once their mother was gone, Stella inherited everything. Everything Carlotta did to destroy her sister and nieces was no doubt self-serving despite Carlotta's pious, self-Righteous claims. Even though Carlotta did know what Lasher wanted, so did others. And those others had to be shut out.
The kind of horror that Lon Chaney's characters experienced can, in their own way, be a bit like the horror Carlotta Mayfair inflicted on three generations of Mayfair designees. That kind of horror that is publicly excused even when it is thoroughly unjustified is, I think, what horror really is.
Did Lasher have his own designs, his own intentions with regard to the Mayfair Witches? Yes. What's odd is that throughout the sixty years between Stella's murder and Rowan's return, Lasher was not the scariest thing in the Mayfair house. Lasher was not there to haunt or hurt, but to protect. The scariest thing was Carlotta because the true horror of what happened to Stella, antha, and Deirdre Mayfair originated with her.