the invisible man (1933) review

The Invisible Man is a 1933 film by James Whale – the director of the 1931 film Frankenstein – and follows the story of a man named Dr. Jack Griffin – played by Claude Rains – who discovers how to turn himself invisible. The film’s plot was loosely based on H.G. Wells's 1897 novel of the same name and took elements from Philip Wylie’s 1931 novel The Murderer Invisible ^[1]. The goal of the film seemed to be solely financial and hoped to find success with the recent releases of James Whale’s Frankenstein and the earlier Dracula by Tod Browning ^[1]. I enjoyed watching The Invisible Man and seeing all the impressive effects of the time, though I felt myself getting bored at a few moments.

I found Dr. Jack Griffin to be an enjoyable protagonist; Not because he was relatable or sympathetic, but simply because he was entertaining to watch. He is rude, dramatic, and has frankly lost his mind due to the chemicals he used to turn himself invisible. Griffin spends most of the film yelling at people or cackling at the destruction and chaos he has caused, and it is plain fun watching him do it. I am sure his chaotic and dangerous nature lent itself to the horror of the film when it was first released, but the modern consideration of horror is much different, and the public doesn't find that horrifying anymore.

One of the strengths of the film is the special effects that made Griffin’s actor, Claude Rains, seem to be invisible. The effects are outdated now, but for the time they were quite extraordinary. The most impressive effect is the reveal of Griffin truly being invisible. According to an article on ScreenRant.com, a biography written about the film’s director – James Whale: A New World of Gods and Monsters, written by James Curtis – describes how the effect was carried out. They filmed each scene where Rains appeared invisible two separate times – one shot of just the background and set, and one of the set all draped in black velvet, with Rains himself covered in all black, except for whatever clothing he had to wear for the scene. Then they produced two mattes – high-contrast duplicates – of the shots of Rains, "One had the effect of blocking out the background, while the other blocked out the partially-clothed Invisible Man.” They then combined all four pieces of film to make the final shot ^[2].

One way that I think the film comes up short is that it drags a bit partway through. It may just be a personal problem, and another person may not agree, but I found myself losing focus on the film during the third act. Though, it's likely that I found the movie boring at times because of how I watched it. The Invisible Man was originally screened in a movie theatre with a large group of people. I did not do that. The way I watched The Invisible Man was on a computer monitor alone in my bedroom with easy access to my smart phone. I was constantly getting distracted by my cat and the messages people were sending me online. There was one moment where I went on my phone to answer a message, and when I looked back up, I had no idea what was happening because I had missed too many scenes. Watching a movie that way is unfortunately not going to reflect well on the movie.

The Invisible Man is a movie that I would recommend to anyone interested in flawed protagonists and impressive pre-CGI effects. The one thing I suggest is to watch it with some friends or in a movie theatre if you can, to get the best out of your viewing experience.

Bibliography:

1.

2.