31 Days of Horror: The Invisible Man (1933)

Directed by James Whale.

1933. Not rated, 71 minutes.

Cast: Claude Rains, Gloria Stuart, William Harrigan, Dudley Digges, Una O'Connor, Henry Travers, Forrester Harvey, E. E. Clive, John Carradine.

    I must've watched Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein a dozen times during my youth. It led me to seek out Dracula and Frankenstein (also directed by James Whale), both from 1931, and The Wolf Man (1941). All of the main characters of those movies have a major part in Abbott and Costello's masterpiece. I enjoy them all and confirmed it by revisiting them in recent years, along with Bride of Frankenstein, arguably the best of them all. At the end of the Abbott and Costello flick, we get a teaser of a finale featuring The Invisible Man. Yet, for some reason, I never watched his movie, until now.

    What struck me right away is that when the movie starts, our titular character already possesses the powers announced by the title and has already fled the life he once knew. We meet him, Dr. Jack Griffin (Rains), as he's procuring a room at a local inn that sits above a bar in a small village. We see him because he's trying to appear as normal as possible, wearing all the clothing of a man of his station, and his head completely wrapped in bandages. Dark glasses hide the hollow-looking holes where his eyes should be and a toupee passes for hair. Everyone thinks him odd, especially with his angry demeanor and the demands he barks at the staff, but they don't think anything is too off. Once alone, we see him pull all sorts of scientific equipment out of his bag and begin experimenting. Soon enough, we get confirmation he is indeed invisible and is desperate to reverse his condition. His desperation is fueled by his longing to get back to Flora (Stewart), the love of his life. Eventually, things go sideways and Jack's goals become bigger and more sinister.

    Jumping into the story where we do is a double-edged sword. It helps the pace because it puts us much closer to the meat of the story. One thing about the Universal Monster pictures of this era, they're short. This is no exception, barely stretching beyond an hour. With not a minute to waste, we're already halfway through what should be the rising action and closing in on the climax. On the other hand, we never get the chance to like Dr. Griffin. This is key because the movie clearly wants you to sympathize with him. It's power lies in you doing just that. It just doesn't give us quite enough tools to do the job. We here him lament not being able to be with Flora, but for the first half of the movie she's barely in it. We spend most of that time with him treating everyone like crap. We learn that his condition affects his mind state. Not long after, he gives over to this, without much of a fight. We merely shrug our shoulders at the idea. After all, we didn't know him when he was this up and coming brilliant, yet charming scientist his friends and colleagues speak of whenever they appear. He's just a guy who goes from asshole to supervillain in the blink of an eye. That's not exactly breaking our hearts. Flora is the next logical person to get our dander up. However, like I said earlier, she doesn't get much airplay until late in the proceedings. When she does, she spends most of it moping about how much she misses her beloved Jack. It's naturally sad, just not sad enough for us to really care. Having only characters we either don't like, or are indifferent towards permeates our viewing. We keep waiting for something to pull us all the way in, but we never get it.

    We're left with marveling at, and/or nitpicking the special fx. Some of them look phenomenal and still hold up almost 90 years after the film's release. Visuals of things floating around, or otherwise moving on their own look great. I didn't see any visible strings (I don't think), or other things that would keep me from believing they were being manipulated by an invisible being. Unfortunately, some of that visual flair is subverting by the film's sound design. During scenes when The Invisible Man is wreaking havoc we get a lot of goofy noises. I gather that for a 1933 audience, these may have been needed help guide them through the action. However, this was the one place where my 2020 sensibilities took over. The noises combined with all the pratfalls people were doing come off like slapstick. The Invisible Man felt more like a mischievous prankster than a menacing unseen force.

    Star Claude Rains is, himself, an effect. Nearly his entire performance is given while buried beneath many layers of clothing and gauze. For those of you who remember the movie Darkman and what the hero in it wore, it's that, but to the nth degree. In scenes where the character is fully invisible, it's a voice-over performance. Rains does very well under both conditions. As far as nitpicks go, there are a few instances, when Rains has have parts of him visible and others not, that we clearly see his image is superimposed on the image of the whatever scenery he's supposed to be inhabiting. I can forgive it because there is some cgi out there right now that looks nearly as bad. 

    The Invisible Man is a mixed bag. There is lots to admire in terms of craftmanship. Putting what they did on screen is proof of the ingenuity of the filmmakers. They got creative where they had to and kept it simple in other spots. Unfortunately, from a storytelling standpoint, the film isn't as successful. It develops its main character, but only from what's naturally the halfway point of his arc. The missing half is critical to the feelings they're trying to evoke, but it's simply not there.