So those are my thoughts on the film version of The Invisible Man: okay, but not as good as the book which I do recommend reading. I own a physical copy of the film, but I think it's out of copyright now so should be available, free and legal, in various places online if you feel like having a go at it.
I've owned a copy of the 1933 movie The Invisible Man for a number of years but had never gotten around to viewing it. I pulled it out on Saturday night and put it on, as I thought I should watch something for Halloween. And it was... okay. The book (written by HG Wells in 1897) was better. The film version of The Invisible Man came about because the 1931 movie Dracula starring Bela Lugosi had been so popular that naturally Universal wanted to repeat its success. With that goal in mind, they made Frankenstein and started developing The Invisible Man and a number of other monster movies. The Invisible Man is, of course, the tale of obsessive scientist Dr. Jack Griffith who figures out how to turn himself invisible and, driven mad, embarks on a plan of murder and mayhem with the ultimate goal of world domination. This doesn't work out for him quite as planned. First, let's cover the positives in this film; a big one is Una O'Connor. How much do I love watching this woman? She pops up in many classic films- I first saw her in The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938)- and it's safe to say that she steals every scene that she's in. She certainly does in The Invisible Man. I personally would watch an entire movie of her as the innkeeper- she's just great in the very limited screen time she has in this role. More of her would make this a better film. Then of course, there's Claude Rains, who plays the titular character. This was actually his first movie; think how difficult this must have been for him: new to film acting, he had to convincingly portray a character with his face- even his eyes- unseen. Of course, he has his great voice, which helps a good deal... I think he does as well as anyone could do in this role. And obviously, this movie led to many more- and better- roles for him. He was a fantastic character actor who probably successfully played more memorable villains than any other actor in history. So whoever pulled him from the theater for this movie really did the film world a favour. Unfortunately some of the other performances, such as that by William Harrigan as Dr. Kemp, are rather wooden though this may have more to do with the dialogue written for him than his acting ability. As the movie is from 1933, I was expecting the worst from the special effects, but in actual fact they're not bad at all. Of course not up to today's standards, but I've seen much later films with much worse effects. The only time I really felt like laughing about them was at one point early on in the movie, where Griffin is prancing about in nothing but a shirt, and that does look rather silly. Other than that though, they really were ahead of their time. The basic story mostly follows the book, with some glaring differences such as a shoehorned-in romance which doesn't work because there is no time for it to develop in any meaningful way. The movie is only around 70 minutes long; there's no time for a romance of any sort, let alone the love triangle they take a weak stab at pushing. They also have the Invisible Man- Griffin- kill Kemp in the movie where he survives everything in the book. Griffin also kills a lot more people in the film than in the book, which makes the film feel rather uneven because it tends to waver back and forth between almost slapstick humour and coldblooded murder. The book, though not devoid of humour, is more serious than the film although, ironically, less deadly. Less deadly does not mean less violent however; in the film, Griffith is eventually surrounded by police and shot, later dying in hospital with his grieving girlfriend by his side. In the book, he is stopped in the process of trying to murder Kemp by a bunch of road workers who proceed to beat him to death with their shovels and whatever other implements they have to hand. In both cases he returns to his visible form after death, though in the book, it's his broken, naked body lying in the road rather than a more decorous and dignified (and clothed) death in hospital. Also, in the film Griffin repents of his actions, gasping out his regret before dying. In the book, he remains villainous until the bitter end, no deathbed confession- or death bed for that matter- in sight. Of the various changes made for the film, I think the one which I liked the least was that in what caused Griffin to become a murderous psychopath. In the movie, this is explained away by the dangerous chemicals he treated himself with, one of which is known to cause madness. In the book however, his behaviour is not caused by anything that he's injected. We see in the backstory that Griffin was always a selfish and unethical scientist, willing to cheat- and even steal- to attain his ends. The story of The Invisible Man deals with what happens to such an individual when the bounds of civilization and society no longer constrain him to adhere to at least some level of decency. It's more to do with human nature, and what men can become when given extraordinary powers and few limitations. The movie takes the easy- and less thoughtful- way out: he just swallowed something that made him crazy. So those are my thoughts on the film version of The Invisible Man: okay, but not as good as the book which I do recommend reading. I own a physical copy of the film, but I think it's out of copyright now so should be available, free and legal, in various places online if you feel like having a go at it.
Comments
|
About MeI'm a lover of good books, classic movies, and well-written shows (as well as some pretty cheesy ones, to be completely honest). Categories
All
Archives
March 2024
Fun SitesOdds & Ends |