Skip to main content

It’s easy, really, if you’re clever. An invisible man can rule the world!

The Invisible Man
(1933)

(SPOILERS) James Whale’s most celebrated features may be his brace of Frankensteins, but this, his other contribution to the Universal horror cycle (The Old Dark House presumably doesn’t get officially included as it lacks their classic monsters), ought to be mentioned in the same breath. Superbly spoofed by Joe Dante in Son of The Invisible Man for Amazon Women on the Moon (below), it doesn’t actually need that kind of undercutting, as its hearty – and twisted – sense of humour shines through throughout. Much of which can be attributed to a magnificently full-blooded performance from Claude Rains.

RC Sherriff furnished the HG Wells adaptation, with uncredited contributions from Preston Sturges and Philip Wylie; the latter’s The Murder Invisible was responsible for much of the madness infusing the movie. One gets the impression, however, that the most mirth-inducing contributions came from Whale (of whose oeuvre Ian McKellen awarded the overview “camp”). Certainly, the antically-pitched short fuse of Rains’ Jack Griffin is consistently the highlight of The Invisible Man, usually accompanied by condescending jibes or grim intentions. And diabolical megalomania. Wells reputedly objected to the picture taking his brilliant scientist and turning him into a lunatic (although he’s arguably a psychopath anyway in the novel, and undoubtedly goes mad), but really, that’s the entire reason the picture works so well (notably, Paul Verhoeven’s more recent take, the patchy-at-best Hollow Man, picked up on the side effect of the process causing derangement).

Griffin: Your father? Clever? Huh! You think he can help me? He’s got the brain of a tapeworm, a maggot beside mine!

Griffin’s ready line in insults is hilarious, brushing off the idea that fiancée Flora’s (Gloria Stuart, later of Titanic fame) father can be any help (above). Mind you, he may be on to something, since Cranley (Henry Travers) comes out with gems like “It’s a good thing to go away when you’re finishing a difficult experiment”. He also displays instant enmity towards the innkeeper (Forrester Harvey) and his wife (an uproariously overwrought Una O’Connor), leading to his throwing the former down the stairs. Indeed, his deranged violence is almost as amusing as his verbiage, so sadistically extreme is it; he puts an end to the chief of police with a stool (“A stupid policeman. Smashed his head in”); The constable is surprisingly sensible in contrast, instantly twigging what is going on despite his superior’s denials (“He’s invisible. That’s what’s the matter with him”). Later, Griffin ambivalently causes a train crash that costs hundreds of lives and throws a couple of individuals searching for him off a cliff.

Kemp: Straightforward scientists have no need for barred doors and drawn blinds.

It’s old colleague Kemp (William Harrigan) who’s reserved the lion’s share of the enmity, however, in contrast to the novel. We know he’s trying to muscle in on Flora (she tells him where to go), so our sympathies are limited anyway. Consequently, following Griffin’s rather tactless attempt to solicit his services (“We’ll begin with a reign of terror. A few murders here or there”), we’re not overly concerned to learn of his plan to take a terrible vengeance on Kemp. And in contrast to suitors in previous Universal horrors, there’s no escape for the character, who’s seen off with a particularly pithy “I hope your car’s insured, Kemp. I’m afraid there’s going to be a nasty accident in a minute. A very nasty accident” just before he’s sent over a cliff.

Griffin: There you are! A present from the invisible man! Money! Money! Money! Ha-ha-ha!

We learn that monocane has messed with Griffin’s mind (“The drugs I took seemed to light up my brain”), and when they aren’t causing him rages, they’re leading to frivolity, with him singing “Here we go gathering nuts in May” and “Pop goes the weasel!” (the latter on robbing a bank). He also steals a policeman’s trousers and runs around in them, frightening passers-by, laughing manically. In fact, Rains’ greatest claim to fame here is his magnificently insane laugh.

Whale’s direction is superb, ably supported by cinematographer Arthur Edeson’s atmospherics. The snowy opening shot is a thing of beauty, and if the English village is definitely Hollywood transposed, it’s also clearly possessed of an authentic eye. The picture moves along at a clip, even today, fast and funny, and that’s down to a combination of Whale’s sense of pace and the urgency Rains brings to his protagonist/antagonist.

Kemp: He meddled in things men should leave alone.

Naturally, there needs to be a moral coda, in which, having been burnt out of a barn (very Frankenstein), Griffin is shot by the police. Ironically, The Invisible Man then finds Griffin echoing Kemp’s words when he confesses “I’ve meddled in things that man must leave alone”. While there’s much to be said for not allowing science to advance unchecked, Kemp’s notion of responsible progress was developing new methods of preserving food, which as we know don’t do anyone any harm at all. So maybe Griffin wasn’t so bad after all.



Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

He is a brigand and a lout. Pay him no serious mention.

The Wind and the Lion (1975) (SPOILERS) John Milius called his second feature a boy’s-own adventure, on the basis of the not-so-terrified responses of one of those kidnapped by Sean Connery’s Arab Raisuli. Really, he could have been referring to himself, in all his cigar-chomping, gun-toting reactionary glory, dreaming of the days of real heroes. The Wind and the Lion rather had its thunder stolen by Jaws on release, and it’s easy to see why. As polished as the picture is, and simultaneously broad-stroke and self-aware in its politics, it’s very definitely a throwback to the pictures of yesteryear. Only without the finger-on-the-pulse contemporaneity of execution that would make Spielberg and Lucas’ genre dives so memorable in a few short years’ time.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

Another case of the screaming oopizootics.

Doctor Who Season 14 – Worst to Best The best Doctor Who season? In terms of general recognition and unadulterated celebration, there’s certainly a strong case to be made for Fourteen. The zenith of Robert Holmes and Philip Hinchcliffe’s plans for the series finds it relinquishing the cosy rapport of the Doctor and Sarah in favour of the less-trodden terrain of a solo adventure and underlying conflict with new companion Leela. More especially, it finds the production team finally stretching themselves conceptually after thoroughly exploring their “gothic horror” template over the course of the previous two seasons (well, mostly the previous one).

One final thing I have to do, and then I’ll be free of the past.

Vertigo (1958) (SPOILERS) I’ll readily admit my Hitchcock tastes broadly tend to reflect the “consensus”, but Vertigo is one where I break ranks. To a degree. Not that I think it’s in any way a bad film, but I respect it rather than truly rate it. Certainly, I can’t get on board with Sight & Sound enthroning it as the best film ever made (in its 2012’s critics poll). That said, from a technical point of view, it is probably Hitch’s peak moment. And in that regard, certainly counts as one of his few colour pictures that can be placed alongside his black and white ones. It’s also clearly a personal undertaking, a medley of his voyeuristic obsessions (based on D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac).

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.