A Filmmaker's Review: "The Invisible Man" (1933)

I think we can all agree that Claude Rains is an incredible actor with buckets full of talent. For a man of his era, he was extremely forward in the world of acting - it was no longer that Vaudevillian stuff but instead, Rains went for a more realistic approach based in the novel's actual character rather than someone who was made more for theatre than film. A film made in the era of the Hayes' Code meant that the punishment of the 'bad guy' was necessary to its release and was done pretty well to be honest. A clever and subtle ending done through atmosphere made for perfect tension. The story stayed in sufficiency, close to the story put forward by HG Wells.

The story starts with our character entering a pub and asking for a room with a sitting area. He asks not to be disturbed but the woman keeps coming into his room whilst he is removing the several bandages covering his face. She walks in on him removing them only to find that he has no face at all. She screams and runs away stating that she wants the man out of the pub immediately to her husband. Violence ensues between the husband and the man and he is thrown down the stairs only for the woman to begin screaming again and again. The invisible man escapes leaving the police baffled as to where he had gone because he was now, completely invisible.

He begins to go on some sort of rampage, breaking shop windows and stealing things. He meets up with a friend, holds him hostage in his own home and begins to plan other crimes to commit as the invisible man and also, how to change back from being invisible. His friend calls the woman he was in love with before he became invisible and she arrives revealing that she is still madly in love with him. After that, the will to turn back is stronger than the will to kill people - but now, it seems he has little choice as the police are hot on his trail - if he's leaving any.

Now, I'm not going to lie, the atmosphere of the movie was amazing and the acting of Claude Rains was mind-blowingly good. I loved the way the story was told and the essence of the tension was absolutely brilliant. But the things that got on my nerves were far from these. For example: I did not enjoy the way in which the police acted since I do not believe that it was wholly accurate. Some of them seemed almost comedically stupid and so, it was kind of ruining the atmosphere for me when they did things that lacked common sense. But the one thing that annoyed me more than anything in the film was the woman who owned the pub. Her acting was not only terrible but her screaming was so loud and high-pitched that I had to mute the volume whenever she started screaming. It was just used far too often and it was irritating as hell. I actually could not stand it or the rest of her acting. I thought she was absolutely awful.

In conclusion, even though the film itself was absolutely brilliant and Claude Rains’ acting was something to be admired as forward, progressive and very multilayered in its approach to horror and horror film acting in comparison to the more theatrical approaches of the time - I have had some problems with this film as well. Not only is the character of the lady who owns the pub absolutely annoying and was not really needed for anyone could have taken the food up to him, but it would have made more sense to have her scream in certain situations rather than just at practically anything. This would have made her seem more genuine instead of almost comical to very annoying. Hopefully, I can watch it again and give it a higher rating when I come to review it or make a ‘filmmaker’s guide’ on the topic next time. But, in my humble opinion the thing you should focus on is the acting of Claude Rains - an underrated, intelligent masterpiece of character.