I don’t know how many adaptations for the big and small screens there are of H.G. Wells’ novel ‘The Invisible Man’. IMDB lists 60, but this list also includes ‘spin-offs’, that is, films with invisible heroes (or invisible heroines!) that are not that much related to Wells’ novel except for the original idea. I would guess that the novel itself has spawned about 20 adaptations. The 1933 version was conceived and directed by James Whale and is itself a loose adaptation and probably the first film inspired by the novel. The Hollywood-based British director is himself a very interesting figure in the history of cinema. He was an actor, painter and film director, and all of his feature films were made between 1930 and 1941. The brevity of his career is probably due to the fact that he was one of the first gay filmmakers in Hollywood who did not hide his sexual orientation, but also to several commercial failures that followed his first successful films, and mainly to the fact that he made several inspired financial investments that secured his fortune and freed him from the constraint of working to make a living. His 11 years of activity were enough to direct several memorable films, four of which have remained in the history of the horror genre. ‘Frankenstein’ was one of them and the discovery and launch of Boris Karloff’s career is due to him. ‘The Invisible Man‘ is the second film that strengthened his popularity at the time and created his fame then and in eternity.
The film’s script adapts Wells’ 1897 novel quite loosely, changing some characters and adding a romantic plot. The strongest influence, however, is that of German expressionism cinema and the horror films inspired by it (some of which were also directed by Whale). The inn where Dr. Griffin takes shelter and the village with its inhabitants are not only the background but also an important character in the story. The psychology of the crowd, hysterized by the crimes that begin to follow one another and by the phenomena that they cannot explain, is rendered expressively and combined with a dose of macabre humor (especially in the scenes where the police appear) that give the film a feeling of modernity. The stunts are quite well done, and the mobility of the camera gives the film an aspect of dynamism that can compete with modern horror films.
Dr. Griffith was played by Claude Rains, an exceptional actor, who has remained in the history of film through several very consistent supporting roles (in ‘Casablanca’, ‘Notorius’ or ‘Robin Hood’). Here he plays the main role, responding as an actor to a challenge that is not easy – to give personality to the character when his physiognomy is … well … invisible. He succeeds very well, in my opinion. This first version of ‘The Invisible Man‘ is well written and interestingly filmed, and even if some details, dialogues or situations have aged more than other, it remains an interesting film to watch today and a quality reference to beat for the screen versions and adaptations that have followed and will follow.