While revisiting the Universal Monsters in my recent series of articles, I’ve found myself drawn more and more to the final two entries: The Invisible Man and The Gill Man. The Invisible Man plays a particularly interesting role in representing one man’s behavioral regression through the ability to go unseen. From his maniacal portrayal by Claude Rains to the gaslighting of Oliver Jackson-Cohen in Leigh Whannell’s reimagining, The Invisible Man explores the monstrous side of humanity.
Skin Deep
Though literal in its portrayal, invisibility presents an interesting metaphor socially and psychologically. To be invisible removes established societal norms since the behavior of the afflicted cannot (or will not) be viewed or held responsible. And this removal of responsibility ultimately proposes a horrific conclusion. There is, however, a significant distinction to be made regarding this Universal Monster, and it’s his ability to choose when he is or isn’t seen. In the original film, Dr. Jack Griffin appears swathed in bandages and wearing layers of clothing to establish his physical presence when doing so is convenient, although his ability to be visible remains stunted. Whannell’s film approaches invisibility through the use of technology, but the results are ultimately the same. This contrasts with the concept of social invisibility as represented in Ralph Ellison’s novel Invisible Man, which deals with social and intellectual issues relating to race in the United States. With that said, the concept of perceived and literal invisibility ultimately presents the same negative effects on the psyche of a human being.
Out of Sight
The freedom expressed by Griffin in the 1933 film insinuates a dark and violent internal core within the heart of mankind. Left to his own devices and outside the constraints of society, Griffin escalates from cold-blooded murder to large-scale acts of public carnage. It’s only when he is mortally wounded that Griffin sees the error of his ways. In this way, the Invisible Man only allows himself to be visible through the acceptance of societal norms and the decrying of his degeneracy. This moral core is what separates The Invisible Man and Frankenstein from Dracula and The Wolf Man.
Free to be Free
Though Griffin finds himself free to act as he pleases, the revelation at the end of the story reveals a separate view of freedom. Though Griffin is able to act as he pleases while invisible, it is only through his placement within society that his will to choose is of value. To act without restraint and without consequence, then, ultimately becomes meaningless. This results in him gaining visibility upon accepting responsibility for his actions and dying. Peripherally, the story emphasizes corruption through unlimited power and the necessity of community and social connection. Griffin’s psyche deteriorates as his invisibility allows his power to grow.
In this way, the story emphasizes the disconnection between anonymity and freedom. This essentially proposes that the meaning of one’s actions can only be truly effective if there is an identity to associate with said behavior. Further, to some degree, the value or validity of one’s actions can only be determined by the identity and history of the one enacting them. Because Griffin is an intellectual and a scholar, his madness becomes more horrific due to the correlation between knowledge and apathy.
The Beholder
The Invisible Man’s exploration of the negative effects of scientific advancement ties it thematically to Frankenstein. By surpassing the unspecified bounds of human understanding, the individual exposes themself to horrific potential. Dr. Griffin, like Frankenstein, finds himself playing God, undermining the value of life and ignoring the ramifications of death as they see fit. Griffin’s flippant perspective of morality comes as the result of his invisibility, proving that societal morality and norms are as transparent as he is. However, his madness and frustration are as much a result of his invisibility as the lack of societal norms. Griffin and Frankenstein act as arbiters of the dangers of unbound knowledge and exacerbate the necessity of limitation regarding scientific advancement.
