Book-To-Movie: ‘The Invisible Man’

Credit: Wikimedia Commons

Warning: This article contains potential spoilers.

Well, I finally picked up the movie of 1933’s “The Invisible Man” at my local library and refreshed myself on it. (I can’t remember when I saw it before then.) And so today’s Book-To-Movie (once again having been postponed by a week) will review it, the 2020 remake and the book the two are based on.

Since the 1990s’ “Mummy”, Universal Studios has been making remakes of its classic monster films. Occasionally, at least. Most of its remakes seem to continue floating around in the pre-production phase and therefore are simply still in the talks. Not even “Frankenstein” or “Dracula”, which are both literary and movie classics, have been remade by Universal yet. (However, lately, Universal has been considering a new “Bride of Frankenstein” movie.) But “The Invisible Man” is the first Universal monster film remake that’s original had been adapted from a book. Both the 1930s original and the 2020 remake are based on H.G. Wells 1897 novel of the same name, a novel of both sci fi-horror and social satire. However, while 2020’s Universal’s adaptation contains social commentary fitting for our time, the original movie more fully keeps that element that runs throughout Wells’ novel.

The Book

In H.G. Wells’ “The Invisible Man”, a scientist by the name of Griffin creates a serum that makes him invisible. Obsessed with his creation, he tries it on himself but has no remedy to make himself visible again. So, he goes on a desperate quest to find one. The serum’s side effects make him go insane. On top of this, he becomes obsessed with the possibilities that the power of invisibility can bring, namely control of a society and making it do one’s will. He starts threatening and killing people in the towns and villages he travels through in his attempt to find a cure. First, he forces a homeless man (a “tramp” as they referred to the homeless in the 19th century) into assisting him to find a cure but when this victim escapes Griffin then forces his old friend and colleague, Dr. Kemp, into assisting him. However, by this time, Dr. Griffin also wants to use the power of invisibility to take over Kemp’s hometown.

The social satire shows up in Griffin’s self-centred childish attitude in doing what he wants regardless of the costs to the well-being of others. So, like with many of Wells’ stories, “The Invisible Man” is a commentary on the dangers of the abuse of scientific discovery and technology, an abuse that threatens both individual and society.

The 1933 Film

Credit: Universal/Wikimedia Commons

Although this first film is set in its contemporary setting, the movie was made relatively not too long after the book (just shy over 35 years). Because change in culture and society occurred more slowly compared to today, it doesn’t seem too far from the book’s Victorian setting especially in the small English country town where much of the movie is set. Also, as with many rural communities in the 20th century, agrarian societies were slower to the changes going on in the rest of the world.

But it’s hardly the setting that makes this movie stay faithful to the book. It’s more so the character of the Invisible Man himself. As in the book, Griffin is presented as a tragic figure yet a psychopathic one obsessed by his power of invisibility while yet a victim of it. Because of his desperate attempt to find a cure to his invisibility and then later to rule not only the town but, in this movie, the world, he is a terrifying figure to both individuals and society. In this version, he takes refuge in Kemp’s house like he does in the book, but he also threatens Kemp into doing his will and to assist him in taking control of the world. And, so, he threatens the lives of both his captive and society at large.

The social satire in this movie also makes it stay faithful to the book. Griffin has both that childish, mischievous, prank-pulling character as well as that terrorising one. In addition, there are other comical characters in the film, ones who overact to situations such, as the landlady of the inn that Griffin hides out at in the beginning of the film like he does in the book. But there’s also the social commentary aspect which shows the dangers of obsession with scientific curiosity and the tyrannical power it can lead to. So, Griffin is the tragic figure in this film as he is in the book because his human quality of scientific curiosity leads to an obsession, which in turn leads to an obsession with the power of invisibility itself which finally results in his defeat.

The 2020 Remake

And where is the promo poster to the 2020 remake of "The Invisible Man"? It's right there only it's invisible, of course! 

Okay. That was a joke. I couldn't put it up for copyright reasons. But here's the trailer: 

2020’s remake of “The Invisible Man”, while sticking to the basic storyline of the novel, changes the characters and story details a lot. For one, the setting is today’s era. For another, the movie centres around the title character’s main victim more than himself. In this one, the main victim isn’t Kemp or the homeless man, both of whom are omitted from this version (as the homeless person was in the original film). Griffin’s main victim is his ex-girlfriend, Cecilia, whom he stalks using his power of invisibility to get his revenge. Because the focus has been shifted from him to a victim, he is not presented as a tragic figure but instead presented as simply a hateful and terrifying one. This portrayal of him is also due to the method of invisibility itself: instead of a serum that has no antidote, Griffin uses an optic lens-covered suit that he can put on and take off whenever he wants.

The social commentary is present in this movie. However, it has been subordinated making the movie much more a psychological thriller than a science fiction social commentary. Yet, on another but important level, it carries social criticism for our time: it speaks against the abuse of women that comes via the male order’s abuse of technology. As for the satire of Wells’ novel? Well, even in an updated form, it’s almost if not entirely missing.

Even though the social commentary against the abuse of women is an important update to “The Invisible Man” story, it should have been balanced out by the technology of invisibility as a threat to society as a whole. This would have worked along side the former because of the abuse of other technologies in today’s world such as the hacking of entire databases of personal accounts and the mass shootings from lone and often disturbed snipers using state of the art automatic fire arms. If Griffin in this movie isn’t a mentally disturbed killer, he at least comes across as a lone one.

The characters in this film were well-developed as they are in the 1933 film. The exception is one: the title character. This fact subordinates that character even more, a character who makes the movie what it is: a horror movie.


2020’s “The Invisible Man” is not a bad adaptation to Wells’ sci fi-horror novel of the same name. It has both the tension and suspense of the novel and of what the original movie had by the standards of its time. Yet, the original stays true to the book most. This is mostly because it equally takes into account the threat of invisibility technology to an entire society as well as certain unfortunate individuals in that society.

Bonus Detail But Spoiler! 

There's rumours about plans for a remake of 1940's  "The Invisible Woman" in which the title character makes a cameo appearance in 2020's "The Invisible Man"! Well, sort of.


Have you read H.G. Wells’ “The Invisible Man” or seen either of the two Universal movie adaptations?