I will admit that some of the lines said by Claude Raines are over the top (melodramatic) by current standards- but prior to WW2 I think audiences had a greater tolerance for this kind acting and the script did call for him to act "stark raving mad" because of the drug he was taking. It was a great movie for its day and even now the special effects look pretty convincing. If the acting style bothers you, think of the movie as a comedy/science fiction suspense drama!
share[deleted]
Sure, some of Claude Rains' lines were over the top. But, because of the drug, he is not only invisible, but mad! I'm sure you would say things like that if you took a drug that drove you insane. And I have to say, that woman at The Lion's Head, she was very annoying. In fact, almost every one of the supporting players made a strange look when the camera went their way, aka camera-hogs.
"I am not an animal! I am a human being! I...am...a man!"
What you have to remember is that most, if not all, of the actors came straight from theater. On the stage overacting is not bad. Its mandatory. If not from theater, then from silent movies, where you have to physicly overact. It was the style back in the early days of movies.
We can't stop here! This is Bat-country!
I love this film and find Jack Griffin one of the great on-screen anti-heroes of all time... BUT--
I wouldn't be too hard on the original poster.
I grew up on old black-and-white films. I was exposed to the "old-movie" acting style, highly stylized as it is, early on, so it has always seemed as natural to me as the more "realistic" style that contemporary actors usually employ.
Then a friend of mine -- the same age as myself, and an intelligent, imaginative young woman -- told me that she'd seen A TALE OF TWO CITIES (1936) the night before and found it "one of the worst things I've ever seen, with God-awful acting." This version of TALE is one of my favorites, but I managed to think before I blurted out, "You think Ronald Colman's Sydney Carton is BAD???" Just how was it, I wondered, that the two of us (who have much in common) could see the same film and have such dramatically opposite reactions?
Answer: she was not weaned on classic films, as I was. All she knew was contemporary film, with its naturalistic acting style. When that's all you know, exposure to something like A TALE OF TWO CITIES (or THE INVISIBLE MAN, where the acting is twice as stylized) can be quite a shock.
My recommendation if you want to sample the classics of yesteryear is to go back in time, gradually. Start with something that has one toe in contemporary naturalism and one toe in the older style, like say, TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD or INHERIT THE WIND. Then gradually work your way backward to the 1950s, and SINGIN' IN THE RAIN and THE AFRICAN QUEEN. Then step back to the 1940s, with TWELVE O'CLOCK HIGH and CASABLANCA (and a good prep. for acquiring a taste for 1930s Universal horror greats might be The Val Lewton Collection, with CAT PEOPLE and THE BODY SNATCHER). Then you're ready for the 1930s -- but since acting styles changed dramatically even in the course of that one decade, something from the later '30s first, like MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON or THE ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD. MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY, from 1935, is an interesting touchstone.
Once you've worked your way backward, you're ready to appreciate Claude Rains' performance in THE INVISIBLE MAN for the glory that it is. It won't seem quite so strange; it will securely and comfortably occupy its niche in film history. That, in a nutshell, is my advice to the uninitiated.
Philistines.
shareGreat post, Lizylee.
shareWow, I'm responding here to quite an old post but hey, maybe just maybe I'll be seen.
I, like lizzylee, grew up watching older movies and my friends did not. Indeed my closest friends simply refuse to watch them period assuming them to be bad and using the black and white color and the "overacting" notion as their rationale. I gave it some thought and having a natural penchant for social experimentation I set about observing the people around me in various situations as they arose naturally. Typically we consider the "overacting" to be as a result of stage or silent influence and I don't doubt the truth of that at all. However, it struck me that as I was growing up it was the real human type of acting in older movies that had appealed to me (specifically Jimmy Stewart's work with all of the natural subtleties of facial expression and voice that he displayed). And so faced with teh accusation that older styles of acting made such movies unrealistic and thus unwatchable (as if the premise of 80% of all movies of any time period constitutes realism) I took another look. And guess what? I found that the "overacting" wasn't over acting at all really. No, a bad actor then is the same as now, someone who was obviously acting and who seemed wooden in delivery. The syle of acting was, it seems to me, actually more real to how people really are. People (real people) ARE over the top. People at home and in real life do scream, they do shake/tremble, they studder even if they don't have a studder, people throw tantrum and when they get mad they act like fools and their faces turn colors and their veins show. Peopel sometime try to hide their feelings but are betrayed by their eyes and tehir manner. People, in short, are not smooth. The modern school of acting isn't realistic, its simply pretending that humans function smoothly. NOONE is as smooth as movies would have us believe we are. In the end older films displayed us as more frail, more nervous, and more real; older movies showed us who we were while newer movies show us who we wish we could be. The new hero never falters never breaks his flow and never fails to complete a sentence no matter what the situation; its a nice dream but it not real. Its just another change from man to superman, consider two good movies from different eras in High Noon Gary Cooper was presumed dead by the town because he'd have to face 4 guys alone and he was nervous and afraid, in Die Hard Bruce Willis accounts for 34 or so while cracking jokes.
[deleted]
Lizzylee,
I too was watching the old movies by the time I was five. I once asked a co-worker if he'd ever seen a certain classic film, and his response was that he didn't watch films that were made before he was born.
that's true!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
shareBad acting and a bad movie, unless you like stuff levitating and stupid Limey humour.
sharei dont think so! however ill indulge you with this fact. consider the fact that it was 1933 for crying out loud! maybe you just have to be a big fan of the old classic horror films, but i found the entire film fantastic.
shareThe movie was made in Hollywood and many of the actors were American. My grandfather was an extra in the movies during that time, and you can see him in one of the scenes as a "bobby." He lived in Hollywood and later Westwood for his whole adult life.
Bear in mind, this movie was made during the Depression, and no one travelled much, so much of the movie was made at Universal Studios' sound stages.
To label you a putz would truly be an insult to real putzes.
Therefore, you are an uber-putz.
I think the acting in The Invisible Man is incredible although Claude Rains's performance is a bit dated. But Rains still manages to create a terrifying character. I write more extensively about the Invisible Man on my website www.skeletontree.net
shareUna O'Connor is pretty unbearable, outside of her I found the performances quite enjoyable albeit obviously dated.
shareThe acting was terrific. There was a nice dosage of high energy levels involved.
"Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies."
Una O"connor annoys me, though not as much as she did in "Bride"....Remember this was Claude Rains first film....I think he did quite well...Im always surprised to look at this film after Dracula and Frankenstein and realize how much technical advancement had taken place in 2 years (i feel the same way when I watch the Mummy)
Una O'Connor was annoying in this film and in "Bride of Frankenstein," similar to Jar Jar Binks in "Star Wars: Episode I The Phantom Menace." Outside of that, this movie was great. Claude Rains was superb. This ranks somewhere in my top five of the classic Universal monster movies. The special effects were great for the time.
share
Yeah, the only acting that really bothered me was Jenny Hall, screaming throughout every scene, and sometimes for no reason at all. I mean, woman in the 1930's were usually portayed as screamers who fall all over the place when anything bad happens, but Mrs. Hall was over the top even for that period. She seemed like she had some sort of mental disorder.
Anyone that could even mention the words "bad acting" in the same sentence as "Claude Rains" is in desperate need of therapy!
shareGloria Stuart is beautiful, but, frankly, not too good in this film. I thought her acting in "Titanic" was better.
The actor who plays Dr. Kemp is not very good either.
But Claude Rains and everybody else are excellent.