THE INVISIBLE MAN directed by Leigh Whannell (USA, 2020)
Following the welcome conviction of Harvey Weinstein and the exposure of simlar abuses prompted by the #metoo movement, movie-makers are treading on eggshells when it comes to depicting modern relationships. Unsurprisingly, there are noticeably fewer scenes of physical and psychological violence.
Many will welcome this trend, but it does not mean that the problem has magically gone away. Far from it, cases of gaslighting, domestic assaults and femicide feature all too prominantly in the media every day. The impression you get is that Weinstein’s litany of abuse was just the tip of a very unpleasant iceberg.
The can of worms the court case has opened up represents a major dilemma for today’s dramatists. Arguably, those who want to show off their cutting edge credentials should address these delicate issues head on. But in the world of movies, this could easily become box office poison.
Film, by its very nature, is a conservative medium geared towards light entertainment for the masses. Feel good endings are easier to finance and promote then anything heavier or more provocative. Violence is accepted in historical settings, true crime dramas or the world of fantasy but avoided or played down when it touches too closely on everyday life.
We can SEE you!
As a mix of Sci-Fi and old school horror, ‘The Invisible Man’ should be on safe ground but this clunky reboot of H.G. Wells’ classic novella also strays into the delicate territory of domestic abuse. It begins with a woman, Cecilia “Cee” Kass (Elisabeth Moss), escaping from what she claims is a violent and controlling relationship with her wealthy husband, Adrian. Since the abuse he is accused of is never seen we, the viewers, are effectively required us to accept his guilt until proved innocent.
Cee’s desperate bid for freedom initially goes well. Shortly after escaping from her husband’s allegedly evil clutches she learns that he has committed suicide. Better still! He has even left her a substantial fortune in his will. Party time!!! The fact that this inheritance is administered by a shifty looking lawyer, Tom Griffin (Michael Dorman), who just so happens to be Adrian’s brother is the only off note. But even so, what could possibly go wrong?
This is the basis for the ridiculous plot to kick in. Cee is convinced Adrian has faked his death and, as he was a brilliant optics engineer, she concludes that he has somehow learned how to render himself invisible. Gifted scientists, don’t you just love ’em?
Some unwittingly hilarious scenes ensue that require Cee to pretend to fend off a stalker neither she nor we can see. Bob Hoskins says he almost went crazy acting against animated characters in ‘Who Framed Roger Rabbit?’ and I imagine Elisabeth Moss faced a similar challenge in this movie. The result is more unwitting comedy than horror.
It’s all very silly but the underlying message is more serious. Cee says that Adrian made her feel ashamed of every aspect of her appearance and behavior. She doesn’t say he ever physically harmed her. In other words, she was trapped in a relationship with a control freak which means there are no bruises or scars to prove or disprove her story. Her experience could thus be compared to rape victims who have discovered to their cost that it is much harder to prove guilt when there is no physical evidence.
In this way, the movie appears to be suggesting that being pursued by an invisible man is a powerful metaphor for hidden male abuse. A possible snag to this theory appears when we finally get to see the real Adrian near the end of the movie. Nothing he does or says to Cee suggests he’s the monster she says he is.
In an intelligent piece of cinema more would have been made of this seeming paradox but, unfortunately, this it is just another of those dumb movies that specialises more in loose ends and plot holes than social commentary
