Glen or Glenda

I had a particularly masochistic day today, watching both Manos: The Hands of Fate and Glen or Glenda, both of which have at some point been claimed to be the Worst Movie Ever. Watching both movies in one day made Glen or Glenda look good by comparison, but it is, by itself, one of the most bewildering movies I've seen.

I say this not because of its pleas for tolerance in gender matters. That might have seemed odder in the '50s, when homophobia was more mainstream. We've since moved on to debating whether gays can marry. What's really striking about this movie, rather, is the extended surreal dream sequences and the inexplicable narration of Bela Lugosi. Throw Satan in there! Why not? A herd of buffalo stampeding below Lugosi? Why not? Being trampled by the herd would symbolize being run over by society for an urge to cross-dress, wouldn't it? Symbolism! Except the symbolism goes on way too long, one sensing in an effort by Ed Wood to drag his movie over the 60-minute mark. Eventually, it becomes incomprehensible.

And what of that narration? Bela Lugosi, "the Scientist," is kind of like a half-scientist, half-god character, who's also dark. He has skeletons around him for some reason. He says sinister things. Who or what is he? At the same time, a doctor is telling a police officer about Glen and Glenda. I'm reminded of the Nostalgia Critic's criticism of Rock-A-Doodle- who in god's name is telling the story? "The Scientist" or the doctor?

You can find some elements of this style in a movie like Ingmar Bergman's Persona- random flashing of unpleasant things, apparent dream sequences, a kind of god-like "narration" (a boy watching a TV), but that movie was competently done. Glen or Glenda becomes a giant non sequitur- not the worst movie ever, but worth quite the WTF?

Now don't get me wrong; this film is truly loaded with all sorts of hilarious moments owing to Wood's bizarre and inept filmmaking. Moments including; baffling dialogue, poor acting, disjointed editing, hella stock footage, confusing sequences, and times where I'm really not sure what's happening at all.

But, after watching "Plan 9" first and being kinda bored at some points, I was surprised to find this was not the case at all with "Glen Or Glenda". I was engaged throughout the entire film and also found it to be a much funnier experience than I my first time watching "Plan 9".

Also, at more than one point through the runtime, I genuinely felt empathy for Wood himself and his plight regarding his own transvestism as depicted in the film. It was genuinely touching and I honestly look forward to seeing this film again.

I dare say this could potentially become a kind of favourite of mine in a way. But for reasons unlike any for any other film I would consider a favourite. It's safe to say I would actually recommend this film, whereas I wouldn't as readily recommend "Plan 9".

As probably many other viewers I decided to see "Glen or Glenda" to verify if it's really what was hinted in the brilliant biographical "Ed Wood". And indeed, I stared with my mouth open at Bela Lugosi's recitations and the random buffalo scene. It was all there. Some honestly unintended avant-garde.

Yet the movie is not half as bad as the legend holds it. The important fact is that it isn't an actual story, it's more of a semi-documentary, party educational picture. Behind the really weird editing the movie tells a lot about transvestitism, transsexualism, relationships, sexual identity and social roles. It's hard to believe that it was made in early 1950s! Not only it was produced significantly before the so called "sexual revolution" of the '60s, but also certain gender issues that were carefully covered in the movie seem to be still beyond the understanding of certain narrow-minded and prejudiced people today.

I recommend this movie to anyone who wants to get to know Edward Wood and his work and also to people interested in the history of approach to gender studies and the society.

Those who have seen Tim Burton's fine tribute film, ED WOOD, know the story behind this; an inexperienced filmmaker named Edward D. Wood, Jr. talked an exploitation movie producer into hiring him to direct what was initially meant to be the story of Christine Jorgenson, the first (and heavily publicized) case of surgically induced transexualism; this project was alternately to be called "The Christine Jorgenson Story," and later (after Jorgenson changed her mind), "I Changed My Sex." Of course, after Ed Wood got his hands on the basic storyline, he altered it so as to tell the story of his own transvestitism and to plead for greater tolerance and understanding; set against the staid morals of the early 1950s, Ed's pleading was actually ahead of its time.

Now, in wanting to tell this story, but in being constrained by both a shoestring budget and some rather bizarrely unusual filmaking instincts, Ed's efforts went sharply astray. This is, without question, one of the loopiest productions ever put on celluloid, chock full of nonsensical dialogue, amateurishly wooden acting (in fact, Ed's hammy attempt at acting was something out of a 1930s B movie), illogically inserted stock footage (gotta love the stampeding buffalo), and various leaps of logic and good taste. In spite, or perhaps because, of these elements, GLEN OR GLENDA is a thoroughly entertaining and endearing piece of high weirdness. The first time you see it, you won't believe what you are seeing.

Long live the Ed Wood cult! Pull the strings!

Like in "plan nine outer space" ,Ed Wood tries to put a message across in his film.In his sci-fi flick,he made his E.T. blame the human race for their self-destruction :it was not unlike Robert Wise's "the day the earth stood still" and not more naive than the latter.The main difference lies in the fact that Wood had a shoestring budget with his cardboard flying saucers and his shower curtain in the "plane"

"Glen or Glenda" is anything but stupid.Just tell me the name of a director (in the USA or elsewhere) who dared to treat such a taboo subject: the transvestites -not necessarily homosexual- and even the transsexuals.His film ,with voice over galore,although dated today of course was a plea for tolerance.The fact that Ed Wood himself used to dress himself as a woman (see Tim Burton's eponymous movie) is proof positive that he knows what he is taking about.

Bela Lugosi's part,on the other hand,gets in the way.Is he a scientist? a puppeteer who plays with humans? or "simply" God Himself?(do not laugh at him!when Agnes Varda ,an intellectual director of the notorious French Nouvelle Vague , films such drivel ("les Creatures",1966) ,the highbrows praise her to the skies )

Despite ludicrous special effects ,terrible acting and poor lines,Ed Wood's film is anything but derivative.