The Christine Jorgensen Story

The biggest problem with this movie is that the lead actor, John Hansen, looks more like a man when he is a woman and he looks more like woman when he is a man...Go figure?

This not to be missed camp classic directed by Irving Rapper is an attempt at a serious, informative and sympathetic biopic on the life of the world's first transsexual, but the result, as stated in a previous post, is genuinely bizarre and campy. Released by United Artists in 1970, the era of Easy Rider, M*A*S*H and A Clockwork Orange, the film seemed dated even then. Lead John Hansen is chubby and broad-shouldered, and as Christine he resembles Peggy Lee. No cliché in film-making, acting or dialog has been overlooked, and that combined with the solemn narration creates unintended laughter and derision. Surprisingly, the NY Times critic took the film seriously and gave it a respectful review. After its initial release. the film lapsed into obscurity. Critic Pauline Kael referred to Rapper's best known film, Now,Voyager(43), as "a campy tearjerker". In The Christine Jorgensen Story, the tears are caused by laughter.

I saw this movie the other evening on a digital cable channel called FLIX. It came on midnight, and I hope they show it again. I got tell you, I couldn't stop laughing, then being shocked. The shock came when I kept checking the year the movie was made...1970!! I have no idea how they got to do all of that in 1970, and today, 2002, Hollywood wont even TOUCH this. There is no way you wont laugh at some of the dialogue and acting. But once you get beyond that, some of the subject matter scenes are WAY ahead of their time. The one thing that I could not get out of my mind was the little boy actor who played Christine. When you see him in that dress putting on lipstick, the first thing I thought was, "Why did this actor's parents allow this child to do this?!?!?" I remember the actor, he went on to play "Butch" in the series "Nanny and the Professor" and in 1982, he killed himself. But if any little child actor today had scenes like this, they would be a star. Same with the adult actor, I had no idea it was an actor, for some reason I thought it was Christine herself. Then there is the director, I thought it was a made up name until I looked here on IMDb and found out he directed one of my favorite films..Now, Voyager! Plus I thought about Tim Burton's Film, Ed Wood and remembered how Ed wanted to direct this script. (Ed only got to do Glen and Glenda which is no where near this!) I thought if Ed Wood got his wish to direct this film, he would have been a more household name. I am so sorry FLIX showed the film so late, I dosed off before the end, and I did not tape it. FLIX has a habit of showing these again, if you've got digital or satellite tv, I suggest you catch it. And I challenge Hollywood today to do a film like this (Independent Feature Film makers would, of course!). And tackle the subject matter, without the camp but with all the inner and outer turmoil George/Christine had.

In the early 1950s, George Jorgensen transitioned from a guy to a woman. I noticed some reviewers said he was the first to do so...but he was not, as some such surgeries were performed in Europe in the 1930s. Instead, he was the first to go public and openly admit they'd gone through the hormone replacement and operations. Now renamed 'Christine', she spent much of the rest of her live advocating for transsexual acceptance. Here in this 1970 film, Jorgensen's autobiography is brought to the big screen...with a caveat. The film was highly fictionalized according to several sources I read and I have no idea what was and what wasn't true. Sure, they wanted to make the film profitable and embellishing would make the project more cinematic...but it really calls for a more faithful film about her life. And, at this point, if you want the best version of Christine's life, try to find the book--and it is at Amazon (among other places).

As far as the film goes, it seemed from the beginning that the filmmakers really didn't try all that hard to get the look of the film right. Much of the movie is set in the 1940s...yet the hairstyles and clothes look like they're from 1970! In particular, the models George was photographing looked nothing like a 1940s or 50s woman. The guys in the film were dressed in clothes closer to the period...which seemed a bit odd. Also, the cars shown in 'Copenhagen' (circa 1950) are mid to late 50s American cars. As a retired history teacher, I tend to notice these things...perhaps most others won't. I can only assume they either didn't care to get it right or the project was so low budget they simply couldn't afford the extra cost of getting the details right.

The film stars John Hansen as George/Christine. He's not a particularly famous actor and only has a small number of film credits. But he was pretty good as the title character--rather feminine as a male but not campy or over the top. Once the transition's been made, Hansen does a fair job but looks more like a guy than Christine actually did-- modern makeup would have made the character more believable--but it was 1970 when they made the picture.

As far as the rest of the film goes, it worked pretty well because it did not come off as an exploitation film--something that could have happened very easily. Sensitively made, it is interesting to watch though I also know it's not a film for everyone! My only big regret is that I wanted the film to be a true biography...not a film with occasional embellishments and changes for the sake of marketing.

I was channel surfing for Steven King's Christine when Roku surfaced this chestnut from 1970. I was amazed that a movie had been made on Christine Jorgensen. Ed Woods dream come true. But in spite of its high production value and good acting it gave short shrift to gender dysphoria syndrome. In fact the story was almost surreal. It was hard to maintain belief that this was really what happened. Being a physician that treats transsexuals and other syndromes and having known Christine on a personal basis, the film was quite shallow but served a necessary purpose to once again remind the public that this is a medical problem deserving of respect not derision. The story is much more complicated than portrayed. It is not a laughing matter and victims of the syndrome do not have a happy ending. Many wind up in the sex trade, murdered regularly, and victimized by malpractice of surgeons. I'm glad Christine agreed to make the film but it is locked in its time and prejudices. Not up to date if you really want to know about this life shattering disease.