The Christine Jorgensen Story

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.

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.

The comments posted here are uniformly derisive of this film. It does not deserve such derision.

I suppose I should confess that I haven't seen the film for about 20 years, or maybe longer, and that I only saw it by chance while channel-hopping one evening, so I suppose my memories of it are somewhat faded. However I was hooked by it, and it's stuck in my mind ever since.

What the other comments overlook about this film is its honesty. It is made with real feeling. It's true that the dialogue is campy and that the attitudes portrayed are stereotypical; but the writer -- who was Christine Jorgensen herself/himself -- lived and believed every word of it, and her sincerity shines through every line.

I'm not saying the film is perfect. Very far from it. I've given it only 6 out of 10. But if you watch it with an open mind, it's quite a revealing portrayal of the mind of a transsexual. I'd be interested to know what happened to the author in later life.

Christine Jorgensen Story, The (1970)

BOMB (out of 4)

Dreadfully awful bio-pic about George Jorgensen (John Hansen) who just didn't feel like playing football or building things as a small child. No, he preferred playing with dolls and putting his sister's dresses on. As an adult he went to Denmark where he had a sex reassignment operation and became known as Christine Jorgensen. People might not know it but originally Ed Wood and company where going to make a film about Jorgensen but due to legal reasons they couldn't so that film ended up being turned into GLEN OR GLENDA? and I must say that Wood was way ahead of his time and actually delivered a much better and (believe it or not) more serious picture. Director Rapper worked with Bette Davis countless times including NOW VOYAGER and I think it's very safe to say that he had no idea what to do with this story. The movie is completely embarrassing due to how poorly made it is and how awful the acting is. I guess we can start with the downright horrid direction which never seems to know what it wants to do. At times the movie seems like something meant to make fun of gays. The next minute it wants to educate you yet it tells us nothing. The next minute it wants to be a love story about the "new" woman and the man in her life. Then it wants to be about the troubled boy and his father who overlooks the obvious problems. All of it is handled so poorly that you can't help but roll your eyes. I really never knew if this thing was meant to be taken serious or if they were simply making fun of the situation. At least GLEN OR GLENDA? wanted to be taken serious but the poor filmmaking put it into a different category. This thing here is just awful without a single thing going for it. Hansen is downright awful in his roles but you really can't blame him too much since the screenplay is so bad and this was his first movie after all. As a man he is way too woman-like and as a woman he's way too manly so his performance doesn't work no matter which character he is. As a man you can't help but wonder if we're suppose to be laughing at him because of all the stereotypes going on plus you get more laughs from the sorry performances. The support cast aren't much better but I give everyone credit for being willing to do this film. THE CHRISTINE JORGENSEN STORY has pretty much been forgotten, although to be fair it really wasn't noticed when it was originally released. The movie might appeal to those who enjoy horrid movies but I found this thing to be so bad that I couldn't have any fun with it.