Glen o Glenda

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".

I am a huge fan of Ed, after seeing "Ed Wood", and I have since bought the book "Nightmare of Ecstacy". Also, I bought all of the films that he had made that I could get my hands on.

Like it or not, "Glen Or Glenda" was a landmark film!

This particular film was made WAY AHEAD of it's time!! While I was first watching Tim Burton's fantastic film, recreating the making of "Glen Or Glenda", I noticed that there were things in it that seemed rather familiar to me, even after 30+ years have passed, and that is what partly interested me in looking into both the book, and Ed Wood's films. What I discovered was, I had seen this film when I was in GRADE SCHOOL!!

After viewing the REAL "Glen OR Glenda" film, I realized that I had had seen this exact same film before, although heavily edited!

It was shown as a part of our sex-ed class!! I can hardly believe it that they showed us this back then, but they did. No

thanks to the school I went to, and the horribly incompetent teachers, but they did show it!

Now, fast forward to today, the reason for all of the extra scenes near the end of the film, such as the 'Devil' sequences, and the rest of the rather abstract looking scenes, were not originally part of the screenplay. Those scenes (baffling and dumbfounding), were NOT part of the film as Ed had written. His script left the running time short of what George Weiss had told him he wanted, a 7 reel, 16MM film, which was what he needed to sell it. A 16MM reel runs about 10 minutes, and George needed a 70 minute film (at least), because he pre-sold it in several states as a "Feature", before he actually found out what it really was. He wasn't too pleased with what Ed had made, but he was able to distribute it to his clients, after all of the extraneous material was added at the end. George did eventually make his money back, and he and Ed worked on a couple of other projects, unlike what is shown in the "Ed Wood" film.

Even today, though, I think that this film was made way before it's time, and Ed Wood should deserve some credit for trying to bring a sense of understanding to what was then a totally misunderstood way of life for a select few.

If you haven't seen any of Ed Wood's other movies, this one is a completely bewildering experience. If you have seen any of Ed Wood's movies, this is still completely bewildering. Wood saw newsreels about Christine Jorgenson (the subject of the first sex-change operation), realized that he had a few things in common with Jorgenson, and made this... um... documentary about it. Lugosi plays, as always, a mad scientist, whose storyline barely ties in with the rest of the movie. Wood himself pseudonymously plays Glen, who enjoys dressing up in angora sweaters. Two policemen investigate Glen's apparent suicide, and... well, the plot sort of lost me between Lugosi's bizarre rants, the stock footage of buffalo herds and the elementary-school-filmstrip-quality acting. It really doesn't make any sense, but it is entertaining by virtue of its profound awfulness.

Edward D. Wood Jr., a filmmaker renowned for his lack of finesse or panache, nonetheless created films that have a compulsive watchability about them. Here, he indulges in a heartfelt plea for acceptance as he explores the male fetish of dressing in women's clothing. A psychiatrist (Timothy Farrell) relates to a police inspector (Lyle Talbot) two stories, the primary one being that of Glen (Wood, acting under a pseudonym), who needs to work up the courage to tell his fiancee (Dolores Fuller, Woods' real-life squeeze at the time) that he'd like to wear her outfits. Meanwhile, a demented old scientist (star attraction Bela Lugosi) sits in an Old Dark House, forever uttering things like "Pull ze string!", "Bevare!", and "A new life has begun!"

I'll give Wood some credit here: for whatever slickness he did not possess, he makes this classic B as artful as he can make it. Granted, it fades a little in the stretch, with a bit too much padding, but "Glen or Glenda" is overall an interesting oddity, an appealing mix of the sincere and the sordid. It attempts to shine light on males with different inclinations (including a kid who is referred to as a "pseudohermaphrodite") and implores that the viewer not judge these characters until they hear their whole stories. And they do have back stories that offer some insight into why they grew up the way they did.

Going in, most people know to expect less-than-stellar acting in a Wood epic, although the cast, up to and including Wood himself, do earn points for earnestness. Lugosi is just a total hoot, and seems to delight in some of these quotes that he utters. He has one great moment early on during use of split screen where he comments on denizens of an unnamed city and their lives.

There is nothing quite like an Ed Wood film; while they may not be considered "good" by most peoples' standards, they have an unmistakable, quirky charm.

Five out of 10.

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?