Glen ou Glenda?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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!