Glen or Glenda

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.

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.

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".

Surprisingly, the movie's neither good nor bad-- it just doesn't register on the conventional spectrum. Instead it's just plain weird, terminally weird. It's like a highschool hygiene lecture wrapped in soft porno, all tossed into a surrealist dream. Really, Wood had all the guts in the world to lecture a 1950's audience on the subtleties of gender bending. That part is genuinely informative and worth a salute. I also liked the soft porn with the squirming girls in semi-undress. But I'm still wondering how that got released in 1953. Then there's Lugosi sitting in some corner of the surrealist universe, telling us to "Bevare of puppy dog tails…" and other hammy nonsense. I figure he was added for marquee value since the rest of the cast are a bunch of unknowns. But what's this thing Wood has for lightning bolts. It's like he says, "Stop the action, it's time for a lightning bolt", and makes just about that much sense. One thing for sure—you never know what's coming next. It might be a stampede of buffalo or a stroll down Ventura Blvd. in drag. And, my gosh, Wood (Glen and Glenda) looks so normal, you'd never guess he makes Salvador Dali seem absolutely conventional. I don't know what part of planet Wacko Wood hails from, but I do know it's no part of the known universe. Nonetheless, here's a fuzzy angora Oscar to Wood for just plain weirdness.