Glen or Glenda (1953)

A psychiatrist tells two stories: one of a transvestite (Glen or Glenda), the other of a pseudohermaphrodite (Alan or Anne).Ed Wood is often seen as a bad director, and this is often seen as a bad film (though not his worst). As I type this, IMDb gives it a 4.4 out of 10. Not atrocious, but still low. In my opinion, much too low.Yes, it is campy and is bloated with stock footage and scenes of Bela Lugosi that make no sense. But it also happens to be fun. And even if the science is not necessarily correct (I have my doubts about "curing" transvestites), it does have a favorable and progressive approach to gender that had to be unequaled in 1953.

I might sound insane, but I'm giving an Ed Wood movie a positive score from an artistic point of view. Glen or Glenda marked Wood's first film, which he not only written and directed, but also starred in. The film was originally slated to be an biopic on Christine Jorgensen, the propriety of the first publicly known sex change operation (in this case from male to female) Wood however took over production and instead turned it into a film about his own transvestism.Weather you're conservative or liberal on issue of cross-dressing and trans-sexuality, Glen Or Glenda manages to do something which I've seen many sacred cows fail to do, create emotional interest in its main characters, and succeeds to raise question on what it means to be normal, with an issue which is just as relevant today as it was in 1953. The movie's production values are surprisingly good for a film of this caliber. The surreal dream like sequence in the 2nd half of the movie features some impressive film making techniques and manages to engage you in the character's descent into insanity. Even the film's acting is decent, certainly better than in the likes of Plan 9 from Outer Space.Lugosi's character is widely regarded to be a scientist representing God. At first I didn't understand the character's role in the movie (plus the use of stock of footage is completely random). However I was impressed with how his catch phrase which he utters throughout the course of the movie actually finds its way to having relevance with the plot. I'm not the type of person who over analyzes movies looking for their deeper meaning, but in Glen or Glenda it really came through quite obviously, and did leave an impression on me, as well as changing my opinions on Wood as a director. I can defiantly sense Ed Wood put a lot legitimate feeling into this movie, and certainly comes through in the finished product.

For the 1950's Edward Wood was incredibly brave to make this movie about transvestites and sex change - dealing with two taboo subjects. It was made with real passion by someone who understood the issue, but it can be quite off the wall and dull, but its a hell of a lot more intelligent than a lot of the rubbish made today and costing millions of dollars to make. The opening message of Glen or Glenda reminds me of the opening message of Tod Browning's classic 1932 horror film Freaks. The first part of the film begins with a narrator (Bela Lugosi) making cryptic comments about humanity. In a way, Bela Lugosi plays the creator, watching the people moving by their own, making their own decisions. "Pull the Strings' meant everyone (puppeteer) is the master of their own destiny (puppets), by pulling the strings so as to control your destiny and bring it wherever you want it to be. These theological ruminations Ed Wood gives us are right up there with Ingmar Bergman's greatest films on the purpose of life and faith in our world. Edward Wood wanted to keep it open to religions who don't believe in the commonly accepted "God", or do not call their god(s) "God". "The Creator" is an umbrella term that doesn't offend any particular religion or belief set, nor does it truly suggest religion in the first place ("The Creator" could be anybody or anything). This way, he doesn't directly accuse religion for people not accepting transsexualism and transvestism, rather he accuses people's stubbornness. The Bela Lugosi portions of the movie seem like such an afterthought to the central story, which is too bad considering that they are also the most compelling. He put Bela in the film, because, at the time, the old man was sick, addicted to drugs, and badly in need of money, and he loved Lugosi so he tried to help him whenever he could. Sadly Bela wasn't in any shape to memorize the ingredients for an ice cube, let alone a movie script, even a bad one. The lines were feed to him, but some lines still didn't match what was being produce half of the scenes (Bisons running around in stock-footage is a example). Maybe a example of not being trampled by life or others. Another one is 'The Dragon at the doorstep' is maybe the mockery, people must fight against to be what he wants to be. Puppy dog tails and big fat snails are the transvestites of the world getting eaten (destroyed) by the Dragon, (mockery from people). The examples of people excuse for sex change, intro-cut with having cars and planes are just out there. This film has artistic merit to it with those lines. With Bela on film, the audience has a hard time figuring out who is the true narrator, due to another narrator later in the film. So it's felt like a story within a story. This part seem like a horror film, while the rest of the film seems like one of those "better ways towards clean living" type of short films made in the fifties that they showed to kids in school, only instead of promoting personal hygiene, this one is showing you how to justify your life as a transvestite.The film proper opens with Inspector Warren finding the corpse of a male transvestite named Patrick/Patricia, who has committed suicide. Wanting to know more about cross-dressing, Warren seeks out Dr. Alton, who narrates for him the story of Glen/Glenda and the viewers. Ed Wood himself was a transvestite playing Glen under the pseudonym 'Daniel Davis'. Glen is shown studying women's clothes in a shop window. Dr. Alton points out that men's clothes are dull and restrictive, whereas women can adorn themselves with attractive clothing with outrageous/ bizarre claims. Women's clothes comfy? In the days of the Iron Bra and the panty girdle? Glen is getting married to Barbara (Ed's real life girlfriend Dolores Fuller) who questioning if Glen is with another woman. Glen is being force to admit to Barbara about his wanting to wear women clothing. A bizarre dream sequence, containing some BDSM pornography, follows with Satan. Not really need. It ruins the film. Glen then decides to tell Barbara the truth. She proffers her angora sweater as a sign of acceptance. The second part of the story about Alan/ Annie is a letdown, not worth noting. The acting is quite poor, with different actors you can spot Ed Wood's trademark dialogue style.It's this type of pseudo-intellectual verbal non-stop talk that erupts from their mouths for no reason at all. Much like a person reading a book out-loud; there is an unnaturalness to it because we know, deep down in the depths of the human mind, that humans, such as us, do not talk like characters in a audio book. The random shots of things, like dramatic radiator are just odd to be in the film. Looking through the opening "credits," it included a "Music Consultant," rather than "composer," or "director." I have no idea what a "consultant" would be needed for, unless the music he used in this movie was canned or public domain. Found out it's the old theme song as the old Lassie TV show. The dub lines in post-production is funny. That phony "granny voice" is one thing that's laughable. Unfortunately the film doesn't broach the subject that gender Diaspora & transvestism aren't the same thing. Ed Wood who was probably a very nice man, but a not that good film maker. Working with what he had on a low budget, with a script he had to write in less than 2 days with production starting not long after- to say this was horrible is a understatement. It wasn't that bad. It actually seems pretty progressive for 1953. Rather watch a flaw film made with lots of enthusiasm than a mundane manufactured movie anyday. Just my opinion.

I am a fan of movies that are so bad they're good. I've seen plenty, and Ed Wood is the king of cranking out such stuff. But until I saw his "Glen Or Glenda" I never new how genuinely horrific a movie could be! First let me say that I find some of the other reviews almost as ridiculous as this movie. Calling it some sort of 'ahead of its time GLBT' classic or any sort of 'serious look' at anything is simply finding pearls among the dog doo. The storyline is very thin; some parts of the movie are not even related to the storyline and are inexplicable, such as the silent (with background music) scenes of one woman tying up another lying on a couch, or a guy whipping a woman lying on the same couch, or Ed Wood (as Glen/da) making a face that looks like he's being electrocuted while a little girl's voice echoes in the background "Puppy dog tails! Puppy dog tails! Puppy dog tails!" Now really, is this a GLBT treasure? There are obviously some men dressed as women in some scenes of the movie, none of whom are any more of a feminine nightmare than Wood himself dressed as Glenda. He looks like Fred Flintstone in drag with makeup.Many of the cast of actors are seen in other of Wood's films. Actually they must be incredibly, fantastically talented actors to be able to utter this insane dialog without bursting into hysterical laughter:"I guess I've seen just about everything there is for a policeman to see. Yet I wonder if we ever stop learning... learning about which we see... trying to learn more about... an ounce of prevention." "I'm a man that thrives on learning. We only have one life to live. If we throw that one away, what is there left?" "Okay. Here's a story from fact!" Now, most of the handful of men dressing as women in this movie are NOT good basic material. Frankly they all look more like your Uncle Ralph or someone equally non-feminine.This movie is a riot, a howl, a scream. In some places it's a baffling mystery. "What does THAT mean? What is going on HERE?" It alternates between insanely funny and just insane. It is not some deep work as some here have tried to make it out. It cannot be described how truly and riotously AWFUL Glen or Glenda is... watch it, and try not to have your mouth full of Pepsi during the dialog lest it come shooting out your nose.