Glen or Glenda (1953)

The Age of Commercialism

It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

GLEN OR GLENDA is a hilariously conceived mockumentary that comes to us courtesy of bad film director extraordinaire, Edward D. Wood, Jr. While not as iconic as the director's own PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE, it's certainly a remarkable - and memorable - film with plenty of jaw-dropping content to see it through. It's a film that deals with the then-controversial topic of transvestism, although I'm sure the exploitational handling of the subject matter would make this offensive in these politically correct times.GLEN OR GLENDA is a mish-mash of various sub-plots and random footage which has been edited together. There's a narrator trying to make sense of the proceedings and the stories of two different cross-dressers who are trying to come to terms with their 'problems'. When one of the characters joins the army in WW2, five minutes of stock war footage fills the screen. Elsewhere there are cops, bizarre dream sequences that offer tame stripteases, and plenty of wooden acting, not least from Wood himself who plays the titular character. My favourite part of the film involves Bela Lugosi playing a crazy scientist who sits in his study and has no interaction with other cast members. He intones various lines such as "Pull the strings!" and is a real hoot, sad as it is to see him in the midst of his drug addiction.

Over half a century before Bruce Jenner decided to step out as a woman, Edward D. Wood Jr. came out with this daring, yet incompetently filmed would-be documentary about cross-dressing and sex changes. Wood, a notorious cross-dresser, insisted he was the perfect director for this subject, and with a budget smaller than the amount of change in a normal person's couch cushions, he sort of made a little movie about these themes. At just over an hour, this hodgepodge of stock footage, poorly written and acted scenes, odd fantasy sequences, and old Bela Lugosi rambling on about life and death is truly a finished product that defies a typical synopsis. "Pull the stringk!!" Lugosi shouts, and he theoretically represents some sort of a puppet master presiding over the human condition. Though Wood should be applauded for his courage in dealing with these subjects, one cannot forgive the incredible ineptitude with which this thing was thrown together. Some of its more interesting and racy moments were apparently thrown in post-production by the producer who obviously wasn't expecting any attempt at a thoughtful documentary from his director. The dramatic scenes deal with a young man (played by Wood under the pseudonym Daniel Davis) engaged to be married, but he's hiding a huge secret. The man loves to wear women's clothing, particularly angora sweaters! Should he tell his fiancée? How should he tell her? What if she doesn't want to marry a guy like that? The horrors! The scenes dealing directly with this plot make up about a third on the screen time. The biggest chunk of time has a doctor narrating about the differences between transvestites/homosexuals/hermaphrodites among many other things while at the same time explaining them to a police detective. It is in these scenes where some of the most laughable use of stock footage ever can be found. The funniest is perhaps where Wood has inserted footage of a steel mill and two off-screen blue collar types are talking about transsexuals while railroad rails are being forged out of molten steel and sparks are crashing all around! Other random shots of traffic and stampeding buffalo are thrown in. There is a suggestion that some random guy changing a light bulb in a rail yard might be wearing pink satin panties or something... hilarious!! The fantasy scenes go on for about 15 minutes, and make very little sense.Finally, we see the story of a WWII veteran who goes through a sex change. I'm sure they thought this was graphic back then, but its mostly a shot of doctors looking down at the patient while the narration explains in very general terms what is taking place. And the WWII veteran angle only gives Wood even more chances to throw in stock footage of soldiers in battle. The film's conclusion would probably not satisfy the militant LBGT (or is it LGBT?) community of today. It seems the doctor thinks and recommends that the young transvestite man can somehow be cured from his fetish, but I forgot how. Somehow his wife ends up taking the place of Glenda (his cross- dressing alter-ego) and they live happily ever after. Whatever. Anyway, give Wood some serious props for attempting to take a thoughtful look at trans-gender and transvestite issues at a time when they were probably only hinted at within the moldy pages of dime detective novels. 4 of 10 stars.The Hound

I feel really bad for Ed Wood. Not only was this movie a way for him to express his feelings, but it was also an attempt to get people to open their minds and accept people for who they are, which is a fantastic concept for a movie that was made in 1953. However, instead of getting an emotional narrative on the life of the transvestites and how they struggle to get people to accept and understand them (as well as their internal conflicts), we got a horribly narrated documentary type movie with abysmal acting and lazy writing. I don't even blame the concept of the film, because this (like I said before) could have been incredibly powerful and have more of the characters interacting with each other and trying to cope with society's hatred toward them, which in turn would get intolerant people attached to the characters, therefore causing them to question their beliefs. In fact, I think that this could have been one of the greatest movies of all time if the writing was not so dull and lifeless, if the acting was not laugh out loud ridiculous, and if it was not a god damn documentary type movie. Think about it, if more effort and editing was done to the script, if the actors had even a shred of talent (except for Bela Lugosi), and if it was more of a narrative than a documentary, it could have been a masterpiece.

Ed Wood is thought to be the worst director of all time.... maybe that's true... "Plan 9 from outer space" is a movie from outer space!!But that does not change the fact that "Glen or Glenda" is 100% a piece of movie history. Not so much a movie with the "strict" meaning of the word but rather a dramatized documentary about a subject that even today, 60 years from its time, raises brows, frowns faces, causes unease and creates misconceptions...The prologue of the movie says it all I think. Yes, all the technical elements are flaky and below mediocre...etc etc... the actors are not top notch.. yeah well, how many low budget movies now days "suffer" from that and on top of it have absolutely nothing to say!! And even high budget movies with superstars still have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO SAY! Nobody can "accuse" Glen or Glenda and ultimately Ed Wood of such a "film crime"... on the contrary. It will give you and your company PLENTY to take into consideration and talk about!Ed Wood hit home run with this one and he deserves to be acknowledged for it even now.... Sure, he hit the ball half naked, barefoot and dirty, staggering drunk, with his eyes half closed and with an awful haircut but he certainly hit a great home run!