Call me deranged, but I feel there's a little more worth to this movie than it is mostly given. Ed Wood's infamy in the film world leads to a particular form of expectation in cult circuits that sometimes gives prejudice in places where it's not due (though I'm not going to argue that Plan 9 from Outer Space isn't terrible... I'll write a review of that one next), but I think Glen or Glenda? shows that there may be a lot from Wood we're taking for granted.
Not to say this is a good, or even great, film by any means. It's real problem lies in the fact that despite Ed Wood's own well-noted transvestitism, this movie was made in a time when such issues were taboo enough to be misunderstood even by those who "suffered" from it. Glen or Glenda? is Ed Wood's personal journey into his own double-life, which involves, among other things, questioning woman's role in society, gender politics, and psychoanalysis. The absurd and random cutting through different viewpoints, narratives, and devices actually work FOR Wood's own confusion... the movie itself is as schizophrenic as people's opinions about the subject the movie is portraying.
The second real reason why Glen or Glenda? fails simply has to do with the horror genre itself. Wood uses horror tropes to express himself, when this movie would be a lot more successful as a drama with most of the same dialog... though nothing changes the fact that the dialog could have been delivered much better. Bela Lugosi's role especially stands out in stark contrast to the rest of the film, which at times goes through documentary or cinema verite-like, melodramatic, war, and psychoanalytical concepts at a dizzying pace. Actually, as I see it, Lugosi's character is comparable to The Man in the Planet from Eraserhead or the Emcee from Cabaret, a separate, somewhat metaphysical entity that comments in its own way upon the more diegetic elements of the rest of the film.
Otherwise, despite a very vague sense of misogyny, Glen or Glenda? is remarkably successful at detailing the anxiety and confusion felt by transvestites of various personalities. It's not-so-subtle arguments for transvestism are laughable, but they're more reasonable than I think many people are willing to admit. Had this movie been done by more capable hands, it could have become an immensely important document, but on another level Wood's own campy quality reflects the sort of underground sentiment and misassociation inherent in its own subject matter.
--PolarisDiB
Not to say this is a good, or even great, film by any means. It's real problem lies in the fact that despite Ed Wood's own well-noted transvestitism, this movie was made in a time when such issues were taboo enough to be misunderstood even by those who "suffered" from it. Glen or Glenda? is Ed Wood's personal journey into his own double-life, which involves, among other things, questioning woman's role in society, gender politics, and psychoanalysis. The absurd and random cutting through different viewpoints, narratives, and devices actually work FOR Wood's own confusion... the movie itself is as schizophrenic as people's opinions about the subject the movie is portraying.
The second real reason why Glen or Glenda? fails simply has to do with the horror genre itself. Wood uses horror tropes to express himself, when this movie would be a lot more successful as a drama with most of the same dialog... though nothing changes the fact that the dialog could have been delivered much better. Bela Lugosi's role especially stands out in stark contrast to the rest of the film, which at times goes through documentary or cinema verite-like, melodramatic, war, and psychoanalytical concepts at a dizzying pace. Actually, as I see it, Lugosi's character is comparable to The Man in the Planet from Eraserhead or the Emcee from Cabaret, a separate, somewhat metaphysical entity that comments in its own way upon the more diegetic elements of the rest of the film.
Otherwise, despite a very vague sense of misogyny, Glen or Glenda? is remarkably successful at detailing the anxiety and confusion felt by transvestites of various personalities. It's not-so-subtle arguments for transvestism are laughable, but they're more reasonable than I think many people are willing to admit. Had this movie been done by more capable hands, it could have become an immensely important document, but on another level Wood's own campy quality reflects the sort of underground sentiment and misassociation inherent in its own subject matter.
--PolarisDiB