Ed Wood is famous for being one of the worst directors and some think that can lead to amazing fun films, though thats right for some of his films, thats not so true for some others. "Jail Bait" shows him for example as an quite ambitious director (a movie which isn't so much fun, but still not really "good" in a common way) or films which are just different then others and in that case also not so funny. "Glen or Glenda" is one of this films of the last mentioned category.
"Glen or Glenda" is a very personal work of the director. the topic is "transvestism" / "cross- dressing" and the pressure the society puts on such persons. There are 2 frame-plots, 2 main-plots and 1 quite long dream-like sequence. All of this is packed in a playtime of around 1 hour. So you can understand you will not get a really elaborated story, cause there is no time for that.
this film is not so much a feature film, it is more an educational one. A "education film" which intention is to change the society's opinion, enlighten about this not so well known subject, all done in a pseudo-documentary style.
The off-voice is bringing forward some arguments, while the pictures are just underlining them. the actors are just visual representations/examples and like in all "educational films" they are playing quite bad, though not 'funny' bad. One important role has the doctor, who represents the professional, the specialist, which the people should believe.
The problem of the whole movie is, that Woods line of arguments is incoherent: first he is against a biologism, than he advances a view in which transvestism is something natural (biologism) and then it is just an illness (plot with the doctor). Ed Wood by himself doesn't know how to argue and how to win the tolerance of the viewer, so he tries it in different ways.
The first main-plot is presented still in this "educational" style and one man's transvestism is shown as an example. The pressure which is put on the protagonist is shown in a dream-like sequence, which reminds on silent-movie-era. In this part there is also shown some S&M (but VERY soft, without naked bodies and just symbolic), though it has nothing to do with the topic. This sequence leaves the "educational" style and invites the viewer to interpret the film in a more free way.
At the end of the film there are 15 mins left for the 2nd main-plot, in which he shows a second example of a "cross-dresser". the subjects in this part are "sex reversal" and "hermaphrodtism", a topic which is till nowadays not well known.
the movie is not good and it is also not bad, it is not funny either and it is not a "feature film". it is an educational one with pseudo-documentarian methods. It is an advocacy for more tolerance in our society. Though Woods opinion is not up-to-date anymore, though it is not well argued, this film is a quite interesting historical document about the debate. Who thinks this is a funny, entertaining or even a horror-film goes totally wrong and misunderstands this film.
"Glen or Glenda" is a very personal work of the director. the topic is "transvestism" / "cross- dressing" and the pressure the society puts on such persons. There are 2 frame-plots, 2 main-plots and 1 quite long dream-like sequence. All of this is packed in a playtime of around 1 hour. So you can understand you will not get a really elaborated story, cause there is no time for that.
this film is not so much a feature film, it is more an educational one. A "education film" which intention is to change the society's opinion, enlighten about this not so well known subject, all done in a pseudo-documentary style.
The off-voice is bringing forward some arguments, while the pictures are just underlining them. the actors are just visual representations/examples and like in all "educational films" they are playing quite bad, though not 'funny' bad. One important role has the doctor, who represents the professional, the specialist, which the people should believe.
The problem of the whole movie is, that Woods line of arguments is incoherent: first he is against a biologism, than he advances a view in which transvestism is something natural (biologism) and then it is just an illness (plot with the doctor). Ed Wood by himself doesn't know how to argue and how to win the tolerance of the viewer, so he tries it in different ways.
The first main-plot is presented still in this "educational" style and one man's transvestism is shown as an example. The pressure which is put on the protagonist is shown in a dream-like sequence, which reminds on silent-movie-era. In this part there is also shown some S&M (but VERY soft, without naked bodies and just symbolic), though it has nothing to do with the topic. This sequence leaves the "educational" style and invites the viewer to interpret the film in a more free way.
At the end of the film there are 15 mins left for the 2nd main-plot, in which he shows a second example of a "cross-dresser". the subjects in this part are "sex reversal" and "hermaphrodtism", a topic which is till nowadays not well known.
the movie is not good and it is also not bad, it is not funny either and it is not a "feature film". it is an educational one with pseudo-documentarian methods. It is an advocacy for more tolerance in our society. Though Woods opinion is not up-to-date anymore, though it is not well argued, this film is a quite interesting historical document about the debate. Who thinks this is a funny, entertaining or even a horror-film goes totally wrong and misunderstands this film.