← Back to Reviews
in
A Z-movie picture with a pulse, Glen or Glenda is a hysterically bad movie by infamous director Edward D. Wood Jr. Like many Wood films to come, Glen or Glenda tries to send a message out to 1950's society, but the attempts ultimately backlash due to the directors complete ineptitude. That backlash, however, is the film's charm. Outside of Plan 9 from Outer Space, (which I personally regard as a cinematic masterpiece and it will always hold a secure spot in my top 100 films list), Glen or Glenda is perhaps my second favorite in Ed Wood's schlock fair. From beginning to end it provides bust-your-gut-laughing entertainment.
Tim Burton once said something along the lines that, "What took one person a sentence to illustrate, it took Ed Wood at least five." In a way you could sort of feel bad for the man behind the camera, I imagine Ed Wood wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed, but that to me is really part of the films draw. He's the cinematic spokes person for the lower common denominator, and I think movies need more of that actually. Sure we can laugh at the results when humor comes unexpectedly. But I recall a certain Hollywood producer who would, regardless of how terrible the film may be, always give a standing ovation to movies because he understood quite well the efforts that went into making them. Granted there are films people aren't going to like, (and I have plenty that I don't enjoy), but I will still have a underlying respect for the project no matter how flawed.
Glen or Glenda is extremely repetitious. In all honestly, a more capable director could have cut this 70 minute film down to about 5 minutes; but then again we wouldn't get the charms of memorable quotes like, "The roads carrying cars, carrying people, carrying out their daily lives," it is easy to figure that if Wood is this repetitious in his very own dialogue the essential screenplay itself would illustrate the same. Wood's point in the film is to make a statement in 50's society that his lifestyle of transvestism should be accepted. So for a good hour he reiterates this point, over and over again. You may say this might get dull after awhile, and for all purposes it really should; but the thing that keeps this film afloat is all its non-sequiturs. Stock footage, Bela Lugosi as "Puppet Master", surrealist dreamscapes, bizarre sexual acts, and staged/filmed footage by Wood himself. This movie is almost a Citizen Kane of terrible results, not ideas.
As with my review of Tetsuo: The Iron Man, I will say Glen or Glenda is not for everyone. The reason I mention this is that some may have a bias that films should act and behave certain ways. I, however, don't share this viewpoint and when it comes to the issue, you could say I am very liberal-minded. Maybe its a fault of mine, but I don't treat it as such. Surprisingly I do have films I really don't like, an example would be The Great Outdoors which to me follows such a "scriptwriting 101" format of comedy that its not funny but dreadfully fomulaic. When I feel something is made for corporatism, (which may be the reason I don't particularly care for contemporary cinema so much), I tune out. That's where I can respect something like Glen or Glenda, its a personal film, no matter how laughably-flawed.
Glen or Glenda(1953)
A Z-movie picture with a pulse, Glen or Glenda is a hysterically bad movie by infamous director Edward D. Wood Jr. Like many Wood films to come, Glen or Glenda tries to send a message out to 1950's society, but the attempts ultimately backlash due to the directors complete ineptitude. That backlash, however, is the film's charm. Outside of Plan 9 from Outer Space, (which I personally regard as a cinematic masterpiece and it will always hold a secure spot in my top 100 films list), Glen or Glenda is perhaps my second favorite in Ed Wood's schlock fair. From beginning to end it provides bust-your-gut-laughing entertainment.
Tim Burton once said something along the lines that, "What took one person a sentence to illustrate, it took Ed Wood at least five." In a way you could sort of feel bad for the man behind the camera, I imagine Ed Wood wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed, but that to me is really part of the films draw. He's the cinematic spokes person for the lower common denominator, and I think movies need more of that actually. Sure we can laugh at the results when humor comes unexpectedly. But I recall a certain Hollywood producer who would, regardless of how terrible the film may be, always give a standing ovation to movies because he understood quite well the efforts that went into making them. Granted there are films people aren't going to like, (and I have plenty that I don't enjoy), but I will still have a underlying respect for the project no matter how flawed.
Glen or Glenda is extremely repetitious. In all honestly, a more capable director could have cut this 70 minute film down to about 5 minutes; but then again we wouldn't get the charms of memorable quotes like, "The roads carrying cars, carrying people, carrying out their daily lives," it is easy to figure that if Wood is this repetitious in his very own dialogue the essential screenplay itself would illustrate the same. Wood's point in the film is to make a statement in 50's society that his lifestyle of transvestism should be accepted. So for a good hour he reiterates this point, over and over again. You may say this might get dull after awhile, and for all purposes it really should; but the thing that keeps this film afloat is all its non-sequiturs. Stock footage, Bela Lugosi as "Puppet Master", surrealist dreamscapes, bizarre sexual acts, and staged/filmed footage by Wood himself. This movie is almost a Citizen Kane of terrible results, not ideas.
As with my review of Tetsuo: The Iron Man, I will say Glen or Glenda is not for everyone. The reason I mention this is that some may have a bias that films should act and behave certain ways. I, however, don't share this viewpoint and when it comes to the issue, you could say I am very liberal-minded. Maybe its a fault of mine, but I don't treat it as such. Surprisingly I do have films I really don't like, an example would be The Great Outdoors which to me follows such a "scriptwriting 101" format of comedy that its not funny but dreadfully fomulaic. When I feel something is made for corporatism, (which may be the reason I don't particularly care for contemporary cinema so much), I tune out. That's where I can respect something like Glen or Glenda, its a personal film, no matter how laughably-flawed.
My Rating:
4 Stars of 5
4 Stars of 5