Glen or Glenda? / Ed Wood
|
Posted:Nov 14, 2006 5:37 pm
Last Updated:Apr 3, 2007 1:41 pm 1955 Views
|
“Glen or Glenda?” (1953) – Edward D. Wood, Jr. (dir.)
“Ed Wood” (1994) – Tim Burton (dir.)
Why the double-bill you ask? I think it is necessary to understand the position that “Glen or Glenda?” holds in filmic history. Ed Wood is considered the best worst filmmaker, ever. However, unlike his other masterpiece, “Plan 9 From Outer Space” (1959), “Glen or Glenda?” should be viewed not as a bad movie best enjoyed with some form of stimulation, but rather an early pioneering film in the GLBT genre.
It was produced in 1953 at the height of the McCarthy era (Google Sen. Joe McCarthy) and the persistent and sanctioned attacks on “sexual deviance” and particularly anything homosexual by police forces on all levels (particularly ironic since J. Edgar Hoover, head of the F.B.I. was himself gay and a cross-dresser). In light of the socio-political climate, the film stands as stunning rebuttal to the forces of oppression.
However, Ed Wood was not the most articulate craftsman, and almost every aspect of the film seems disjointed and pasted together. Well, that is how Wood made his films. He used found and stock film footage. Why are there buffalo charges when our male leads avoid “coming out”? Does it matter? The acting is less than poor, but there is naïve intensity to it. Bela Lugosi, famed horror star and near his own death, portrays a mad scientist and shares the narration. Is he a scientist or a metaphor for God looking down? Or was Wood simply desperate to find a “star” for his film? Does it matter? The dream sequences are rife with homages to Irving Klaw’s work (of Betty Page fame, or vice-versa). Technically the film is a mish-mash of cheap filmic styles. The “style” is accidental and rather post-hoc, informed by critiques thirty years later.
Wood is simultaneously the hero to all those who desire to make a feature film on the cheap, and a hero to the then underground GLBT community … long before the political power existed to create such acronyms.
One needs to view “Glen or Glenda?” in an historicist perspective, and not with post-modern eyes. Once again, those here on Alt may view the content as tedious or pedantic. But to understand the value of the film one must appreciate the social climate of 1950’s America, and the concept of the rogue filmmaker. Wood himself was a transvestite, and often directed his shoots in full drag. The “scientific” and “psychological” content is surprisingly accepting and informed particularly for the time. Wood penned the script himself and it is clear that personal experience informed the content. However, as one watches the film opinion will change as radically as the film’s visuals and scene changes.
For these reasons, the viewing of Tim Burton’s “Ed Wood” will lay some groundwork for those who have difficulty in taking an historicist perspective in viewing “Glen or Glenda?”. Now, the question is; which one first? I would suggest that if you have trouble watching “bad” movies, then watch Burton’s bio-pic first. If you love the B-Movie genre, then Ed Wood’s work, which barely ranks “B”, will be easily palatable. There is some socio-political background in Burton’s film, but not enough to fully explicate the social importance of “Glen or Glenda?”. For that I might recommend “Citizen Cohn” (1992).
Although bad movie-making at its’ finest, “Glen or Glenda?” represents an accidental groundbreaking film. I find it strange that it did not make the documentary “The Celluloid Closet” (1995), which by far is the most concise film of gay representation in Hollywood film.
A viewing of “Glen or Glenda?” should be done with both analytic intensity and tongue-in-cheek irreverence. Maybe a little wine would help too.
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
Kinsey
|
Posted:Oct 29, 2006 6:45 pm
Last Updated:Apr 3, 2007 1:40 pm 1806 Views
|
“Kinsey” (2004) – Bill Condon (Dir.)
It is easy to neglect the transformations that human sexuality, within a societal context, that have occurred in the last half of the twentieth century. Particularly with those who are members of this site, the prevalence and accessibility of sexual information can be taken for granted. Also, the range of sexual expression has been exploded by the widespread public access of the Web. What is key to this however is that the myriad of sexual expressions have always been present. Kink has always existed.
Alfred Kinsey published “The Sexual Behavior of the Human Male” in 1948. His follow-up work in 1953 was “The Sexual Behavior of the Human Female”. Condon’s bio-pic of Kinsey is an excellent telling of his life’s work. Starting with Kinsey’s puritan upbringing and through his career as a zoologist specializing in gall wasps, the film at first seems to hang … after all we are waiting for the “good stuff”. However, the time spent on Kinsey’s wasp research is necessary in order to understand his later objective and scientific approach to the first ever North American sex research. For those not trained in interview techniques, this journey is a necessary one. For those with such training, it is a reveal of the underlying principles of research participant interviews.
As we are taken through the various sequences of candid questions and somewhat “shocking” answers to the 1940’s sensibilities, we become aware of the scope of sexual diversity that underlies society. For the viewer, and in real life those who read Kinsey’s publication, not only is there an experience of discovery, but also one of the desire to explore and “experiment” … a common phrase that is certainly derived from Kinsey’s work. There was a transformative effect on society as well as the research team. Knowledge irrevocably changes.
This film is an excellent time capsule that richly explores the impact of Kinsey’s work. I think the most critical moment in the film is when Lynne Redgrave delivers her performance as a lesbian. I won’t spoil it here, but that scene sums up the entire purpose and impact of the research in a short concise, yet heart wrenching dialogue.
This film is well worth the watch, and it will not only give perspective to the relationship of sexual behaviour in society, but in some senses an acknowledgement of acceptance.
As an aside, for those who have wondered where the concept of shooting extreme close-ups of sexual engagement in porn came from, well, thank Kinsey too. Although the close-up did appear in porn going back to the early Edison films (oh yes, he made some), the use of this shot in Kinsey’s research on the physiological changes during intercourse, pretty much locked the shot into the repertoire of pornographic film.
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
Everything You Always Wanted To Know About Sex
|
Posted:Oct 13, 2006 9:28 pm
Last Updated:Apr 3, 2007 1:39 pm 1783 Views
|
Everything You Always Wanted To Know About Sex*
* But were afraid to ask (1972)
Woody Allen dir.
I will admit that this film is included because of fond memories of seeing it as a pre-. It had everything; classic Woody Allen and strange sex. It is a comedy from the early 70s. The title is pulled from the book of the same title, which was part of the burgeoning sex-manual publications that surfaced into the mainstream around that time (i.e. The Joy of Sex).
The film is comprised of seven smaller segments: Love potions & chastity belts; animal love; public sex; cross-dressing; exhibitionism & S&M; sex research; (and the best of them all) the male orgasm.
The concept of tongue-in-cheek is absolutely a must to keep in mind during this viewing. You are supposed to laugh. The humour, in some aspects, is a little dated but most of it holds up well over thirty years after release. The material that holds the best is often subtle, one-liners, slipped into the flow.
This is definitely a film to be watched with a friend or several friends, and laughing out loud definitely adds to the experience. It is a sexual romp in the traditional sense.
The appearances of some of those who became Hollywood mainstays are worth the view as well. Burt Reynolds, Regis Philbin, Tony Randall, Gene Wilder, John Carradine, Lou Jacobi, Lynne Redgrave, and of course Allen himself.
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
Crash
|
Posted:Oct 11, 2006 2:01 pm
Last Updated:Apr 3, 2007 1:38 pm 1802 Views
|
“Crash” (1996)
David Cronenberg- Dir.
Based on the book of the same title by J.G. Ballard, the film is an exploration into the fetishism for automobile accidents. Ballard wrote of “auto-erotica” in the novel yet this playful term is hardly apropos to Cronenberg’s interpretation. The film works the darker side of sexual and machine couplings.
Our lead first appears as with his wife as they recount their daily infidelities as a form of foreplay. We have witnessed both their transgressions, yet the edge put on the experience by the characters recounting of the acts drives the eroticism into a darker corner, rife with a twisted sense of cuckoldry. However, this couple cannot hold a candle to the world they are soon thrust into by a collision.
The crash fetishists are hybrids, drawn into the lust of twisted metal from the realms of leather; latex; cross-dressing; scarification; body-modification; medical instruments; bisexuality; S&M; B&D; to name few. Each brings their own kink into the arena of the car wreck.
The performances are precise. The sexuality is always viciously boiling under the surface without going over the top. Some of the scenes are more charged than others. One of the most favourites takes place in a carwash. It is intense, but with a sly bit of humour when the woman’s legs bursts into the front seat and the driver looks over in both surprise and shallow breath lust.
The film takes the characters and the viewer on a journey. In some respects, there is no “Hollywood” ending. For the characters, there is no stopping short or u-turning back. Similarly for the audience, this film is a definitely a road less traveled, but one that has an uneasy familiarity.
As a footnote, after the film was released, very briefly in Toronto, where the film was shot, there were impromptu pilgrimages to the locations where sex and accidents were staged. This was a fleeting moment where fetishist of several types would find themselves standing with each other, under the expressway, on the valley road, under the rail bridge, in the airport parking garage, or outside the Ballard character’s workplace. It is unclear what they were looking for, but it is likely some found each other.
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
Celluloid Closet
|
Posted:Oct 10, 2006 12:28 pm
Last Updated:Apr 3, 2007 1:37 pm 1832 Views
|
“The Celluloid Closet” (1995)
Rob Epstein & Jeffrey Friedman – Dirs.
This is a documentary about the portrayal of gay and lesbian characters in Hollywood cinema. Narrated by Lilly Tomlin, the film features the “who’s who” of Hollywood past and present.
Interwoven with a phenomenal collection of clips and stills, dating back to the silent film era, are sets of cultural and social analysis worthy of deep academic consideration, but delivered in an approachable manner. One need not have a degree in cultural-political studies to appreciate the robust and engaging material.
It is at once an historical document showing the cinematic mirroring of the wider cultural attitudes toward homosexuality through the twentieth century. However, there are also moments of great cinematic change that may have inspired cultural change. The “celebrities”, creators, and analysts that appear to further the history speak with a passion and understanding that belie their “Entertainment Tonight” appearances.
It is both a journey through the history of cinema and a journey through the socio-political history of being gay in America. It is also a document of rebellion, and the covert act of creating art. For film aficionados it will further expand your knowledge, and in surprising ways. For those not so cinematically inclined, it will be an enlightened journey from minute one to the very end. For those who know the history of the gay movement, it will similarly be an act of growth. For those who are unfamiliar, this is a wonderful introduction to an intense historical experience.
The inclusion in this blog is less about “kink” than it is the film’s philosophy, one that hopefully drives the content here.
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
Personal Services
|
Posted:Oct 9, 2006 5:59 pm
Last Updated:Apr 3, 2007 1:36 pm 2117 Views
|
"Personal Services" (1987)
Terry Jones - Dir.
This is a British film directed by ex-Python, Terry Jones.
Inspired by the infamous Madam, Cynthia Payne, the film stars Julie Walters as a struggling pseudo-Madam who mentors several women, of all ages, working the sex trade.
As the characters struggle with daily life, the Walters character and her exhausted friend realize that the money is not in rub & tugs, but in specialty kink. With that inspiration, they open a brothel catering to the exotic, even though they are not always familiar with the 's special needs.
The film is a classic British romp, with comedy and social commentary dancing together. If you are a fan of Brit-com, then you will be able to follow the subtle laughs buried in the accents and British slang. There is much to be heard and seen in the subtext. The portrayal of the kink may be limited to those who practice the acts shown, but overall it is a testament to societal hypocrisy, something most of us have dealt with.
Without going into plot exposition, there is enough here to entertain the viewer for 90 minutes. At the very least, you will learn what a Poppazogaloo is.
|
|
|
0
Comments
|
|
