2-3. The two endings for this movie kind of illustrate the gap therein. It's somehow both radically progressive and horrifyingly regressive at the same time. The acting is (often) hokey and flat, but the visuals astonish as an achievement for surrealism (that dream sequence). The characters are incredibly intriguing and barely there. It's both fiction and surrealism. It's Glen and Glenda.
I don't think this is so bad it's good. I think it's genuinely great. The transphobic ending is unfortunate but given how personal this story was for Wood it feels tragic rather than offensive. The entire film feels so deeply intimate. It's experimental and emotional in a way few films are. It's remarkable we have a cinematic document from 1953 from a genderqueer artist.
..puppy dog tails and big fat snails....pull the strings....beware.... The whole charm of Wood's deliciously bad film is just how earnest it is. It seems Wood really thought he was making an important document of transexualism. Yet the campy acting, wooden sets, bizarre cut aways and Bela freakin Lugosi make it pure camp. This sounds like disdain but its anything but.Love this picture and return to it time and again.
Curiosa película. En primera una especie de filme educativo, pasando por lo testimonial, lo alegórico, incluso gestando posturas científicas. Claro que el filme, dentro de su lectura aleccionadora sobre el travestismo y la homosexualidad sugerida, peca de alinearla a lo "no normal". El final de la película es un cierra sobre un estado curado. Todo lo anterior parece derrumbarse.
Although elements of the film are as incompetent as one might expect given Wood's later reputation, there is nonetheless a fearlessness & originality that makes the experience of the film entirely unique. Similarly, the astounding nightmare sequence is not only an expression of genuine surrealism analogous to Cocteau, it manages to predict the entire career of David Lynch several decades before Lynch was even a name.