I’ve watched Ed Wood multiple times. This being the third. I quite literally proclaimed it the greatest film ever made after the first viewing. As I got older, I appreciated it more, but didn’t think it was as good. I now appreciate and love it more than last time.
Ed Wood is an amazing, beautiful film. The cinematography is so sharp it’s astounding. The black and white film glistens and glows so beautifully. Not only does it look incredible, but it drives you in the film. Our protagonist, Ed Wood, looks at life like it’s the chance to cut a movie. The movies he’s making are in black and white. The B&W also gets one in the dumb horror movie vibe. Even if the story, or writing of this film was bad, which it mostly certainly isn’t, Ed Wood would be well known and well liked for how good it looks. The sharp contrast of lighting and perfectly lit sets are gorgeous.
The film is immediately engrossing. We start the film with Jeffrey Jones as “The Amazing Criswell”, breaking the fourth wall to introduce the tale of Ed Wood. This is one of the few weak performances, but it works as that’s the type of performance you’d get to an introduction to a shlock horror movie. Jones’ performance is much better in the film proper. There is also some infrequent awkward dubbing, presumably as there was something the matter with the performance in the used takes. Basically all of the performances are really great. Even minor actors go above and beyond what’s expected. Favorites are the depressed and contemplative Bunny Breckinridge, played by Bill Murray and the loveable and passive Tor Johnson, played by George “The Animal” Steele. Johnny Depp, who often can annoy and fall into Johnny Depp roles, where he’s playing the same, watered down character in several films, gives a brilliant performance here. The layered performance showcases Ed Wood’s stresses and comforts, what he does and why. One highlight is him at peak discomfort and frustration near the end.
However, the second best performance in this film is comically idiotic and inept when compared to the performance of Martin Landau as Bela Lugosi. Landau has elegance and subtlety and nuance and realism to his role. There’s a lot going on in Bela’s head and you can see that when Landau acts. He often feels both well and poor at the same time. This is demonstrated in his first scene where he gets out of a coffin he’s considering buying. Landau has some funny lines there, a particularly fun one is “This is the most uncomfortable coffin I’ve ever been in!” You can’t help but feel bad for Bela during the film. You want him to be younger and happier and more successful so badly. While an audience might feel for a sympathetically written character with a bad actor, here you feel for Bela and very strongly due to how he’s played.
There’s many funny and witty lines, which don’t detract from the more dramatic story. They work in building the mood and how the characters are. Some favorites are A.) “Sound?!” “We don’t have sound.” B.) “Better than not getting the job?” pause “Yes!” C.) “Well, I was wondering if maybe sometime you’d like to go out and maybe grab some dinner.” “You mean like a date? I thought you were a fag.” “Me?! No, no, I’m just a transvestite.”
OVERVIEW
Edward D. Wood Jr. is easy to make fun of. His failure to make the high art he wanted can make someone wonder what kind of a person he was. While Ed Wood isn’t always historically accurate, it shows the audience that pretty well. Just like with Bela and all the other filmmakers portrayed in this film, you want them to succeed. You want Ed Wood to succeed as he’s such a visionary and he’s so determined. You want his movies to be masterpieces.
Ed Wood goes through a journey. He learns and changes and develops, leading to a very satisfying and well earned ending. This film has some of the best uses of music scoring an emotional moment. Usually, such moments are better without scores. The music here perfectly emphasizes the struggle and the dynamics and the drama and most importantly, the payoff of Ed’s experiences. It’s difficult to express how hard and how well the ending hits. Johnny and director Tim Burton really tie the film together. It’s doubtful that anyone could’ve given the performance that Johnny Depp did.
I greatly respect and revere the courageous woman, Christine Jorgensen, a Transgender woman who wasn’t going to let society keep her down and stop her from living her best life. It was nice to know that an actualfilm was made about her, as opposed to the “Eh, kinda” movie from 1953 called Glen or Glenda. Glen or Glenda is famously considered one of the worst films ever made. Christine need not shed tears as the connections to her life are so tenuous, no one would think it’s about her if they weren’t told it was (and it barely was). The Christine Jorgensen Story does have some pretty large deviations from the real life story, but there’s at least a fair amount of accuracy. Unfortunately there’s quite a few questions about whether or not scenes were accurate as there’s no good info pointing either way.
Accurate or not, The Christine Jorgensen Story is excellent. Having watched the film in 2018 and then again here in 2020, it stands up very well. Producer, Edward Small got Irving Rapper to direct as he “required someone who had sensitivity.” Sensitivity is one thing that is necessary to make this film work and Rapper succeeds. Christine is a very subtle character. She is prone to say little and feel a scene. The scene then feels her. Any moment of joy, sadness, or both at the same time is pulled off excellently as the characters are well understood and comprehended by the camera. You’d think Rapper had a huge desire to get her right. Shots will be framed in such a way to paint a scene. A character will be represented in a mirror, showing duality in the scene or the camera will follow an action to give the audience the impression it’s going to go a certain way. The craftsmanship is usually excellent.
The acting is mostly very good. There’s a little ham here and there, but most actors give very solid and nuanced performances. One favorite is Christine’s father, played by John Himes, who wants a manly man son. Christine’s birth name “George” is also her father’s name. There’s also some scholars who are intrigued by, but respectful of Christine and speak with a frankness and earnestness that comes from a good place. Trent Lehman plays Christine at age 7, who doesn’t understand some of the feelings she’s having. Lehman is pretty good for a child actor. Some of the ways he delivers his lines could be improved a bit, with the goal of making him seem more honest and childlike. The squeaky voice is very representative of a child, but his performance isn’t quite there because of some awkward line deliveries. However, Lehman gets several great facial expressions. These expressions show a desire to fix whatever’s making him want to play with the girls and not like football. In some scenes, child George is trying to prove himself a man, other times she is very attracted to girly things.
Trent Lehman and John Himes
Most of the film features John Hansen as the adult Christine. He’s great in this. While Christine tries to stay composed, her angst and desires slip through. Each scene of his builds on the last. Christine learns something about herself or someone else and she carries that feeling with her for the rest of the film. When George’s ego is damaged, you can see that on her face in every subsequent scene. After George finds something she’s looking for, there’s a look of interest on what to do next. Determination fills Hansen’s face. After that point, Christine is more relaxed, as she’s achieved a big goal of her’s. You can see how hard George then Christine tries to fit in society and how any given attempt goes can be understood just by looking at John Hansen’s 18-year-old face.
This film is not all positive. An automatic turn-off which happens in the first scene is the presence of a narration. Oftentimes, this is just a shortcut so something can be told instead of shown. Whenever something is described in the narration, if we instead saw what was described, the film would be better paced and more engaging. Narration usually pulls one out of the movie. Sometimes this theatrically released film can look like a tv movie. There’s snowing in the beginning and the snow looks really fake. During one scene, Christine dreams of past moments in the film, but skewed to be more like nightmares. While this is a good idea, the slowing down of footage and weird music choice make the scene laughable. Some of the dialogue throughout the film lacks subtlety.
SPOILERS
We get good introductions to our protagonist and her father. The father is loving, but conservative and unwilling to let his child make their own path. This is shown by a scene where the dad says his son will grow up to be an architect like him, but Christine doesn’t even want to do that. He says he does. George shows an attraction to her sister’s dolls. The look Lehman gives to the dolls is brilliant. She wants to be allowed them, but feels she shouldn’t want that. This is gathered from just Lehman’s face.
George gets in an argument with some other kids for being bad at football. The other boys call George a girl. George’s feminine impulses are contrasted with that sweet, sweet testosterone used to punch a kid. The parents foreshadow Christine’s gender transition not so subtly by saying how their son is different, but the lame dialogue is made up for by the acting being really good. The mother is a little confused about George’s femininity and the dad can’t even see the feminine qualities.
Another scene is mishandled. George is a photographer. After George photographs her sister’s wedding, she is in bed jealous that her sister is female. This scene was shot and performed goofily. The narration didn’t help. It would be more effective to show George in bed upset, we get a closeup of George’s face, then we cut to a shot of her sister, and then a shot where her sister looks particularly feminine. No dialogue, no dumb music.
On the set of a shoot, one woman calls George feminine pronouns. This peeves George. While one might think why George would dislike this, George has been conflicted by a feminine desire and this just adds to the inner torment and conflict by having an exterior element come in. Despite possibly being attracted to men, George doesn’t let a fellow male associate named Jess have his way with her. This gives respect to the character. George may think she’s straight for women at this point. We never get a scene throughout the whole film where George then Christine shows sexual attraction towards a woman or a disliking to women romantically. George does meet with a female prostitute at one point, but George seems deterred not by her being a woman, but her being very abrasive and aggressive. George is clearly very uncomfortable with the prostitute. She discusses what women like, a good man. This doesn’t make the insecure George feel any better.
Jorgensen with the prostitute
There’s a great moment where George breaks down a bit in front of a woman she barely knows. She confronts her gender there and speaks of it to the woman vague enough for her to not connect the dots. George frantically tells the woman, “I want you to believe me, I’m not like Jess.” George’s face and tone of voice show a self-confrontation. George is like Jess as she’s attracted to men, but she’s not gay. This inner conflict of not being a narrow-pathed Heterosexual bothers her as she knows most would consider her gay.
George, gaining a bit more understanding of herself, does research by reading numerous books to obtain more knowledge. She is intrigued by a book by a Professor Estabrook. She enrolls in a class by Estabrook. We get another great scene of the two talking. George tells the doctor her “instincts” are female. Estabrook wants to sample her blood. The needle prick is followed by a shot of George thinking of her childhood, we cut to a scene from her childhood. The transition is very effective. Estabrook knows a Dr. Victor Dahlman in Denmark who can transition George.
George tells her family she’s going to Denmark to take photographs and she’ll stay at the home of her Aunt Thora. After several one on one scenes of George and her mother throughout the film, we get one last with George and her mother. “Mom, I have to be somebody.” “All this time, I thought you were.” This quick conversation is so powerful due to the performances and double meaning that George and the audience are aware of. George tells her aunt, played by Joan Tompkins, her true reason for coming to Denmark. She’s supportive, but after a little awkward moment, she breaks the tension with some lighthearted banter. Tompkins plays her character very warm and friendly. She loves and respects George and what she’s doing.
One of the more clever moments comes when George looks at the painting, Creation of Eve, by Michelangelo. This draws a comparison between Eve and Christine. Jorgensen was the first “Trans celebrity”. This opened the gate for more Transgender people to feel the world is safe enough for them to be open in it. This film is the Creation of Christine. Dahlman offers George papers to sign as the first step of the transition. She eagerly goes to sign it, but is stopped by Dahlman. Dahlman explains the various procedures. This wraps the minds of the viewer and our protagonist on what is actually going on and the risks involved. She’ll be saying goodbye to a functioning penis and testes. She’ll also be the first person the procedure is done on. John Hansen says a whole lot with facial expressions. This scene confronts our protagonist with what she wants with reality and uncertainty.
George confronting the dream
Once it’s all over, Aunt Thora mentions the name Christine, which inspires George to want to adopt it. She asks for the name and Thora gives it happily. Thora and Christine hug. The wig John Hansen is wearing isn’t very good. The real life Christine Jorgensen had lots of natural beauty. This wig makes Hansen look like he’s wearing a costume. The story of Christine hits the news. Her dad is not happy about what happened. The dad is realistic for a man of this time. He doesn’t hate Christine, he’s just confused. There’s a great scene of Christine lamenting the lack of acceptance from her father. This is Hansen’s rawest performance in the film. She’s speaking like she’s exposed and must be honest. It’s very down to earth.
When there’s less than thirty minutes left to the ninety minute film, a news reporter named Tom Crawford convinces Christine to participate in telling her real, true story. And the two fall in love… A romance element isn’t a bad idea, but this film crams in numerous romance clichés. “Let’s be associates.” “I love you!” “We can’t be together!” “I’m sad.” “Yes we can be together!” This mishandling of the romance element is especially a shame as Tom was made up for this movie. Jorgensen’s real life romantic encounters were way more interesting than this. Fortunately, the cheesy romance takes up very little of the film, but that’s also the problem. The romance plot is so crammed in at the end it’s baffling. Several of Tom’s scenes lose weight as he hasn’t been along for the ride with Christine and the audience, he just showed up at the end. We do get some scenes that aren’t clichés and in fact are pretty good. There’s a good scene of Christine and Tom pondering in shadow about the other person and their future.
Life is for the Living
The film comes to a head at the end of the film. All of Christine’s moments of crying and insecurity boil over as she tells Tom she doesn’t want to be laughed and joked at for the rest of her life or put her family through harassment. She’ll just stay in Denmark forever and try to avoid drawing attention, so as to not be a bother. This is the type of thing many will think of doing when they just want the oppression and pain to stop, “I’ll lock myself in the box.” Hansen realizes this pain perfectly. All of the movie is working to this big, emotional moment of Christine really losing her calm. Tom says she can and should go to America so she can live a good life. “Things are going to be what you make them.” The two kiss. Christine returns to America and ignores the press making fun of her. She spots her family, all with smiles. They reunite happily and walk off. Tom implies in narration that Christine was the first step in more Transgender support in America and many can now get the help they need without as much hassle as Christine went through.
OVERVIEW
This film is a very engaging and quality production. The mostly excellent acting and story are very enticing. This film is a love letter to Christine Jorgensen’s massive influence on the world. She perhaps matters more now than ever. While this isn’t as elegant a production as it could be due to some cheese, The Christine Jorgensen Story is a fascinating watch as one of the first stepping stones of a civil rights movement still going on today.
The Filme Diary 