INKSTAND

I’ve seen Ed Wood movies before. I knew what to expect, and my expectations were met. Bad writing, bad acting, bad directing, non-existent budget. I’m all for camp. Camp is one of my middle names, and yes, of course, this movie delivers. What surprises me about this movie, what makes this movie stand out from most B movies I am used to, is how unflinchingly progressive it is for it’s time.
With the exception of some surreal sequences, like every scene with Bella Lugosi, the film feels much like an educational film. However, while many films of the time, educational or otherwise, criminalize and demonize subjects such as homosexuality and gender identity, Glen or Glenda serves as the director’s voice saying “This is what it’s like for me.”
The first third of the movie involves the life of Glen, who is a transvestite, and his fiance, as well as a doctor and a police inspector. The inspector is dealing with the suicide of a cross-dresser and the doctor is explaining transvestitism to him, becoming a narrator of sorts, explaining everything very matter-of-factly.
The middle of the film begins to get weird. We see the internal struggle of Glen, who feels he needs to tell his fiance his secret. This struggle seems like a fifteen-minute-long acid trip. A lot of elements of his conflict make sense, like how he can’t save his girl from a fallen tree while dressed as a woman. A lot of the elements are just weird, like women gyrating all over a couch and Lugosi yelling things about big green dragons on your doorstep. Why is this mad scientist talking to us about cross dressers? Yes, there is still that crappy Ed Wood feel to it all.
The last part seems like another case study, adding to the educational film feel. It tells of a man who has had a sex change, how he musty adapt, and how he must continue taking hormones all his life.
If the bizarre subject matter of this film didn’t keep it out of the mainstream, it’s poor production value did. I was not alive in 1953, but I’m guessing this movie delivered a lot of facts in a manner that no other movie did at the time. It is informative, but it’s entertainment value is not much higher than, say, Bride of the Monster or Plan 9. I mean, now that I’ve seen it, and was taken in by it’s straight-forwardness, I doubt I would be entertained by it again.

Ever wonder what the bastardized cousin of Spam tastes like? Me neither, until I saw this product at Walgreens. It was cheaper then Spam so I said “What the hell?”
I fried some up and put it in a grilled cheese sandwich. It actually tastes a lot like Spam, only it’s missing something. The flavor is there, the consistency is there, but it still lacks that certain jai ne sais quoi. I really don’t know what it could be since there are a lot more ingredients in Treet than there are in Spam. Treet supposedly has a virgina baked ham flavor to it. I can’t honestly say I know what that means.
If ever faced with a choice between Spam and Treet, I’m going with Spam unless, of course, I am severiously strapped for cash.

There are so many things wrong with this advertisement. I first saw it a while ago in the trade magazine at work about private label products. I saw it again and had to say something about it. The best thing it has going for it is that it is symmetrical. It’s the only element of the ad that suggests they planned anything. The concept of the ad seems to be a mish-mash of at least three very weak concepts.

First we have the question: “What are these people smiling about?” When you see this in an ad, you should expect the makers of the ad to reveal the answer to this question while trying to sell you something. This ad never actually tells you why the people in the photos are smiling. Apparently the “paper people” did something for them, but we remain in the dark as to what this great favor was. Could it be that they helped all these ladies establish their store brand with quality private label products? Possibly, but I doubt it.

Then we have the photos. The only theme in this lot of photos is they are women of different ages and complexions. The clash of different photography styles and time periods is difficult to look at. Even though I feel the smiles give the same effect in all the photos, the styles are not uniform enough to cram together on a page in this manner. It is also simultaneously difficult and uncomfortable to think of these women not only using paper products, but smiling so widely after doing so.


Lastly we have the smiley face made from computer-generated tissue rolls in the middle of the page. What the hell is that? Why is the tissue paper smiling? I think the designer felt that the circle of photos of women was so weak he had to try to salvage something by sticking something cute in the middle. The smiling tissue is there to distract from the discomfort of the photos and the aimlessness of the question at the top of the page.


This ad is terrible. Whoever designed it must have either been on a hell of a deadline or not been getting paid very much. Or both.

Yeah, it was pretty bad. A lot of people are saying that she looked fat and out of shape and gave a half-hearted performance. I agree with most of that. Yes, she looks heavier than she has, but for someone who’s had two (ugly) children she looks pretty good. I mean, out-of-shape? Yes. Fat? Not really. She could have pulled off that outfit and extra weight more effectively, though, if she just didn’t seem so bored. Her moves were slow and minimal as she just paced back and forth while the extra dancers did all the work. If she was more on her game and danced like she meant it, most people would overlook the pudginess. The best way I can describe it is that she looked like she just woke up from a pill-induced nap. Not the best way to execute a highly publicized come-back.