This movie had so much potential and dropped the ball entirely. The main actor portraying Christine was so poorly cast. I can't think of a more wooden robotic performance. They should have gotten the actor from Homicidal or someone who was a more convincing performer. Christine should have sued the producer for making a mockery of her and her autobiography. I saw this in 1970 at the movie theatre. Ed Small has done some great low budget productions, but this was pretty bad.
shareAgreed it WAS bad - if only they followed the book...they changed so much..
and there was no Aunt Thora ..Thora was the name of a little girl who was
in the hospital the same time as Christine...mainly their problem was the actor
who played Christine...John Hansen had football shoulders and hands the
size of hams..quite a difference from Christine who was slim and delicate
boned...
Hmm...normally I'm wary of the idea of remakes...but if this movie was made today, I'm sure they could do so much better than they did back then.
In fact, aren't they already making a movie about Christine? I think I read something about it...I could be wrong, though.
-Amanda
"She will remember your heart when men are fairy tales in storybooks written by rabbits"
It looked very low budget. There's a scene (when the other boys are taunting George for not wanting to play football) when then late model automobiles can be seen driving past the playground. The outdoor scenes set in Denmark, Long Island and the Bronx were obviously shot in California. In short, the production values were abysmal.
Beyond that, it took outrageous liberties with her life story. As other posters have noted, there was no aunt in Copenhagen, and George/Christine never was regularly employed as a photographer, and certainly didn't loose her virginity to a news reporter in front of a raging fire (what a movie cliche).
I'm not really bothered by things like background cars not fitting the period in a low budget film, etc. If the script, director and actors are good, I can overlook that kind of thing, but this film didn't have any of that going for it.
shareI'm now of the belief that this was meant to be a tongue-in-cheek comedy
shareI wonder if that was so. Christine Jorgensen was a technical advisor on this film. She took herself very seriously (she once walked out on an interview with Dick Cavett when he asked her about her sex life). It's really not funny in a campy way.
shareTotally agree. The "actor" cast to play Christine was embarrassingly bad. The only reason I can think of for why he was cast was that he had that "Ken Doll" pretty-boy thing going for him. Unfortunately, being a pretty boy doesn't necessarily mean you'll make a pretty girl. However, I could have easily overlooked that if the performer had been a decent actor, but he was a complete fail in that respect as well. Granted, I can see how it would be a difficult role for the average actor, but little Trent Lehman was PERFECT as young Christine. I mean yeah, the writing was hacky and cliche, but the first 15 minutes of Trent Lehman's performance actually made the film GOOD in spite of itself - until John Hanson came in and completely ruined it. Note to any producers/directors who might be thinking about remaking this: When your lead actor is being out-manned (no pun intended) by an eight-year-old, that's your first clue that you need to stop production and do some re-casting.
R.I.P. Trent Lehman
He had never acted in anything before- was he someone's nephew or was this a casting couch situation?
I think this film also had the same problem that "Myra Breckenridge" suffered from- by 1970 most of the censorship had fallen away, but they still didn't know how to address themes like transsexualism.
That's a good point. Homosexuality hadn't really even been explored in film yet in 1970 - at least not beyond the typical operatic cliches - let alone transsexualism. In fact, don't even get me started on how Hollywood STILL portrays a lot of the same old tiresome one-dimensional "gay" storylines. And as far as themes of transsexualism - well, I'll just be kind and say 40+ years later, Hollywood is just about where it was in 1970.
shareThat's ludicrous, and you know it.
shareI made numerous points in my post, so I'm not sure what's supposed to be "ludicrous", but if you're talking about the part where I pointed out that Hollywood is basically still in the stone age, then it's hardly ludicrous.. Yes, there are some new trans actors coming up like Laverne Cox and Erika Ervin, but look at when I made that post. Considering over 90% of the representation we see in Hollywood is men in trans face (Jared Leto winning the Oscar for it THIS year ring any bells?), then anybody who can't grasp the point I was making are the only ones being "ludicrous".
shareI can grasp things, but you're being dramatic. Try "Orange Is the New Black," for an example.
shareNo, I'm not being dramatic, you're being moronic. I just cited Laverne Cox as an example of a new trans star coming up, so i'll say this again niiiice and sloooow so that even you should be able to understand it: LOOK...AT...THE...DATE...OF...MY...POST.
share