The Christine Jorgensen Story (1970) User Reviews

Corny but Honest

[Felix-28 · 6/10 · 9 March 2006]

The comments posted here are uniformly derisive of this film. It does not deserve such derision.

I suppose I should confess that I haven't seen the film for about 20 years, or maybe longer, and that I only saw it by chance while channel-hopping one evening, so I suppose my memories of it are somewhat faded. However I was hooked by it, and it's stuck in my mind ever since.

What the other comments overlook about this film is its honesty. It is made with real feeling. It's true that the dialogue is campy and that the attitudes portrayed are stereotypical; but the writer -- who was Christine Jorgensen herself/himself -- lived and believed every word of it, and her sincerity shines through every line.

I'm not saying the film is perfect. Very far from it. I've given it only 6 out of 10. But if you watch it with an open mind, it's quite a revealing portrayal of the mind of a transsexual. I'd be interested to know what happened to the author in later life.

A Rare Chestnut

[dr-rtortolini · 6/10 · 10 November 2010]

I was channel surfing for Steven King's Christine when Roku surfaced this chestnut from 1970. I was amazed that a movie had been made on Christine Jorgensen. Ed Woods dream come true. But in spite of its high production value and good acting it gave short shrift to gender dysphoria syndrome. In fact the story was almost surreal. It was hard to maintain belief that this was really what happened. Being a physician that treats transsexuals and other syndromes and having known Christine on a personal basis, the film was quite shallow but served a necessary purpose to once again remind the public that this is a medical problem deserving of respect not derision. The story is much more complicated than portrayed. It is not a laughing matter and victims of the syndrome do not have a happy ending. Many wind up in the sex trade, murdered regularly, and victimized by malpractice of surgeons. I'm glad Christine agreed to make the film but it is locked in its time and prejudices. Not up to date if you really want to know about this life shattering disease.

I would love to see a non-fictionalized biography of Jorgensen.

[planktonrules · 7/10 · 1 November 2016]

In the early 1950s, George Jorgensen transitioned from a guy to a woman. I noticed some reviewers said he was the first to do so...but he was not, as some such surgeries were performed in Europe in the 1930s. Instead, he was the first to go public and openly admit they'd gone through the hormone replacement and operations. Now renamed 'Christine', she spent much of the rest of her live advocating for transsexual acceptance. Here in this 1970 film, Jorgensen's autobiography is brought to the big screen...with a caveat. The film was highly fictionalized according to several sources I read and I have no idea what was and what wasn't true. Sure, they wanted to make the film profitable and embellishing would make the project more cinematic...but it really calls for a more faithful film about her life. And, at this point, if you want the best version of Christine's life, try to find the book--and it is at Amazon (among other places).

As far as the film goes, it seemed from the beginning that the filmmakers really didn't try all that hard to get the look of the film right. Much of the movie is set in the 1940s...yet the hairstyles and clothes look like they're from 1970! In particular, the models George was photographing looked nothing like a 1940s or 50s woman. The guys in the film were dressed in clothes closer to the period...which seemed a bit odd. Also, the cars shown in 'Copenhagen' (circa 1950) are mid to late 50s American cars. As a retired history teacher, I tend to notice these things...perhaps most others won't. I can only assume they either didn't care to get it right or the project was so low budget they simply couldn't afford the extra cost of getting the details right.

The film stars John Hansen as George/Christine. He's not a particularly famous actor and only has a small number of film credits. But he was pretty good as the title character--rather feminine as a male but not campy or over the top. Once the transition's been made, Hansen does a fair job but looks more like a guy than Christine actually did-- modern makeup would have made the character more believable--but it was 1970 when they made the picture.

As far as the rest of the film goes, it worked pretty well because it did not come off as an exploitation film--something that could have happened very easily. Sensitively made, it is interesting to watch though I also know it's not a film for everyone! My only big regret is that I wanted the film to be a true biography...not a film with occasional embellishments and changes for the sake of marketing.

Better than I expected

[earlytalkie · 20 March 2012]

This is the first time that I have seen this film, and, having expected to see something along the lines of an Ed Wood camp classic, I was a bit surprised to see a film which was made with some care and professionalism, and an earnest approach to it's subject. John Hansen does okay in the acting department, even if he is a little bulky to be playing this convincingly. (I kept seeing Jethrene from The Beverly Hillbillies). The supporting cast are all good and the direction is excellent. In all, when one considers the year this was released, (1970) this is not a bad film. The print shown on Netflix was in excellent shape and the sound was excellent. Some brief nudity gives this an R rating.

Not Even Good Enough to be a Camp Classic

[ScottAmundsen · 1/10 · 21 November 2010]

Irving Rapper, the director who gave us two of Bette Davis's best films, NOW VOYAGER and THE CORN IS GREEN, as well as other classics such as THE BRAVE ONE, sadly closed out his directing career with two major embarrassments: this 1970 disaster and his final film, 1978's BORN AGAIN.

I don't know what possessed him to make the latter film, but I can see how the subject of this one might have sparked his interest. As a gay man, Rapper might have identified on some level with George/Christine; while being gay and being transsexual are not the same thing, there may have been a feeling of solidarity that drew Rapper to the story. Unfortunately it seems that the Rapper of the 1940s was long gone; the man who directed this mess had no idea how to make a credible movie.

The script wasn't much help. Though taken from Jorgensen's own autobiography, Robert E Kent and Ellis St Joseph's screenplay is a muddled series of clichés that seem dated even for a story that took place in the 1950s.

The actors playing the title role not only add nothing, they are actually a liability. Eddie Frank and Trent Lehman make little impact as George at various stages of childhood, and when he grows up and John Hansen steps into the role, the whole mess gets campy. I don't know where Rapper and company found this guy, but he is not terribly feminine as a man, and then after the transformation, in a dress, he is positively butch. Certainly the real Christine Jorgensen was a more convincing woman than this rather-too-muscular young man, who in addition to being too husky for the role, isn't much of an actor.

It is hard to fathom that this film came from the same hand that directed NOW, VOYAGER. Perhaps Bette Davis was not just being bitchy when she commented later in life that Rapper gave so little direction that she and Paul Henreid practically directed the romance part of the film by themselves.

Did the surgeon's knife make him a woman or a drag queen?

[brefane · 6/10 · 7 April 2010]

This not to be missed camp classic directed by Irving Rapper is an attempt at a serious, informative and sympathetic biopic on the life of the world's first transsexual, but the result, as stated in a previous post, is genuinely bizarre and campy. Released by United Artists in 1970, the era of Easy Rider, M*A*S*H and A Clockwork Orange, the film seemed dated even then. Lead John Hansen is chubby and broad-shouldered, and as Christine he resembles Peggy Lee. No cliché in film-making, acting or dialog has been overlooked, and that combined with the solemn narration creates unintended laughter and derision. Surprisingly, the NY Times critic took the film seriously and gave it a respectful review. After its initial release. the film lapsed into obscurity. Critic Pauline Kael referred to Rapper's best known film, Now,Voyager(43), as "a campy tearjerker". In The Christine Jorgensen Story, the tears are caused by laughter.

He feels that he is a woman.

[michaelRokeefe · 3/10 · 25 June 2003]

Such a serious subject to turn out so campy and ludicrous. George Jorgenson Jr(John Hansen) realizes at an early age that he is a female trapped in a male's body. This tends to be a bizarre biography of the famed 50s phenomenon first sex change...George becomes Christine. Not exactly and in-depth study and it is strange that George looks more masculine as a female. Go figure. It would tend to be logical that liberties were taken with actuality just to get this oddity on the screen. It does make you want to search out the autobiographical novel by Jorgenson to get the real skinny. Trent Lehman plays George at 7. Also in the cast are: Joan Tompkins, Pamelyn Ferdin, John Himes and Oscar Beregi Jr. as Dr. Dahlman, the sex change doctor. Curiosity is the driving force to tend with. It is a shame this comes across a laughing matter.

A mixed-up film about a decidedly not-mixed-up human being

[elisereid-29666 · 7/10 · 29 November 2020]

The Christine Jorgensen Story has been labeled "campy" by many film buffs. Personally, I only found one brief scene (the dream sequence during the operation) to be of (unintentional) camp value, but I had other issues with the movie. The script is weak and cliched, full of corny as hell dialogue. But its sincerity keeps me from judging it too harshly, because doggone it, this movie is so sincere in its portrayal of gender dysphoria that it makes me want to overlook its faults. This is one of the best portrayals of gender dysphoria that I've ever seen on film, and it owes this virtue to the sensitivity of its director.

Rapper surely made better pictures, but in a way, his style and technique strengthen what could otherwise have been an exploitation piece. His technique hadn't changed since he made Now, Voyager in 1942, and this film could not be more of a 40s picture if it had been made in black-and-white. This is one of the few period pieces to be set in the middle of the twentieth century that actually plays as though it were a movie made in that part of history. (This, however, makes the small amount of nudity and swearing in the movie stick out like a sore thumb-the first time I saw this film, it was a censored print on TV, and in my opinion, it was much better because it had fewer elements that made it a jarring experience).

I also want to praise the film for being one of the few mainstream trans-themed films that I've seen that is actually *about* the trans character. Movies like Normal and The Danish Girl claimed to be about trans characters, but in reality they were all about the self-indulgent suffering of the family members of the trans character. Trans people have it bad enough without the message in these kinds of movies being "how DARE you transition, and do this to your family!" Because that's sure the message I think they're sending. Though The Christine Jorgensen Story touches on the suffering of her family, it at least has the guts to focus on Christine herself.

It is a shame, though, that they chose the wrong person to play her. Worse than that, they chose someone of the wrong gender to play her. Director Rapper himself later admitted that the movie's big fault was that he hired a man to play the title character rather than a woman, which was a pretty big admission on his part, given that he made that statement in the 1970s, before there was any talk about whether you should really hire a woman to play a trans woman.

It is also a shame that there is an inherent but subtle misogyny to the conception of the screenplay. Once Christine is living as a woman, the script rushes to give her a love interest, as though to say that the only thing a female character in a movie is good for is a romance, that she needs a man to complete her. The real Christine was an independent woman who did not need a man to complete her in any way-she was just happy to be herself. I wish the story had focused more on how happy she was to stop living a lie, because I think it would've made for a better movie, too.

But don't even get me started on the inherent homophobia in the script...

I'm Gonna Wash That Man Right Out of My Hair

[marc88 · 5/10 · 17 April 2021]

The biggest problem with this movie is that the lead actor, John Hansen, looks more like a man when he is a woman and he looks more like woman when he is a man...Go figure?

Fascinating, but more like a TV movie of the week from the 1970s, not a feature film.

[Davalon-Davalon · 5/10 · 7 September 2022]

There are a lot of unintentional laughs in the first third of this film. The acting, in general, is atrocious and the script isn't much better. That said, I felt sorry for the person who became Christine Jorgensen. As a man, he was constantly bullied and insulted. As a woman, she was laughed at and joked about. But nonetheless she survived. It's as if a circus act had left the circus and taken his/her chances in the wild.

The story tries to cram as much of Christine's life into a little under 90 minutes as possible, with a heavy focus on George's boyhood and young adulthood. John Hansen, who had a very pretty face and a lilting voice, actually looked prettier as a man than he did as a woman. As a woman, I felt they really did Christine a disservice because the hairstyle really accented John's squarish face. It basically looked like a man in a wig and a dress. This despite one extremely shocking scene where we are shown Christine's blossoming breasts, and they looked incredibly realistic. Not sure how they did that, because they also show us a scene of George in the shower when he's in the military, and he definitely did not have breasts.

The movie does not shy away from explaining, in clinical detail, exactly what would happen to George if he agreed to undergo sex-reassignment surgery. As the doctor who ultimately performed the surgery said when George signs the consent form, "You have courage." (This is all done in Denmark, since American hadn't gotten with the program yet.)

Once George becomes Christine, the movie doesn't really know what to do with her. She spends a lot of time with her understanding Aunt Thora, but it becomes clear that Christine did not anticipate that she was going to become a freak show and be hounded by the media for the rest of her life.

The story does try to show the impact that Christine's decision has on her father, who, it seemed, really loved George and had a very difficult time accepting the fact that George had become Christine. There is actually a short scene where a very progressive pastor comes by to buoy the father's spirits and to tell him, in so many words, that Christine is now his daughter and that she is deserving of his love.

Speaking of love, because Christine had become a "beautiful woman," they have to give her a romance, which they do in the form of a journalist, "Tom." Tom only knows Christine, not George, and he falls in love with Christine. It's Christine that has not seemed to accept what she has done. At a certain point in the movie I thought, "Okay Christine, you've done it. Now what are you going to do? Walk around your aunt's apartment in pretty clothes all day?"

Finally Christine and Tom return to America, where of course Christine is peppered by the incredibly stupid, cruel and juvenile "questions" from obnoxious reporters who think her life is some kind of joke. The movie was made in the 1970s about something that happened in the 1950s. Look at us now; are things any better? Not much. The hatred toward transsexual people seems to be at an all-time high. In this movie, we see the brave journey of someone who did not feel comfortable in the skin they were born in. It is not a well made movie, it looks like it was made cheaply, and the last part in particular all sounds horribly dubbed (especially Christine's voice, which sounds like it's been filtered through an echo chamber).

That said, if you watch it, try to put all the cheap touches and bad decisions out of your mind and try to imagine the hell it must have been for this man to embrace the woman that he knew he was.

Very interesting

[preppy-3 · 8/10 · 22 July 2002]

I heard this was terrible and was expecting to see some sort of camp classic when FLIX showed it. I was pleasantly surprised to find myself enjoying it.

This is the true story of the first sex change operation of a man to a woman (John Hansen as both). This was shot and treated like some 1950s Hollywood melodrama. There's bright beautiful color, lush music score, beautiful settings and lines that sound like they were lifted verbatim from old movies. It's totally at odds with the subject matter but, surprisingly, it works. The picture is very tasteful about the subject and treats Jorgensen with sympathy.

SPOILER!!!!!

It does get so bad it's good at the end when a male reporter falls for Christine. Then it leads to some howlingly bad dialogue and actually ends with the couple making love (not shown) in front of a roaring fireplace!

The only reason this has an R rating is because of some (minor) male and female nudity and the scene of a guy and a transsexual kissing--way too strong for a 1970 PG. Also Hansen is very good in both roles. He looks damn good as a woman! Worth seeing.

supposedly serious story of first sex change is campy and bizarre

[thomandybish · 29 January 2001]

This attempt at a serious presentation of the story of Christine Jorgensen, the first person to undergo a sex-change operation, comes across now as unintentional camp. The movie traces the life of George Jorgensen, a confused young man who has always had the impulses of a female, from his difficult childhood to his army stint and success as a fashion photographer to his journey to Scandanavia and the subsequent operation. Along the way we're dished up a brain-broiling stew of equal parts overripe soap opera and freakish psychodrama. As a child, George secretly dresses up in his sister's dresses and plays with her dolls. As he grows older, George tries to suppress his feminine impulses by joining the army. During basic training, he hallucinates that the sandbag he is supposed to practice bayonetting is a doll he once pined for in a shop window as a child. After the military, he becomes a photographer. While on a location shoot, he is nearly raped by his closeted boss and finds sympathy in one of the models("The only people we can confide in are strangers," she informs him). Seeking answers to his problem, he becomes a research assistant to a biologist doing work in hormone studies, from whom he learns he has higher than normal levels of estrogen--big surprise! Under the guise of a photo shoot, George travels to Denmark, where he stays with an aunt who is(conveniently)a dressmaker, and confides in her his real reason for coming to visit. Auntie is understanding and graciously agrees to create a new feminine wardrobe for George/Christine. The movie now descends into soap opera territory, as Christine falls for a reporter who is sent to interview her for a newspaper, and we're treated to shots of the two kissing, shot throught the flames in the fireplace.

I saw this precurser to brain seizures on TNT's 100% Weird and had the foresight to tape it, and am I glad I did. Otherwise nobody would believe such a film exists. It's hard to believe that this movie got made, given the subject matter, which really couldn't be made in any way that wasn't exploitative. Star John Hansen sports bleach blonde hair with long bangs, speaks in an effeminate whisper, and wears tons of pancake makeup. Even weirder are the scenes post surgery, where he puts on a blonde wig, squeezes himself into a corset that pushes his pectoral muscles up in a most voluptous manner, and sashays around in filmy dressing gowns and heels. This guy looks good in drag! Along the way there are various humiliations, including an army shower scene("Hey George, what are you going to do tonight?" asks an army buddy. "Line up with all the other girls!" howls another in the shower), a botched visit to a prostitute, and the aforementioned attempted rape. This last scene comes as a total surprise: it's hard to believe the censors(or what was left of them in 1970)let that pass, seeing as how such a scene would have trouble playing even now. My only explanation is that this film must have had a limited release, or one that only played to the grindhouses. Definitely a film to see if you're tired with the mediocre bad films playing perpetually on cable and pine for a true JOLT!! John Waters, have you caught wind of this one?

Digital Cable brings out the old, obscure gems

[lambiepie-2 · 13 July 2002]

I saw this movie the other evening on a digital cable channel called FLIX. It came on midnight, and I hope they show it again. I got tell you, I couldn't stop laughing, then being shocked. The shock came when I kept checking the year the movie was made...1970!! I have no idea how they got to do all of that in 1970, and today, 2002, Hollywood wont even TOUCH this. There is no way you wont laugh at some of the dialogue and acting. But once you get beyond that, some of the subject matter scenes are WAY ahead of their time. The one thing that I could not get out of my mind was the little boy actor who played Christine. When you see him in that dress putting on lipstick, the first thing I thought was, "Why did this actor's parents allow this child to do this?!?!?" I remember the actor, he went on to play "Butch" in the series "Nanny and the Professor" and in 1982, he killed himself. But if any little child actor today had scenes like this, they would be a star. Same with the adult actor, I had no idea it was an actor, for some reason I thought it was Christine herself. Then there is the director, I thought it was a made up name until I looked here on IMDb and found out he directed one of my favorite films..Now, Voyager! Plus I thought about Tim Burton's Film, Ed Wood and remembered how Ed wanted to direct this script. (Ed only got to do Glen and Glenda which is no where near this!) I thought if Ed Wood got his wish to direct this film, he would have been a more household name. I am so sorry FLIX showed the film so late, I dosed off before the end, and I did not tape it. FLIX has a habit of showing these again, if you've got digital or satellite tv, I suggest you catch it. And I challenge Hollywood today to do a film like this (Independent Feature Film makers would, of course!). And tackle the subject matter, without the camp but with all the inner and outer turmoil George/Christine had.

A Must See (Like a Car Crash!) Irving Rapper down the crapper!

[christopher_greenleaf · 14 November 2003]

It's hard to believe that the director of the classic 'Now Voyager' directed this wastebucket. The story of the world's most famous sex change recipient (THIS WAS NOT THE FIRST SEX CHANGE! NOT EVEN CLOSE! Sex change operations had been happening since the 1920s at least! Can't people research things? Jorgensen was the first Sex change celebrity for sure.) is so very bizzare. We are first introduced to little George Jorgensen Jr. played by the uber creepy Trent Lehman (Butch on 'Nanny & The Professor', Who later at the age of 20 commited suicide by hanging himself with his belt from a middle school fence) Little Georgie grins like a maniac while looking at a eye rolling doll through a toy shop window and endures the taunts of his pudgie playmates who proclaim that his name is "Georgette" while making stereotypical limp wrist gestures (This is very odd, given that nothing in Lehman's mannerisms is particularly effeminate!) After abandoning his erector set (!?), Georgie decides he would rather play with his sister's dolls. After being discovered with a doll at school, his parents start to worry. Years pass and Creepy Trent has grown into a Hetero Surfer dude who seems to be doing a mediocre wispy gay imitation (Inconsistent with Lehman's performance). Chubby playmates give way to bitchy fashion models and taunting prostitutes. The burly bleached blonde George decides to consult with some kind of hormone expert and soon is off to Denmark to be changed into Grace Kelley's stunt double. Our hero/heroine soon finds brief romance with a handsome tabloid reporter (Quinn K. Redeker, a few years after his riveting tour de force in 'The Three Stooges Meet Hercules') Poor Christine finds the people back home in America to be ignorant, simple minded and insensitive (As does most of Europe). I have to stop here, as words are inadequate to describe this overly melodramatic soap opera/train wreck. I will say this, it is never boring!

Well, Glen or Glenda Doesn't Look Too Bad Now....

[Michael_Elliott · 5 December 2010]

Christine Jorgensen Story, The (1970)

BOMB (out of 4)

Dreadfully awful bio-pic about George Jorgensen (John Hansen) who just didn't feel like playing football or building things as a small child. No, he preferred playing with dolls and putting his sister's dresses on. As an adult he went to Denmark where he had a sex reassignment operation and became known as Christine Jorgensen. People might not know it but originally Ed Wood and company where going to make a film about Jorgensen but due to legal reasons they couldn't so that film ended up being turned into GLEN OR GLENDA? and I must say that Wood was way ahead of his time and actually delivered a much better and (believe it or not) more serious picture. Director Rapper worked with Bette Davis countless times including NOW VOYAGER and I think it's very safe to say that he had no idea what to do with this story. The movie is completely embarrassing due to how poorly made it is and how awful the acting is. I guess we can start with the downright horrid direction which never seems to know what it wants to do. At times the movie seems like something meant to make fun of gays. The next minute it wants to educate you yet it tells us nothing. The next minute it wants to be a love story about the "new" woman and the man in her life. Then it wants to be about the troubled boy and his father who overlooks the obvious problems. All of it is handled so poorly that you can't help but roll your eyes. I really never knew if this thing was meant to be taken serious or if they were simply making fun of the situation. At least GLEN OR GLENDA? wanted to be taken serious but the poor filmmaking put it into a different category. This thing here is just awful without a single thing going for it. Hansen is downright awful in his roles but you really can't blame him too much since the screenplay is so bad and this was his first movie after all. As a man he is way too woman-like and as a woman he's way too manly so his performance doesn't work no matter which character he is. As a man you can't help but wonder if we're suppose to be laughing at him because of all the stereotypes going on plus you get more laughs from the sorry performances. The support cast aren't much better but I give everyone credit for being willing to do this film. THE CHRISTINE JORGENSEN STORY has pretty much been forgotten, although to be fair it really wasn't noticed when it was originally released. The movie might appeal to those who enjoy horrid movies but I found this thing to be so bad that I couldn't have any fun with it.

a don't miss camp classic

[cote7 · 8 August 2002]

was this really made in 1970? this film has the look + feel of a '50's B classic. i think ed wood jr. was still alive when this was released + he must have loved it. watching this film i keep hitting the cable guide to be sure it said 1970. i was watching dark shadows + vanishing point in that era. everyone was tuning in , turning on , + hating dick nixon. vietnam was raging + zepplin + sabbath ruled. to say this film doesnt fit that era is an oxymoron. this film belongs in another era . the 50's in all that tecnicolor glory. hansen is great in the dual role of george/christine. and that guy who plays the writer boyfriend is a riot, a swarmy george nader type. i guess nader was too old in 1970 for the part but he would have been great. this is a must see for all ed wood fans. glen or glenda has nothing on this classic. ed wood + jorgensen had so much in common + this story was the real break in eds woods career. if ed could have only made a film nearly this good.