Printer Friendly Format
  Leave Feedback
  Read Feedback
Crispin Glover is a Hollywood outsider who somehow managed to get inside and play some of the most unusual film characters of the last few decades. He first broke through as George McFly in Back to the Future, and went on to play a motley bunch of oddballs in a startling range of films, from the mainstream hit Charlie's Angels to David Lynch's significantly more demanding Wild at Heart. But his most offbeat performance yet may be as the director of his own film, What Is It?, in which he also stars as "Dueling Demi-God Auteur/The young man's inner psyche." His co-stars? A cast of Down Syndrome-afflicted actors, a large group of squashed snails and a masturbating Shirley Temple dressed in Nazi regalia. Though a plotline is discernable (a young man accidentally crushes a snail, locks himself out of his home and attempts to set things right) the film is defiantly surreal, resisting easy interpretation, and will likely leave the viewer with more questions than answers — which is why I felt grateful for the opportunity to sit down with Glover myself. He's done some abrasive stuff (this is a guy who once tried to kick David Letterman in the face, though he explains that he was in character at the time), but in person, Glover is a true gentleman, and thoughtful about his work and his outsider image. He spoke about What Is It? and the two related films he plans to follow it, and shared intriguing thoughts on his best-known roles. — Peter Smith


What was the initial inspiration of What Is It? I know that you conceived it to show that a film could be made starring actors with Down Syndrome, but I wondered more about the spark of artistic inspiration.
Well, sometimes, the creative genesis also is sparked by just a business concern. A short film had to be made to prove that it was a viable idea to work with people with Down Syndrome. I just wanted to make a simple story to prove the point — a hero's journey. Somebody was in their normal circumstances, something went wrong in their world, they had to go out to a special world and go through a main battle sequence, and then come back. Those things are in the film, even though other things surround them. So it was really just dealing with structure to prove a point.

It was a very intellectual conception then.
Mmhmm. Although, as it turned into a feature film, more organic qualities came into play. And some of those things are not as intellectual as emotional.

By using actors with Down Syndrome, did you mean to create the sense of an otherworld, an outsider world?
I don't know if I'm necessarily attempting it, but I think it's something that innately happens. It didn't go like this: "OK, I want to create a movie that has an outsider feel — what could possibly do that? Oh, I know, I'll get people with Down Syndrome." There'll be an emotional idea, something that feels right. And I will start to understand what it is afterwards that my idea actually means.

You've been drawn to outsider roles yourself. Do you think there's something in you that attracts you to that theme conceptually?
I think it's a combination, that I am thought of that way, people will approach me with roles like that, and I have an ability to understand that.


promotion
Do you feel pigeonholed?
No, I think there's a universe of variation within many different things. And I don't feel constrained. I think one thing an actor, especially when they're first starting out, is striving for, is an identity people can correlate them with. I am not uncomfortable with the identity that is correlated with me. I'm doing things that I want to be doing. I'm not going to start complaining.

I read another interview with you where you used the phrase "aesthetic of discomfort" to describe your style.
Yeah, it's funny. I don't know when or where or why I said it. I'm pretty sure it was something I said in the 1980s.

So it's come back to haunt you?
Well, I understand it. And I don't disagree with that premise. And it does on some levels correlate. But I'm more specific about what is being dealt with. These films ultimately will go beyond the realms of that which is considered good and evil. Films that stay within that realm, where that which is evil or that which is bad is dictated. . . it is limiting for the culture in general to be consistently bombarded with that kind of thought process.

You've said, "People don't question. They only think about something in one way, and that's unhealthy."
I don't know that it's people, but I think that films are being made that don't question. I think people do question, and it's unfortunate that films are not really reflecting that. That's happening because corporate interests become frightened that if they fund something that could make audiences uncomfortable, they will not make money. The title of the film is a question, What Is It? What are these taboos, why are these taboos taboos, and what is it that these taboos mean when they exist within these cultures to the point that they're not allowed to be dealt with in popular media.

So you're thinking particularly of the taboo about. . . moral ambiguity? "Going beyond good and evil?"
Well, there's all kinds of taboos in the film. People are not used to seeing all of these types of thing put together in one place, and on some level, it commands people to continue thinking about it. And there is a power in that.

So you're not trying to say, you know, "It's a taboo that Shirley Temple was a masturbating Nazi — why is that?"
The thing that really started it was that this corporate entity did not want to work with a group of people that had Down Syndrome. No corporation would want to fund any of this. I'm having to fund all these films myself. I'm not the only person who's ever experienced this, I'm sure. But what ends up happening is screenwriters or directors go, "Oh, okay, we don't have to say that." When that universally becomes the method of expression, it's a very negative thing for the culture. It stupefies people into not being able to express and question certain ideals.
 

Do you see a connection between sexuality and racism? Your character, the racist inner psyche, seems to have sort of a sexual hold over the women in the film. . .
[laughs]

. . .and there's also the Shirley Temple image.
A lot of things in the film feel as though they're planned out, and that they're planned to correlate to each other. I see all of these threads you're talking about, and I worked on the film editing it for many years so I could see how these things were correlated with each other, but they came organically. Sometimes when you're cutting something together you hadn't planned that "this" was meant to equal "that", but it does equal that, and that's interesting.

Clearly, it's not like you're conceiving a sort of avant-garde riddle where everything has a one-to-one correlation and it all has to be pieced together to make a perfect, clean statement.
A riddle is clever. That's something that has a single answer. I kind of hate cleverness in that way — once you know the answer, you're not thinking about it. So a riddle isn't really what I'm after; I'm after really genuinely having thoughts. I hate movies particularly where once you see the end, there was a twist and it's like, wow, that was clever, and now I never, ever want to see it again. I genuinely like a movie that, while I'm watching it, even if I've watched it three or four times, I think, "Does this mean this? Does this mean that?" Buñuel goes into that — the surrealists were extremely intelligent in valuing the subconscious.
 

One of the many reasons to love David Lynch, I think.
David Lynch definitely has worked in that territory, in Eraserhead in particular. I love that movie. When I was sixteen I watched that film over and over and over again. There were four different directors — Buñuel, Herzog, Fassbinder and Kubrick — that I was specifically thinking about while I was working on this, but Eraserhead definitely had huge influence on me in a lot of other ways. I can see very particular similarities between Fellini and Lynch. They're both very good with sound, and I've learned a lot [from them].

I feel a strong emotional response to Eraserhead, but to your film I felt more of an intellectual response. Do you prefer to evoke an intellectual response or an emotional response?
I'm not against intellectual responses, and I think this film evokes more of an intellectual response. There are emotional aspects to the film, but ultimately. . .

I felt bad for the snails.
Sure, yeah, that's the thing I get the most trouble about, and I understand it and agree with it. I think the emotional response is ultimately the greater thing. If it works in whatever film, I'm all for it. This film, I was struggling to make a film that worked on any level I could make it work, and this is the level that it works on, and I'm proud of it for working on that level.

Film Monthly asked you what scared you most, and you said "I suppose misunderstanding of thinking." I thought that was such an interesting response and I wanted to ask you to elaborate.
When I'm talking about the film, [there's a] big difference when people have seen it and not, and that is discomforting. If someone hasn't seen the film, it's like, here's that crazy guy, we'd better talk about crazy stuff.

Does that bother you? You've said that you're troubled by how narrow public comfort is and how easily people are made uncomfortable by a weird idea. . .
Maybe it's come off written that way. My experience is not that the public is uncomfortable with it. It's the corporations, not the filmmakers. I think there are lots of filmmakers that want to do unusual things, I think there's a lot of people that want to see unusual things. I think there are no corporations that want to make unusual things at this point in time.

It's a risk.
 

Yeah. And at one point in time, there was a counter-cultural group of people that could be pointed to by corporations, who could say, "This is who we're funding this more esoteric fare for." And they were right, and they could do it. [But today] there's no realization that even though there's not something in the media that's called [counter-culture], there are millions of people who are interested in that. I'm not too upset about it. Ultimately I know there's a niche that's ready to be filled, and I'm willing to fill it.

Given the abstract quality of your own work and your statements about corporate artistic conformity, do you still enjoy being in commercial films?
Yeah. I'm finding more satisfaction in being a working actor. I really do go into it with the best intentions. I'm trying to do the best job that I can, and I feel like there are people that enjoy those things and that I have been able to be helpful in making interesting things happen, and that's a good thing to do, especially when I'm able to take that money from it and go 100% into the things that I am so genuinely passionate about. It would be a horrible mistake to say, "I am now an auteur." [laughs] "I will no longer act in movies." I wouldn't be able to make any more movies. There's no question, I am funding my own movies with my [commercial] acting. Eventually I'll be able to make money back, but that's by borrowing money from myself through acting in these movies.

My friend at the office says that Charlie's Angels rules just because you're in it.
[laughs] I feel good about that performance. That's one of my favorite performances. And strangely, of all of the independent films I've been in and studio films I've been in, I had much more influence on that particular character than I've had on any other character. The way I looked, the hair fetish, the fact that I didn't talk, the fact that I wielded a sword, none of that was in there. And that stuff ended up being good.

How do you feel about the film as a whole?
I have no interest in criticizing any movie I've worked in where there was a successful financial situation. People enjoyed the film. Is it the kind of movie I personally want to write and direct? Obviously that's not the direction I'm going in, but that doesn't mean there isn't a place for it. I would be silly to say anything otherwise.

Are you tired of talking about George McFly, twenty-two years after Back to the Future came out?
Well, if the stuff that happened subsequently — which really was unpleasant — had been removed I would probably feel very positive in retrospect. It was a good part, I felt good about how it came across. What happened subsequently filters how you think about it, but I feel like I did a good job in that movie. I feel like there are people who like that film.

I like that film.
There's a lot of people who do. The film has certain story structures that are viable. Back then, there were things about it I felt questionable about, in terms of the ideas behind it, but I step away from that. That's not my business. There have been times in my life when I felt like anybody who participates in these things is guilty of whatever's behind it. On one level, I feel like that, but it's not a good way for me to be. I am using those monies to do what I'm really passionate about. It's a very expensive business and it's the right decision for me to make. That's the only way I can go about it.

What bothered you aesthetically about Back to the Future at the time?
Um. . . I would say that it's not an aesthetic as opposed to. . . it's what can be drawn from the moral conclusions of it. I don't want go into too many specifics because I did just work with Robert Zemeckis and I had a good time on the film and I feel good about it. I've never talked about that stuff, publicly, really, and I don't know that it's the moment, necessarily. I think that the simple element is to say I'm proud of the work that I did in that film.

Printer Friendly Format Printer Friendly Format

©2006 Peter Smith & Nerve.com


NEW THIS WEEK

READER RATINGS

more new films >    

FUNNIEST FILMS

READER RATINGS

more funny films >    

PERSONAL OF THE DAY

 

SMARTEST FILMS

READER RATINGS

more smart films >    

SEXIEST FILMS

READER RATINGS

more sexy films >