It Boy

Crispin Glover brings his inspired brand of filmmaking to St. Louis

Crispin Hellion Glover (yes, that is his real name) has made a successful acting career portraying what a Victorian gentleman would kindly call "eccentrics." Contemporary film critics have been somewhat less kind, often describing Glover's performances as neurotic, twitchy or just plain odd. And indeed, Glover's star turns as Layne in River's Edge and Willard in Willard are richly nuanced performances of psychologically troubled characters possessed of a nigh-palpable uneasiness.

But there is also a tendency to confuse the role with the man. To dismiss Glover as "that weird actor" is to ignore that he is, in fact, a complex and talented artist. As the author of several exceptional and unusual books (the epic Oak Mot and Rat Catching among them), a writer of screenplays and a uniquely challenging filmmaker, Glover has produced a body of work that communicates a singular and very personal vision. He is also a charming conversationalist, polite and profoundly intelligent — a far cry indeed from the thwarted character of George McFly.

The most complete and thorough expression of Glover's aesthetic is his film What Is It?. Nine years in the making, What Is It? is, by Glover's dictate, described as "Being the adventures of a young man whose principal interests are snails, salt, a pipe and how to get home. As tormented by an hubristic, racist inner psyche." The majority of the cast has Down syndrome, with the exception of Glover and Steven C. Stewart, who had cerebral palsy. Rife with disturbing and phantasmagoric imagery, What Is It? has garnered a reputation as a difficult, troubling movie. There is nudity, there is bloodshed, and there is violence against snails. How did this happen?

Crispin Glover doesn't care if you're comfortable.
Rocky Schenck
Crispin Glover doesn't care if you're comfortable.
Webster University's Moore Auditorium (470 East Lockwood Avenue). 314-968-7487.

"A screenplay was sent to me that two young filmmakers wanted to make into a movie," Glover explains. "There was something about the screenplay that was interesting, and yet it didn't feel complete. I told them I'd be interested in working on the film if I directed it. They wanted to hear what my ideas were; my main concept was having most of the characters played by people with Down syndrome. So I reworked the screenplay, and David Lynch decided he would executive-produce that film for me to direct."

And here Glover's troubles began. "I had certain actors who were interested, and so I went to a corporation that was a filmmaking entity, and they claimed they were interested at first. But eventually they said they had concerns about making a film in which the majority of the characters were played by actors with Down syndrome."

Glover set out to make a short film to prove the viability of his concept but ended up with an 82-minute feature, which is now part one of a trilogy. (Glover is now editing part two, which was written by Steven Stewart, who passed away after filming was completed.) Investing his own money and directing, producing and editing the film himself, Glover had the freedom to tell exactly the story he envisioned. And he acknowledges that it is a story that makes people uncomfortable, owing in no small part to his actors. Glover eloquently countered most criticism of his casting choices in a long essay published in Apocalypse Culture, in which he questions why audiences are comfortable with Tom Hanks portraying a retarded man, but not with an actor who has Down syndrome portraying anything other than a kindhearted simpleton.

And unlike most filmmakers, Glover is present at every screening of his film to answer questions from the audience. But he's not there to explain what the movie is about. Discerning the meaning of this film is, indeed, part of Glover's purpose in making and presenting the film.

"What Is It? sits within a vocabulary," Glover says. "I would not call it a new vocabulary, but it is a vocabulary that is not often visited right now, particularly in commercial filmmaking. I think it's an important vocabulary to explore and to communicate with."

He furthers his point by explaining, "Usually, most films that are made right now, there's a committee type of filmmaking that has happened because of the way films are funded. They need to get sponsorship, they need to go through a certain amount of panel discussion and input in order to get made. And if it doesn't meet a certain type of criteria, ultimately the film does not get made or distributed or seen."

Not that Glover, who acts in many a commercial film to finance his trilogy (Charlie's Angels, anyone?), is blindly criticizing the Hollywood machine; he's quick to point out that "on some level that's OK. There are good films that come out of that [process]." But, he notes, "There's definitely a banishment of a certain type of thought process from that. Ideas that could possibly be considered offensive or questionable or taboo will be either excised completely or the film will not get made. It comes to a point where the culture is so inundated with that one kind of thinking that a genuine type of questioning film doesn't come through at all. Or very, very rarely. And I think that's bad for the culture for itself."

Next Page »

Now Showing

Find capsule reviews, showtimes & tickets for all films in town.

Box Office Report

Join My Voice Nation for free stuff, film info & more!