52nd City

Interview: Crispin H. Glover

So I talked to Crispin Glover. And the tape didn’t fire, the interview completely nixed. (Please: don’t ask, because, yes, I did test my machinery.) So I talked to Crispin Glover again, the next day. It’s impossible to relate some of the fun of the first conversation and even more impossible to give the sense of, well, what’s it’s like to talk to Crispin Glover, ever.

The inflections… yes, he does sound just like you’d think he sounds. The depth of comments… yes, every answer is detailed, nuanced, deep. The crazily nervous questions… yes, even the second time through I was a stammering buffoon. In fact, by the time I finished with the second round, I realized that four questions (nervous, crazy questions) had gleaned about 40-minutes of disarmingly direct, humorously honest chat.

Here’s the general run of our second talk, in anticipation of Crispin Glover’s appearance at Webster University on Thursday, May 4. The bulk of the interview is here, with minimal edits, only a few particularly filmic/technical moments excised.

On the creation of “What Is It?” (and the sequel “Everything Is Fine”):

From the start of shooting “What Is It?” to having a 35-mm print, it took nine years. And originally it was going to be a short film. Some people had approached me to direct it and they happened to have made a film before. There was something intriguing about the screenplay. I thought there were some things that needed to be changed. They wanted to hear what my ideas were about, the changes. I wanted a majority of roles to be played by actors with Down’s Syndrome. They thought it was interesting and I started reworking the script. And David Lynch had agreed to executive produce, for me to direct. There’s a large corporate entity, film-funding entity, that was interested. And that company was interested, but they had concerns with a majority of the cast having Down’s Syndrome. I set about making a short film to show that this was a viable idea.

I shot the initial short film in four days. It took about six months to edit. When I got through it, it was too long: 82-minutes; now it’s 72-minutes. But it was apparent to me that with some more work I really could turn it into a feature film. Over the next two-and-a-half years, I shot more footage, over a period of 12 days; eight more, after the initial four, for the short film. Then I edited it. It took a few years, it took a while to get comfortable with the picture. I also toyed around with it on video, and showed it to audiences, at that time, in unfinished form, to get feedback. They started working on the sound. I originally intended to do it in a photo-chemical process; digital (video) was too expensive. Much too expensive. I had the negative at an optical house in New York and they ended up keeping the negative for five years and never completed it. I very slowly worked on the sound of it during that time and when that came to absolute completion, I went to New York to see what had been going on, exactly, and it was apparent that they’d become a digital house and weren’t telling me the truth.

So I took the negative from them. I’d already paid them monies for the optical work and wasn’t happy with that. Nonetheless, I did find a place that was able to do the digital work for a much better price. It took a year to do to that. In the same time, I acted in a fair amount of movies. And I shot the sequel, as well. I had to shoot the sequel before finishing “What Is It?” because I had put an actor in it, Steve Stewart, who had a severe case of cerebral palsy and was 62. I had the script a long time before making “What Is It?” and realized when I was making the short into a feature there was an antagonistic element that needed to be strengthened. And I cast Steve Stewart and myself as these antagonistic characters. And I knew if I intertwined him into “What Is It?” I could make his film as a sequel. There is some thematic element that ties them together and it is going to be an excellent film.

I’m glad I did shoot that before finishing “What Is It?” It was becoming apparent that he might die. One of his lungs had collapsed. Cerebral palsy is not degenerative, but he was choking on his own saliva. And this is the same time that the first “Charlie’s Angels” film is being offered to me. I did not like the original role in the script, as I initially read it. There was dialogue for the character that was not good. They kept calling to get me in and kept asking about it and I finally did go in and they asked what I would like and I said, “The character should be a silent character. A silent, antagonistic character.” They were quite enthusiastic about it and said this is what they wanted to do. They showed me the footage of some of this Chinese action team’s work, which I’d seen before. I admired their work and I knew that I could take some of this money I’d make and put it directly into the Steve Stewart film, which is exactly what I did. Which was a good thing, because within a month of finishing the film, Steve Stewart died. I’m glad that we did, it would not have felt good, if we had never finished that film.

Ultimately, there will be a trilogy of movies and the original screenplay that was written will be part three of the trilogy.

On the differences of sets and the creative culture of major films vs. independent productions:

The weird thing to me is that in the first “Charlie’s Angels” film, I had an enormous influence on the role. As I said, not only the dialogue, but other things, as well. There was a hair fetishist element. Which coincidentally, in Steve Stewart’s film, he has a more genuine, explored hair fetish… that Steve Stewart actually had. Psychologically, I’m sure that was on my mind and worked its way into my character in “Charlie’s Angels.” In the end, I was surprised by how much influence I had on that character. You would think that on an independent film, you’d have more influence and with a studio film, you’d have less, but really, that’s one of the most influences I’ve had on any character in a film.

Usually, you know, there’s the interpretation of what has been written. I don’t have any trouble with it, it’s part of what I’ve been trained to do. I enjoy doing the best that I can.

There is a money differentiation, in what you’re paid for an independent film and a feature film. I have a studio-backed quote and an independent. That’s a tough thing. And independent is generally – generally – a corporate thing, a corporate entity, but much smaller. That’s not always the case. “Bartelby” was funded by the director, who produced and funded it himself. On some levels, I was able to interpret with the director, but I didn’t have any influence. The director was very autocratic, because he was the sole funder of it.

Which I believe in. I’m basically the sole funder of “What Is It?” I had very small amounts of money and film stock donated when I started, but when it became a feature film I’d spend between $150-200,000. Because of the large amounts of money going into studio films, the structure of a day is usually there’s a union crew. It’s hard to describe because there’s a lot to describe. The Teamsters… you have a lot more drivers on a studio film. Bigger trucks, bigger trailers. That’s just it! It’s a bigger production. And independent film is a smaller crew, with small things. It’s depends on the script and the mood of the entire crew, what the production is going to be like. There can be a good mood on a studio film and a negative one on an independent. Or vice versa. By and large, I find that crews are good-natured people, whether it’s an independent or studio film. The reason is: it’s a desirable job. And people have to be good-natured to continue to get those jobs. And if not, they’ll be replaced. Everyone knows that. Generally, the mood is good on both.

It’s like the director and the cast are the more questionable entities. The crew is pretty even-keeled. It’s these other kinds of areas, where questions come in.

On the typical elements that make a live appearance a success, from the performer’s perspective:

I’ve never, ever had a bad show. I’ve had different deals with different theaters that have varied. But that’s more of a financial situation. And I book these shows myself and I’m learning how to make that work consistently. There were a couple things that happened that I learned from a lot, but that’s strictly financial and not an element of the show. I’ve never had what I considered a bad show. I always go out and perform the show.

There was one time, though: I had a show in Halifax, in Canada, in the most eastern part of North America. And the promoter, for whatever reason, they made a mistake and there were only six people at the show. At that particular show, it had gone through a booker and I was paid in advance. It was kind of odd for playing for six people. But I did it. You do feed from the energy of an audience and ordinarily I have hundreds of people at shows. So there is a differentiation in the energy that you’re feeding from, but I did a good job on that show. And the audience, the people who were there, were happy to be there. I think there was a mistake in the promotion and people just didn’t come out. But I did a good show and was happy to do it.

On the range of feedback to his varied career:

My signings can go for more than an hour, even close to two hours, and I have had them even go close to three hours at large shows. The people at the end of the line have put some time into it. Whatever they may have seen, they tend toward having a similar sort of… I don’t know what you’d call it. They’re always nice, excited, polite. There are certain people interested in certain things that I’ve done. Some are interested in “What Is It?” the film, itself. And then there’re some people interested in many different things. Some have seen just a few things and are interested in them.

There can be a different in the question-and-answer period that I do right after the film. The film has provocative elements. People have become provoked. And those people will generally ask questions while I’m onstage in the question-and-answer session. I’ve had more aggressive questioning there. Interestingly, I’ve had aggressive questioning onstage and then had those people come up to me in line and say, “Oh, I’m not like that, at all. I had to ask that question…” That I’ve noticed, sometimes.

The interview ends:

Great! One good thing to mention is that I have a website, crispinglover.com. It lets people know when I’ll be playing different places, amongst stuff about my books and things. That would be good to mention, as well.

It would be. Consider it done!