LFP Magazine

Crispin Glover is perhaps mostly known as an actor from the films Back to The Future, Willard or the Charlie’s Angels pictures. He has also appeared in Jim Jarmusch’s Dead Man, David Lynch’s Wild at Heart and Gus Van Sant’s Even Cowgirls Get the Blues, among many others.

Yet he is also a filmmaker who has been, and continues to work on his It trilogy, which starts off with What is it? in 2005 and was followed up with It is Fine. Everything is Fine! in 2007.

What is it?

It is Fine. Everything is Fine!

These films have been compared to the movies of surrealist Luis Bunuel, as well as Federico Fellini. I have not seen either of these films, but what has interested me is the interviews with him that I have seen, the trailers, and also his method of distribution. Upon completion of each film, he tours the world with them, without seeking distribution, and conducts a live reading/performance of his writings in conjunction with a slide show, previous to the screening. Then he opens up the theater to receive the audience’s reaction. The only way you can see these films is by going to his WEBSITE and finding out where he is stopping next on his tour. I was told that there will not be DVDs made of the films for distribution (though I can’t confirm this), and that the films will be solely presented in this unconventional manner. Reminiscent of a traveling circus.

With the marketing strategies that were applied to such films as The Blare Witch Project, which I remember hearing about through word-of-mouth months before a trailer was even available (and was told that the picture was a documentary, and that everything in the film was “actual footage”), to the latest, Paranormal Activity, which you had to make a demand to the distribution company in order for them to bring the movie to your local theater; perhaps, in this current day and age, with the constant bombardment of advertisements, less is actually more.

Unlike these previously mentioned films, Crispin Glover has admitted to having a specific social agenda. He says he wants to expose the viewer to that which he or she “shouldn’t” be exposed to, according to the “corporate media”. This could simply imply films based on “shock for the sake of shock”, but the way he describes the subject matter of his films, in some of the interviews I’ve seen, there seems to be a sensitivity in how he deals with the material. I know some people who have seen these films and they speak of them with a kind of awe and disturbed glee or humor. But like I said, I haven’t seen the pictures, but he has at least made me curious about them.