The Return of The Chicagoist Reader Meet-Up
Cubs Combat Casino
Notre Dame Fan Takes It Too Far, Allegedly Punches Clausen
County Sales Tax Rollback Vetoed - Here We Go Again
PHOTOS: Peaches And Amanda Blank At Metro
Crispin Hellion Glover's appearance in Chicago this weekend at The Music Box promised to be a unique experience, but even a full knowledge of the man's past history, and a genuine appreciation for his independently released book and recordings, could not prepare us for his film What Is It?.
Glover's slideshow/book reading was entertaining for the most part, though he could've cut two or three selections and tightened the whole thing up a lot more. We will say that his writing makes a lot more sense when you have him there to personally present it, and we think that we will revisit some of his books with this new contextual information in mind.
Contextual information would have really helped during the viewing of What Is It? though. As a matter of fact, during the credits, when each character's role is more clearly defined, you could hear gasps and murmurs of understanding as certain events clicked into place. Though perhaps that's as Glover intended.
As for the movie's actual content, it is rare that something is billed as provocatively offensive and actual delivers on that threat. What Is It? takes provocation a step further to create a film experience that is at times intensely (both physically and mentally) uncomfortable. Unless, of course, you consider a scene with a naked woman in a monkey mask giving a man with severe cerebral palsy a rather graphic hand job with an omnipotent Nazi-esque Shirley Temple overseeing the whole operation to be light comedy ... in which case maybe none of the material will catch you off-guard.
It was after the film that we understood just why Glover is touring with the movie and entertaining a post-screening question-and-answer period . Much like the cast credits, a few words of explanation from Glover help to at least provide a roadmap for the movie's intentions. He described the film as primarily a response to the corporate movie mentality that anything that might offend or turn off an audience must be excised in order to create a product that will make as much money as possible.
Fair enough, but Glover believes that a true education - a true testing of one's beliefs and thoughts of the world around them - occurs at unpleasant moments where an individual is forced to ask themselves deep questions about an experience that challenges their notions of right and wrong; what is acceptable and what is not. What Is It? provides catalyst after catalyst for that sort of questioning, and Glover admitted that while much of the movie's content does not mirror his own personal beliefs, he thinks that the movie raises issues and pokes at deeply visceral reactions that deserve to be explored.
After much thought, we agree with him. But we’re not sure that the movie succeeded solely on its own. It certainly did provoke deep reactions within us, but we’re not sure we would have processed them the way Glover intended if he hadn't been there to explain his intentions. We don't know if that's a comment on our own mental faculties, so many years removed from the more fully artistic milieu of our art school years, being dulled and eroded by time and the influence of corporate mores and imagery; or if it's merely the shortcoming of a first-time filmmaker trying to accomplish too much without the self-editing necessary to create a more fully realized dialog with the viewer. We’re going to venture the notion that it's a little of both, and trust that the sequels (which appear to have actually been more or less developed prior to What Is It?, which itself seems to have been more the result of a happy accident encountered while Glover was trying to procure funding for his first feature) will carry through the artist's intent more fully.
The bottom line is this. We wouldn’t recommend the movie to our mother, but we don’t think she would be worse off for viewing it either.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Crispin Glover is a weirdo and this is one of those things were people (he) thinks he is so intellectually superior to everyone that he can film any garbage and call it art and people fall for it. He gets the last laugh and the money.
A question for FernLaPlante. Did you see the film? I did and you are way off base.
Forcing people to examine their assumptions is all well and good, but simply stopping at that point doesn't strike me as all that valuable. Provocation in service of an idea or theme can be really interesting, even (especially?) when you disagree with the artist's point. But "What Is It?" seemed to reach the point of provocation and then back off before the audience really got a chance to explore any issue in detail.
I know Glover said he was also reacting against corporate film's tendency to point out the "right way to think" by making this film. And that's cool. But I think he went too far in the other direction and produced a work that doesn't really say much of anything. What does Glover think of the treatment of severely disabled people in our society -- particulrly wrt sexuality? We got that information from his Q&A but I certainly didn't see any clear direction to those scenes in the actual film. What was the minstrel in blackface supposed to represent?
I mean sure, if you show a snail getting its head chopped off by a person with Down's syndrome, you're going to provoke a reaction. But is simply provoking that reaction valuable? What good does it do? Without more exploration, most of this film felt like Crispin Glover waving his arms and saying "doesn't this shit FREAK YOU OUT?!"
Neal, I feel I already considered (and mostly agree with) a lot of your questions in the review. But I don't believe Glover is JUST trying to "freak you out." I think it's a first film that shows promise, but betrays its maker's shortcomings.
And, like I said before, the Q&A added a lot more to my understanding of the movie, but if the movie had been wholly successful, I shouldn't have needed Glover to offer a road-map to his intentions.
My husband and I walked out during the slide show. Bored, tired of the intellectual pretensions of Glover and many members of the audience. He should have stuck to acting. "Bartleby" is amazing.
pretensions of him and the audience--yet bartleby is amazing. lol.
anyway, i don't particularly think he abused "the severely disabled people". i respect the fact that he attempted to view them with as little bias as possible and allowed them to be seen and act as somewhat normal sexual beings.
although, i do agree that glover went too far in the other direction and ended up saying nothing to the audience.
Well said, Neal. Making a movie solely as a protest of how studios shy away from anything that might remotely distress the audience doesn't really have much appeal outside of a small niche audience, which explains the venue, I suppose. Also, it's the sign of a poorly make movie when the director has to be present to explain almost every aspect of the film.