Chicagoist: What Is It? We're Still Not Sure

Erik

Tue, 28 Nov 2006 08:29:12 -0600

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.

Mars

Thu, 23 Nov 2006 14:38:38 -0600

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.

Marilyn

Tue, 21 Nov 2006 13:28:43 -0600

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.

tankboy

Mon, 20 Nov 2006 15:32:26 -0600

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.

Neal

Mon, 20 Nov 2006 15:20:19 -0600

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?!"

Phil

Mon, 20 Nov 2006 13:11:36 -0600

A question for FernLaPlante. Did you see the film? I did and you are way off base.

FernLaPlante

Mon, 20 Nov 2006 12:19:11 -0600

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.