Wednesday , September 20 2017
728X90 PASO DEL NORTE HEALTH FOUNDATION 2016 REPORT
Crispin Glover
Crispin Glover
Home | Lifestyle | TNTM’s Troy Stegner has 6 Questions with Crispin Glover

TNTM’s Troy Stegner has 6 Questions with Crispin Glover

Crispin Hellion Glover is one of the most misunderstood and under utilized talents out there today.  He is known for his iconic roles of George McFly in Back to the Future, Andy Warhol from The Doors, and Phil from Hot Tub Time Machine.

What most people don’t know is Crispin Glover is also an accomplished musician, writer, and director.

Cripin is currently touring the country promoting his two films.  He will be at the Alamo Drafthouse right here in El Paso (25o East Montecillo Boulevard) Friday June 9th and Saturday June 10th.

The Friday show will start with CRISPIN HELLION GLOVER’S BIG SLIDE SHOW.  This is a one hour dramatic narration of eight different profusely illustrated books.  Images from the books are displayed behind him during the performance.  This is followed by a screening of IT IS FINE! EVERYTHING IS FINE.

Glover uses his visionary cinematic skills to bring to life the graphically explicit psycho-sexual fantasy world of a man shunned by women and society but who lusts after intimacy, acceptance, and long hair.

IMDB gives it a rating of 7/10 and Rotten Tomatoes gives it 80% on the TomatoMeter/74% Audience Score.  There will be a Q&A session after the screening and Crispin will sign copies of his books.

The Saturday show also starts with CRISPIN GLOVER’S BIG SLIDE SHOW.  The Saturday show will have a screening of WHAT IS IT?  Featuring a cast largely comprised of actors with Down’s Syndrome, the film is not about Down’s Syndrome.

Glover describes it 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.”  IMDB gives it a rating of 5.9/10 and Rotten Tomatoes gives it 56% on the TomatoMeter/56% Audience Score.

This is understandable as this movie is aptly named.  You will question what you are watching, why you are watching it, and if you should be watching it at all.  WHAT IS IT? does not edit out taboo subjects, but rather makes you face them.  Saturday will also have a Q&A session after the screening with book signing.

Tickets for each show are $21.65.  There is limited seating and you really don’t want to miss out on this unique show.  You will experience a live reading by one of the most under rated actors, watch a thought provoking show that isn’t available in general distribution, and meet the man behind it all in person.

Click here to purchase Friday tickets

Click here to purchase Saturday tickets

Alamo Drafthouse phone:  (915) 845-7469

For more information visit CrispinGlover.com

Crispin Glover was kind enough to allow me to ask him a few questions.  Here they are with his answers.

CrispinTROY: You are not only an accomplished actor, but you are an author, director, and musician as well.  Which of your artistic outlets are you most passionate about?

CRISPIN: I like  doing all of the things. I spend more of my mental energy on my own film making and touring with my films. Yet at the same time, when I am working on something that I am acting in, I put myself 100 percent in to that mode. When something is very well written, and there is a good production, then it is a pleasure to act in that as well.

TROY: Your movie “What Is It?” has a cast comprised completely of actors with Down Syndrome, yet the movie is not about Down Syndrome.  You have described it 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.” It seems you are exposing the audience to many taboo subjects in the movie which cause them to question if they should be enjoying what they are seeing.  What was your intent with this movie?

CRISPIN: I am very careful to make it quite clear that “What is it?” is not a film about Down’s Syndrome but my psychological reaction to the corporate restraints that have happened in the last 30 or more years in film making.

Specifically anything that can possibly make an audience uncomfortable is necessarily excised or the film will not be corporately funded or distributed. This is damaging to the culture because it is the very moment when an audience member sits back in their chair looks up at the screen and thinks to their self “Is this right what I am watching? Is this wrong what I am watching? Should I be here?

Should the filmmaker have made this? What is it?” -and that is the title of the film. What is it that is taboo in the culture? What does it mean that taboo has been ubiquitously excised in this culture’s media? What does it mean to the culture when it does not properly process taboo in it’s media? It is a bad thing because when questions are not being asked because these kinds of questions are when people are having a truly educational experience. For the culture to not be able to ask questions leads towards a non educational experience and that is what is happening in this culture. This stupefies this culture and that is of course a bad thing. So What is it? Is a direct reaction to the contents this culture’s media. I would like people to think for themselves.

“What is it?” started production as a short film in 1996. It took 9.5 years from the first day of shooting on the short film to having a 35 mm print of the feature film.  I wrote it as a short film originally to promote the viability of having a majority of the characters that do not necessarily have Down’s Syndrome to be played by actors with Down’s Syndrome.

The way this came about was this. In 1996. I was approached by two young writers and aspiring filmmakers who were from Phoenix to act in a film they wanted to produce and direct. They made a monetary offer to my agents which they really should not have done as they did not actually have financing.

Nonetheless it did get me to read the screenplay which I found to be interesting. This screenplay was not What is it? I found interesting things about the screenplay and was interested in the project, but I thought there were things about the screenplay that did not work. I came up with solutions that needed re working of the screenplay and I told them I would be interested in acting in the film if I directed it. They came to LA and met with me and wanted to know my thoughts.

There were quite a few things but the main things was that most of the character were to be played by actors with Down’s Syndrome. They were fine with this concept and I set about to re writing the screenplay. David Lynch then agreed to executive produce the film for me to direct. This was very helpful and I went to one of the larger corporate entities in Los Angeles that finances films and met with them. They were interested in the project but after a number of meetings and conversations they let me know that the were concerned about financing a project wherein most of the characters were played by actors with Down’s Syndrome.

The title of this screenplay at this point had become IT IS MINE. And will become part three of the “IT” trilogy. It was known yet at this time that there would be a trilogy but it was decided that I should write a short screenplay to promote that the concept of having a majority of the characters played by actors with Down’s Syndrome was a viable things to do for corporate entities to invest in.

It Is Fine

This is when I wrote a short screenplay en titled What is it? We shot this short screenplay in four days. I edited that over a period of six months and the first edit came in at 84 minutes.

The final feature length film of What is it? is 72 minutes. So the first version of the short film is longer than the final version of the feature film, and it was too long for the material I had at the time, but I could see with more work and more material I could turn it in to a feature film.

Over approximately the next two years I shot 8 more days and edited this in to what is now the final version of the film. I locked the edit of the film about three years after the first day of shooting what was supposed to be a short film. Then there were a number of years of very frustrating technical problems that mainly had to do with SMPTE time code.

Originally I was going to make the film the now old fashioned way of a complete photo-chemical process and not digital intermediate.

An optical house in New York that did not give me enough information to let me know that the SMPTE time code had not been properly put on when the film was telecined.

During this time I worked patiently on the final sound edit of the film with a number of interns.

Finally that sound edit was finished and it became apparent that the film optical house was not telling me the truth and prices had fallen during this time so I was able to make the film using a digital intermediate to ultimately go out to a 35 mm print of the film.

So from the first day of shooting what was to be a short film to having a 35 mm print for the film took 9.5 years.

Sometimes people ask me if the length of time it took for me to make the film had to do with working with actors with Down’s Syndrome. This was not the case. Even though the film took many years to make much of the delay were technical issues. What is it was actually shot in a total of twelve days which was spread over several years.

Twelve days is actually a very short amount of shooting days for a feature film. The most important thing about working with an actor weather they have Down’s Syndrome or not is if they have enthusiasm. Everyone I worked with had incredible enthusiasm so the were all great to work with.

The film started production as a short film in 1996. It took 9.5 years from the first day of shooting on the short film to having a 35 mm print of the feature film.  I wrote it as a short film originally to promote the viability of having a majority of the characters that do not necessarily have Down’s Syndrome to be played by actors with Down’s Syndrome.

The way this came about was this. In 1996. I was approached by two young writers and aspiring filmmakers who were from Phoenix to act in a film they wanted to produce and direct. They made a monetary offer to my agents which they really should not have done as they did not actually have financing. Nonetheless it did get me to read the screenplay which I found to be interesting.

This screenplay was not What is it? I found interesting things about the screenplay and was interested in the project, but I thought there were things about the screenplay that did not work. I came up with solutions that needed re working of the screenplay and I told them I would be interested in acting in the film if I directed it.

They came to LA and met with me and wanted to know my thoughts. There were quite a few things but the main things was that most of the character were to be played by actors with Down’s Syndrome. They were fine with this concept and I set about to re writing the screenplay. David Lynch then agreed to executive produce the film for me to direct.

This was very helpful and I went to one of the larger corporate entities in Los Angeles that finances films and met with them. They were interested in the project but after a number of meetings and conversations they let me know that the were concerned about financing a project wherein most of the characters were played by actors with Down’s Syndrome. The title of this screenplay at this point had become IT IS MINE. And will become part three of the “IT” trilogy.

It was known yet at this time that there would be a trilogy but it was decided that I should write a short screenplay to promote that the concept of having a majority of the characters played by actors with Down’s Syndrome was a viable things to do for corporate entities to invest in.

This is when I wrote a short screenplay titled What is it? We shot this short screenplay in four days. I edited that over a period of six months and the first edit came in at 84 minutes. The final feature length film of What is it? is 72 minutes. So the first version of the short film is longer than the final version of the feature film, and it was too long for the material I had at the time, but I could see with more work and more material I could turn it in to a feature film.

What Is ItPerhaps more important than realizing the short film should be turned in to a feature film was that it became apparent that what the corporate entity was reacting to was not the viability of having a majority of the characters played by actors with Down’s Syndrome, but it was the concept itself that was the concern.

Sometime people think I am stating that having actors with Down’s Syndrome is taboo. That is not what I am stating. That is not taboo. One can easily see movies or television shows that include actors with Down’s Syndrome.

It may not be common but it is available. What you will not see in a corporately funded and distributed film is an actor with Down’s Syndrome playing a character that does not have Down’s Syndrome whereas one will easily see an actor without a disability playing a character with a disability.

Furthermore that is the kind kind of performance that can get nominated for an academy award in a best acting category. Whereas a person with a disability playing a character without a disability can cause severe cultural questioning.

Questions could be asked like “Why are you doing this? Are you making fun of these people? Are you taking advantage of these people?” Of course I had zero interest in doing any of these things. In the initial screenplay which will eventually be part 3 of the trilogy having a majority of the characters played by actors with Down’s Syndrome solved a structural/conceptual problem in that screenplay.

I realized that corporate entities in were concerned about any kind of questioning in general and this is the key problem right now in corporately funded and distributed film.

Any kind of real questioning is considered taboo and taboo would not and will not be corporately funded or distributed. I realized that the short film as it was already contained the taboo of having people with Down’s Syndrome playing  characters that did not necessarily have Down’s Syndrome and that since it was innate in the structure of the film and since I could see the genuine problem of negative corporate control resulting in no questioning.

I might was well make sure that this becomes the central theme of the movie and the forthcoming trilogy.

Over approximately the next two years I shot 8 more days and edited this in to what is now the final version of the film. I locked the edit of the film about three years after the first day of shooting what was supposed to be a short film. Then there were a number of years of very frustrating technical problems that mainly had to do with SMPTE time code.

Originally I was going to make the film the now old fashioned way of a complete photo-chemical process and not digital intermediate. An optical house in New York that did not give me enough information to let me know that the SMPTE time code had not been properly put on when the film was telecined.

During this time I worked patiently on the final sound edit of the film with a number of interns. Finally that sound edit was finished and it became apparent that the film optical house was not telling me the truth and prices had fallen during this time so I was able to make the film using a digital intermediate to ultimately go out to a 35 mm print of the film.

So from the first day of shooting what was to be a short film to having a 35 mm print for the film took 9.5 years.

TROY: The second movie in your trilogy ” It is Fine, Everything is Fine” you delve into the mental world of a man with Cerebral Palsy.  The main character is an outcast by society and women, yet he still lusts after intimacy and acceptance.  What message were you trying to portray to the audience?

CRISPIN: Steven C. Stewart wrote and is the main actor in part two of the trilogy titled It is fine! EVERYTHING IS FINE. I put Steve in to the cast of What is it? because he had written this screenplay which I read in 1987. When I turned What is it? from a short film in to a feature I realized there were certain thematic elements in the film that related to what Steven C. Stewart’s screenplay dealt with.

Steve had been locked in a nursing home for about ten years when his mother died. He had been born with a severe case of cerebral palsy and his speech was very difficult to understand. People that were caring for him in the nursing home would derisively call him an “M.R.” short for “Mental Retard”. This is not a nice thing to say to anyone, but Steve was of normal intelligence.

When he did get out he wrote his screenplay. Although it is written in the genre of a U.S. 1970‘s TV murder mystery movie of the week detective thriller truths of his own existence came through. Because of the dynamic of the genre style he had written it in truths came through much more clearly than if he had written it as a standard autobiography.

It was also very important to Steve that he was playing the bad guy. He wrote about this issue and he wanted it to be understood that a person with a disability, emphasis on person, can have dark thoughts including a person with a disability.

As I have stated, I put Steven C. Stewart in to What is it? When I turned What is it? in to a feature film. Originally What is it? Was going to be a short film to promote the concept to corporate film funding entities that working with a cast wherein most characters are played by actors with Down’s Syndrome.

Steve had written his screenplay in in the late 1970’s. I read it in 1987 and as soon as I had read it I knew I had to produce the film. Steven C. Stewart died within a month after we finished shooting the film. Cerebral palsy is not generative but Steve was 62 when we shot the film. One of Steve’s lungs had collapsed because he had started choking on his own saliva and he got pneumonia.

I specifically started funding my own films with the money I make from the films I act in when Steven C. Stewart’s lung collapsed in the year 2000 this was around the same time that the first Charlie’s Angels film was coming to me.

I realized with the money I made from that film I could put straight in to the Steven C. Stewart film. That is exactly what happened. I finished acting in Charlie’s Angels and then went to Salt Lake City where Steven C. Stewart lived. I met with Steve and David Brothers with whom I co-directed the film. I went back to LA and acted in an lower budget film for about five weeks and David Brothers started building the sets.

Then I went straight back to Salt Lake and we completed shooting the film within about six months in three separate smaller productions. Then Steve died within a month after we finished shooting. I am relieved to have gotten this film finally completed because ever since I read the screenplay in 1987 I knew I had to produce the film and also produce it correctly.

I would not have felt right about myself if I had not gotten Steve’s film made, I would have felt that I had done something wrong and that I had actually done a bad thing if I had not gotten it made. So I am greatly relieved to have completed it especially since I am very pleased with how well the film has turned out.

We shot It is fine! EVERYTHING IS FINE.  while I was still completing What it? And this is partly why What is it? took a long time to complete. I am very proud of the film as I am of What is it? I feel It is fine! EVERYTHING IS FINE. will probably be the best film I will have anything to do with in my entire career.

People who are interested in when I will be back should join up on the e mail list at CrispinGlover.com as they will be emailed with information as to where I will be where with whatever film I tour with. It is by far the best way to know how to see the films.

After Charlie’s Angels came out it did very well financially and was good for my acting career. I started getting better roles that also paid better and I could continue using that money to finance my films that I am so truly passionate about. I have been able to divorce myself from the content of the films that I act in and look at acting as a craft that I am helping other filmmakers to accomplish what it is that they want to do.

Usually filmmakers have hired me because there is something they have felt would be interesting to accomplish with using me in their film and usually I can try to do something interesting as an actor. If for some reason the director is not truly interested in doing something that I personally find interesting with the character then I can console myself that with the money I am making to be in their production I can help to fund my own films that I am so truly passionate about.

Usually though I feel as though I am able to get something across as an actor that I feel good about. It has worked out well.

Steve was a genuinely great guy! It is hard to define what my relationship with Steve is/was. During the approximate 15 years I knew Steve from 1986 to his death in 2001 I would communicate with him in spurts. He started writing me short e mails urging to make his film after we shot his portions of “What is it?” in 1996. He would write simple things like “When are we going to make the film before I kick the bucket?”

Hot Tub

Steve was definitely gracious and had a genuinely rebellious sense of humor. If he had only had one of those qualities I probably would not have related to him as much, but the fact that he had both a sense of humor and a sense of rebellion made it so I could very much relate to him.

I personally financed the film and had taken out no insurance if Steve were to die. Steve was a strong person and I knew that he has an inner need to get this story out. He had already stayed alive by getting an operation to get this film made and I knew he would stay alive no matter what to get the film completed.

About a month after we finished shooting I got a telephone call one morning and it became apparent that Steve was in the hospital with a collapsed lung again and that he was basically asking permission to take himself off life support and he wanted to know if we had enough footage to finish the film.

I know that if I had said “No Steve. We do not have enough footage. You need to get better and we have to finish the film” He would have gotten whatever operation needed to get better and been happy to come back to the set and shoot.

As it was we did have enough footage and it was a sad day and heavy responsibility to let him know that we would be able to complete the film.

In retrospect Steven C. Stewart was a great communicator. Steve has had great positive influence on my life and as much as I did like and enjoy Steve when he was alive, I realize even more how much he was important to me. It may sound sappy, but if Steve were here today I would be very happy to tell him how much he ultimately positively has affected my life.

TROY: You have been labeled both a madman and a genius.  Have the crazy antics been overplayed or is it part of the genius psyche?

CRISPIN: That is something from the IMDB and was written in the 1990’s. I have played many crazy characters. I am also a film maker, a book publisher and self distribute my films by touring with them for 12 years now. The art itself may be considered eccentric, but the life that accompanies the art in order accomplish these tasks must of course be quite centric.

TROY: Now a more light-hearted question.  Your character of Phil the one-armed bellhop in “Hot Tube Time Machine” was one of the unexpected highlights of an already hilarious move for me.  Why wasn’t Phil in the sequel?  Will the character appear in the inevitable next sequel?

CRISPIN: I worked again with John Cusack on a smaller film that was also with Robert DeNiro, called “The Bag Man.” While we were working on that film John Cusack asked me if they do a sequel to “Hot Tub Time Machine” if I would want to do it. I enthusiastically told him I would as I had a great time working with everyone on that film. I was told a number of months later that there had been a full draft of the screenplay that had a lot of my character in the same scenes with John Cusack’s character. I’m not sure if that is true, but it is what I heard.

Then I think MGM had some kind of financial downturn at the time and the budget of the film was greatly cut and something about the scenes with John Cusack were expensive and so I heard they cut those scenes way down. Again, I’m not sure if any of this is accurate. I read somewhere when John Cusack was asked about why he was not in it that his reply was that he never got the offer.

I’ve not seen him since working on “The Bag Man” so I’m not sure what happened. But when he was not part of the film, I think the budget may have even gone down from there. I was in contact with Steve Pink the director of both the films while they were shooting, and he was telling me they were going to try to figure something out for me to do.

But I never got the offer either. I think they were struggling to get what they already had with a diminished budget. I believe the second movie was not profitable so I don’t think they will make another. I had a good time working with everyone on the first one though.

TROY: You portray the character Mr. World, the god of globalization, in the Starz TV adaption of Neil Gaiman’s “American Gods”.  Will we be seeing more of you on TV or is this role to fund another personal project?  If the latter, can you tell us about it?

CRISPIN: I am contracted for shooting more next year. The concept is to complete the entire novel in three seasons. This is a rare situation where there is an adaptation production of an award winning novel that is done well, has high visibility and is being critically acclaimed and I genuinely think the writing and production and Neil Gaiman’s initial metaphorical concepts are all extremely well done. I’m grateful to be part of the production.

I’ll be showing the preview of my next feature film production during the A and A at the shows as well.  The live aspects of the shows are not to be underestimated. This is a large part of how I bring audiences in to the theater and a majority of how I recoup is by what is charged for the live show and what I make from selling the books after the shows.

For “Crispin Hellion Glover’s Big Slide Show” I perform a one hour dramatic narration of eight different books I have made over the years. The books are taken from old books from the 1800’s that have been changed in to different books from what they originally were. They are heavily illustrated with original drawings and reworked images and photographs.

I started making my books in 1983 for my own enjoyment without the concept of publishing them. I had always written and drawn and the books came as an accidental outgrowth of that. I was in an acting class in 1982 and down the block was an art gallery that had a book store upstairs.

In the book store there was a book for sale that was an old binding taken from the 1800’s and someone had put their art work inside the binding. I thought this was a good idea and set out to do the same thing. I worked a lot with India ink at the time and was using the India ink on the original pages to make various art. I had always liked words in art and left some of the words on one of the pages. I did this again a few pages later and then when I turned the pages I noticed that a story started to naturally form and so I continued with this.

When I was finished with the book I was pleased with the results and kept making more of them. I made most of the books in the 80’s and very early 90’s. Some of the books utilize text from the binding it was taken from and some of them are basically completely original text.

Sometimes I would find images that I was inspired to create stories for or sometimes it was the binding or sometimes it was portions of the texts that were interesting. Altogether, I made about twenty of them. When I was editing my first feature film “What is it?” There was a reminiscent quality to the way I worked with the books because as I was expanding the film in to a feature from what was originally going to be a short, I was taking film material that I had shot for a different purpose originally and re-purposed it for a different idea and I was writing and shooting and ultimately editing at the same time. Somehow I was comfortable with this because of similar experiences with making my books.

Every once in a while, but really very rarely, someone will come up to me during the book signing I think two times in the twelve years I have been touring, and they have shown me a book they have done something similar with. They described to me that they came in to it on their own. It seems to be a specific art form that, rarely, people will just discover doing on their own.

When I first started publishing the books in 1988 people said I should have book readings. But the book are so heavily illustrated and they way the illustrations are used within the books they help to tell the story so the only way for the books to make sense was to have visually representations of the images.

This is why I knew a slide show was necessary. It took a while but in 1993 I selected eight of my books and started performing what I now call Crispin Hellion Glover’s Big Side Show Part 1. The content of that show has not changed since I first started performing it. But the performance of the show has become more dramatic as opposed to more of a reading.

The books do not change but the performance of the show of course varies slightly from show to show based the audience’s energy and my energy.

mr world

People sometimes get confused as to what “Crispin Hellion Glover’s Big Slide Show (Parts 1&2)” is so now I always let it be known that it is a one hour dramatic narration of eight different profusely illustrated books that I have made over the years.

The illustrations from the books are projected behind me as I perform the show. There is a second slide show now that also has eight books. Part 2 is performed if I have a show with Part 1 of the “IT” trilogy and then on the subsequent night I will perform the second slide show and Part 2 of the “IT” trilogy.

The second slide show was developed over the first few years of touring with “It is fine! EVERYTHING IS FINE.’ The content changed a bit as it was developed, and I am very happy with the content of the second slide show.

The books and films are all narrative. Sometimes people see thematic correlations between the content of my books and the content of the films.

The fact that I tour with the film helps the distribution element. I consider what I am doing to be following in the steps of vaudeville performers. Vaudeville was the main form of entertainment for most of the history of the US.

It has only relatively recently stopped being the main source of entertainment, but that does not mean this live element mixed with other media is no longer viable. In fact it is apparent that it is sorely missed.

I definitely have been aware of the element of utilizing  the fact that I am known from work in the corporate media I have done in the last 25 years or so.

This is something I rely on for when I go on tour with my films. It lets me go to various places and have the local media cover the fact that I will be performing a one hour live dramatic narration of eight different books which are profusely illustrated and projected as I go through them, then show the film either  What is it? Being 72 minutes or It is fine! EVERYTHING IS FINE being 74 minutes.

Then having a Q and A and then a book signing. As I funded the films I knew that this is how I would recoup my investment even if it a slow process.

Volcanic Eruptions was a business I started in Los Angeles in 1988 as Crispin Hellion Glover doing business as Volcanic Eruptions. It was a name to use for my book publishing company.  About a year later I had a record/CD come out with a corporation called Restless Records. About when I had sold the same amount of books as CD/records had sold it was very clear to me that because I had published my own books that I had a far greater profit margin.

It made me very suspicious of working with corporations as a business model. Financing/Producing my own films is based on the basic business model of my own publishing company. There are benefits and drawbacks about self distributing my own films.  In this economy it seems like a touring with the live show and showing the films with a book signing is a very good basic safety net for recouping the monies I have invested in the films.

There are other beneficial aspects of touring with the shows other than monetary elements.There are benefits that I am in control of the distribution and personally supervise the monetary intake of the films that I am touring with. I also control piracy in this way because digital copy of this film is stolen material and highly prosecutable.

It is enjoyable to travel and visit places, meet people, perform the shows and have interaction with the audiences and discussions about the films afterwards. The forum after the show is also not to under-estimated as a very important part of the show for the audience.

This also makes me much more personally grateful to the individuals who come to my shows as there is no corporate intermediary. The drawbacks are that a significant amount of time and energy to promote and travel and perform the shows. Also the amount of people seeing the films is much smaller than if I were to distribute the films in a more traditional sense.

The way I distribute my films is certainly not traditional in the contemporary sense of film distribution but perhaps is very traditional when looking further back at vaudeville era film distribution. If there are any filmmakers that are able to utilize aspects of what I am doing then that is good. It has taken many years to organically develop what I am doing now as far as my distribution goes.

The new film project with my father is currently untitled. This new film was shot at my property in the Czech Republic. There has been an enormous amount of work in Czech. When people hear I am coming to my chateau they always say “Have a great time!” as though I am going on vacation.

But I actually have way more difficult work here than at my house in LA. In the last two years I have been at my property in Czech more than LA, but also on the road with my shows and films or acting in other people’s films, more than either of my homes.

I do have some Czech heritage but more specifically I needed to purchase property somewhere that I liked that I could have a good place to build sets. It fit the needs and when I purchased more than ten years ago the dollar was high against the Czech currency so it was a good value. Also property taxes are far lower in Czech than in the US so an industrial sized property is less expensive to maintain there than it would be in the US

I have completed principal photography my next feature at my property in Czech. The crew and cast stayed at my chateau in Czech.

The sets for this film production was in construction for over two years. At the same time the sets were being built I was in the process of continuing to develop the screenplay for myself and my father to act in together on these sets. My father, Bruce Glover, is also an actor who has appeared in such films as “Chinatown” and “Diamonds Are Forever” and he and I have not yet acted together on film.

My father, Bruce Glover, is an actor who has appeared in such films as “Chinatown” and “Diamonds Are Forever” and he and I had not acted together on film, or anywhere for that matter. It is relatively easy to direct my father. But it was more difficult when I let him get involved with some of the writing. There are things about working with one’s own father that are good and difficult at the same time.

Ultimately the results of the film and personally will be good. This will be the first role I have written for myself to act that will be written primarily as an acting role, as opposed to a role that was written for the character I play to merely serve the structure. But even still on some level I am writing the screenplay to be something that I can afford to make.

There are two other projects I am currently developing to shoot on sets at my property in the Czech Republic. These films will be relatively affordable by utilizing the basic set structures that can be slightly re-worked for variations and yet each film will feel separate from one another in look and style yet still cinematically pleasing so they will be worth to project in various cinemas.

The current production for myself and my father is not Part 3 of the “IT” trilogy. It is a completely different film. I have been showing a two minute preview of this film at my shows on my recent tours. This marks the first time I have acted with my father Bruce Glover who has been seen in such films as Diamonds are Forever, Chinatown and Ghost World.  This is my first film to have been shot with 35 mm negative.

My first two features were shot with standard 16mm film then blown up for a 35 mm negative from a digital intermediate.
I love the grain pattern of film and this is also why I enjoy 16mm as well as 35mm. So far my feature film projects have been shot on film.

This is my third feature film production. This will not be “IT IS FINE.” Nor will it have anything to do with the “IT” trilogy. It is not part 3 of the “IT” trilogy. Principal photography has been completed on this production and is currently being edited, the a preview of the film will be shown at the shows.

About Troy Stegner

Talk Nerdy to Me is an extension of Zia Comics in Las Cruces, NM. Zia Comics Provides exceptional Comic, Gaming, Collectibles, and Entertainment related products and services. Zia Comics is also the owner of Las Cruces Comic Con and El Paso Comic Con.

Check Also

Mister Miracle

TNTM: DC Comics Mister Miracle #1 review

Mister Miracle has always been a very interesting, but lesser known characters in the DC …

2 comments

  1. I went to one of Crispin’s live shows about 3 years back and HIGHLY recommend it. Great long interview, thanks!

    • Good to hear his live shows are good. I plan on attending at least one, if not both shows this weekend. He does give very thorough and extensive answers. I prefer that to short answers that give no insight. His answers to the questions let you know his true thoughts on the subject matter. It’s refreshing to read an interview where the interviewee doesn’t try to hide behind short vague answers.

EPW SUMMER SAFETY 728X90