WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:03.960 Welcome back to the Deep Dive. Today we are undertaking 00:00:03.960 --> 00:00:06.780 a pretty extensive examination of a career that, 00:00:06.820 --> 00:00:09.660 well, feels less like a traditional Hollywood 00:00:09.660 --> 00:00:12.460 path and more like some kind of carefully executed 00:00:12.460 --> 00:00:16.359 ongoing artistic heist. We are diving deep into 00:00:16.359 --> 00:00:19.760 the world of Crispin Hellion Glover. Yes. An 00:00:19.760 --> 00:00:21.940 actor famous for playing these unforgettable, 00:00:22.140 --> 00:00:25.320 really eccentric oddballs, but who fundamentally 00:00:25.320 --> 00:00:28.019 views the mainstream film industry as like... 00:00:28.269 --> 00:00:32.130 A gigantic ATM. Right. A cash machine. Used solely 00:00:32.130 --> 00:00:35.850 to fund his true, deeply personal and often profoundly 00:00:35.850 --> 00:00:38.189 bizarre independent art. That's honestly the 00:00:38.189 --> 00:00:40.009 perfect frame for it. When you really dig into 00:00:40.009 --> 00:00:42.030 the source material, you know, the biographical 00:00:42.030 --> 00:00:44.009 details, the legal fights, his own directing 00:00:44.009 --> 00:00:46.250 projects, you start to see that George McFly 00:00:46.250 --> 00:00:48.509 or the Thin Man or even Grendel, they're just 00:00:48.509 --> 00:00:50.409 kind of avatars, really. They generate the capital. 00:00:52.009 --> 00:00:54.390 Our mission here is to connect those dots between 00:00:54.390 --> 00:00:56.390 the very recognizable onscreen work and this 00:00:56.390 --> 00:00:59.329 strange, wonderful publishing and filmmaking 00:00:59.329 --> 00:01:02.270 empire he built. Volcanic eruptions. Exactly. 00:01:02.390 --> 00:01:05.939 Through volcanic eruptions. It's really a study 00:01:05.939 --> 00:01:08.739 in deliberate artistic control where basically 00:01:08.739 --> 00:01:11.920 every paycheck gets immediately reinvested into, 00:01:12.060 --> 00:01:14.719 well, challenging the very system that gave it 00:01:14.719 --> 00:01:17.000 to him. It's like the ultimate act of subversion, 00:01:17.060 --> 00:01:19.560 isn't it? It really is. He shows up, delivers 00:01:19.560 --> 00:01:22.340 this genius performance, collects the cash. Takes 00:01:22.340 --> 00:01:24.799 the money and runs. And runs right back to his 00:01:24.799 --> 00:01:28.569 castle probably to make a movie about, say. Psychosexual 00:01:28.569 --> 00:01:31.609 trauma that no studio would ever touch. Not with 00:01:31.609 --> 00:01:34.890 a 10 -foot pole, no. So let's unpack this really 00:01:34.890 --> 00:01:37.010 unconventional journey. Let's try and understand 00:01:37.010 --> 00:01:39.989 how the foundations of his life kind of set him 00:01:39.989 --> 00:01:42.170 up for this unique path. And maybe start with 00:01:42.170 --> 00:01:44.849 one of the most interesting bits. his name right 00:01:44.849 --> 00:01:46.969 the name it's like the theatrical destiny was 00:01:46.969 --> 00:01:48.790 literally written onto his birth certificate 00:01:48.790 --> 00:01:52.189 he was born in new york city 1964 moved to la 00:01:52.189 --> 00:01:54.670 when he was about five okay and he carries the 00:01:54.670 --> 00:01:59.349 full name crispin hellion glover and i mean both 00:01:59.349 --> 00:02:01.569 of those names are just deeply steeped in performance 00:02:01.569 --> 00:02:04.049 traditions okay let's break that down crispin 00:02:04.049 --> 00:02:06.750 the first name yeah that immediately tells you 00:02:06.750 --> 00:02:08.389 something about the cultural atmosphere he must 00:02:08.389 --> 00:02:10.909 have grown up in right definitely He was named 00:02:10.909 --> 00:02:14.009 after the St. Crispin's Day speech from Shakespeare's 00:02:14.009 --> 00:02:16.150 Henry V. Yeah, one of the most famous speeches 00:02:16.150 --> 00:02:19.289 in English literature. It's this massive literary 00:02:19.289 --> 00:02:23.009 rallying cry. You know, the king before the Battle 00:02:23.009 --> 00:02:26.449 of Agincourt trying to inspire his completely 00:02:26.449 --> 00:02:29.689 outnumbered troops. To be named after that kind 00:02:29.689 --> 00:02:34.189 of dramatic historical moment, it sort of suggests 00:02:34.189 --> 00:02:37.990 a parental expectation of, I don't know, high 00:02:37.990 --> 00:02:41.270 drama. Presence. Oh, for sure. And then you get 00:02:41.270 --> 00:02:43.930 the middle name, Hellion. Right, Hellion. Which 00:02:43.930 --> 00:02:45.909 is maybe even more telling about this sort of 00:02:45.909 --> 00:02:49.030 intentional eccentricity. How so? Well, it wasn't 00:02:49.030 --> 00:02:50.969 a traditional family name. It was actually adopted 00:02:50.969 --> 00:02:54.030 by his father, the actor Bruce Glover. Okay. 00:02:54.330 --> 00:02:57.229 Bruce decided to replace his own birth middle 00:02:57.229 --> 00:02:59.689 name, which was the German name Herbert. Herbert. 00:02:59.990 --> 00:03:01.969 Doesn't quite have the same ring. Not really. 00:03:02.069 --> 00:03:04.349 Bruce Glover apparently rejected Herbert and 00:03:04.349 --> 00:03:06.250 replaced it with Hellion, you know, a term for 00:03:06.250 --> 00:03:09.610 a mischievous or troublesome person. And Crispin 00:03:09.610 --> 00:03:12.689 then inherited this deliberately provocative 00:03:12.689 --> 00:03:16.009 name as his own official middle name. It's almost 00:03:16.009 --> 00:03:18.889 like a genetic marker for someone who's destined 00:03:18.889 --> 00:03:21.110 to question things and cause interesting trouble. 00:03:21.250 --> 00:03:23.810 Interesting trouble. I like that. And given that 00:03:23.810 --> 00:03:26.710 sort of theatrical ancestry. It's not really 00:03:26.710 --> 00:03:28.569 surprising he was immersed in the business from 00:03:28.569 --> 00:03:30.870 day one. Not at all. His parents were both performers. 00:03:31.009 --> 00:03:33.210 His father, Bruce Glover, a character actor, 00:03:33.389 --> 00:03:35.849 you know, known for roles in films like Diamonds 00:03:35.849 --> 00:03:38.430 Are Forever and Chinatown. Classics. And his 00:03:38.430 --> 00:03:41.550 mother, Marion Elizabeth Lillian Betty Crashy, 00:03:41.569 --> 00:03:44.330 she was an actress and a dancer who actually 00:03:44.330 --> 00:03:47.659 retired when Crispin was born. So yeah, he basically 00:03:47.659 --> 00:03:50.139 grew up on soundstages. The industry was his 00:03:50.139 --> 00:03:52.259 backyard, essentially. Exactly. And he started 00:03:52.259 --> 00:03:54.500 acting professionally remarkably early, like 00:03:54.500 --> 00:03:57.960 13 years old. 13, wow. Yeah. His first recorded 00:03:57.960 --> 00:04:00.159 role, which kind of demonstrates that theatrical 00:04:00.159 --> 00:04:02.479 flair we talked about, was playing Friedrich 00:04:02.479 --> 00:04:04.520 von Trapp in a stage production of The Sound 00:04:04.520 --> 00:04:07.740 of Music. No kidding. With who? Alongside Florence 00:04:07.740 --> 00:04:10.400 Henderson, believe it or not. Mrs. Brady. The 00:04:10.400 --> 00:04:12.280 very same. That was at the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion, 00:04:12.479 --> 00:04:15.460 so a pretty high -profile start for a kid. Definitely. 00:04:15.479 --> 00:04:17.279 And he didn't just stick to the stage for long, 00:04:17.379 --> 00:04:19.860 did he? The sources show a really rapid move 00:04:19.860 --> 00:04:23.139 into TV and film. Oh, yeah. Very quick. You see 00:04:23.139 --> 00:04:26.379 him popping up in major iconic 80s sitcoms like 00:04:26.379 --> 00:04:29.019 Happy Days and Family Ties. Right. I remember 00:04:29.019 --> 00:04:31.139 seeing him in Family Ties. He was a working child 00:04:31.139 --> 00:04:33.399 actor, you know, constantly auditioning, learning 00:04:33.399 --> 00:04:36.160 the ropes, refining his craft. And those early 00:04:36.160 --> 00:04:39.220 TV gigs, they pretty quickly led to film role. 00:04:39.259 --> 00:04:42.279 Yeah. They translated fast. By 1983. He's in 00:04:42.279 --> 00:04:45.800 my tutor. Then 1984, he had two pretty notable 00:04:45.800 --> 00:04:48.259 early appearances. One was in the high school 00:04:48.259 --> 00:04:51.040 comedy teachers. Okay. And maybe more significantly 00:04:51.040 --> 00:04:54.180 for that oddball persona he developed, he played 00:04:54.180 --> 00:04:57.079 the hapless Jimmy in Friday the 13th, the final 00:04:57.079 --> 00:04:58.600 chapter. You know, the one with the corkscrew. 00:04:58.680 --> 00:05:01.410 Oh, that scene. Yes. Yeah. Memorable. Exactly. 00:05:01.490 --> 00:05:04.350 So these early genre roles, they kind of primed 00:05:04.350 --> 00:05:06.750 him for the massive career defining moment that 00:05:06.750 --> 00:05:09.310 was literally just around the corner. A moment 00:05:09.310 --> 00:05:11.689 that would, well, dictate the entire strategy 00:05:11.689 --> 00:05:14.069 of his professional life moving forward. And 00:05:14.069 --> 00:05:16.810 that moment, obviously, was George McFly in Robert 00:05:16.810 --> 00:05:19.610 Zemeckis' Back to the Future in 1985. The big 00:05:19.610 --> 00:05:23.350 one. Made him a star overnight. huge global blockbuster. 00:05:23.589 --> 00:05:25.730 But this is where that conventional narrative 00:05:25.730 --> 00:05:28.110 just absolutely shatters, because for Glover, 00:05:28.209 --> 00:05:30.350 this wasn't really a triumph. It was more of 00:05:30.350 --> 00:05:33.889 a profound moral conflict. This is really the 00:05:33.889 --> 00:05:36.389 absolute key to understanding his entire career. 00:05:36.569 --> 00:05:40.250 For most actors, playing George McFly, you know, 00:05:40.250 --> 00:05:42.790 that transition from bullied outsider to confident, 00:05:42.889 --> 00:05:45.579 wealthy novelist, that's the ultimate. wish fulfillment 00:05:45.579 --> 00:05:48.860 fantasy sure but Glover voiced significant objections 00:05:48.860 --> 00:05:51.500 to the film's ending like during production okay 00:05:51.500 --> 00:05:54.620 let's unpack that conflict what exactly was his 00:05:54.620 --> 00:05:57.540 issue with George McFly ending up as this successful 00:05:57.540 --> 00:06:00.300 novelist living in a huge mansion with a you 00:06:00.300 --> 00:06:02.579 know supportive wealthy family he fundamentally 00:06:02.579 --> 00:06:05.199 believed that the final sequence where Marty 00:06:05.199 --> 00:06:07.139 comes back and finds his parents all successful 00:06:07.139 --> 00:06:10.060 and rich yeah he felt it equated material reward 00:06:10.060 --> 00:06:12.920 the nice car the big house with moral success 00:06:12.920 --> 00:06:15.790 oh okay Glover felt that george mcfly's evolution 00:06:15.790 --> 00:06:17.990 should have just stopped at him gaining the self 00:06:17.990 --> 00:06:20.870 -respect to finally stand up to biff right the 00:06:20.870 --> 00:06:23.569 psychological win exactly once the film tied 00:06:23.569 --> 00:06:26.290 that psychological success directly to financial 00:06:26.290 --> 00:06:29.290 reward he felt the underlying message of self 00:06:29.290 --> 00:06:32.389 -empowerment got corrupted by well capitalist 00:06:32.389 --> 00:06:37.000 ideology wow That is a really specific and frankly 00:06:37.000 --> 00:06:39.939 high -minded critique for a mainstream studio 00:06:39.939 --> 00:06:43.060 film in the mid -80s. It really is. And Zemeckis 00:06:43.060 --> 00:06:45.579 naturally just ignored those complaints. Pretty 00:06:45.579 --> 00:06:48.600 much. The sources confirm this artistic disagreement 00:06:48.600 --> 00:06:51.279 and that, coupled with a later salary dispute 00:06:51.279 --> 00:06:54.079 for the sequel. Right, the money. That led directly 00:06:54.079 --> 00:06:56.379 to him not being in part two and part three. 00:06:56.889 --> 00:06:59.050 Jeffrey Weissman took over the role. So that 00:06:59.050 --> 00:07:01.170 dispute basically set his compass going forward. 00:07:01.329 --> 00:07:04.189 Absolutely. After that massive success, Glover 00:07:04.189 --> 00:07:06.370 didn't immediately chase more big paychecks. 00:07:06.389 --> 00:07:08.990 Instead, his strategy became use the fame as 00:07:08.990 --> 00:07:12.069 leverage. Find roles that deliberately question 00:07:12.069 --> 00:07:15.050 the status quo. Roles that align with his, you 00:07:15.050 --> 00:07:16.970 know, intellectual interests. Which led him pretty 00:07:16.970 --> 00:07:19.649 quickly to... To one of his most iconic and disturbing 00:07:19.649 --> 00:07:23.709 roles, Lane in River's Edge in 1986. Oh, yeah. 00:07:24.050 --> 00:07:27.420 Bleak film. Just a stunningly bleak film about 00:07:27.420 --> 00:07:30.019 moral apathy among suburban teens. A complete 00:07:30.019 --> 00:07:32.740 180 from George McFly. And when those really 00:07:32.740 --> 00:07:35.319 specific, strange, challenging roles weren't 00:07:35.319 --> 00:07:37.759 readily available, he seemed to adopt a new, 00:07:38.000 --> 00:07:41.860 very strategic approach. He did work exclusively 00:07:41.860 --> 00:07:44.300 with directors whose vision he deeply respected. 00:07:44.519 --> 00:07:46.800 Which resulted in an incredible run of collaborations 00:07:46.800 --> 00:07:49.300 in the 90s. Yeah, with some of the greatest auteurs 00:07:49.300 --> 00:07:51.819 working then. He was a critical piece of the 00:07:51.819 --> 00:07:53.860 puzzle in films by David Lynch, playing that 00:07:54.089 --> 00:07:56.910 absolutely maniacal cousin Del in Wild at Heart 00:07:56.910 --> 00:07:59.670 in 1990. Unforgettable role. He worked with Amir 00:07:59.670 --> 00:08:02.470 Kasturica on Arizona Dream. And let's focus on 00:08:02.470 --> 00:08:05.230 something that often gets overlooked. His portrayal 00:08:05.230 --> 00:08:07.769 of Andy Warhol in Oliver Stone's The Doors in 00:08:07.769 --> 00:08:10.889 1991. That's a crucial detail, isn't it? The 00:08:10.889 --> 00:08:13.290 sources make it clear he was the very first actor 00:08:13.290 --> 00:08:15.750 to portray Andy Warhol in a widely released feature 00:08:15.750 --> 00:08:18.670 film. The very first. Yeah. And that role just 00:08:18.670 --> 00:08:20.930 perfectly encapsulates his ability to embody 00:08:20.930 --> 00:08:24.129 these unique, often highly stylized, unsettling 00:08:24.129 --> 00:08:27.290 cultural figures with this intense, almost alien 00:08:27.290 --> 00:08:29.769 precision. He was building this portfolio of 00:08:29.769 --> 00:08:32.570 roles that satisfied his own curiosity. Right. 00:08:32.690 --> 00:08:34.350 Even if they weren't necessarily leading man 00:08:34.350 --> 00:08:36.950 parts. Exactly. He continued that path, working 00:08:36.950 --> 00:08:39.350 with John Borman on Where the Heart Is. And then 00:08:39.350 --> 00:08:41.889 by the mid 90s, you see films like What's Eating 00:08:41.889 --> 00:08:44.190 Gilbert Grape in 93, playing Bobby McBurney. 00:08:44.289 --> 00:08:46.830 And significantly. working with Jim Jarmusch 00:08:46.830 --> 00:08:49.990 on the brilliant Western Deadman in 1995. Great 00:08:49.990 --> 00:08:52.909 film. You see a clear pattern. Quality directors, 00:08:53.210 --> 00:08:56.250 strange roles, intellectual curiosity driving 00:08:56.250 --> 00:08:58.669 the choices. But then, around the turn of the 00:08:58.669 --> 00:09:02.269 millennium, maybe early 2000s, we see that shift 00:09:02.269 --> 00:09:03.970 we talked about at the beginning, the financial 00:09:03.970 --> 00:09:07.350 pivot. Right. He basically decided that funding 00:09:07.350 --> 00:09:10.169 his own volcanic eruptions film projects would 00:09:10.169 --> 00:09:12.789 become the absolute number one factor in accepting 00:09:12.789 --> 00:09:15.440 any mainstream acting job. That's exactly when 00:09:15.440 --> 00:09:17.220 the switch flips. It goes from artistic choice 00:09:17.220 --> 00:09:20.220 primarily to logistical financing. Which is why 00:09:20.220 --> 00:09:23.220 we suddenly see him pop up as the main high profile 00:09:23.220 --> 00:09:26.360 antagonist in these massive studio franchises. 00:09:26.500 --> 00:09:28.480 Yeah. The most famous example being The Thin 00:09:28.480 --> 00:09:30.659 Man and Charlie's Angels in 2000 and then the 00:09:30.659 --> 00:09:33.600 sequel in 2003. And this is where that control 00:09:33.600 --> 00:09:36.299 factor becomes really fascinating again. The 00:09:36.299 --> 00:09:38.980 sources detail that the role of The Thin Man. 00:09:39.320 --> 00:09:41.340 It was originally a speaking role, right? He 00:09:41.340 --> 00:09:44.059 had lines exposition. He did. It was written 00:09:44.059 --> 00:09:46.299 with dialogue, probably to explain plot points 00:09:46.299 --> 00:09:48.659 or whatever. But Glover went to the producers 00:09:48.659 --> 00:09:51.639 and convinced them to eliminate virtually all 00:09:51.639 --> 00:09:55.299 of his lines. Why would he do that? Seems counterintuitive. 00:09:55.440 --> 00:09:58.240 Because he argued that silence would create a 00:09:58.240 --> 00:10:01.220 far more. precise image. That's the phrase he 00:10:01.220 --> 00:10:04.039 used. A precise image. Yeah. By removing the 00:10:04.039 --> 00:10:06.919 exposition, the thin man transformed. He went 00:10:06.919 --> 00:10:09.620 from being just some generic henchman into pure 00:10:09.620 --> 00:10:13.100 silent menace. This genuinely unsettling, almost 00:10:13.100 --> 00:10:16.440 spectral figure defined entirely by his physicality, 00:10:16.440 --> 00:10:19.200 his weird gestures, not by any backstory dialogue. 00:10:19.539 --> 00:10:22.179 So he maximized his artistic control over the 00:10:22.179 --> 00:10:25.080 character while simultaneously maximizing his 00:10:25.080 --> 00:10:27.309 paycheck. knowing exactly where that money was 00:10:27.309 --> 00:10:30.490 headed. Precisely. That salary reportedly directly 00:10:30.490 --> 00:10:33.090 funded the making of his feature directorial 00:10:33.090 --> 00:10:35.909 debut. What is it? It's the perfect loop. Use 00:10:35.909 --> 00:10:38.250 the studio system's cash to finance the anti 00:10:38.250 --> 00:10:41.629 -studio art. It's the ultimate efficiency. He 00:10:41.629 --> 00:10:43.789 continued this pattern starring as the protagonist 00:10:43.789 --> 00:10:46.929 in the studio -funded remake of Willard in 2003. 00:10:47.090 --> 00:10:49.710 Right, the rat movie. And then, in maybe the 00:10:49.710 --> 00:10:52.690 most unexpected twist of all, he reunited with 00:10:52.690 --> 00:10:55.429 the director who caused that initial moral conflict 00:10:55.429 --> 00:10:58.820 years earlier. Robert Zemeckis. Oh, yeah. For 00:10:58.820 --> 00:11:02.419 Beowulf in 2007. The irony there is just delicious. 00:11:02.620 --> 00:11:05.460 Isn't it? He refuses to be in the Back to the 00:11:05.460 --> 00:11:08.100 Future sequels over moral and salary issues, 00:11:08.240 --> 00:11:11.259 only to return to Zemeckis years later using 00:11:11.259 --> 00:11:13.460 this cutting edge performance capture technology. 00:11:13.700 --> 00:11:16.120 Right. Playing the creature Grendel. And in typical 00:11:16.120 --> 00:11:18.220 Glover fashion, his commitment was absolute. 00:11:18.360 --> 00:11:20.600 He didn't just put on the mocap suit. He spoke 00:11:20.600 --> 00:11:23.860 all of Grendel's dialogue. In old English. Seriously. 00:11:24.019 --> 00:11:26.980 Old English. Yep. So even in this massive studio 00:11:26.980 --> 00:11:29.580 production driven by technology, he finds a way 00:11:29.580 --> 00:11:31.480 to choose a role that demands intense intellectual 00:11:31.480 --> 00:11:34.340 rigor and commitment to language history. It 00:11:34.340 --> 00:11:36.340 just reinforces that his involvement is always 00:11:36.340 --> 00:11:38.500 tied to some kind of higher artistic challenge, 00:11:38.659 --> 00:11:41.279 not just grabbing a simple paycheck. And that 00:11:41.279 --> 00:11:43.929 duality, it just persists, doesn't it? He was 00:11:43.929 --> 00:11:46.970 the menacing recurring antagonist Mr. World in 00:11:46.970 --> 00:11:49.149 the Starz series American Gods for several years. 00:11:49.330 --> 00:11:52.409 Yeah, from 2017 to 2021. And more recently, he 00:11:52.409 --> 00:11:54.669 showed up in Guillermo del Toro's Cabinet of 00:11:54.669 --> 00:11:58.370 Curiosities in that episode Pickman's Model in 00:11:58.370 --> 00:12:02.230 2022. He seems to have absolutely perfected the 00:12:02.230 --> 00:12:05.529 art of being the recognizable face for hire while 00:12:05.529 --> 00:12:08.149 continually feeding that volcano of his own work. 00:12:08.490 --> 00:12:10.889 Okay, so now we really enter the heart of that 00:12:10.889 --> 00:12:13.809 volcano. Glover established volcanic eruptions 00:12:13.809 --> 00:12:16.169 not just as a production house for his films, 00:12:16.250 --> 00:12:19.149 but also as the publishing arm for his books. 00:12:19.250 --> 00:12:21.429 Right. And this is where the rules of conventional 00:12:21.429 --> 00:12:23.830 cinema and literature are just completely thrown 00:12:23.830 --> 00:12:26.190 out the window. And maybe the first sign of his 00:12:26.190 --> 00:12:28.409 resistance to the system is the distribution 00:12:28.409 --> 00:12:31.710 model itself. You, the listener, you can't just 00:12:31.710 --> 00:12:33.509 go down to your local multiplex and see one of 00:12:33.509 --> 00:12:36.100 his films. No. They don't get traditional releases 00:12:36.100 --> 00:12:38.860 at all. Instead, he tours globally with them. 00:12:38.899 --> 00:12:41.000 He hosts live screenings and performances himself. 00:12:41.259 --> 00:12:43.779 This is so critical to understanding his approach. 00:12:43.919 --> 00:12:45.700 The screening isn't just, you know, pressing 00:12:45.700 --> 00:12:48.519 play. It's an event. He hosts this pre -show 00:12:48.519 --> 00:12:51.100 called Big Slideshow based on his books. Then 00:12:51.100 --> 00:12:54.139 he screens the film. And then afterward, he hosts 00:12:54.139 --> 00:12:58.460 a really detailed interactive Q &A session. sometimes 00:12:58.460 --> 00:13:02.019 for hours. It completely transforms the act of 00:13:02.019 --> 00:13:04.340 viewing. It goes from being this passive experience 00:13:04.340 --> 00:13:07.679 into an active, almost intimate exchange between 00:13:07.679 --> 00:13:10.539 him, the artist, and the audience. And this unique 00:13:10.539 --> 00:13:12.639 method is really the only way he can maintain 00:13:12.639 --> 00:13:15.220 complete control over the context and, frankly, 00:13:15.320 --> 00:13:17.940 the interpretation of his very challenging work. 00:13:18.139 --> 00:13:20.539 Okay, so let's dive into the core of that directorial 00:13:20.539 --> 00:13:23.639 output. He refers to this series as the It Trilogy. 00:13:23.700 --> 00:13:25.820 Part one was his feature debut, What Is It?, 00:13:25.820 --> 00:13:28.500 which came out in 2005. Right. What is it is? 00:13:28.620 --> 00:13:31.539 Well, it's profoundly surreal, often deeply unsettling. 00:13:31.580 --> 00:13:33.740 It's an exploration of taboos, the limitations 00:13:33.740 --> 00:13:36.720 of expression. It's probably most infamous for 00:13:36.720 --> 00:13:39.320 featuring a cast composed almost entirely of 00:13:39.320 --> 00:13:41.279 actors with Down syndrome. And the content itself. 00:13:41.799 --> 00:13:43.940 The content explores things like sexual desires, 00:13:44.399 --> 00:13:47.799 cruelty, emotional fragility. It was absolutely 00:13:47.799 --> 00:13:49.860 designed to challenge and provoke the audience. 00:13:50.080 --> 00:13:52.240 That sounds incredibly ambitious, especially 00:13:52.240 --> 00:13:54.539 for a debut feature. The sources note it took 00:13:54.539 --> 00:13:57.090 nearly a decade. To actually conclude. Ten years. 00:13:57.190 --> 00:14:00.629 Yeah. And made on a shockingly tiny budget, something 00:14:00.629 --> 00:14:02.710 like one hundred and fifty thousand dollars initially, 00:14:02.929 --> 00:14:05.990 though it expanded. He shot it on 16 millimeter 00:14:05.990 --> 00:14:09.230 film stock. OK. Which he then intentionally had 00:14:09.230 --> 00:14:11.610 blown up to 35 millimeter. Why do that? Is that 00:14:11.610 --> 00:14:14.090 just budget or is there an artistic reason? It's 00:14:14.090 --> 00:14:16.429 both, but definitely artistic to shooting on 00:14:16.429 --> 00:14:19.529 16 millimeters cheaper. Yes. But blowing it up 00:14:19.529 --> 00:14:22.269 to 35 millimeter often adds this really pronounced 00:14:22.269 --> 00:14:25.559 grainy texture. It gives it a distinct. historical, 00:14:25.700 --> 00:14:28.460 almost found footage aesthetic. It gives the 00:14:28.460 --> 00:14:30.740 film a visual quality that really matches its 00:14:30.740 --> 00:14:33.120 deliberately strange, kind of vintage -inspired 00:14:33.120 --> 00:14:35.840 look. It connects the visual texture directly 00:14:35.840 --> 00:14:38.279 to that feeling of unearthed, maybe disturbing 00:14:38.279 --> 00:14:40.539 material. Got it. Then the second part of the 00:14:40.539 --> 00:14:42.820 trilogy, it is fine. Everything is fine. Followed 00:14:42.820 --> 00:14:45.659 in 2007. This film seems to have an equally complex, 00:14:45.960 --> 00:14:49.200 maybe even more powerful backstory. Oh, definitely. 00:14:49.340 --> 00:14:51.000 It was co -directed with David Brothers, but 00:14:51.000 --> 00:14:53.399 the script, the core of it, came from a writer 00:14:53.399 --> 00:14:55.830 named Stephen Seastone. And who was Steven C. 00:14:55.850 --> 00:14:58.129 Stewart? Stewart was a Utah writer and actor 00:14:58.129 --> 00:15:01.590 who had severe cerebral palsy. He lived confined 00:15:01.590 --> 00:15:04.389 to a nursing home for about 10 years. Glover 00:15:04.389 --> 00:15:06.429 came across his writing somehow and recognized 00:15:06.429 --> 00:15:08.850 this profoundly unique, if sometimes disturbing, 00:15:09.090 --> 00:15:12.490 voice. Stewart's writing became the basis for 00:15:12.490 --> 00:15:15.889 this fantastical, psychosexual retelling of his 00:15:15.889 --> 00:15:19.409 own life, exploring his hidden desires, his traumas, 00:15:19.409 --> 00:15:21.929 his intense frustration with his physical limitations. 00:15:22.990 --> 00:15:25.389 And the genesis of that project perfectly illustrates 00:15:25.389 --> 00:15:27.830 that whole ATM for art idea we talked about. 00:15:27.909 --> 00:15:30.289 Absolutely. The source is explicitly detailed 00:15:30.289 --> 00:15:32.970 that the production of It Is Fine was funded 00:15:32.970 --> 00:15:35.649 mostly by Glover's salary from Charlie's Angels 00:15:35.649 --> 00:15:37.710 and other mainstream acting roles. Just think 00:15:37.710 --> 00:15:39.909 about that for a second. The money he earned 00:15:39.909 --> 00:15:42.350 playing a silent, leather -clad villain in this 00:15:42.350 --> 00:15:45.830 glossy studio action movie was immediately funneled 00:15:45.830 --> 00:15:48.309 into financing this deeply empathetic, incredibly 00:15:48.309 --> 00:15:51.980 raw Boundary pushing film written by a man confined 00:15:51.980 --> 00:15:55.360 by severe physical disability. It's an extraordinary 00:15:55.360 --> 00:15:57.740 connection. And while those first two parts were 00:15:57.740 --> 00:16:00.639 shot on 16 millimeter, the next major feature 00:16:00.639 --> 00:16:04.139 we know about marks a shift. No, you're wrong. 00:16:04.220 --> 00:16:07.799 Or spooky action at a distance. And you noted 00:16:07.799 --> 00:16:11.120 this is not part three of the It trilogy. Correct. 00:16:11.159 --> 00:16:13.299 It's a separate project. This one was shot over 00:16:13.299 --> 00:16:16.639 a much longer period, about six years, from 2013 00:16:16.639 --> 00:16:20.210 to 2018. And this film carries intense personal 00:16:20.210 --> 00:16:22.649 weight, doesn't it? Because it was specifically 00:16:22.649 --> 00:16:25.049 developed as a vehicle for Crispin and his father, 00:16:25.169 --> 00:16:28.129 Bruce Glover, to act together. Yeah, and it ultimately 00:16:28.129 --> 00:16:30.889 marks Bruce Glover's final film appearance, which 00:16:30.889 --> 00:16:33.870 is quite poignant. The production also saw Crispin 00:16:33.870 --> 00:16:36.929 transition to filming on 35mm film stock for 00:16:36.929 --> 00:16:39.110 the first time with his own projects. That gives 00:16:39.110 --> 00:16:41.470 it a different visual scale, a different ambition, 00:16:41.549 --> 00:16:43.629 maybe. And that ambition extends to the setting, 00:16:43.710 --> 00:16:46.230 too. It does. Much of the film was shot on his 00:16:46.230 --> 00:16:48.090 own property in the Czech Republic, that famous 00:16:48.090 --> 00:16:49.470 chateau we should probably talk about later. 00:16:49.690 --> 00:16:52.370 Okay. And his influences for this kind of work. 00:16:52.429 --> 00:16:54.029 You mentioned masters of challenging cinema. 00:16:54.440 --> 00:16:57.240 Yeah, he lists people like Luis Buñuel, Rainer 00:16:57.240 --> 00:16:59.700 Werner Fassbender, Stanley Kubrick, and Werner 00:16:59.700 --> 00:17:02.159 Herzog. The connection to Herzog is particularly 00:17:02.159 --> 00:17:05.039 interesting. How so? Glover actually participated 00:17:05.039 --> 00:17:07.940 as a co -interlocutor on the special feature 00:17:07.940 --> 00:17:11.460 DVD commentaries for two of Herzog's early, very 00:17:11.460 --> 00:17:14.259 controversial films. Even Dwarfs Started Small 00:17:14.259 --> 00:17:17.220 and Fata Morgana. Really? Yeah, and he used those 00:17:17.220 --> 00:17:19.599 discussions partly to contextualize his own work, 00:17:19.660 --> 00:17:22.259 like what is it, drawing parallels between Herzog's 00:17:22.259 --> 00:17:24.970 boundary pushing and his own. Fascinating. Okay, 00:17:25.029 --> 00:17:27.390 let's shift then to his publishing efforts, which 00:17:27.390 --> 00:17:28.970 are totally intertwined with the filmmaking through 00:17:28.970 --> 00:17:31.230 volcanic eruptions. He's published, what, 15 00:17:31.230 --> 00:17:33.250 to 20 books? Something like that, yeah. With 00:17:33.250 --> 00:17:35.950 these strange evocative titles like Rat Catching 00:17:35.950 --> 00:17:39.130 and Oak Mott. But the creation process is where 00:17:39.130 --> 00:17:43.150 the real Glover -esque genius lies. It's basically 00:17:43.150 --> 00:17:45.990 literary collage. How does that work? He finds 00:17:45.990 --> 00:17:48.789 these old public domain novels, often from the 00:17:48.789 --> 00:17:51.390 19th century. For example, Rat Catching used 00:17:51.390 --> 00:17:54.910 an 1896 book on actual rat catching, and Oakmont 00:17:54.910 --> 00:17:57.970 used an 1868 novel. Okay, so he finds these old 00:17:57.970 --> 00:18:00.869 books. And then he physically alters the found 00:18:00.869 --> 00:18:03.609 text. He'll rearrange paragraphs. He blacks out 00:18:03.609 --> 00:18:06.390 existing passages with thick marker. He adds 00:18:06.390 --> 00:18:09.589 his own surreal, sometimes disturbing prose and 00:18:09.589 --> 00:18:12.390 images right into the margins or even over the 00:18:12.390 --> 00:18:14.410 existing text. So wait, he's not writing a book 00:18:14.410 --> 00:18:16.849 in their tradition? He's taking an existing artifact 00:18:16.849 --> 00:18:19.549 and just violently recontextualizing it. Exactly. 00:18:19.690 --> 00:18:23.029 To create a new unsettling narrative that speaks 00:18:23.029 --> 00:18:26.809 to his own specific obsessions. Wow. It's an 00:18:26.809 --> 00:18:30.069 act of appropriation, but also recreation. And 00:18:30.069 --> 00:18:31.809 these physical books, they aren't just meant 00:18:31.809 --> 00:18:33.869 to sit silently on a shelf somewhere. Right. 00:18:33.910 --> 00:18:36.230 They tie into the live show. Precisely. They 00:18:36.230 --> 00:18:38.869 are essential elements in his touring big slideshow. 00:18:38.990 --> 00:18:41.210 He reads sections aloud, often performing them 00:18:41.210 --> 00:18:43.549 quite dramatically while projecting the modified 00:18:43.549 --> 00:18:46.079 visual. art and text onto a screen behind him. 00:18:46.140 --> 00:18:48.539 So the books, the films, the performance, the 00:18:48.539 --> 00:18:50.900 production, it all feeds back into that unique, 00:18:50.980 --> 00:18:53.720 completely self -contained ecosystem of volcanic 00:18:53.720 --> 00:18:57.099 eruptions. Hashtag, hashtag, 5B fee, public incidents 00:18:57.099 --> 00:19:00.039 and legal legacy, the unpredictable. OK, so given 00:19:00.039 --> 00:19:03.940 his absolute dedication to the surreal, the provocative 00:19:03.940 --> 00:19:06.400 and this highly controlled sense of performance. 00:19:07.789 --> 00:19:10.049 It feels almost inevitable that his public life 00:19:10.049 --> 00:19:13.250 has sometimes blurred those lines between genuine 00:19:13.250 --> 00:19:16.670 eccentricity and, well, deliberate artistic performance. 00:19:17.289 --> 00:19:20.029 And the gold standard for that ambiguity has 00:19:20.029 --> 00:19:21.849 got to be his appearance on Late Night with David 00:19:21.849 --> 00:19:24.630 Letterman back in 1987. Oh, yeah, the infamous 00:19:24.630 --> 00:19:27.269 one. At the time, he was supposedly there to 00:19:27.269 --> 00:19:29.589 promote River's Edge. Right. And you have to 00:19:29.589 --> 00:19:32.150 remember, late night television in the late 80s 00:19:32.150 --> 00:19:34.309 was generally much more conventional than it 00:19:34.309 --> 00:19:36.490 is now, which made this event stand out even 00:19:36.490 --> 00:19:38.430 more dramatically. So what happened? For anyone 00:19:38.430 --> 00:19:40.609 who hasn't seen the clip. Glover appeared wearing 00:19:40.609 --> 00:19:44.710 this clearly fake, terrible wig, platform shoes. 00:19:45.089 --> 00:19:47.329 He acted incredibly erratically, seemed to be 00:19:47.329 --> 00:19:50.190 speaking in some kind of bizarre character. And 00:19:50.190 --> 00:19:53.150 then, most memorably, he launched this high kick 00:19:53.150 --> 00:19:55.170 that came incredibly close to hitting Letterman 00:19:55.170 --> 00:19:57.369 right in the face during some agitated demonstration 00:19:57.369 --> 00:20:00.549 he was doing. The moment became instantly infamous. 00:20:01.269 --> 00:20:03.509 Letterman was completely bewildered, clearly 00:20:03.509 --> 00:20:07.000 unnerved. He actually walked off the set to queue 00:20:07.000 --> 00:20:09.579 the top 10 list. We walked off. Walked right 00:20:09.579 --> 00:20:12.480 off. It was a PR disaster for the network probably, 00:20:12.640 --> 00:20:15.619 but it became this viral sensation decades before 00:20:15.619 --> 00:20:18.359 viral was even a thing. And the confusion lingered 00:20:18.359 --> 00:20:21.420 for years, right? Was this a genuine breakdown? 00:20:21.539 --> 00:20:24.619 Was he on something mentally disturbed? Exactly. 00:20:24.859 --> 00:20:28.089 That speculation swirled for years. But it shifted 00:20:28.089 --> 00:20:30.730 significantly about four years later when his 00:20:30.730 --> 00:20:33.589 film Reuben and Ed finally premiered. Okay, how 00:20:33.589 --> 00:20:36.069 did that change things? Because in that film, 00:20:36.089 --> 00:20:39.309 he plays the titular character Reuben Farr. And 00:20:39.309 --> 00:20:41.549 Reuben Farr's appearance, including the bad wig, 00:20:41.710 --> 00:20:44.450 the platform shoes, the highly agitated mannerisms, 00:20:44.450 --> 00:20:46.589 it closely matched the behavior everyone saw 00:20:46.589 --> 00:20:49.039 on The Letterman Show. Ah. So the theory developed. 00:20:49.200 --> 00:20:51.000 The theory developed, yeah. And the character 00:20:51.000 --> 00:20:53.799 Ruben Farr also appeared in Glover's own music 00:20:53.799 --> 00:20:56.400 video for his song Clowny Clown Clown. Okay. 00:20:56.480 --> 00:20:58.640 Which strongly suggested that the whole Letterman 00:20:58.640 --> 00:21:01.140 appearance wasn't a breakdown at all, but a planned, 00:21:01.220 --> 00:21:03.599 incredibly aggressive piece of performance art. 00:21:03.779 --> 00:21:06.059 Bringing a character onto the late night stage. 00:21:06.339 --> 00:21:08.500 Yeah, potentially to promote a film that wouldn't 00:21:08.500 --> 00:21:10.519 even be released for several more years. But 00:21:10.519 --> 00:21:12.599 that raises a pretty profound question, doesn't 00:21:12.599 --> 00:21:15.730 it? If it was performance art. Doesn't that make 00:21:15.730 --> 00:21:18.809 the line between artistic expression and, I don't 00:21:18.809 --> 00:21:22.329 know, public integrity incredibly muddy? He deliberately 00:21:22.329 --> 00:21:25.269 created a moment of genuine fear and confusion 00:21:25.269 --> 00:21:29.369 on live national TV. It's a really tricky ethical 00:21:29.369 --> 00:21:33.049 line. And Glover, decades later, he still refuses 00:21:33.049 --> 00:21:36.029 to confirm or deny the theory. He just says he's 00:21:36.029 --> 00:21:38.589 flattered that fans continue to speculate about 00:21:38.589 --> 00:21:40.670 it. Of course he does. That intentional ambiguity 00:21:40.670 --> 00:21:43.670 is just fundamental to his whole brand. He wants 00:21:43.670 --> 00:21:45.670 the audience constantly questioning what's real 00:21:45.670 --> 00:21:48.329 and what's the act. OK, but moving beyond maybe 00:21:48.329 --> 00:21:51.589 performance art pranks, Glover's resist. to Hollywood 00:21:51.589 --> 00:21:54.690 actually created a monumental, completely non 00:21:54.690 --> 00:21:57.589 -ambiguous legal legacy that reshaped the entire 00:21:57.589 --> 00:21:59.910 industry. Yes. This is the fallout from the Back 00:21:59.910 --> 00:22:02.670 to the Future Part II sequel situation. This 00:22:02.670 --> 00:22:06.430 is perhaps his single greatest unexpected contribution 00:22:06.430 --> 00:22:09.890 to the collective rights of all actors. It's 00:22:09.890 --> 00:22:13.440 huge. When the producers wanted George McFly 00:22:13.440 --> 00:22:17.039 back for the sequels, they didn't want to meet 00:22:17.039 --> 00:22:19.400 Glover's financial demands, and they probably 00:22:19.400 --> 00:22:21.279 didn't want to deal with his artistic complaints 00:22:21.279 --> 00:22:24.180 again. So they basically decided to just circumvent 00:22:24.180 --> 00:22:26.740 him entirely. Okay, tell us specifically what 00:22:26.740 --> 00:22:28.660 they did, because it sounds like it was a really 00:22:28.660 --> 00:22:31.519 deliberate act of deceit designed to fool the 00:22:31.519 --> 00:22:34.660 audience. It absolutely was. They took brief 00:22:34.660 --> 00:22:37.099 original footage of Glover from the first film, 00:22:37.180 --> 00:22:39.900 and they combined it with extensive new footage 00:22:39.900 --> 00:22:42.099 featuring a different... actor, Jeffrey Weissman. 00:22:42.220 --> 00:22:44.680 Playing George McFly. Playing George McFly. But 00:22:44.680 --> 00:22:47.220 they used heavy facial prosthetics on Weissman. 00:22:47.380 --> 00:22:49.579 They obscured him with sunglasses. They used 00:22:49.579 --> 00:22:52.319 specific rear shots, low lighting, basically 00:22:52.319 --> 00:22:54.900 every trick in the book to simulate Glover's 00:22:54.900 --> 00:22:57.319 appearance without actually paying him or getting 00:22:57.319 --> 00:22:59.380 his permission. They were literally trying to 00:22:59.380 --> 00:23:01.440 trick the audience into thinking Kristen Glover 00:23:01.440 --> 00:23:04.660 was performing those new scenes. 100%. And to 00:23:04.660 --> 00:23:07.180 add insult to injury, they gave him the subtle 00:23:07.180 --> 00:23:09.980 credit like George McFly in footage from back... 00:23:10.000 --> 00:23:12.420 to the future without clearly indicating that 00:23:12.420 --> 00:23:14.299 the vast majority of the performance in part 00:23:14.299 --> 00:23:17.079 two was actually done by a double wearing prosthetics. 00:23:17.160 --> 00:23:20.500 Unbelievable. Glover sued the producers successfully 00:23:20.500 --> 00:23:23.359 for using his likeness without permission. And 00:23:23.359 --> 00:23:25.539 he won. Well, it settled out of court, but he 00:23:25.539 --> 00:23:27.740 was awarded a reported seven hundred and sixty 00:23:27.740 --> 00:23:30.420 thousand dollars. But honestly, the actual dollar 00:23:30.420 --> 00:23:33.160 amount is far less important than the so what 00:23:33.160 --> 00:23:35.759 factor the precedent this set for all performers 00:23:35.759 --> 00:23:37.920 moving forward. OK, so what was the specific 00:23:37.920 --> 00:23:41.910 legal change that. came out of this BTTF2 lawsuit. 00:23:42.269 --> 00:23:45.029 As a direct result of that lawsuit, new clauses 00:23:45.029 --> 00:23:47.549 were added to the Screen Actors Guild SAG collective 00:23:47.549 --> 00:23:50.109 bargaining agreements. What did they say? These 00:23:50.109 --> 00:23:52.410 clauses specifically prevent producers and actors 00:23:52.410 --> 00:23:54.329 from using those kinds of techniques, what's 00:23:54.329 --> 00:23:57.170 often called the fake shemp technique, to reproduce 00:23:57.170 --> 00:23:59.829 the likeness of other living actors without permission 00:23:59.829 --> 00:24:02.630 and compensation. Okay, we should probably pause 00:24:02.630 --> 00:24:05.450 and explain that term, fake shemp, for listeners 00:24:05.450 --> 00:24:07.730 who might not know it. It's a piece of old Hollywood 00:24:07.730 --> 00:24:11.029 history, isn't it? It is, yeah. The term originates 00:24:11.029 --> 00:24:14.109 from three stooges. When one of the stooges, 00:24:14.210 --> 00:24:17.890 Shemp Howard, died suddenly, the producers still 00:24:17.890 --> 00:24:20.190 had contractual obligations for more shorts, 00:24:20.230 --> 00:24:22.210 so they finished them by using body doubles, 00:24:22.450 --> 00:24:24.769 often seen from the back, or with their faces 00:24:24.769 --> 00:24:27.730 obscured by objects or hidden in shadows, combined 00:24:27.730 --> 00:24:30.269 with recycled footage of the real Shemp. Gotcha. 00:24:30.650 --> 00:24:33.569 Glover's lawsuit basically codified that this 00:24:33.569 --> 00:24:36.289 kind of cheap trick could not be used against... 00:24:36.480 --> 00:24:38.839 living, working actors to reproduce their image 00:24:38.839 --> 00:24:40.660 without their consent and without paying them 00:24:40.660 --> 00:24:43.779 for it. That is absolutely massive. The guy who 00:24:43.779 --> 00:24:46.519 objected to the perceived moral failure of Back 00:24:46.519 --> 00:24:49.740 to the Future's ending in 1985 ends up creating 00:24:49.740 --> 00:24:53.119 this vital, ethical, and legal precedent that 00:24:53.119 --> 00:24:55.519 is arguably more important now than ever before. 00:24:55.759 --> 00:24:57.799 You're absolutely right. With the rise of deepfake 00:24:57.799 --> 00:25:00.700 technology, generative AI, digital recreation 00:25:00.700 --> 00:25:03.359 of actors. It's everywhere now. That specific 00:25:03.359 --> 00:25:06.279 SAG clause, which exists because a studio tried 00:25:06.279 --> 00:25:08.539 to avoid paying Crispin Glover what he asked 00:25:08.539 --> 00:25:11.119 for, has become a foundational line of defense. 00:25:11.599 --> 00:25:14.619 It protects performers' ownership of their own 00:25:14.619 --> 00:25:18.079 visual likeness in the digital age. He resisted 00:25:18.079 --> 00:25:19.980 Hollywood's lack of ethics on his own terms, 00:25:20.119 --> 00:25:22.960 and in doing so, he secured a crucial right for 00:25:22.960 --> 00:25:25.799 all his colleagues decades later. It's incredible. 00:25:25.940 --> 00:25:28.920 That lawsuit perfectly encapsulates the strategic 00:25:28.920 --> 00:25:32.359 impact of his often quiet but deeply principled 00:25:32.359 --> 00:25:35.000 resistance. Hashtag, hashtag, hashtag, these 00:25:35.000 --> 00:25:37.339 hashtags, secondary artistic outlets and private 00:25:37.339 --> 00:25:39.579 life. Now, Glover's artistic energy, it's not 00:25:39.579 --> 00:25:41.660 just confined to film and publishing, is it? 00:25:41.660 --> 00:25:43.759 It flows into music as well. Yeah. And it maintains 00:25:43.759 --> 00:25:47.160 that same level of deliberate, unsettling eccentricity. 00:25:47.240 --> 00:25:49.740 Oh, absolutely. During a hiatus from films, he 00:25:49.740 --> 00:25:52.339 actually released an album back in 1989. What 00:25:52.339 --> 00:25:54.579 was it called? The title is Pure Glover. The 00:25:54.579 --> 00:25:56.720 big problem does not equal the solution. The 00:25:56.720 --> 00:25:59.289 solution equals let it be. Chuckles. OK, that 00:25:59.289 --> 00:26:01.210 tracks. The album was produced by Barnes and 00:26:01.210 --> 00:26:03.049 Barnes, who are known for their own brand of 00:26:03.049 --> 00:26:05.490 musical oddity, like the song Fish Heads. OK, 00:26:05.849 --> 00:26:08.829 makes sense. And the track list itself is just 00:26:08.829 --> 00:26:11.029 an essential piece of the overall Crispin Grotto 00:26:11.029 --> 00:26:14.109 puzzle. It features original songs like Clowny 00:26:14.109 --> 00:26:15.970 Clown Clown, which, as we mentioned, ties back 00:26:15.970 --> 00:26:18.269 into that Ruben Farr character from Ruben and 00:26:18.269 --> 00:26:21.049 Ed and the Letterman appearance. It also features 00:26:21.049 --> 00:26:23.690 readings from his art books like Rat Catching 00:26:23.690 --> 00:26:26.829 and Oak Mott. And then there's a series of just. 00:26:27.460 --> 00:26:30.700 Deeply strange cover songs. And these covers, 00:26:30.799 --> 00:26:33.720 they seem designed to provoke and confuse, right? 00:26:33.779 --> 00:26:35.339 We're talking about covering Lee Hazelwood's 00:26:35.339 --> 00:26:39.750 These Boots Are Made For Walkin' alongside incredibly 00:26:39.750 --> 00:26:42.349 Charles Manson song. I'll never say never to 00:26:42.349 --> 00:26:45.670 always. Which Glover sang entirely in falsetto. 00:26:45.750 --> 00:26:49.049 Falsetto. Wow. Yeah. So reading his recontextualized 00:26:49.049 --> 00:26:51.730 19th century literature out loud and covering 00:26:51.730 --> 00:26:54.210 Charles Manson in a high pitched voice. I mean, 00:26:54.210 --> 00:26:56.789 that's a bizarre, high concept artistic menu. 00:26:57.029 --> 00:26:59.589 It's absolutely designed to make people uncomfortable, 00:26:59.789 --> 00:27:01.730 make them think twice about what they're consuming. 00:27:01.829 --> 00:27:04.230 It just confirms that the performance of the 00:27:04.230 --> 00:27:06.670 perpetual outsider is complete and permeates 00:27:06.670 --> 00:27:08.940 everything. And he also used his music. output 00:27:08.940 --> 00:27:11.980 as a direct tie -in for his 2003 film willard 00:27:11.980 --> 00:27:15.759 didn't he he did he recorded a cover of the michael 00:27:15.759 --> 00:27:18.740 jackson song ben which was the theme song from 00:27:18.740 --> 00:27:20.599 the sequel to the original willard back in the 00:27:20.599 --> 00:27:23.079 70s exactly the sequel was called ben so he covered 00:27:23.079 --> 00:27:25.339 that song and he directed the music video for 00:27:25.339 --> 00:27:27.779 it himself okay and what was the video like knowing 00:27:27.779 --> 00:27:31.170 glover Predictably strange. It features him singing 00:27:31.170 --> 00:27:34.529 directly to a rat, presumably Ben. But in the 00:27:34.529 --> 00:27:37.170 background, he deliberately incorporated this 00:27:37.170 --> 00:27:40.069 highly provocative historical imagery. Such as? 00:27:40.329 --> 00:27:43.309 His Willard co -star, the late, great R. Lee 00:27:43.309 --> 00:27:46.710 Ermey. Gunny Hartman. Right. Ermey appears portraying 00:27:46.710 --> 00:27:50.029 three distinct male characters, all of whom resemble 00:27:50.029 --> 00:27:52.190 controversial figures from mid -20th century 00:27:52.190 --> 00:27:55.029 history. The filmmaker Erich von Straheim, the 00:27:55.029 --> 00:27:58.049 actor Emil Jannings, and, most controversially, 00:27:58.160 --> 00:28:01.319 Adolf Hitler. Wait, Hitler? In a music video 00:28:01.319 --> 00:28:05.720 for a song about a pet rat? Yep. Why? Why introduce 00:28:05.720 --> 00:28:07.900 Hitler imagery into that context? It seems like 00:28:07.900 --> 00:28:11.119 such an unnecessary risk unless maybe the provocation 00:28:11.119 --> 00:28:13.299 is the entire point. I think the provocation 00:28:13.299 --> 00:28:16.539 is the point. Just like his use of actors with 00:28:16.539 --> 00:28:19.259 Down syndrome in What Is It? or the bizarre text 00:28:19.259 --> 00:28:22.180 collages in his books, he's forcing the audience 00:28:22.180 --> 00:28:24.920 to confront uncomfortable historical and cultural 00:28:24.920 --> 00:28:28.000 figures, often within an otherwise benign or 00:28:28.000 --> 00:28:30.039 even sentimental context, like a song about a 00:28:30.039 --> 00:28:33.039 rat. It demands interpretation. Exactly. It ensures 00:28:33.039 --> 00:28:35.960 the art cannot be passively consumed or easily 00:28:35.960 --> 00:28:38.259 dismissed. You have to react, even if it's just 00:28:38.259 --> 00:28:42.000 confusion or discomfort. Okay. Finally. We need 00:28:42.000 --> 00:28:44.019 to talk a little about his private residence, 00:28:44.279 --> 00:28:46.460 because it seems to perfectly mirror his dedication 00:28:46.460 --> 00:28:50.099 to these long -term, overwhelming projects. He 00:28:50.099 --> 00:28:53.200 maintains places in LA and NYC, but his main 00:28:53.200 --> 00:28:55.569 home base is in the Czech Republic. That's right. 00:28:55.670 --> 00:28:59.150 He owns Zamek Konarovic. It's a 17th century 00:28:59.150 --> 00:29:02.710 chateau, sits on about 20 acres, maybe 45 minutes 00:29:02.710 --> 00:29:05.589 east of Prague. Wow, a 17th century chateau. 00:29:05.710 --> 00:29:07.490 And it's not just some fancy house. It's actually 00:29:07.490 --> 00:29:09.930 recognized as historically significant by the 00:29:09.930 --> 00:29:11.890 Czech government. It sounds like a dreamer street 00:29:11.890 --> 00:29:14.089 on one hand. But given its age, it must also 00:29:14.089 --> 00:29:16.470 be just an unending source of logistical nightmares, 00:29:16.829 --> 00:29:19.730 upkeep, repairs. That seems to be exactly how 00:29:19.730 --> 00:29:21.950 he views it. It is the ultimate project. He talks 00:29:21.950 --> 00:29:30.549 about the chateau not really as a luxury. He 00:29:30.549 --> 00:29:33.509 sees the upkeep as part of the art. Almost. He 00:29:33.509 --> 00:29:36.049 describes the property as a lifetime project. 00:29:36.329 --> 00:29:45.210 He's quoted as saying, So it's this unending 00:29:45.210 --> 00:29:47.269 commitment, just like his decades -long film 00:29:47.269 --> 00:29:49.549 projects or book series. Exactly. It perfectly 00:29:49.549 --> 00:29:52.009 mirrors his commitment to his career and his 00:29:52.009 --> 00:29:54.930 art. The source is, also mention, interestingly, 00:29:55.170 --> 00:29:57.839 that he remains single. He cited his intense 00:29:57.839 --> 00:30:00.779 career demands as a reason he feels sort of unfit 00:30:00.779 --> 00:30:03.000 to be a father, believing a father should be 00:30:03.000 --> 00:30:05.559 constantly present for his children. His commitment 00:30:05.559 --> 00:30:07.799 to the work, whether it's maintaining a 17th 00:30:07.799 --> 00:30:10.200 century castle in Bohemia or filming a challenging 00:30:10.200 --> 00:30:13.180 psychosexual drama over six years, it seems to 00:30:13.180 --> 00:30:15.619 be absolutely total. Hashtag, hashtag, outro, 00:30:15.920 --> 00:30:18.059 summary, and final thought. So wrapping this 00:30:18.059 --> 00:30:20.200 up, what really stands out most profoundly in 00:30:20.200 --> 00:30:22.880 this deep dive is, I think, the strategic brilliance 00:30:22.880 --> 00:30:25.380 of Crispin Glover. He's not really a compromised 00:30:25.380 --> 00:30:27.500 artist, is he? He's more like a strategically 00:30:27.500 --> 00:30:30.039 funded one. That's a great way to put it. He 00:30:30.039 --> 00:30:33.559 absolutely perfected the technique of using the 00:30:33.559 --> 00:30:36.900 studio system, the very thing he critiques, as 00:30:36.900 --> 00:30:39.900 a means to generate the income required to fund 00:30:39.900 --> 00:30:43.400 the profoundly unique, independent, and yes, 00:30:43.440 --> 00:30:46.240 sometimes unnervingly bizarre art that he creates 00:30:46.240 --> 00:30:49.470 through volcanic eruptions. He maintains this 00:30:49.470 --> 00:30:52.849 incredible duality, this true, like, bifurcated 00:30:52.849 --> 00:30:55.509 career. He's the recognizable face who delivers 00:30:55.509 --> 00:30:57.869 an iconic, highly controlled performance for 00:30:57.869 --> 00:30:59.829 a studio. Gets the check. Gets the check, and 00:30:59.829 --> 00:31:02.089 then immediately uses that salary to bankroll, 00:31:02.150 --> 00:31:04.950 say, a decade -long film project about the complexity 00:31:04.950 --> 00:31:07.609 of identity, or to publish books he surgically 00:31:07.609 --> 00:31:10.589 recontextualized from the 1800s. The chaos you 00:31:10.589 --> 00:31:12.609 might perceive as intentional, the method underneath 00:31:12.609 --> 00:31:15.529 is incredibly precise. And beyond the art itself, 00:31:15.670 --> 00:31:17.650 we really have to always circle back to the long... 00:31:17.640 --> 00:31:20.599 impact of his resistance. That Back to the Future 00:31:20.599 --> 00:31:23.099 Part II lawsuit, it established such a crucial 00:31:23.099 --> 00:31:25.839 legal boundary for actors. It secured their rights 00:31:25.839 --> 00:31:27.880 against the misuse of their visual likeness. 00:31:27.880 --> 00:31:30.119 Which is more relevant than ever. Exponentially 00:31:30.119 --> 00:31:34.279 more vital. In an era dominated by AI, deep fakes, 00:31:34.339 --> 00:31:37.400 digital recreation, that specific protection 00:31:37.400 --> 00:31:40.119 is becoming fundamental to every working performer 00:31:40.119 --> 00:31:43.200 in Hollywood. He fought for himself, and he ended 00:31:43.200 --> 00:31:45.079 up protecting the entire industry in the process. 00:31:45.440 --> 00:31:47.359 So what did this all mean for you, the listener? 00:31:47.579 --> 00:31:49.960 I guess it means the eccentricity you see is 00:31:49.960 --> 00:31:53.220 intentional. The rebellion is strategic. And 00:31:53.220 --> 00:31:55.339 those mainstream roles, they're often merely 00:31:55.339 --> 00:31:58.960 logistical steps toward a much purer, much stranger 00:31:58.960 --> 00:32:02.440 artistic end. Exactly. And if you want one final 00:32:02.440 --> 00:32:05.500 thought. to kind of mull over after this. Consider 00:32:05.500 --> 00:32:08.420 the unpublished 500 -page novel he apparently 00:32:08.420 --> 00:32:10.440 wrote throughout the 2010s. I got you two pages. 00:32:10.599 --> 00:32:13.000 Yeah. Its primary focus is reported to be on 00:32:13.000 --> 00:32:14.599 propaganda within the American entertainment 00:32:14.599 --> 00:32:17.140 industry, and it apparently weaves in elements 00:32:17.140 --> 00:32:20.240 of his own work and his own experiences. He created 00:32:20.240 --> 00:32:22.660 this massive, dense statement of critique against 00:32:22.660 --> 00:32:24.859 the very system he occasionally participates 00:32:24.859 --> 00:32:27.220 in like a final, large volcano of thought just 00:32:27.220 --> 00:32:28.519 sitting there waiting to erupt.