What a wonderful week I had at the 43rd Ann Arbor Film Festival. It boasted one of the finest collections in experimental film becoming the launching pad for undistributed films to find their audience and have their stories be seen.

One polarizing entry could stand out as a paradigm for experimental film is Crispin Hellion Glover's long-awaited feature, What is it? made a dash to Ann Arbor from Sundance to confront viewers' threshold of controversial imagery with a fantastical adventure of one twisted-man's journey home. It is the first of three films Glover is making as a reaction to the pro-cultural film state. The unusual themes will be sure to disturb some, fascinate others, but most of all, challenge viewers.

In speaking with the actor/filmmaker, one can begin to grasp at what, What is it? could be about as well understand his hopes for a change in the pro-cultural film state.

Ernie Estrella: Crispin, you've stated to make a counter-cultural film, you need to deal with what is thought of as uncomfortable. A slap-in-the-face if you will. Is What is it? this type of film?

Crispin Glover: Yes, but it's not the only thing. There are subjects, images, and taboo elements that are not thought about, or brought up in the pro-cultural film state that exists. It is important to bring those elements into a forum where it can be talked about in some way that isn't being talked about at all. Once these things can be addressed on some level, there is a different kind of truth that can start to be dealt with in media. I'll deal with some of these truths in the sequel, Everything is Fine.

EE: Steve Stewart (who stars in What is it?) wrote Everything is Fine, what is that about?

CG: The second film is dealing with Steve Stewart who had Cerebral Palsy and had written into a news station about being locked into a nursing home for about twelve years. He was of normal intelligence but was called as a "mental retard," and was basically imprisoned there. This news story came out and helped give attention to the situation and he was able to live the rest of his life independently. He wrote a screenplay dealing with psychological, emotional, physical issues in this nursing home. It's a fantastical, idealized element of it. There is something naïve about the way this story is told. I like to describe it as, "a psychosexual retelling of this period of his life." Cerebral Palsy is not degenerative but he began to choke on his own saliva and then his lungs collapsed. He stayed alive long enough for us to finish shooting, dying shortly after. There are certain themes and concepts that have similarities but Steve's film ultimately is a very different film and I am really excited about that one. I believe it will be the best film that I have anything to do with my career.

EE: Could you explain what you mean by a counter-cultural film movement?

CG: There's an element that a corporation can point to and say, "This is who we can sell this movie to." In the late 60's and early 70's, was such a movement, a hippie counterculture that corporations could stand behind. I'm not suggesting that the hippie movement needs to be revived, not at all, but there is a need for a counter reacting to this culture.

EE: So what is holding back a similar movement today?

CG: The problem right now is, not that corporations want or don't want something. (With counter-cultural films) they can't point to something and say, "This is who we'll sell to."

EE: So filmmakers who want to make this kind of film are against it?

CG: One can take a long time to make a relatively inexpensive movie but then they have to find somebody to distribute it. They could make it inexpensively enough, and if they make their money back locally through their local art house. They could get enough confidence to tour the movie around. But theater owners are in league with the corporate entities, even the independent theaters. They do not let people rent out their theaters unless they're 100% reimbursed with sellout crowds. It is basically impossible for a film producer to make money in that situation. I'm not saying that's 100% right, but you do have to weed through it. Everything is geared toward a pro-cultural state and there aren't many entities that are willing to poke through that.

From touring the film, I've found there are people interested in this kind of counter-culturalism. And I know part of that has to do with me being an actor as well. People are curious and interested based on what I've done in the pro-cultural film state. I am utilizing something that everybody doesn't have which is unfortunate, perhaps, but I do think there's a truth to it that if filmmakers are interested in making counter-cultural films it is difficult because of distribution. It's a niche waiting to be filmed.

EE: How rewarding is it to go through this difficult process and finally see people reacting to the film?

CG: Strangely, it isn't as much about the reaction as it is about getting it done (laughs). So far, the experience has been in some of the reviews, which have been quite positive but a lot of them came from six years ago, when I toured with the film before it was done. I haven't seen enough reviews because I haven't shown it in enough places, but I'm feeling that there is an even more conservative element right now than there was six years ago in what is comfortable to be said or not said about a film like this. That's odd.

EE: There are artists who do their art and then there are those who do art that sells. You seem to me an artist that puts his art first and foremost.

CG: Well, to a certain extent there's truth in that, but also, I don't believe in being a starving artist. I'm very conscientious of the financial element of business. It's funny to me when I see reviews lately where the reviewers will talk about the business as a part of the review. What does that have to do with culturalism? If you think about it, what does that have to do with the experience with someone watching the movie? It shouldn't really have anything to do with it. I think that is something that started in the early 80's or late 70's, having the top ten lists in the newspapers in terms of moneymaking. The content of the movie didn't matter as much as "I'm part of the in-crowd that saw the #1 movie." I feel it's a review-point-of-view to either bring people together or against something. It's a pro-cultural standpoint. "This is a movie that will make a lot of money therefore you should see it. This is a movie nobody can go see, so you shouldn't see it." I wouldn't put the time and money into something unless I had a great confidence in touring with it and being profitable.

EE: Speaking about today's society especially with this administration forcing its value system, the patriot act, etc.

CG: That's something that I will get into because I think it's really important to make a distinction between counter-culturalism and political activism. I'm not a political activist. I think more importantly as much as a president has the power to be the military commander, deal with economics, and all of this kind of stuff, those people are voted out of or into office every four years. Whereas the media itself has a straightforward way of communicating that has a much stronger impact than the President of United States does. I think it's a far more insidious type of communication that is happening from the pro-cultural film state that's been going on some level since World War II.

EE: So are you saying that parts of the media aren't doing their job instead doing what needs to be done to make money?

CG: No, I don't think that. Because the pro-cultural state has existed for such a long time, this has affected a couple of generations at least. And because it's ubiquitous, it is not just here. It really is everywhere. The culture itself begins to think that is the only way to think. And if someone questions that, that person is crazy.

I've written screenplays that were specifically to be commercial but I can't help but always have something in them that's a little unusual. Now, in meetings with film industry people, what they'll say is, "Oh, we don't want to say that!" And (the script) could be innocent on the surface. But if you think about it, what does that mean? You wouldn't want to say WHAT exactly? Why wouldn't you want to say it? And the reason is because corporate interest needs to not offend anybody. If you can offend anybody about anything then you can lose sponsorship. And so there is an element where everybody in the United States starts to feel like it's wrong to have any kind of descent or have any kind of imagery that isn't considered this ONE thing.

When you go into media elements, into largely distributed papers, some people will say, "We can't support this." because they know it could cause problems. They'll get letters saying that, "This is not right!" Sponsors will stop putting ads in the paper. In the US, there's not supposed to be censorship in this country and there isn't. But there is a sort of self-censoring element that is everywhere. So you get is a homogenized type of message in any and all media. The reason for morals in movies, for story structure to exist is to let people know when something is wrong, when people feel uncomfortable, or not liked. Sometimes to let people know it's wrong is to make people uncomfortable. Movies are becoming literally amoral, because they know if they put a strong moral to it, they know they will offend somebody and therefore, they'll lose sponsorship.

EE: So what you have are people, including the media holding back whatever is natural to them?

CG: Yes, because maybe they can lose their jobs. If they write something that causes too much trouble or gets too many letters or is unpopular with the sponsors somebody up in the higher positions can say, "Let's get rid of this person!" And I am certain that is absolutely 100% true virtually everywhere.

EE: Getting back to the film, much of the cast of What is it? has Down Syndrome. Is this is part of that counter-cultural statement with the film?

CG: The film is not about Down Syndrome. When I see someone with Down Syndrome, immediately there is a history that I see in their face. You can tell that this person lived their life apart from their culture. Most of the world this film takes place in, is with people that have Down Syndrome, thus setting up a world of people that live apart from their culture. That is really the most important element. They also have an element that I like in their acting when they're in front of the camera. As an actor you're trying to get away from self-consciousness but with this cast, you feel that they are automatically concentrating on different things. I think that's compelling to watch.

EE: What were the challenges and rewards with working with this particular cast.

CG: There were really no challenges because I wrote it specifically for them. It only took twelve days to shoot the film but technical difficulties, not people with Down Syndrome, is what took an enormously long time to finish this film. The most important thing with working with people is that they're enthusiastic about what it is that's going on and everyone that I worked with was 100% enthusiastic.

EE: Since you've been on both sides of the camera, what would you say is the most organic part of filmmaking for you?

CG: My favorite part is editing. That's where you are making the final art of what the movie is. Being on set is kind of the war element. Editing is a kind of, clean-up stage where the beauty comes into it.

EE: Could What is it? be considered a dark comedy perhaps almost Stanley Kubrick-like?

CG: I don't consider it a comedy, I definitely admire Kubrick and there are a few filmmakers that I am ultimately influenced by, Luis Buñuel, Werner Hertzog, and Rainer Werner Fassbinder are among them. People do find humor in it but they may not find the same things humorous that I find humorous. I consider it a drama that has humor though it's not the drama people are used to seeing. Although, that doesn't mean I'm right (laughs). If other people really think it's another thing, then that is what it is to them and that's an important part of the film. What I don't like about movies is that they tend to dictate exactly how you're supposed to feel about something. I think the best filmmakers let there be something open to interpretation and that can lead to thinking a lot of different things. With What is it? I've kept to a story structure that has mythological influences with a skeleton that keeps it together. It's not just an abstract amalgam of imagery.

EE: There will be fans that will know about the film and be excited. For people who may not know much, or are curious, what would you say to bring them in?

CG: I describe the film as, the adventures of a young man whose principal interests are snails, salt, a pipe, and how to get home, as tormented by a hubristic racist inner-psyche. It sounds difficult to understand but, once you've seen the film, you'll understand it's a pretty concise description of what it's about.

If you'd like to see where What is it? is playing, log onto www.crispinglover.com for tour dates and locations and find other works of Crispin Hellion Glover.