Crispin Glover is best known for his roles in Back to the Future and Charlie’s Angels and perhaps most revered, by some, for his role in River’s Edge and the infamous 1987 appearance on Late Night with David Letterman to promote that film. (In media Glover has neither confirmed nor denied whether it was him who appeared on Letterman’s show that taping, wherein unbeknownst to the host and audience he came onstage in eccentric costume and affect of Rubin Farr, a character he’d developed and later portrayed in Trent Harris’s Rubin and Ed.) A passionate devotee of esoterica in all formats, over the years he has constructed nearly 20 books from re-purposing obscure novels and miscellaneous publications old enough to be in the public domain, and even released a novelty album recorded by Barnes & Barnes (1989’s The Big Problem ≠ The Solution. The Solution = Let It Be).

What many may not know is that Glover began to get behind the camera almost 20 years ago, working on his ambitious self-funded “It” trilogy. He has been tirelessly touring the globe with prints of the first two installments, What Is it? and It Is Fine! Everything Is Fine. for almost 10 years, opting to be physically present for every screening the taboo-entrenched films have ever had (the films have never had a standard theatrical run or home-video release; for more details on the tour visit CrispinGlover.com). He is currently producing and directing an as-yet-untitled movie to act in alongside his father, character actor Bruce Glover (Chinatown, Diamonds Are Forever), for the first time.

Vanity Fair: Your acting career in film began in the early 80s. What was it like entering Hollywood at the time, after the legacy of the 70s?

Crispin Glover: As soon as I got my driver’s license when I was 16, in 1980, I attended screenings at revival theaters that were quite popular in L.A., before VHS competition cleared many of them away. The films I saw that played in these venues tended to question culturally accepted truths with performances that underscored these concepts. I studied actors giving performances like Jack Nicholson in Five Easy Pieces and Easy Rider, Brad Dourif in One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest and Wise Blood, and Klaus Kinski in Aguirre, the Wrath of God. These films and performances characterized the atmosphere of cinema and acting I believed I was stepping into as a young actor. By 1982, at age 18, I began to act in feature films. At this time, I believed film’s main purpose was to question suspect things in our culture. I enthusiastically supported the idea of questioning our culture. Sometimes I felt scorned and isolated; other times I felt accepted and admired. Then, at one point, in the midst of my career, I realized that the types of films the industry was financing and distributing had changed almost diametrically from the types of films I had watched when I was 18. Something that is important to understand is that those who appear in corporately funded and distributed films, and more importantly the content of these films, [are] not determined by the populace of the culture, but by the corporate interests that are funding and distributing the films. Now, I have put my artistic passions and questions into my own filmmaking.

When and how did you start making your own films?

The first feature film I produced and directed is What Is It? I am very careful to make it quite clear that What Is It? is not a film about Down syndrome, but rather my psychological reaction to the corporate restraints that have happened in the last 30 or more years in filmmaking. Specifically, in that 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, “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 its media? It is a bad thing when questions are not being asked—these kinds of questions are when people are having a truly educational experience. . . . This stupefies culture. So What Is It? is a direct reaction to the contents of this culture’s media. I would like people to think for themselves.

…

In 1996 I was approached by two young, aspiring filmmakers 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, but I thought there were [conceptual, structural] things that did not work. I came up with solutions to re-work it. . . mainly that most of the characters were to be played by actors with Down syndrome. They were fine with this concept . . . and David Lynch then agreed to executive produce the film [and] for me to direct. This was very helpful, and I went to one of the larger corporate entities in Los Angeles that finances films. They were interested in the project, but after a number of meetings and conversations they let me know that they were concerned about financing a project wherein most of the characters were played by actors with Down syndrome. The title of the screenplay at this point had become It Is Mine. and will eventually be part three of the “It” trilogy. It was not known yet at the 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 characters played by actors with Down syndrome was a viable thing to do for corporate entities to invest in.

This is when I wrote a short screenplay titled What Is It?, which we shot in four days. . . . I could see with more work and more material I could turn it into a feature. Over approximately the next two years I shot eight more days and edited it into what is now the final version of the film.

…

From the first day of shooting what was to be a short to having a 35mm print of the feature film took nine and a half years. But perhaps more important than realizing the short should be turned into a feature 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 syndrome, but it was the concept itself that was the concern.

Sometimes people think I am stating that having actors with Down syndrome is taboo—that is not what I am stating. One can easily see movies or television shows that include actors with Down 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 syndrome playing a character that does not have Down syndrome, whereas one will easily see an actor without a disability playing a character with a disability. Furthermore, that is the 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. “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.

Steven C. Stewart wrote and is the main actor in part two of the trilogy, It Is Fine! Everything Is Fine. I put Steve into the cast of What Is It? because he had written this screenplay [in the late 1970s], which I read in 1987. When I turned What Is It? into 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 10 years when his mother died. He had been born with a severe case of cerebral palsy and he was very difficult to understand . . . Steve was of normal intelligence. When he did get out, he wrote his screenplay. Although it is written in the genre of a murder-detective thriller, truths of his own existence come 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 wanted it to be understood that a person with a disability—emphasis on person—can have dark thoughts, too.

After Charlie’s Angels came out it did very well financially and was good for my acting career. . . . I have been able to divorce myself from the content of the films that I act in and look at acting as a craft [where I can] help other filmmakers to accomplish what it is that they want to do. 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. . . . That is exactly what happened [after Charlie’s Angels with It Is Fine! Everything Is Fine.] . . . Steve died within a month after we finished shooting the film . . . [I] had taken out no insurance if Steve were to die. Steve was a strong person and I knew that he had an inner need to get this story out. . . . In 1996, he would write me e-mails like, “When are we going to make the film before I kick the bucket?” . . . The fact that Steve had both a sense of humor and a sense of rebellion made it so I could very much relate to him. . . . It may sound sappy, but if Steve were here today I would be very happy to tell him how much he has positively affected my life. . . . 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.

What motivated the decision to tour the films, as opposed to a more standard release route?

Sometimes people ask why I have not “distributed” the films—which you have not asked—but I always find it interesting. . . . It seems at this point that almost everything is so corporately controlled that if someone actually chooses to do something that is not corporately backed, people do not understand that process as even existing. . . . Distribution, of course, means to make available to the public, which I most certainly have done with my films.

[Prior] to the 1950s, people exclusively saw films in movie theaters. The films were able to recoup and profit at that time in that fashion. It seems strange to me that people do not seem to understand that a theatrical experience in a cinema can be important for human development. Storytelling in a group setting around a fire is an ancient tradition, and this kind of group social experience is something that humans as a social animal gain a lot from. One can watch a movie alone on a television screen or computer or telephone, which is one kind of experience. Also, people can see a film in a social environment and have a communicative exchange, which of course is another kind of experience. Both have their own value, but the more social experience at this point in time is particularly important.

…

The fact that I tour with the films helps the distribution element. . . . I definitely utilize being known from work in the corporate media I have done in the last 25 years or so, which I rely on when I go on tour. . . . 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 I’ve made, 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 have a Q&A followed by a book signing. As I funded the films I knew that this was how I would recoup my investment even if it is a slow process.

…

I consider what I am doing to be following in the steps of vaudeville performers. Vaudeville has only relatively recently stopped being the main source of entertainment in the U.S., 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.

Tell me about what you’re currently working on. What has it been like working with your father Bruce? And what’s the status of It Is Mine.?

I have owned a château in the Czech Republic for over a decade now. . . . I do have some Czech heritage but more specifically I needed to purchase property somewhere that I liked where I could have a good place to build sets. It fit the needs, and when I purchased [it] more than 10 years ago, the dollar was high against Czech currency, so it was a good value. An industrial-sized property is less expensive to maintain there than it would be here. I have completed principal photography on my next feature at my property. The cast and crew stayed at the château.

At the time the sets were being built I was in the process of developing the screenplay for myself and my father to act in together. . . . He and I had not yet 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. Ultimately the results of the film will be good. This is also the first role I have written for myself primarily as an acting role, as opposed to [my role in What Is It?, which] was written for the character I play to merely serve the structure. But even still, on some level I wrote the screenplay to be something that I could afford to make. . . . I have been showing a two-minute preview of this film at my shows on my recent tours. . . . It is also my first film to have been shot in 35mm, as my first two features were shot with standard 16mm film then blown up for a 35mm negative from a digital intermediate. I love the grain pattern of film.

The current production for myself and my father is not part three of the “It” trilogy. It is a completely different film. . . . It Is Mine. is an even more complex project than the previous two installments put together, so it will be a while yet for that production. I will step outside of the trilogy for a number of films that deal with different thematic elements from the “It” trilogy. . . . There are two other projects I am currently developing to shoot on sets at my property in the Czech Republic, [which] 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.

Looking back on your acting career so far, which roles stand out as particularly special ones?

Some of the performances I like of myself are Layne in River’s Edge, Larry Huff in The Orkly Kid, Dr. Abuse in Influence, Danny in Teachers, George McFly in Back to the Future, Andy Warhol in The Doors, The Thin Man in Charlie’s Angels, Willard in Willard, Bartleby in Bartleby, Grendel in Beowulf, Cousin Dell in Wild at Heart, and Dueling Demi-God Auteur in What Is It?