Satanists get a bad rap. At least that’s what director Penny Lane sets out to show in this documentary with an unusual subject. Or at least it would be odd for any filmmaker who hadn’t previously helmed a doco about a radio magnate who possibly implanted goat testicles into the scrotums of his human patients.
The goat connection continues in HAIL SATAN? as the Satanists work towards the separation of church and state by lobbying to erect a statue of Baphomet at a government building. The notion may seem ridiculous at first, at least until they start to point out how many Christian tenants have made their way into the various instruments of government in the United States.
This is where Lane’s narrative is at its strongest. Showcasing the history of religious iconography in America’s seats of power, we see that many of the ‘sacred’ tenants – such as “In God We Trust” – trace their power to the anti-Communist hysteria of the 1950s and 60s and moral crusaders like Billy Graham. Similarly, Lane explores the Satanic Panic of later decades, with everything from heavy metal to television being blamed for the decay of Christian values in the homes of Americans.
Lane contrasts this with the modern day Satanic Temple under Lucien Greaves, a group that not only leads the fight against institutional monotheism but does a lot of charity work as well. Like Christianity, Lane shows us that satanism isn’t a homogenous entity with infighting and differing approaches across the nation. One member is expelled for effectively practicing hate speech against the 45th President of the United States.
There is also some tension coming from the Satanic Temple’s credo: they claim they are holding a satirical mirror up to hypocrisy, but they also base many of their arguments on being a legit religion. The documentary never reconciles this, nor does it push its often over-the-top subjects on this, but it has a lot of fun exploring the group along the way.
HAIL SATAN? ultimately leaves us with a very legitimate question, and not just the one in the title: if one religion’s artefacts can grace the lawn of capital hill, then should all religions have a slice of that real estate? It’s not a question that Lane needs to answer in this documentary, and nor is it the sole responsibility of the Satanic Temple. Yet by the end of the film, one of the groups in this debate sounds completely irrational, and it isn’t the Satanists.
2019 | US | DIR: Penny Lane | WRITER: Penny Lane| CAST: Lucien Greaves, Satanic Temple members | DISTRIBUTOR: Madman Films, Revelation Film Festival (AUS) | RUNNING TIME: 95 minutes | RELEASE DATE: 8-15 July 2019 (RevFest), 11 July 2019 (AUS)
With 27 features, 32 documentaries, 42 shorts, and a whole lot of events, there’s a lot to get through in the two-week period.
To make your lives a little easier, we’ve hand-picked the clickbaitable headline of 11 must-see films. Odd numbers play better for social engagement, you see.
MONOS: A completely immersive and harrowing experience. This is not one you watch so much as survive. Now I’m cold and west and waiting instructions. May we all think fondly of Shakira the Milk Cow as we journey through this life together.
CHILDREN OF THE SEA: Some of the psychedelic animation was amazing, and totally did my head in. Which might explain why I had no idea what was going on half the time. A rare chance to see brand new Japanese animation on the big screen.
FRAMING JOHN DELOREAN: Made famous by Back to the Future, the man behind the car has story even more fantastic than time travel. A mixture of documentary footage, interviews, and drama featuring Alec Baldwin, where this film is going we don’t need roads.
MILES DAVIS: THE BIRTH OF COOL: I’ll admit that the gap in my musical knowledge is jazz, so this doco provides a solid primer for a career and has done an amazing job by summarising a life and getting me to go and seek out more of his albums.
THE FINAL QUARTER: Pulled together entirely from archival footage, this look at the last few years of the career of Adam Goodes becomes a disturbing examination of not just how the media treats race, but the undercurrent of racism that is inherent in our nation’s structures.
THE WIND: While it doesn’t always hit the right marks, this western-cum-psychological thriller is still fascinating to watch. A beautifully shot and haunting scored film, the leaps are occasionally jarring, but that’s kind of the point. It’s no Repulsion, but it’s still a distant relation.
THE QUIET EARTH: A special RevFest screening of this 1985 New Zealand sci-fi film about the last human on the planet. Directed by the late Geoff Murphy (Young Guns II, 2nd unit on the Lord of the Rings trilogy, you should jump at the chance to see this cult favourite on the big screen.
INTERNATIONAL FALLS: RevFest presents the Australia debut of Amber McGinnis’ (The Company We Keep) comedy-drama set in the small town of International Falls, Minnesota. I wonder if this is closer to St. Olaf or the purifying waters of Lake Minnetonka?
HAIL SATAN?: A crowd favourite at the Sydney Film Festival in June, this is a mostly fun documentary that uses a singular subject to explore the influence of monotheism in state institutions as some Satanists try to erect a statue of Baphomet.
MEMORY: THE ORIGINS OF ALIEN: Alexandre O. Phillipe’s exploration of one of the greatest science fiction and horror films of all time is essential for fans of cinema and comes complete with interviews from Veronica Cartwright, Ron Shusett, Diane O’Bannon, and Tom Skerritt.
DRAGGED ACROSS CONCRETE: Director S. Craig Zahler (the underrated Bone Tomahawk) brings Mel Gibson back to the police force alongside Vince Vaughn. The film has earned fans since its debut in Venice last year, and should appeal to heist fans everywhere.
Celebrating it’s 20th anniversary, the Revelation Perth International Film Festival launched a crowdfunding campaign today that aims to raise $20,000 for the Festival’s 20th anniversary. The money raised will go towards key speakers and seminars, architectural projections, 16mm micro cinema and a fortnight of free family screenings.
“Our desire to provide as many free events as we can and to take a lead in creating something new means we need to explore other support and hence this campaign,” said Festival Director Richard Sowada. “It’s also gone from being ten days a year to effectively a year-round activity through video-on-demand, our monthly Australian Revelations screenings and our Fringe World program in summer.”
RevFest’s approach follows several other successful campaigns from around the world. Last year, Samphire became the fastest-ever successfully funded music festival on Crowdfunder, offering audiences an alternative to the proliferation of mainstream fare. 2016 also saw Australia’s Tropfest turn to crowdfunding following the surprising news that it was going to be cancelled following a “terrible mismanagement of funds.”
Our coverage of last year’s event demonstrates the festival’s commitment to indie and underground films from around the world. As a result, the RevFest has come a long way from its humble 1997 origins in the basement backroom in Perth’s Greenwich Club with one person, two ancient 16mm projectors and 12 films. Today it boasts over 13,000 festival guests viewing over 120 international films presented at cinemas, galleries, cafes and bars across Perth.
The campaign has a number of perks for potential funders, so check out the campaign on how you can contribute and what you can get in return.
It’s the most shocking and brutal of the Dude Bro Party Massacre series to date. Just don’t go looking for the first two.
In the 1980s, a film was created that was so visceral and disturbing that all known copies were destroyed under an executive order from US President Ronald Reagan. Thanks to a cable screening on the Midnight Morning Movie, a young fan’s VHS copy has survived the ravages of time. The film can finally be presented to the public, whether they are prepared for it or not.
At least that’s what the opening scrawl of DUDE BRO PARTY MASSACRE III tells us. In reality, it’s the brainchild of the 5 Second Films collective, an online comedy group with millions of viewers. Their feature is the result of a successful Kickstarter campaign, and it’s a mix of 80s horror tributes, outright parody and the just plain strange. Following previous murders involving the Delta Bis fraternity, survivor Brock is killed by the revived Motherface. Thankfully, his twin brother Brent (Alec Owen) joins the remaining Dude Bros (in a cabin by the lake, of course) to solve this mystery once and for all.
There’s a fine line between parody and just plain bad, and DUDE BRO PARTY MASSACRE III merrily crosses it, stomps on it, and burns it to the ground. Reversing traditional genre gender roles, the titular dudes are dismissive of girls and losing their virginity, and are the first to be picked off by a female killer. Flipping through every horror trope in the book, the film goes one step further by using the same part of the brain pan that cooked up Adult Swim’s Too Many Cooks. We watched that repetitive and bizarre sitcom parody because the archetypes were familiar, but the execution (both literal and figurative) had its movie-literate tongue firmly in cheek. Here the filmmakers don’t simply recreate a horror film from the era, but subvert it with over-the-top surrealism and beautiful non-sequitur moments (“Help! I’m trapped in a basement and forced to write subtitles!”). The train-of-thought approach is almost too much of a good thing, stuck somewhere between a feature-length YouTube skit and the Wet Hot American Summer series.
With constant tracking problems along the bottom of the screen, the movie is designed to mirror the look and feel of 80s video nasties. There’s even snippets of terrible cable infomercials from where the pause button was pressed, a familiar sight to amateur editors of the day. Bad films are usually more fun when the filmmakers aren’t in on the joke, and The Room‘s Greg Sestero stars as if to prove that point. Nevertheless, DUDE BRO PARTY MASSACRE III seems to be an exception to this rule, shamelessly and merrily diving head-first into the kitchen sink of brotastic mayhem.
DUDE BRO PARTY MASSACRE IIIis playing at the Revelation Perth International Film Festival, 7-19 July 2016.
2015 | US | DIR: Tomm Jacobsen, Michael Rousselet and Jon Salmon | WRITERS: Alec Owen and the cast | CAST: Alec Owen, Patton Oswalt, Paul Prado, Brian Firenzi, Kelsey Gunn | DISTRIBUTOR: Revelation Film Festival | RUNNING TIME: 103 minutes | RATING: ★★★½
Truth is stranger than fiction in this forgotten slice of American history. Or is it the other way around?
Film is deceptive by its very nature, creating something out nothing to transport the viewer to a world that may not be real, filled with characters that probably never existed. Documentary, on the other hand, is seen to be about exposing the truth, or crafting an investigative text on a subject. Penny Lane’s NUTS! is both of these things, reeling us into a tale that lives up to its title, before whipping the rug out from underneath us.
Using a combination of roughly hewn animation and talking heads, Lane explores the singular personality of Dr. John R. Brinkley, purveyor of impotence cures and radio pioneer in the first half of the 20th century. The first half of NUTS! depicts Brinkley as a man who struggled at every turn, to become a doctor, fight the powers that be, and being one of the first to broadcast country music widely across America. He came to notoriety when he allegedly made thousands of successful operations, xenotransplanting goat testicles into humans to increase virility. This alone would be a fascinating narrative, even if it was the whole story.
Opening as it does on the animated vision of two goats humping, Lane trains us from the start to expect the unexpected. Brinkley was well documented as a huckster and a fraud, and his fame and popularity demonstrated a skill in manipulating human desire to believe the impossible. Before we realise the extent of Brinkley’s deception, there’s nothing in the narrative that seems completely unreasonable, even if it’s always a little strange. As conned as his victim’s were, there’s a definite parallel to modern scams, and alternative medicine literally put on trial. Brinkley’s supporters argued for the right to “choose my own doctor,” scarily mirroring everything from detoxers to anti-vaxxers.
The style of NUTS! is always disconcerting, the slow narration and vocal acting sometimes at odds with the animated action on screen. It’s an unassuming film, almost playing like a PBS made-for-TV doco, one that downplays its own insanity. This is kind of the point though, to draw us in with a good story, but perhaps keep us questioning all the while. When the other shoe falls, it’s like a good con: we know we’ve been suckered, but the purveyor has already got us in hook, line and sinker.
NUTS!is playing at the Revelation Perth International Film Festival, 7-19 July 2016. It also screens at the Melbourne International Film Festival 28 July – 14 August 2016.
2016 | US | DIR: Penny Lane | CAST: Gene Tognacci, Andy Boswell, Thom Stylinski | DISTRIBUTOR: RevFest/MIFF (AUS) | RUNNING TIME: 79 minutes | RATING: ★★★★
One of the most famous penises in politics is only part of the story in this fascinating fly-on-the-wall piece that is part redemption story, part confessional and part examination of the media machine.
Anthony Weiner is incredibly frank from the start of this documentary about the reasons for his current fame. “The punchline is true about me,” he admits. “I did the things. But I did a lot of other things too.” As if to underline the point, a montage of images follows this confession, showcasing the firebrand congressman’s impassioned and unyielding speeches in favour of health care and low-income housing. Weiner was one of the Democrat’s most fiery defenders of the underdogs. Bill Clinton spoke at his wedding. He was a leading light in politics, at least until he accidentally tweeted a picture of his crotch in 2011.
WEINER is a chronicle of what happens when a singular personality is forced to use his energy to defend lifestyle choices instead of the things he stands for politically. The film is set around his 2013 New York mayoral campaign, a lifelong ambition that he also saw as the “straightest line” to cleaning up the mess resulting from his public extra-marital liaisons. Filmmakers Josh Kriegman and Elyse Steinberg’s get access to the work and life of Weiner and his wife Huma Abedin on the trail, but the film really becomes a exemplar of how the media truly runs the agenda for his campaign. Weiner’s exasperation is tangible, and the documentary is a virtual timeline of his temperament turning from defensive to attack mode, turning on the media and even his own film crew at times.
The titular Weiner’s woes are only half of the story, with the editing careful to quietly show the impact on Abedin and Weiner’s family. Abedin is largely known as Hillary Clinton’s right-hand, acting as both campaign manager and personal assistant. A number of media volleys questioned her judgment in sticking by her husband, especially when a second and more explicit wave of genital selfies emerges. Clearly reluctant to step into the spotlight, WEINER shows someone who is both politically savvy and devastatingly human forced to publicly deal with the indiscretions of her partner as the latter becomes the butt of jokes from late night hosts.
With the exception of a few direct questions from the filmmakers, and the occasional request for them to leave the room, the camera captures all of these non-verbal moments. Eli B. Despres’ (Blackfish) skillful editing places these off-guard moments alongside the consummate showmanship of Weiner, giving us an idea of how he went from argumentative politician to fighting with citizens in a bakery. There are a few curious moments when we feel participatory in the insanity, with certain scenes sharply bringing our recent engagement with the mockery back into focus. WEINER shows us that the future of public office is set, and a stark warning of what happens when emotion rules decisions just in time for the 2016 US presidential elections. Indeed, with social media making nothing a secret anymore, the subjects of this film may seem quaint in a few decades time.
WEINERis playing at the Revelation Perth International Film Festival, 7-19 July 2016. It also screens at the Melbourne International Film Festival 28 July – 14 August 2016. It is also in limited release in Australia (NSW, ACT) from 28 July 2016 from Madman.
2016 | US | DIR: Josh Kriegman and Elyse Steinberg | CAST: Anthony Weiner, Huma Abedin | DISTRIBUTOR: Madman Entertainment | RUNNING TIME: 96 minutes | RATING: ★★★★½
A nun going a little bit rogue could fit into almost any genre, but instead it’s a disarmingly political study of a dysfunctional family.
“Fail to see the tragic? Turn it into magic!” Taken from Marilyn Manson’s “Dope Hat,” a track largely musing on addiction’s control over the user, it’s an apt opening quote for a film where all the members of this family are addicted to something. Zach Clark, one of the most indie of filmmakers, follows up 2013’s White Reindeer with LITTLE SISTER, which is both infused with political commentary and a quirky collection of characters.
A period film of sorts, setting the film just prior to the 2008 election of US President Barack Obama, a brief period that mixes resignation with renewed hope. Young novice nun Colleen (Addison Timlin) is given the covent’s car for five days in order to reconnect with her family in North Carolina. Summoned by her troubled mother Joani (Ally Sheedy), she arrives to mark the return of her brother Jacob (Keith Poulson) from hospital, after being badly burned over his entire face and body during wartime. Her room is as she left it, covered in dark ephemera from the goth days she once shared with her brother. Her parents both addicted to marijuana and other recreational drugs, and Jacob a total recluse, she must deal with her own unresolved issues with her family and help them uncover their own.
Clark’s sense of irreverent humour comes across clearly in the title cards. After being told by Mother Superior that god created the world in seven days, so Colleen should be able to sort out her problems in five, each ‘chapter’ is punctuated by a title card that marks ‘The First Day’ and so on. Timlin’s Colleen is easy to connect to thanks to her deceptively mousey strain of weird, something that LITTLE SISTER celebrates at every turn. This does, after all, have a scene built around Colleen lip-syncing to Gwar’s “Have You Seen Me?” in a faux-blood covered nun’s habit – and it’s strangely adorable. Colleen’s ability to relate to the audience is essential as this focused family study refuses to shy away from their dysfunction.
Jacob’s drums, and the occasional bit of goth music, act as he staccato soundtrack for the film, breaking even the most quiet moments of reverie with pounding bass. Clark’s regular cinematographer Daryl Pittman shoots some lovely pieces that make full use of natural light, contrasted with the heightened colours of the interiors at times. Clark skirts along the edges of being saccharine, but widely avoids it, touching on animal liberation activists, the horrors of war and addiction, but never in an overt way. A film where strange is essential.
LITTLE SISTERis playing at the Revelation Perth International Film Festival, 7-19 July 2016.
2016 | US | DIR: Zach Clark | WRITERS: Zach Clark | CAST: Addison Timlin, Keith Poulson, Ally Sheedy | DISTRIBUTOR: Revelation Film Festival | RUNNING TIME: 91 minutes | RATING: ★★★★
Crispin Glover has worn many hats over the last few decades. Filmmaker, writer and recording artist, he is probably best known to film audiences for his memorable performances in Back to the Future, Willard, Charlie’s Angels and more recently, Alice in Wonderland.
These days, Crispin concentrates on the output from his Volcanic Eruptions production company, through which he publishes books and his films What Is It? and It is fine! EVERYTHING IS FINE! According to his official site, “Crispin celebrates the evident uniqueness and wonder of all individuals and the mystery of the universe. Crispin believes people should think for themselves”.
We need to thank the good people at Perth’s Revelation International Film Festival for arranging this opportunity, and of course, Mr. Crispin Glover for his generous time and wonderful answers.
You can still catch Crispin in Melbourne on July 13 and 14, then in Sydney on July 20 and 21.
Welcome to Australia, and congratulations on the success of your films at the festivals.
Thank you! I am glad to be here and all has gone well at the Revelation Festival.
Your slide shows and travelling shows mix your own personality with literature, images and other elements. What is it about this intertextual relationship that fascinates you?
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.
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 1992 I 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.
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 8 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 has been developed over the last several years and the content has changed as it has been developed, but I am very happy with the content of the second slide show now.
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.
Still from It is fine! EVERYTHING IS FINE (2007)
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.
Still from What Is It? (2005)
Your films seem designed to provoke discussion on taboo issues. Do you think it will ever be possible to have these discussions in a more mainstream context? In addition final instalment of the ‘IT’ trilogy, I believe you are currently building sets for several other projects. What determines the direction of your projects?
Corporate media control waxes and wanes in terms of discussion of taboo and genuine questioning. The last 30 years has had a particular constriction on the kind of discussions that are able to happen in the corporately controlled media. It is possible that constriction could loosen, but that is hard to tell.
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 20 to 30 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.
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 he 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 murder detective thriller truths of his own existence come through much more clearly than if he had written it as a standard autobiography. Steven C. Stewart’s own true story was fascinating and then the beautiful story and the naïve including his fascination of women with long hair and the graphic violence and sexuality and the revealing truth of his psyche from the screenplay were all combined. A specific marriage proposal scene was the scene I remember reading that made me think “I will have to be the person to produce/finance this film.”
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 we 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.
Crispin Glover as Thin Man in Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle (2003)
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.
I admire films and aspire to make films that go beyond the realm of that which is considered good and evil.
I would say that description applies to both “What Is It?” and “It is fine! EVERYTHING IS FINE.” I generally answer with this sort of description of the films when is a moral question about making the films is asked.
Films that are currently financed and distributed by the film corporations and distribution corporations that currently exist must sit within the boundary of that which is considered good and evil. What this means is if there is a so called “bad thing/evil thing” that sits with in a corporately financed and distributed film it must necessarily pointed at by the filmmaker so that the audience is dictated to that the only way to think about that so called “evil thing” is that one way. And to repeat it that one way of thinking about that so called “evil thing” is only that, “evil”. Any other way of think about that so called “evil thing” would be considered wrong and it must be made in such a way that they audience understands that the filmmakers feel that this “evil thing” is only that and no other way of thinking about that “evil thing” could or should be possible. A film that goes beyond the realm of good and evil may have this same so called “evil thing” but the filmmaker may not necessarily point at that so called “evil thing” so that the audience are not dictated to and therefore can determine and think what for itself as to what this so called “evil thing” really is to them.
I should not go in to detail for “IT IS MINE.” yet and I will not shoot that next. There are other projects outside of the trilogy that I will shoot next. The Czech Republic is another culture and another language and I need to build up to complex productions like “What is it?” and the existing sequel “It is fine! EVERYTHING IS FINE.” IT IS MINE. Is an even more complex project than those two films were 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.
The sets for my next film productions have started construction. The next production will not be part of the “IT” trilogy. I have been working on the themes that are part of that trilogy for many years so I am looking forward to stepping outside of those themes in my next productions. At the same time the sets are being built I am in the process of continuing to develop the screenplay for myself and my father to act in together on these very sets. He is also an actor and that is the next film I am planning to make as a director/producer. This will be the first role I write for myself to act in that will be written 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. The cost of the set building will determine which one I actually shoot next. I am not concerned whether my next films will ultimately be distributed in the way I have been self distributing my films or if I will sell them to be corporately distributed. It could be at some point that my films will be corporately distributed. I am not against corporate distribution I am only against the constrictions that tend to happen when people are specifically making films to be corporately distributed. It seems plausible that my own film making may coincidentally align to the interests of corporate distribution and if that should happen and it makes a mathematical sense to sell to distribution company then I would do it. I that did not happen and I continue to self distribute in the way I am that would be ok as well. The most important aspect is to make my own films that I am passionate about.
Crispin Glover as George McFly in Back to the Future (1985)
A number of your characters have been outsiders in some way, everything from George McFly to Rubin Farr and of course, Willard. What attracts you to these roles, and what do you look for in a character?
In the last decade I have been specifically funding my films with the money I make as an actor. So I almost think of the roles I am offered as acting assignments. I mean that in a positive way and I am grateful to get those assignments.
Usually what I’m trying to do is to find the psychological truth of the characters I’m playing. Perhaps “outsiderness” is present but it usually manifests from what seems appropriate for the psychology of the character.
I do not try to and I never have tried to make a perception of being an outsider in the corporately funded and distributed film world. I don’t feel like an outsider in the corporately funded and distributed film world. I understand why there is the perception of me being an outsider but it is not a perception I am attempting to have.
I see myself as someone who has been raised with the understanding of how corporately funded and distributed film business works. I have had a certain amount of acceptance within that business. While I am grateful to that system to have made a living in it for about thirty-five years I have also had a certain amount of question about how to make the corporately funded and distributed film business more truly educational. There may be reasons why the corporately funded and distributed film business does not want to be truly educational and anyone who does that may be questioned back in multiple ways.
Within the corporately funded and distributed film world I see myself as an actor for hire and am grateful to that system to have made a living in it for about thirty five years.
You’ve recently shot your scenes for the thriller Motel. Was there a challenge you wished to pursue in this role?
This role was fun to play and the dialogue was well written. I am looking forward to seeing the film.
Crispin Glover motion captured Grendel in Beowulf (2007)
From an actor’s point of view, is there a difference to a traditionally filmed performance and motion capture? Has making your own films informed or changed your approach to acting and your other artistic endeavours?
The technology for Beowulf is different from standard animation. The motion capture technology used for Beowulf is an excellent technology for acting as all actors are surrounded 260 cameras so every actor is in a simultaneous wide shot and close up so the actors do not have to do off camera acting and it makes for excellent performances to play off of on every take. I would definitely work in that technology again if it was offered to me. When working on Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland there was more green screen technology used and very little motion capture that was a different sort of technology from what was used on Beowulf.
Acting in front of a camera does help quite a lot behind the camera particularly if one has been studying what everyone does on the set while one is acting. But I would also say an extremely valuable thing is to physically edit one’s own film which I did for What Is It? This is extremely valuable for knowing what is actually necessary to shoot and what is helpful and not. That in turn is also good for acting. Particularly giving variation in performance for an editor.
You have said that your filmmaking is the most important thing to you. What advice would you give to people trying to break into the industry?
I liked what two of my favourite filmmakers answered when asked “How do you become a film director?” Stanley Kubrick answered “By directing films.” Werner Herzog answered something to the affect of “Steal a camera.” Even though they are seemingly different answers to me they are virtually the same. What it means is you must manifest directing films. There is no other way. It seemly is something that must be and you will make it happen. That is all.
Chicago’s CeaseFire Model was launched in 2000 in one of the most violent communities in Chicago at the time, and one indicative of the culture of violence that spreads across the United States of America. In 2004, Illinois CeaseFire director Tio Hardiman introduced the Violence Interrupter model, whereby a small group of people actively try to step in and stop the cycle of retribution and violence that causes a seemingly endless pall of death that hangs over communities like the troubled Chicago South Side suburb of Englewood.
Hoop Dreams director Steve James takes producer Alex Kotlowitz’s 2009 New York Times article as his inspiration, and takes his cameras into the so-called “Black Belt” of Chicago. The predominantly African-American area is renowned for its low rates of education and high degree of unemployment, a combination of factors that lead to many of the citizens turning to gang-related activities, or being caught in the violence that results from the culture it engenders. The film follows three interrupters – Ameena Matthews, Cobe Williams and Eddie Bocanegra. Ameena, the daughter of a major gang leader in the 1970s, is a former teen member of that world and now spends time trying to stop kids from doing the same. Cobe and Eddie have both done long stretches in prison for serious violent and drug-related crimes.
The Interrupters is undoubtedly an important discussion, and the work that it follows is essential to the healing of the communities it penetrates. Ameena in particular is an inspirational figure, swinging easily between being a prophet of peace and speaking the language of her former life. Her dedication is admirable, particularly in the light of her father being the founder of the Black P Stones, who along with The Gangster Disciples are responsible for most of the drug activity in the area. In many ways she, and her colleagues, are perfect examples of what the film represents: a tough honesty that isn’t always pretty, but inspires the change that it wants to be.
Yet the film makes its point very quickly, and much of the remainder is spend hammering home that message through examples that often labour the point. There are undoubtedly thousands of cases across America that mirror their stories, but what is remarkable about them all is that none of them are exceptional. For people growing up in the same conditions, this is a way of life.
However, The Interrupters comes dangerously close to losing its message in the sheer weight of information it presents, and the two-hour documentary could have been just as powerful as a television special half that length. In that time, it also never really commits to the negative aspects of what they do, short of a brief interlude in which one of the team is shot. Even then, the bigger implications about intervening in complex communities are never asked. Regardless, this is documentary evidence of an incredible movement that hopefully ignites change in violent communities around the world.
In Lynn Shelton’s debut film We Go Way Back, she depicted the comic-tragic circumstances around a 23-year-old actress being confronted by her 13-year-old self. The personal aspect to this theme is something that continued throughout Shelton’s work, which is probably what made her last film Humpday (2009) such a disappointment to followers. After coming out as bisexual this year, Your Sister’s Sister continues injecting her films with personal poignancy, exploring gender relations with her familiar micro-budget and semi-improvisational techniques that she has used in other films.
A year after the death of his brother, Jack (Mark Duplass) is still in emotional arrested development. Following his outburst at a memorial for his brother, his best friend Iris (Emily Blunt) suggests he take a time-out in her cabin in the woods. Thinking he will be alone, he is surprised to meet Iris’s sister Hannah (Rosemarie DeWitt). Despite Hannah being openly gay, the pair sleep together after they get incredibly drunk. Complicating matters is the arrival of Iris, who Jack secretly harbours feelings for, and they may be mutual.
Shelton’s low-key film is simplicity itself, a character piece that focuses on it three outstanding cast members, who largely make up the dialogue as they go along. Given scenarios and some dialogue, the actors are encouraged to go with a scene once they get a feeling for it, and this results in an incredibly natural set of interactions between this triptych. Each one of the characters is harbouring a secret from at least one other character, which leads to an interesting dynamic.
The intimacy of the approach leads the viewer to feel like a fly on the wall, and occasionally complicit in the complications that arise. This approach would not work without the support of a phenomenal cast, including the incredibly talented DeWitt, seen most recently on TV’s United States of Tara. Blunt is outright charming as usual, and her humour is infectious. Duplass is, as always, so earnest and open in his performance that it is impossible to not find his style magnetic and refreshingly open.
While not precisely sitting inside rom-com genre, it borrows from “mumblecore” by virtually removing all external obstacles to the union of the leads. What remains is a group separated by their own insecurities, a far more realistic approach than the cookie-cutter comedies that are released with alarming regularity. Your Sister’s Sister is filled with an intangible sweetness, and gets to the heart of complex human relations effortlessly.
Your Sister’s Sister opened Perth’s Revelation Film Festival in July 2012. It is released in Australia on 6 September 2012 from Madman.
