As I was walking in Carytown on Thursday, December 5th, I saw that the Byrd Theatre marquee read: “Crispin Hellion Glover.” Thinking the theatre was going to play a documentary, I inquired as to what was going on, only to discover that actor/filmmaker Crispin Glover himself was making an appearance, doing a three-part performance titled It is Fine! Everything is Fine! Having seen Glover in such films as Back to the Future and Dead Man, I was stoked. When asked what to expect from the performance, some people waiting outside who had already purchased tickets told me simply to “expect something weird.”
As I was walking in Carytown on Thursday, December 5th, I saw that the Byrd Theatre marquee read: “Crispin Hellion Glover.” Thinking the theatre was going to play a documentary, I inquired as to what was going on, only to discover that actor/filmmaker Crispin Glover himself was making an appearance, doing a three-part performance titled It is Fine! Everything is Fine! Having seen Glover in such films as Back to the Future and Dead Man, I was stoked. When asked what to expect from the performance, some people waiting outside who had already purchased tickets told me simply to “expect something weird.”
Having little to go on, I waited for the show to start. The performance began with a slideshow of book pages from roughly the 19th century that Glover had rearranged, reworded, and vaguely illustrated, mostly during the 1980s. The content was macabre in nature, ranging from medical oddities to ominous tales to bug habits. One of the pieces was called “Rat Catching.” The stories alternated between lengthy and short, and the lengthier ones typically ended in premature death, comparable to Edward Gorey’s “Gashlycrumb Tinies.” The shorter stories were more lighthearted, one being a sexual tale. Glover narrated each of these tales in an animated fashion. The illustrations were very interesting, resembling branches on some pages, and adding to the unnerving nature of the works.
The second part of the performance was a short film, It Is Fine! Everything is Fine!, which was written by Steven C. Stewart and directed by Glover. The film was a story of sex and murder, starring its writer, Stewart, who had cerebral palsy (he passed away shortly after the film was completed). The sexual content of the film was shocking and explicit, on a par with an early John Waters film. I remember being deeply disturbed, and wondering what I had just paid twenty dollars for. I almost walked out. This review would be a lot different if it weren’t for the q&a that followed the film.
It Is Fine! Everything Is Fine! was filmed mostly on a set, which Glover described as much more costly than filming on location. The colors of the film were intentionally bright and saturated. Like the method Glover used with his narratives, the film employed a repetitive formula, beginning with one title image and working its way back to it in the end. The film featured several women, many also with disabilities of one kind or another. It was shot on 16mm film, then blown up to 35mm, and Glover commented that he definitely felt “strange to be working with film in a time where film is changing to such a technological era–but there are compelling reasons to stick with film.” Some of the music that was featured in the film was by Tchaikovsky and Beethoven. In his q&a Glover explained that, in order to create an unsettling feeling, he would deliberately place music over a scene that did not match the scene’s mood.
After the film came the question and answer portion of the evening. Glover spent a large portion of time addressing any audience member with a question. It seemed that his goal during this portion of the evening was to set minds at ease as to his intention with the rather disturbing film–at least, that’s what it did for me. The writer and star of the film, Stewart, had contacted Glover about directing the film. Although disabled by cerebral palsy, Glover emphasized how well Stewart could communicate his ideas to others. “Steve wanted to express negative emotions of a handicapped person,” Glover stated. For Glover, the film was also a “reaction to corporate restraints on film.” The film was intended to go against corporate film and its need to be palatable. As Glover stated, he wanted “to make the audience question, ‘Is it right what I’m watching, or that the filmmaker did this?’”
The negative connotations of this film definitely struck a chord with me, in that I have lately been thinking about the societal pressures surrounding one’s ability to deal with emotions that can be construed as negative. Glover put forth his reasoning for the film eloquently and intelligently, citing such figures as Freud and Jung, and emphasized his interest also in the writing process. The way Glover described Stewart’s struggle to stay alive until the film had been completed was also compelling. Although the movie had negative aspects, the performance for me ended on a positive and hopeful note. Glover left us with some food for thought: “Sticking with things you are interested in pays off; I feel much better about things when I can participate in elements that let questioning happen.”
