What Is It (2005)
It is a rare and wondrous thing
to see one of the worst films ever made. In fact,
it has been at least five or six years since I saw
something that I wanted to put on my Top Ten Worst
Films of All Time list. But now somewhere up near
the top, intermingled with Fassbinder's "Querelle"
and Antonioni's "Zabriske Point" will be Crispin Glover's
massively bothersome and ridiculously disgusting film
"What Is It."
Glover is perhaps the most charming
and wonderful cult personality working in film today.
Appearing both in mainstream and edgy independent
films, Glover has established himself as an immensely
interesting actor and one who often brings much quirkiness
to his performances and to the films he appears in.
Sadly, his first foray into filmmaking, "What Is It,"
shows none of this charm or quirkiness but rather
concentrates more on annoyance and cacophony. It is
clear from watching this film that Glover only belongs
in front of the camera and should probably never be
allowed behind it again.
"What Is It" is a essay on intolerance.
Racism, classism, fascism, social intolerance and
the mistreatment of the mentally challenged and the
physically deformed are all central to Glover's theme
here. He peoples his film with a cast made up almost
entirely of people with Down Syndrome. In doing so
he feels he is allowed to be edgy and to create "disturbing"
images. One of the ways he does this is by allowing
these "actors" to engage in sexual moments and violent
moments. It sometimes seems as if Glover is working
overtime to trouble his audience by putting his cast
in these situations. And while he has every right
to questions societal reactions to seeing these "mentally
retarded" people in "adult" situations, the effect
generally seem nothing more than exploitative. The
fact that most of these "actors" have great difficulty
in speaking clearly also makes most of the film nearly
unintelligible. ### The film's most repulsive images
are also geared to be annoying and "troubling." Glover
includes at least five (and it is probably more like
10 or 12) scenes where salt is poured on live snails.
This is meant to be a symbolic metaphor for how the
mentally challenged are treated. Or, at least, that's
what it seems like this imagery is supposed to represent.
And, as if these images weren't nauseating enough,
there is even a scene where a snail is cut in two
with a razor blade. While one can barely speak out
seriously against the violence these pour creatures
are subjected to on an ethical ground, it must be
said that this imagery is virtually pointless in the
film after the second time and the remaining "kills"
seem to pile up simply to disgust the viewer. If this
is the impetus for the repetitive sequences involving
such acts, Glover succeeds admirably. We are disgusted
quickly.
And, for those not offended by cruelty
towards snails, or taken aback by mentally disabled
people making out and kissing, there's a physically
disabled naked man being masturbated by a woman wearing
only a rubber mask, Shirley Temple as a Nazi, and
a white minstrel in black face here as well. But the
most truly "shocking" moment, also meant to disarm
the viewer, is the inclusion of a "humorous" old racist
tune, now gloriously basking in the public domain,
with lyrics something akin to "Some niggers never
die, but they sure smell that way" or some such deplorable
nonsense. Again, the desired effect from including
the song in the film is completed, we are offended.
Glover wants us to question racism but he virtually
negates his essay by appearing racist himself as a
filmmaker.
Also appearing in this incredibly
dull, inept and repulsive film is Glover in all his
freaky glory. Truly the best parts of the film are
those in which he appears, in a long fur coat, sporting
wonderfully lanky hair, looking feminine and playing
Underground Emperor God to the proceedings in the
film. His presence is eerily reminiscent of Criswell
in the Ed Wood scripted, Stephen Apostolof helmed,
1965 jiggle horror film "Orgy
of the Dead." Glover is certainly the only physically
attractive thing in the film. But his wonderful weird-ass
appearance here cannot redeem the film for one second.
This is horrible stuff, the kind of film that is obviously
crap from the first 15 seconds.
I have a Top Ten List of the Worst
Films of All Time and it now must be re-edited to
include this unwatchable, uninteresting, disgusting
and deplorable film. Here is the list in its newest
incarnation:
1. Querelle (Fassbinder)
2. Zabriske Point (Antonioni)
3. What Is It (Glover)
4. Night of the Ghouls (Ed Wood
Jr.)
5. Hudson Hawk (Michael Lehman)
6. Dead Boyz Can't Fly (Howard Winters)
7. Hurry Sundown (Otto Preminger)
8. The Sandlot (David Mickey Evans)
9. Kaos (Tiavani Brothers)
10. Jade (Friedkin)
Notes:
Also with the voice of Fairuza Balk.
In addition to starring and directing,
Glover also helped to shoot and edited the film. His
full name is used in the film's credits several times:
Crispin Hellion Glover.
On screen, there is no question
mark after the title of the film.
The film's end titles claim that
the film will be followed by two sequels. The first
to be "It is Fine. Everything is Fine," which Glover
made with the late Steve Stewart. The third film's
proposed title is listed in the end credits but I
can't recall its title. If Glover does make all three
films, it will be the third "trilogy" he has been
involved with, the first being the "Back to the Future"
Trilogy (he was in the first part and sued Steven
Spielberg and Robert Zemeckis when scenes he shot
were used in the second part - his case was a landmark
victory that has influenced the way actor's images
can be used on the screen) and "The Beaver Trilogy,"
a film made up of three shorts.
Glover has worked on this film for
several years and has already shot the sequel, which
was written by Stewart, who is in this first movie.
Stewart died a couple of years ago. The sequel is
his sexual autobiography.
A lab had Glover's print of this
film for several years and he had some trouble getting
it back.
The film premiered at Sundance in
January 2005.
Viewed at the Alamo Drafthouse Downtown
in Austin in February 2005 with my friend Johnny Oh!
The film was supposed to show in October of 2004 here
but those screenings were cancelled and at the time
it was claimed that Glover was not done with post
but the film played Sundance and I think Glover might
have had to cancel the show here so that it could
"premiere" it at the big Utah festival.
The showing I attended included
a "Slideshow" and a Q&A. Glover also signed autographs
at the end of the show and had some of his "books"
on sale. I saw Glover in 2003 at the premiere of his
film "Willard" and
he was a polite, amiable, interesting fellow. I knew
this showing would be fun and entertaining and it
was, even though I didn't like the film.
I had tickets to the 8pm show, the
last show of the weekend on a Sunday evening. I arrived
about 7 and waited about 20 minutes to get in. There
was a small line when I got there and it grew fairly
long. Johnny was a bit late but joined me at about
7:30. The place filled up and was pretty much completely
full a few minutes after 8. Glover came out and a
red spotlight shown on him. He showed slides of images
of pages of his books and read aloud from them as
they progressed. Glover takes old books and alters
then by deleting words, drawing over them, adding
other text, some handwritten, and sometimes adding
pictures. He read from 7 or 8 such books the most
interesting of which was an early one called "Ratcatching."
At the end of this 30 or 40 minute
program, Glover introduced his movie and told us he
would do a Q&A after as well as be in the lobby. Glover
is a wonderful speaker; he listens to the audience
and tries to answer their questions honestly while
injecting much of his own personality into the proceedings.
It's quite easy to be charmed by his warm and personable
demeanor. The slideshow and the Q&A after the movie
was worth the price of admission alone and I would
encourage anyone who has the opportunity to see him
speak to not miss it. Glover may do several such showings
throughout the U.S. as he wants to accompany and promote
the film. He said during the Q&A that it may be several
years before he releases it on DVD.
