• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Crispin Glover

01011010

New member
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
3,916
MBTI Type
INxJ
As a child, Glover attended The Mirman School for the academically gifted.

youngcrispin.jpg


Acting


His breakout role was as George McFly in Robert Zemeckis's Back to the Future, an international box office success following its release in 1985. Glover did not, however, come to an agreement with the producers to appear in the sequels. Zemeckis used previously filmed footage of Glover from the first movie, and Jeffrey Weissman was introduced using various obfuscating methods (background, sunglasses, rear shot, even upside down) to play the role of George McFly in the sequel. Displeased with the apparent use of body prosthetics on another actor to make audiences believe he was in the movie, Glover then sued the producers (including Steven Spielberg) on the grounds that his contract for the first film did not allow subsequent use of his portrayal of George McFly in new films, and that the use of a false nose and cheekbones on Weissman combined with practiced impressions of Glover's realization of the George McFly character were evidence of such. Because of Glover's lawsuit The Screen Actors Guild (TV/Film performer labor union) would later alter collective bargaining agreements with clauses to the effect that such use would be open to negotiation, with acceptance at the performers' discretion. According to Glover, even some of his close friends (including fellow actor Nicolas Cage) thought that he was in the sequel, also.[4]

He has continued to play exceedingly eccentric types, e.g. playing Andy Warhol in Oliver Stone's The Doors in 1991, as well as the title characters in Bartleby (2001) and Willard (2003). He received mainstream attention as the "Creepy Thin Man" in the Charlie's Angels films;[5] the character had initially been cast as a speaking role, but Glover, not liking the lines as written, convinced the producers to eliminate the lines to create a darker image for the character.

crispin-glover-with-rats.jpg



Late Night appearance

Glover is often remembered for his appearance on Late Night with David Letterman[8] on July 28, 1987, to promote his movie River's Edge.[9] Unbeknownst to Letterman and the audience, who didn't recognize the character from the as yet unreleased film, Rubin and Ed, Glover appeared in character as the titular Rubin, wearing his costume from the film (platform shoes and a wig) and staged an Andy Kaufman-like shtick. After being goaded by a woman in the audience (who some argue was a plant[10]), Glover became incensed and stated that he "knew that this was gonna happen [sic]" and that "the press, they can do things, they can twist things around". After a failed attempt to challenge Letterman to an arm-wrestling match, Glover delivered an impromptu karate kick just inches from Letterman's face while shouting, "I'm strong... I can kick!".[11] Letterman then abruptly ended the segment by walking off stage, saying "I'm going to check on the Top 10", and the program cut to commercial. The studio audience and Letterman himself were apparently shocked by Glover's behavior and assumed he was being himself.

[youtube="lQC8ennE6gA"]Letterman[/youtube]

Music

In 1989, during a hiatus from films, Glover released an album called The Big Problem Does Not Equal the Solution, The Solution Equals Let It Be through Restless Records, produced by Barnes & Barnes (of "Fish Heads" fame). The album features original songs like "Clowny Clown Clown", warped covers of Lee Hazlewood's "These Boots Are Made for Walkin'" and Charles Manson's "I'll Never Say Never to Always" (sung in falsetto), and readings from his art books Rat Catching and Oak Mot (Glover modified old books with expired copyrights by adding or deleting pictures, text, and drawings). Sample pages from these books are featured in the album's liner notes.

The back cover of the album is a collage of figures relating to each track on the album, with a puzzle: "All words and lyrics point to THE BIG PROBLEM. The solution lay within the title; LET IT BE. Crispin Hellion Glover wants to know what you think these nine things all have in common." He included his home phone number with copies of the album, encouraging listeners to phone when they had "solved" his puzzle. Glover later commented that he was surprised how many people figured it out.

In 2003, he recorded a cover version of the Michael Jackson song "Ben" to coincide with the release of the film Willard. In the eccentric music video for the song, which is included on the Willard DVD, he sings to a rat named Ben.


Books

Crispin has written between 15-20 books,[12] many of which are featured during his Big Slide Show presentation. Thus far, only four of his books have been published through his publishing company, Volcanic Eruptions. Other known titles include: The Backward Swing and Round My House.


Personal Quotes

[On contemporary movies] People watch movies - and it's vague ideas, it's vague notions, but people pick up on these things, that they are supposed to think certain ways or that they're not supposed to think, basically, and they don't. And then it's like, if you do any thing that's thoughtful, they think, "Oh, that's weird..." (Ain't It Cool News, 2003.)

Realism is always subjective in film. There's no such thing as cinema verite. The only true cinema verite would be what Andy Warhol did with his film about the Empire State Building - eight hours or so from one angle, and even then it's not really cinema verite, because you aren't actually there. As soon as anybody puts anything on film, it automatically has a point of view, and it's somebody else's point of view, and it's impossible for it to be yours. (NYPress, 2002.)

The United States has it's own propaganda, but it's very effective because people don't realize that it's propaganda. And it's subtle, but it's actually a much stronger propaganda machine than the Nazis had but it's funded in a different way. With the Nazis it was funded by the government, but in the United States, it's funded by corporations and corporations they only want things to happen that will make people want to buy stuff. So whatever that is, then that is considered okay and good, but that doesn't necessarily mean it really serves people's thinking - it can stupify and make not very good things happen.

[On absence of countercultural film] There's a healthiness to having something that people some people are taken aback by a little back, because what that means is that there's a discussion going on. And when there's nothing that's being taken aback, nobody's surprised, nobody's being tested or challenged, then there's no learning process going on, and it makes for a stupefied culture and I think that's happening.

In the past, I've never tried to discount or stop what people are saying because on some levels I find it interesting. But if I look on the Internet or in news chat groups, I tend to read, 'Oh, that guy's crazy, that guy's nuts. He's insane or psychotic.' At a certain point, it does get a bit like, 'I'm not. Really.' Look, I one-hundred percent admit and in fact implore people to understand that, yes, I am very interested in countercultural things. But there's a difference between having artistic interests and being psychotic. That's more than a fine line of differentiation, and I do see that a bit too much.

[On being called eccentric] Eccentric doesn't bother me. "Eccentric" being a poetic interpretation of a mathematical term meaning something that doesn't follow the lines - that's okay.

I think what eccentricity can represent in terms of the fear it engenders is a challenge to what is already considered right or good by people who have invested a certain amount into their life and livelihood that is not eccentric, but centric. If there's a challenge to that, that can make people concerned that either what is considered a safe way of living or a good way of living may be pulled out from under them. I can understand that. That's why countercultural film movements are important since it's lacking in the culture right now. There's an idea that there's value to an alternate point of view, but everything that's presented in the media is procultural, and it makes people nervous when there hasn't been a true discussion of alternate points of view. There's no general discussion in the media.

I do like things that are not necessarily a reflection of what is considered the right thing by this culture. Somehow, promoting that status quo I find uninteresting. I have thought about that more as the years have gone on, and it's a feeling that I would not have been able to describe 15 years ago as I can now. But at the same time, I don't intellectualize it, I don't have a written manifesto or just say this is the only thing I can do or will do.

I'm not somebody who believes that darkness is something that should necessarily be hidden from children or anything like that. I think children like a lot of the same things that they like as adults' or rather, the other way around, adults like a lot of the same things that they liked when they were children.

Probably my four favorite directors are Werner Herzog, Rainer Werner Fassbinder, Stanley Kubrick and Luis Buñuel, because with all of their work you can think beyond the edges of the film. They're not films that dictate to you, this is what you must think. They're all films that have compelling stories, but there are thoughts beyond the films themselves.

At a certain point in an actor's career it is good to say to oneself "What am I?" and then figure something out. You could call this entity an archetype as opposed to a stereotype. I believe this conclusion of self is a good thing to stick with, and explore the entire universe from this point of view. This does not limit one, but expand. It is only good if one can get some kind of truth from within this point of view. If it is a false ideal, then it will become a "stereotype" as opposed to an archetype.

I think humor delineates who your friends really are. I worked on Little Noises (1992) with Rik Mayall, and he described to me a theory of humor. With pack animals, if there's a sick one in the bunch, the others will growl at it and try to get rid of it. This translates to the comedian on-stage. There are two types of comedians. One who says, "Everybody laugh at that person," and the braver comedian who makes them laugh or growl at himself. It brings people together. The audience laughs at this sick thing: they become a part of this clan or tribe. And that's where you get your friends: you share a certain humor about the sick and the foolish.

There's a tradition in the American media to ask actors what the movies are about, but it always seems wrong. It seems like the directors and the writers only often see an actor quoted in what a movie is about.

[On filmmaking] 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.

[On strip clubs] The ecdysiast's art, the appreciation of the female form, the prurient music handpicked by the dancers contribute to an atmosphere I truly enjoy.

The Hero's Journey is the most basic story form. All stories and myths are, on some level, a Hero's Journey. It is almost impossible to relay any kind of story without utilizing some pattern from the structure of a Hero's Journey. One could simply say, "He went across the street". And this would be the hero leaving his normal world to set out upon his quest. It can come forth from the psyche in many different patterns, still work within a greater pattern, and still be good structure as long as it is reflective of an inner psychic truth.

Credit: Wikipedia and IMDB


Photos


crispin001.jpg



CG.jpg



Vids

[youtube="_ZJikZtwXUA"]Interview 1[/youtube]
[youtube="B9j7ISnwaPg"]Interview 2[/youtube]

xNTx

I want consume this man's brain for breakfast. On top of cheerios, even though I don't eat that kind of food.
 

nanook

a scream in a vortex
Joined
Jul 22, 2007
Messages
1,361
like him a lot. makes me not-objective, so i wont make an assumption. but there must be a mirror connection to my type, whichever that is.
 

nanook

a scream in a vortex
Joined
Jul 22, 2007
Messages
1,361
werner herzog on the other hand creeps me out, like totally, almost as much as klaus kinski (who made movies with herzog)

you ve got to see him in julien donkey boy it's too funny how he calls his son (or someone or something) "arty farty" ... this gotta drive you scizofrenic
 

nanook

a scream in a vortex
Joined
Jul 22, 2007
Messages
1,361
the way he smiles and moves his head makes him look like Dylan Walsh (the "little" guy from nip tuck)
is it just the long hair that makes him look like ozzy osbourne? i have been taught that ozzy was an isfp, but i think its Ni and drugs and ad(h)d.
the only extroverted association in my mind, probably non-type related, is Woody Harrelson, who plays rather extroverted roles, who reminds me of teenage dirtbag girl Mena Suvari, which reminds me of navi csi Mark Harmon, which feels like a bad shortcircuit, but other than that not-introverted.
 
Last edited:

proteanmix

Plumage and Moult
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
5,514
Enneagram
1w2
He's intuition dominant (very idea oriented) and seems quite extroverted to me.

I watched the Werner Herzog interview and one with him and Tom Greene.

I typed him as a strongly Ne ENXP, but I don't sure about being an NT.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Was anyone going to suggest INxJ directly?

His approach to acting seems pretty Ni, and many of his comments are vintange Ni -- all about how everything is merely an orientation towards a view rather than something definitive in itself.

Definitely the quirk factor is strong in this one.
 

Tigerlily

unscannable
Joined
Jun 21, 2007
Messages
5,942
MBTI Type
TIGR
Enneagram
3w4
I'm comfortable guessing INTP. Being introverted doesn't mean you can't speak or outwardly express yourself in a comfortable setting. Booze and drugs help with that too.
 

Lady_X

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 27, 2008
Messages
18,235
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
784
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
i LOVE him too...he's my myspace friend..haha :D
and i just watched rivers edge the other night..love him in that.

and...i kinda want to say entp
 

Lady_X

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 27, 2008
Messages
18,235
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
784
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Wha! Everybody knows NTs can't act.
wha?? jack nicholson is entj isn't he? john malkovich is intj...right?

crispin might be intj too??
 

Lady_X

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 27, 2008
Messages
18,235
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
784
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
knock yourself out sy...literally. ;)
 

Magic Poriferan

^He pronks, too!
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
14,081
MBTI Type
Yin
Enneagram
One
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
wha?? jack nicholson is entj isn't he? john malkovich is intj...right?

crispin might be intj too??

I'm pretty sure Jack is ESTP, actually. But hey, I don't know for sure.

I love to see how many people come into celebity typing threads and say "it's obvious!". I love more the inevitable point when 4 different types have been suggested as obvious.
 

01011010

New member
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
3,916
MBTI Type
INxJ
On casting people with Down's Syndrome:

"I had written a number of screenplays before I got to writing What Is It? that had used the concept of having actors with Down's Syndrome in various ways.

"But, in 1996 there were two young writers who approached my agent with the offer to act in a film they had written and wanted to direct. It was around that time that I felt that the next corporately funded filmmaker I would work with would be myself.

"So I talked to them about it and told them I would be interested in acting in it if I could rework it and direct it. They came and met with me, and the main thing that I wanted was for the majority of the characters to be played by actors with Down's Syndrome. And they were ok with that concept. So I reworked the original screenplay and David Lynch said he would executive produce it for me to direct. Which was a very helpful thing."

On what to do when things don't work:

"I went to one of the larger corporate film funding agencies in Los Angeles, but after a number of meetings they decided that they were uncomfortable with the idea that the majority of the characters were played by actors with Down's Syndrome.

"It was then that decided to write a short film to promote this as a viable concept. And that is when I wrote What Is It?, which was supposed to be a short film. But it turned out to be 84 minutes, and it was a film that didn't really work.

"So I shot more footage and worked on it for another two and a half years to get it to the point where I had a locked film.

"I also decided that the original screenplay that I had reworked would make a nice sequel to it, and then I realized that there was another screenplay that I had read years before by a man named Steven C. Stewart who had a severe case of cerebral palsy, and that if I put him into the film What Is It? that I could then make his film, It Is Fine. Everything Is Fine, and have a trilogy of sorts.

On why taboos are good:

"The corporate entity was concerned about funding a film in which a majority of the actors were playing characters who did not have Down's Syndrome [because] this was a taboo.

"You can have a corporately funded film wherein the characters have Down's Syndrome and are played by actors with Down's Syndrome, even that isn't commonly dealt with, but to have actors with Down's Syndrome playing characters without Down's Syndrome, well that has many grey areas.

"Then I realized that anything that would make an audience member truly uncomfortable would be something corporately they would have trouble with.

"If you look at the last 30 years, anything that makes the audience uncomfortable has been excised. And I think that is a very damaging thing because there are moments when an audience looks up at the screen and wonders, 'Is this right what I'm watching? Is this wrong? Should I be here? Should the filmmaker have done this? What is it?' which is the title of the film.

"If there is a taboo in the culture, what does it mean when the taboo has been ubiquitously excised? This is very damaging because when people are asking those questions, they are actually thinking about things and that's a positive thing."

On surrealism:

"I generally avoid any kind of groups at all. And I did not make the film as part of the surrealist group. But strangely, the surrealists are actually a group I do like.

"I read Bunuel's autobiography [Luis Bunuel, the father of surrealism], and according to his description [the surrealists] were a political group... and a very serious group. And he said at the time that if they had known they were going to be known as artists they would have considered themselves to be a failed group.

"Bunuel has definitely been a huge influence, especially on What Is It? And I was reading his autobiography as I edited the film.

"The most important thing that the surrealists defined was free association: how to use this free association, this Freudian association to bring about deeper psychological elements for art. I very much think that is a worthwhile idea to explore.

On bossing the audience around:

"I certainly like the notion that Bunuel doesn't dictate to people what they should be thinking about concerning the work. That, I think, is the most important part.

"I do tend toward constructing what the meanings behind particular things are and utilizing certain structures with foreknowledge of what structure does. That is something that I don't call free association, it's more of a narrative. I would just call it drama."

The Discomforter :: Entertainment :: thetyee.ca
 

01011010

New member
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
3,916
MBTI Type
INxJ
I'm pretty sure Jack is ESTP, actually. But hey, I don't know for sure.

I love to see how many people come into celebity typing threads and say "it's obvious!". I love more the inevitable point when 4 different types have been suggested as obvious.

See, this is why I don't want to type him myself. I know I'm biased, VERY much so. Crispin Glover's brain drives me crazy. Eeesh. Anyway.
 

Lady_X

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 27, 2008
Messages
18,235
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
784
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I'm pretty sure Jack is ESTP, actually. But hey, I don't know for sure.

I love to see how many people come into celebity typing threads and say "it's obvious!
". I love more the inevitable point when 4 different types have been suggested as obvious.

i have no clue an am not saying anything's obvious just so ya know. i was actually asking because that's what i've heard but i don't know for sure.
 

01011010

New member
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
3,916
MBTI Type
INxJ
The Bird Needles Crispin Glover Over His Alleged Meltdown At Chandler Cinemas

So the Bird was out for First Friday recently when it ran into Andrea Beesley-Brown, a.k.a. the Midnite Movie Mamacita, known for hosting splatter and grindhouse flicks at Chandler Cinemas, where she doubles as the operations manager. The perky New Zealander told this tweeter a wacky tale of Crispin Glover's visit to Sand Land to showcase his deeply weird art film What Is It?, which features actors afflicted with Down syndrome, naked chicks, swastikas, and a butt-load of dead snails.

Glover brought his surreal celluloid romp to Chandler for a three-day run at the beginning of May. And for fans of the quirky character actor, who's given memorable performances in movies ranging from Back to the Future and Charlie's Angels to Willard and River's Edge, to name a few, it must've been a Gloverama dream come true.

Before the flick's screening, Glover narrated a long slideshow drawn in part from self-published scrapbooks such as Rat Catching and Oak Mott. Afterward, Glover engaged the audience in a protracted Q & A and wound up signing autographs, taking pics, and chatting with long lines of slavish Glover-lovers.

"For $18, it's a very long night," Beesley-Brown admitted to this avian. "You get your money's worth of Crispin. You get to meet him and get your freaky photo with him. He'll sign stuff. It's a good value for the patron."

But for those promoting and hosting the event, not so much, according to Beesley-Brown. The lion's share of the take went to Glover — $14 out of the $18 ticket price, and Glover's food, in-town travel, and sundry expenses were covered by the event's promoters. Glover required a regular diet of sushi, and had the promoters man his merchandise booth and police the crowd for possible bootleggers filming his surreal, Luis Buñuel-esque film with smuggled-in camcorders. There is but one 35mm print of the film, as Glover has opted not to release it on DVD. So piracy issues are a constant concern to the bizarre star.

The turd in the proverbial punch bowl wasn't so much the financial arrangements, but having to deal with Glover's sometimes prickly, demanding persona. A couple of incidents in particular left a bitter aftertaste, insisted co-promoters Amy Young of Perihelion Arts gallery on Grand Avenue, Stephanie Carrico of the Phoenix performance-art venue Trunk Space, and Matt Yenkala, proprietor of Chandler Cinemas, a struggling indie multiplex offering $2 second-runs and revival fare such as Monty Python double features and screenings of bone-tinglers from Italian horror master Dario Argento.

In other words, Yenkala's Chandler Cinemas ain't making no big money, and neither are scrappy art-fart types like Young and Carrico. Perhaps that's why Glover's demand for his split in cash each night of the showing socked it to their collective pocketbook.

"We're a struggling business," Yenkala related to this yardbird. "We're doing our very best, but we weren't in a cash-ready position. So we had to scramble as bit."

Another problem was that many of the tickets had been sold online through a service that paid the promoters only after the fact. So when Glover demanded to be paid up-front for that first-night ticket sales — or he wouldn't go onstage — the promoters freaked out.

"I was furious!" recalled Beesley-Brown. "It's very difficult for us to come up with all that because we have to pull money from the safe, from the box office, from wherever we can. So finally Matt managed to get all that money and give it to Crispin."

Later, while the film was being shown, Glover was in the Chandler Cinema offices, meticulously counting his newly acquired wads of moolah, Beesley-Brown recalled.

"He wanted it in all the nice, new bills because he takes his money to the Czech Republic, where he has land or a castle or something," Beesley-Brown claimed he told her. "Apparently, he has to take all the nice bills over there because the Czechs won't take ripped bills."

Glover's personal take for the three nights was close to six grand, plus whatever he made off his merchandise, which seems like fairly measly pickings by Hollywood standards. True, Glover ain't no Brad Pitt, but he did appear in the recent box-office winner Beowulf as the monster Grendel, along with co-stars Angelina Jolie, Anthony Hopkins, and John Malkovich.

Glover also scored the promise of another $610 from Yenkala after an alleged meltdown in which Glover accused the theater's young projectionist of messing up a small portion of his film, reducing her to tears, according to Yenkala and others present.

"He built himself up into this very stressed state of mind, pacing and gradually raising his voice, not really letting anyone have a word in edgewise," stated Yenkala. "He made it clear that he felt we had damaged his film and wasn't going to be satisfied until we agreed that we were going to pay for the replacement."

Yenkala reluctantly agreed to the demand to placate the persnickety character actor, even though Yenkala doesn't believe the film was damaged on his premises.

This mockingbird e-mailed Glover about the whole episode, and the agitated B-lister immediately called Yenkala and accused the cinema owner of trying to ruin Glover's career by talking to the press. Glover eventually e-mailed The Bird back, giving his side of the kerfuffle.

"I did not yell at or even have a conversation with the projectionist other than getting the details of how my print was handled," wrote Glover. "My entire conversation after the show on Sunday was with Matthew M. Yenkala about the technical aspects and procedure that led to damaging reel five of my film."

Glover went on to explain, in detail, his basis for concluding the film was damaged by the projectionist, and his theory about why the promoters are unfairly criticizing him. (You can read Glover's e-mails and the promoter's e-mails on the Feathered Bastard blog.)

Glover also asserted he was nothing but professional during his sojourn in Sand Land, and that getting paid in cash up-front was part of his e-mailed requirements to the promoters before the event. (Apparently, there was no formal contract.) Yenkala provided The Bird with a copy of Glover's technical "rider" for the appearance, which didn't include a demand upfront for the loot. When e-mailed this rider by The Bird, Glover responded with his own version, which included a demand for payment in cash.

Yenkala responded that Glover's version wasn't what he received from the actor, and Carrico forwarded a copy of an e-mail from Glover to the promoters containing the version of the rider sans the cash request. All the promoters say Glover's insistence on a cash payment was new to them on the first night of his Chandler presentation.

This isn't the first time Glover's pitched a fit over the showing of his art-house masterpiece. In 2005, the Tucson Weekly detailed how Glover "flipped his lid" at Tucson's Loft Theater "after he learned that his directorial debut, What Is It?, was going to be shown in the smaller upstairs theater rather than in the cavernous main auditorium for the last two days of its week-long engagement."

And Glover's known (and in some quarters beloved) for his eccentric behavior, like the infamous 1987 incident in which he kicked his platform shoes perilously close to David Letterman's head during an appearance on Late Night, exclaiming, "I'm strong . . . I can kick."

Glover's also had his beefs with Hollywood big shots like Steven Spielberg, who executive-produced Back to the Future, wherein Glover played milquetoast dad George McFly, father of Michael J. Fox's character, Marty McFly.

According to the Internet Movie DataBase (IMDb.com), when Glover turned down the offer to reprise the role in Back to the Future, Part II, the producers, who again included Spielberg, "brought the character back to life by splicing together archived footage and new scenes (using an actor in prosthetic makeup)." Glover successfully sued Spielberg over the issue. IMDb.com notes, "The case prompted the Screen Actors Guild to devise new regulations about the use of actors' images."

Glover maintained the grudge, it seems. In a compendium of outré articles edited by Adam Parfrey, titled Apocalypse Culture II, Glover has one that poses several outlandish questions concerning his cinematic bête noire, including, "Could anal rape of Steven Spielberg be simply the manifestation of a cultural mandate?" And, "Would the culture benefit from Steven Spielberg's murder, or would it be lessened by making him a martyr?"

Yet Robert Zemeckis, director of the Back to the Future films, was willing to work with Glover again in Beowulf, which Zemeckis also directed. But some who've dealt with him here in Arizona feel differently.

"If he's all about the indie spirit and stuff, like he says, I really think he should be a little more generous toward the venues where he shows his film," offered Beesley-Brown. "Especially for putting up with him."

Phoenix News - The Bird needles Crispin Glover over his alleged meltdown at Chandler Cinemas - page 2
 
Top