What is it?

[Updated at the bottom of the post]

(This post contains some descriptions of a film that I attended last night - featuring a cast comprised almost entirely of people with Down syndrome - which might offend some of my readers.)

I got into an argument with Crispin Glover last night.

Most people remember him from Back to the Future and Charlie's Angels, but he's trying to change that.

He's here in Minneapolis showing his film What Is It?, a surrealist film featuring a cast comprised almost entirely of people (most are non-actors) with Down syndrome. Preceding the film, Crispin performed an hour-long live dramatic presentation of his "Big Slide Show" which features readings and illustrations from eight of his books.

The NC-17 film centers around the exterior and interior journey of a young man with Down syndrome. Glover appears in the film playing the role of "Dueling Demi-God Auteur and The young man's inner psyche." The main character is on a quest to replace his pet snail that he killed by smashing it against a pane of glass. He has an obsession with snails, and spends much of the film pouring salt over them and watching them shrivel up and die or cutting them with a razor blade. During this quest, his inner life of torment is represented by two dueling Demi-Gods - Chrispin, sitting on a throne surrounded by concubines with Down syndrome, and a white man in black face paint who injects the blood from snails into his face. The main actor's mind is represented by a cloudy realm with naked women on all fours in elephant masks, a shot of Shirley Temple juxtaposed over swastikas, a graphic sex scene involving a man with cerebral palsy, with music composed of Klan racist country songs and tracks by late Church of Satan high priest Anton LaVey as well as Charles Manson. Back in the "real world," the main character visits his other friends, all with Down syndrome, puts snails on their arms and then "burns" them with salt, and the film ends when the boy kills many of his friends by hitting them over the head with a shovel or bricks.

After the film, Glover opened the room to Q & A. I asked the first question. "I have a young son with Down syndrome. Could you please help me understand how you can believe that you did not exploit all the actors with Down syndrome?"

Glover has been showing this film to audiences across the US and he said that this was the first time anyone had asked him that question [during the Q & A; he has been asked about it by film critics and by individuals, but usually the questions center around why he used actors with Down syndrome, not the ethical choice of showing them in that light]. He said that everyone is usually up-in-arms about the killing of live snails. He went on to justify his motives by saying that he wanted to show a world seen from an outsider's perspective and that people with Down syndrome have this perspective. He also said that he had gotten permission to use the mostly non-actors from their "caregivers."

I followed up his response. "If I show an image of George W. Bush followed by an image of an oil well followed by a shot of a dollar bill, then I am making connections by simply creating a visual relationship between the images. When you place an person with Down syndrome in a world of sadistic cruelty to animals, explicit sex, racist sentiments, Nazi symbols and a circus-like atmosphere, isn't it possible that you are creating a relationship between these images?"

He answered that he wasn't making a film about Down syndrome, and that Down syndrome is never addressed in the film, but that he was showing actors with Down syndrome in a positive light, like when he showed the scene of real-life boyfriend and girlfriend in a prolonged kiss followed by simulated fellatio.

Other people began to speak up against the ideas put forth in the film. At least five other articulate viewers (some a bit annoying) asked good questions about the social responsibility of the filmmaker, the flippant or uncreative use of racism and Nazi symbols (which he denied) and the lack of a coherent statement or viewpoint. Glover got more animated by each question, although he kept assuring the audience that he liked the questions. But he also kept reiterating that while he had encountered some angry people in the past, that most times they weren't quite such a hostile audience.

I asked a third question a little later. "You keep saying that you are trying to address the nature of taboos, and the "simple" good versus evil lines that are drawn by most corporately-made films. You want this film to, as you quoted from Nietzsche, go Beyond Good and Evil. Do you think the actors with Down syndrome were able to understand how you were portraying them since it is difficult for many people with mental disabilities to grasp the abstract concepts you are addressing? If they couldn't grasp these concepts, I believe you are responsible for exploiting these people."

By this time, I felt like Glover was getting tired of my questions, but he remained calm, respectful and articulate, if a bit long-winded. He again said that he has been showing this film for over a year and that he wanted to show the people with Down syndrome's perspective and that the New York Times called him an Auteur. He said that he didn't hurt the "actors," that they had fun on the set playing around and that their guardians signed off on the film.

I blurted out, "The guardians were wrong." (I was getting a bit worked up by this point, but I do hate it when I let my emotions take over.)

He shot back, "Maybe, but I stand by the film. The only wrong thing, if there is such a thing, that I did when making this film, is kill the snails. That was wrong. This film is part of a trilogy. In the final film, which I am still writing, and will feature more people with Down syndrome, I think then it will be evident what I am trying to say."

Fade to black.

(All the quotes are summaries that attempt to capture the spirit of the questions. Some of the questions and answers have been condensed. If you want to see the trailer, which features disturbing imagery and nudity, you can see it here. Glover's website, also provocative, is here. I also want to make sure I represent Crispin Glover's reasons for making the film accurately; I believe the best way to engage people and ideas is not to turn them into caricatures. He talked about his film in detail and the reasons why he made it here. To see a short excerpt from his "Big Slide Show," see here.)