The disillusionment that comes after being an adolescent rock-star groupie-wannabe will pretty much cure you of Celebrity Worship later in life. Not to say that I don't like spotting Sarah Michelle Gellar on Melrose as much as the next Buffy fan, but that's pretty much as far as it goes. The reality is that the personas these actors portray in our favorite movies/TV shows/videos/whatever are JUST AN ACT. Buffy cannot really slay a demon ten times her size with a pointed stick and a witty comeback. But then there's Crispin Glover. Let's put aside for a moment the fact that he's been number one on my Cute Boy List for about a decade and just state what an amazing actor the man is. The way he pulls off all those wacked-out crazy deviant maladjusted misunderstood outcast roles with genuine angst. Now there's a man who I could really sink my teeth into stalking, but wait, WAIT, he's just an ACTOR, that's not the real him. Or is it? Living in Los Angeles, the smack-dab aorta of the celebrity machine pedestal manufacturing plant, one hears rumors, as we apparently have nothing better to talk about over overpriced tofu entrees. I started to hear (OK, I'd ask anyone who might have encountered his neighbor's cousin's redheaded stepchild's dog who knew someone who knew someone's boyfriend who worked for a day on a movie set with him) tales that with Crispin, IT WASN'T JUST AN ACT! Then a couple of years ago, Darby dragged me to some health food grocery store with a snack bar inside for an overpriced dinner. I was huffily dawdling, looking for something that didn't have tofu in it (being a confection-addled anti-health food sugar junky, this wouldn't have been my restaurant of choice). So we're trudging back to the car, and there's this guy walking towards the entrance. I'm thinking, "He's cute." As he gets closer it was, "Wow, he's really cute, kinda looks like Crispin Glover." As he passes us, I frantically start elbowing Darby in the ribs while sputtering, "Omygod! It's him! It's Crispin Glover! That was HIM!" "Well, go get him girl," says Darby calmly. I grab some back issues outta her trunk and race back inside while she sits in the car munching her seaweed salad. I try not to run up and down the aisles, then finally spot him. With a visibly trembling hand, I hand him the magazines while blurting out, "Can I interview you?" When the Celebrity Issue was still in the planning stages, I'd told Darby he was the only one I' wanted to interview (and why work at a magazine if you can't use it to your advantage?). He was very nice about it, said he already had one of the issues at home, and he would be interested in doing something as it would time with the release of the movie that he wrote and directed, What Is It? So a few months later after the Comix Issue was done, I sent a big package to him with more back issues, a t-shirt, some photos I'd taken, and a letter asking if he really wanted to be interviewed, or was heonly being nice to assuage the insane supermarket fangirl with a crazed look in her eyebecause he feared impending physical harm? So months of e-mailing ensued. As ecstatic as I was to be actually corresponding with Crispin Glover - a few phone calls even - things weren't going well. He had all these demands, like only doing it if he could be on the cover (Vincent Gallo anyone?) and others that I would be have been happy to acquiesce to, but it's Darby's magazine, and even I in my love-addled state could see how she might not want to take orders from Mr. Who-does-he-think-he-is anyway. He seemed so nervous all the time, as he'd been jacked by the press in the past, he was understandably leery, to the point of guarding every word out of his mouth. I realized I was getting nowhere, and suggested doing an email interview. Darby wasn't thrilled with the idea as she likes it when people are on the spot, but Crispin obviously wasn;t gonna play, and it would've only resulted in a guarded interview that just wouldn't be any good. He brightened at this plan considerably and even stopped stuttering in phone conversations from then on. When we went to his ivy-covered mansion to view a test-edit of his movie, he was so charming that even Darby was won over.

Let's start off with Mr. Density... what were your reactions upon learning that there was a fanzine dedicated to you and your characters?

I was glad.

Chalk it up to good acting, but people really think that you are Reuben Farr or Jingle Dell or Howdy Cleveland; is it correct to assume that these roles provide insight into your character, or should they be taken merely as face-value interpretations?

I have interpreted these roles, but hopefully there is a reflection of my own self within what I have put forth in media.

What's the best thing about being a celebrity?

It makes it easier to meet females. Sometimes people give you special treatment in a good way.

What made you want to be an actor in the first place?

I started wanting to be an actor when I was about eleven. I knew it was something I would be able to do. I suppose I also knew it would be good to help meet females at some point.

So I've heard that you've actually turned down movie roles because the characters were too wack-o, because you don't want to be pigeonholed as the type of character actor who can only play eccentrics; why don't you want that image? You don't think it's already too late for that; especially once your movie's released?

No. I do not know where you got that idea. I would never turn down a character because it was too "wack-o" I would only turn a character down if it was not interesting. I do not concern myself with range so much in terms of worrying that people would think I could only play eccentrics. In fact what people call "stereotyping" or "pigeonholing" are the bad words for something that an actor should strive for to a certain extent. At a certain point in an actor's career it is good to say to oneself "What am I?" and then figure something out. This entity should probably be simple. You could call this entity an archetype as opposed to a stereotype. I mean all this in terms of an entity that an actor can communicate, and is absolutely true to one's psyche. 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. It also is not good if the bribery of the business starts to take one away from this individual point of view in order to help corporate entities or corporate lackeys do things that go against what genuinely interests one simply so one can accumulate more money. I do believe though at the beginning of an actor's career they should do whatever is necessary to get started. I also believe that thisearly sense of self ideal can change and become more complex or simpler, but that it's best if it comes from within as opposed to, like I said, bribery. As far as the movie being released and affecting what people will perceive of me, certainly What Is It? goes further into my psyche than any film I have ever done. And what people will perceive of me from the film... well that will be fine.

You also have issues with the film industry in general... what were you saying that time about corporate filmmaking and no counter-cultural films today as opposed to the '60s; and how taking small roles in big budget has more integrity...

I can bring up issues with the idea of culture in general, but I should stick more to film. The film industry, or more specifically the media industry, is our culture to a large extent now. It is said that media reflects the culture, but really the culture reflects what is put forth in the media. I am extremely interested in the Hero's Journey story structure as related by Joseph Campbell in Hero With a Thousand Faces. I think it is self evident that story structure/religion was invented to convince the masses of morals. These morals passed down in stories through the ages are generally the culture's - or the heads of the culture's - idea of what is "good" for that culture. "Good" is of course a subjective word. The archetype patterns of the Hero's Journey story structure help to prove what the author's point of view of, or on, "good" or "bad" is. Viewing current films has become less of an entertainment, and more a pastiche of what is gleaned that the various corporations behind the films seem to want to make the culture think is "good" or "bad." For the most part, I do not agree with the corporate ideals of what I or anyone should think on any level. I see a lot of films. Most of the time now I see old films, generally the older the better. Sixty-seventy-eighty- or ninety-year-old films are often best. Why? Because at least when I am seeing a film close to one hundred years old I am viewing a point of view or a moral from a dead culture. "Dead culture" means the value system behind the film is no longer necessarily in effect. If I like the moral of the old film, I can enjoy it immensely, but if I do not like the moral, afterwards I can say "Well, I see how that was accepted at that time." That does not bother me like a moral I do not agree with of a current movie. When I see a moral I do not like in a contemporary film and no one seems to notice how awful the moral is, I feel like I am walking amongst zombies believing what is placed before them on their "media plate" is "good." Also, sometimes in very old films the moral values are quite different from this culture's current moral values, and I can enjoy those as a breath of fresh air.

As far as current films/media reflecting the ideals of "counter-culture" from a very young age I have liked art: painting, writing, photography, music, film and all arts throughout all history or prehistory. I have noticed that often times, art that was attractive to me when I was young and still is the most attractive and most often has been that which at one time or another, could be catagorized as "counter-cultural art." I believe this term may bring to mind hippies from the '60s and '70s. But that is not necessarily what I mean. When one defines "counter-cultural Art" first one must define "cultural art." What is the art of the culture? Who is in control of the culture? What do those in control of the culture want to have come across as the "good moral" for the culture at large? The answers to these questions vary according to the culture. For example, the first homo sapiens' hunter/gathering shaman/story tellers would have different wants than perhaps Aztec warrior shaman/story tellers, and perhaps different wants than the heads of the German Third Reich art ministries, and perhaps different wants than the heads of media in our current culture. Who are the heads of media in our culture? Our culture is not a hunter-gatherer culture avatared by a shaman. Our culture is not a dictatorship headed by a monarch. Our culture is a capitalist culture. In our capitalist culture, where the most money is dictates who will be able to spread the word to the largest group. Where is most of the money in our culture? Money is in corporations. From a corporation's point of view things that make people feel good about the culture - and themselves - will make more people feel good about buying the corporation's products; specifically, films that possess morals which do not cause friction against the corporate ideals help these corporations sell their various products. Also the corporations that endorse the film/television/media can benefit either from the product that is made or the sponsorship it may provide in order to sell other products, or from all the above. This type of commerce mixed with art works well for maintaining "cultural art." Generally "cultural art" does not interest me. Sometimes it does. I tend toward liking art that fits more with the definition of "counter-cultural art." Right now, if something is truly "counter-cultural" it probably will not be backed by a corporation. This is because if any audience gets upset about something that was put forth in a piece of art that was backed by the corporation, the corporation will get in trouble by not being able to market to the audience that became upset any longer. At least the heads of the corporations feel this to be so. Therefore, without "censoring" art, people are merely hired by the corporations who will knowingly reflect that corporation's "culturally correct" attitude. If anyone should stray from this correct attitude they will simply be fired. This is how corporations get around censorship. There is no need for censorship when everyone is convinced that following the "good" moral is the best thing to do, because in that case, they will be hired, and not fired. In the corporate business of film and media everyone involved tends to have an attitude of how great everything is. It is an important attitude to have when working in film, because if you do not have this attitude, you will simply be replaced. This is called being a "player." It becomes known quickly who is a "player" and who is not. Those who are not "players" are generally shunned and not hired. There is not a conspiracy or a list or anything like that; it just becomes a feeling, and an attitude that becomes the general cultural attitude. The best thing that can happen from all this is when someone notices and makes their own movies. The problem with this system arises when an expensive medium like film needs sponsorship in order to promote a "counter-cultural" aesthetic. In the state of things right now there is basically no corporate support for "counter-cultural" art. The last time there was a "counter-cultural" film movement sponsored by corporation was in the late '60s and early '70s when the hippie movement was a relevant "counter-cultural" movement. The lies of that movement have unfortunately become part of the "truths" of our current corporate cultural ideal of art, and we are in even more dire need of "counter-cultural art" than ever before.

A disappointing element I have noticed are the people who have made their own movies as simple advertisement that they are "players" instead of going to the areas that no one who is corporately backed can go. This means that they do not go toward counter-cultural elements.

The most interesting part is that every culture possesses propaganda, including our own. Propaganda works. The morals of every culture, including our own, can be easily based on truths twisted in such a way that they become lies. And people start to believe that the lies are not lies, but they are "good" truths. Therefore if a "counter-cultural artist" reacts against the propaganda of the culture, and the culture believes the propaganda to be "good," a lot of the culture will feel that this "counter-cultural artist" is doing something "bad" or "evil" or "wrong." A movement interested in this very idea was the surrealist movement. Some of the terms, such as "propaganda," may not have been around at the dawn of the surrealist movement, but they were interested in some of the same concepts that are being discussed here. That was an interesting group. I usually do not like groups.

What Is It? has taken three years to complete; are you this much of a perfectionist/control freak in all aspects of life, or have you drawn it out so long just because you enjoy editing so much?

I have enjoyed the editing process enormously. Without a doubt my favorite thing about making the film has been editing. I enjoy the problem-solving elements involved in it. I also enjoy writing immensely and the concepts that develop. The time the film has taken has not to do with the above query, it has to do with how the film came into being. Normally someone writes a feature script and then film is shot to represent the ideals that came forth in the screenplay. What Is It? was originally a shorter film. The initial short film was edited to resemble the screenplay and it turned out to be a feature-length film. But is still had the depth of a shorter film, and I felt it did not yet have a complete psychology. The next couple of years of working on the film involved adding subplots, filming and editing them in such a way that the new film made a complete psychology. It finally fells like that. Sometimes it takes people three years to write a screenplay. A lot of the process of editing this film also involved working the story into it. This was the most time-consuming part, and the most enjoyable part.

What were your reasons for casting people with Down's Syndrome in most of the roles?

This film originally was a prequel to another film. In that script I had written most of the roles for people with Down's Syndrome. I wanted to prove to monetary investors that casting a majority of actors with Down's Syndrome could be a viable thing to do. There are many reasons, but one of the main reasons was that I knew these people would not have a self-consciousness in front of the camera that most actors possess.

How are you cashing in on your celebrity status in getting this film released? (Go into your distribution plans here...)

I will play What Is It? in art-house theaters.

You said that you're going the art-house route instead of cineplexes because there are a few scenes that prevent it from getting past the censors. Why are scenes like the gorilla-masked naked women masturbating the Oyster Shell God so important to include?

Getting past the censors is not quite the correct way of phrasing it. There are no such things as censors, really, in this country. There is such a thing as pornography, which legally is deemed anything that the community at large considers offensive. It would be interesting if the community at large found Schindler's List offensive. And then under the laws of the land no one under eighteen would be allowed to purchase a ticket to that film. What Is It? is a film where no one under eighteen will be admitted. It will not be rated. Cineplexes will not show films that you cannot admit people under eighteen to, and this is true of most chain theaters as well. This is why NC-17 is a dreaded rating for corporately backed films. For me the film was made inexpensively enough that an art-house run will do the film well. Art-houses are generally owned by individuals, so there is not this need for audiences under the age of eighteen for all films. Anyhow, that is where What Is It? will show. The monkey-masked women (they are chimpanzee monkey masks) and the masturbation are a prelude to something that occurs in part three of the trilogy which is written by Steve Stuart, the fellow with cerebral palsy in the oyster shell who's masturbated. I would like to state that some people think Steve Stewart is mentally retarded when they view the film. But Steve Stewart is not mentally retarded at all. Steve Stewart is a highly intelligent man, and the graphic sexuality is inspired by and foreshadows what is to come in his script. Part one is What Is It? Part two is It Is Mine. Part three is Sexcapades.

When Adam Parfrey was interviewing you for Interview magazine, they cut out the section on masturbation - as BID has no problem with such amusement, please feel free to share:

Yes, Interview cut a few things and rewrote things as well. The part that was more aggravating was a different thing. The real issue of concern for the article was Adam asking me waht I thought about Adolph Hitler. I gave an involved answer to the question and the fellow at Interview decided that the magazine should not be seen as leading a question about Adolph Hitler. So he cut the question down to read "Hitler?" - as though this was something I spoke about every day, and at anyone's suggestion of Hitler's name I would go into a long and involved speech about what I thought of him. It was absurd, and I asked in the end that it be removed, if they insisted on maligning the context of the interview. They removed that section of the interview. When the interview was being set up the person at Interview magazine (I won't name him since I believe he still works there) asked me if there was anyone I would like to interview me. I suggested Adam Parfrey. So they received some of Adam's books from Feral House. This fellow at Interview approved Adam interviewing me and set it up. They supposedly were well aware of Adam's work so it was irritating when they reacted to anything that could be deemed as controversial as a bad thing. They did not simply edit the piece, but truthfully, they rewrote it. Rewriting means they would take a sentence I said and cut it in the middle and then add an end from another sentence. It is kind of like what I have done in some of my books. I consider that writing. I do not merely edit my books. I write them. This type of "editing" of people's dialogue is common enough practice amongst many major magazines. Interview magazine was hardly a terrible thing, I would do an interview with it again, but since you asked specifically I have told you. I have had other magazines write things I supposedly said absolutely opposing waht I actually stated. You hear people talking about this happening all the time. It is not that interesting of a subject other than it is true, and it teaches you that you should never believe anything you read. Now I try to not actually read any articles involving myself. I try to make sure the pictures are good, and ask other people if the general idea of what I wanted to promote comes across. This way I try not to concern myself with incorrect details as it is ultimately fairly useless to do so. Inaccuracies are nonetheless frustrating to say the least.

You've traveled about the country doing performances/readings from your books along with test-edit excerpts of the movie; now that the movie's finished, will the Big Slide Shows discontinue?

I plan to continue performing The Big Slide Show. I hope to use it to be able to test other films with early audiences before I Formally release whateve