What Is It? (2005) User Reviews

Chinchilla?

[cofemug · 4/10 · 20 March 2005]

*may contain a spoiler of sorts?* The mere mention of Crispin Glover is enough to send some geek's panties in a bunch. His landmark appearance in Back to the Future as George McFly has sealed him into the American conscience forever. More recently, he has been trying to get back into the culty subconscious with Bartleby and Willard.

This time, however, Crispin has made a 76-minute, cheap dada film. At times it reminded me of genius, while overall it almost insulted me, but not because of its content. Content? What Is It? is a movie where, in one half of the movie, all of the actors have Down's Syndrome, giving it a freakshow feel to it. The other half of the movie includes Crispin Glover, Adam Parfrey, and a guy with cerebral palsy. This all had the feel of what John Waters was attempting to do with Desperate Living, and simultaneously feeling more successful and failing miserably.

The half with the Down's Syndrome actors also features many many killed snails. It is about a guy who has snails, and ends up killing one. He is also tormented by a bunch of other people, and a grasshopper. He falls in love with 2 girls, one of which he has sex with in a graveyard. He also has a falling out with a friend who teases him.

In a weird semi-interior set, Crispin Glover is the director of this show. He is something like the control of the guy's mind, and the cerebral palsy guy is something like the sexuality. Well, he at least gets masturbated in explicit scenes. There is other "shocking" imagery made humorous, like Nazi Swaztikas crossed with Shirley Temple, and minstrels in black face saying they're Michael Jackson.

In the outside world, the tormentor is still dealing with his love of killing snails and being beaten by the other people. They beat him with rocks, and such. Later, they beat the minstrel after putting him on trial.

Back to the interior, Crispin Glover is still the ruler of his set, and tries to control everybody, but fails miserably.

What Is It? makes less sense than Dr. Caligari, and has more than a passing style stolen from it. The claustrophobic mental space feels very much like the way the no-wall sets of Dr. Caligari felt claustrophobic. They also had some dialogue that was absolute nonsense. And, it was all wrapped up with absurdist imagery for humor.

The problem is, about 20 minutes into the movie...maybe a little more...What Is It? runs out of imagery. For the next 56 minutes, we keep running on the same sets of images, only introducing new imagery in the form of an absurdist puppet show. The movie seems little more than a movie which attempts to push the envelope in offensive and taboo imagery. It tries to mock and confuse the audience. But, the issue is that it only has enough different imagery for a 40 minute movie.

Even worse than that, the cinematography, set design, and everything else felt very very cheap and almost unplanned. It felt like "OK, this is the way we can do it and get it out of the way." It didn't feel interesting, and was quite...boring. Dr. Caligari, on the other hand, had amazing cinematography and framing. The difference between the two is quite astounding.

rating: C

Even Down's Syndrome started small

[swagner2001 · 5/10 · 13 November 2006]

Glover proudly proclaims four directorial influences: Bunuel, Kubrick, Herzog, and Fassbinder.

Bunuel explains the random, unexplained "taboo" imagery. Kubrick explains the overkill of classical music in this film (in this case Wagner) mixed with strong sexual themes. Herzog - one only need remember "Even Dwarfs Started Small" to realize where Glover got the concept for this film, using nothing but actors with Down's Syndrome - attacking each other, and killing far too many snails with salt. Fassbinder always had a bit of an unrehearsed independent film edge to him - which surely shows here.

Surprisingly, the soundtrack is handled quite well. The majestic Wagner music makes all the silly fantasy scenes quite respectable. Yes, we see nude female porn stars stepping about in a studio forest, draped in fog. But each wear an animal mask, and hide in small volcanoes on the forest floor. One thinks perhaps this could be a surreal riff on Shakespeare's "A Midsummer Night's Dream." The naked man in a rising clam-shell vaguely reminds one of Botticelli's "Birth of Venus". Glover, himself, dons long hair, and a regal cape - looking like he's auditioning for Richard III. He demands his escorts address him as Shirley Temple.

Glover's subtle attempt at "taboo-breaking" seems like a silly attempt at dadaism. Swatstikas appear at the most unexpected places (as do watermelons, and a white man in black face.) Concerning the "weirdness" factor... I'm sorry, but I've seen stranger: Guy Maddin's "Twilight of the Ice Nymphs" and Richard Elfman's "Forbidden Zone" trump Glover in that department. Sorry, Crispin.

(Now, if we discuss Glover's live slide show presentation - that IS weird, and fun, and downright hysterical! The live slide show presentation I'd rate 8 out of ten. But for the film "What is it?"... 5 out of 10. Well, at least he was inspired by good sources.)

watch the trailer

[gliptitude · 4/10 · 29 August 2008]

I firstly and completely and confidently disagree with the user who calls this a "spoof". Crispin Glover is very serious about his film. He personally introduced the film at the screening I saw in Chicago. He had worked on the film for years and it is the first in an intended trilogy. "What is it?" is Crispin Glover's attempt at an art film in the vein of those he idolizes by Herzog, Lynch etc.

I had heard rumor of this film years ago "epic porno movie with all down-syndrome cast directed by crispin glover". When it finally came out i watched the trailer on-line and read the synopsis and i was foaming at the mouth with anticipation. ...I went to chicago to see it and it was a major disappointment. If he took out the goofy sh*t, such as the pot-smoking grandma, and the dancing dolls, he would be left with something much better, but only about 10 minutes long.

In other words just watch the trailer, be entertained, and leave it at that. There are some striking images and fantastic juxtapositions and phrases, but its lack of focus amounts to disappointment.

A roller-coaster ride for the brain...

[eileenmchenry · 7 May 2005]

This is a movie we will all be talking about for a long time. It's full of disturbing images, dialogue that is very hard to make out in spots, and narrative tangents that make you, almost, forget what happened in the previous scenes. It all does gel together in the end, but you need to keep watching and be patient. I am so glad I did...Not many movies give me this much to think about. (These days, how many movies give you ANYTHING to think about?) A film that can make me simultaneously puzzled, grossed out, intrigued, offended, and delighted is worth seeing. I am still very glad the director was on hand to tell us what he was thinking about when he made this movie; otherwise I would still be guessing about it almost a month later. I really can't wait for the sequel.

What is it? - Not Worth It!

[TrapTN · 1/10 · 21 March 2005]

I saw Crispin Glover's "What Is It?" at the Ann Arbor film festival. Admittedly, the film was at least aptly named, because I got the distinct sense that even the writer/director could provide no answer. At the question and answer session after the screening, Mr. Glover said that the film was originally meant to be a short film to show the virtue of using actors with down-syndrome. However, this is in itself not enough of a reason to create a film. Actors are, in my opinion, building blocks for a larger vision - a larger vision that seemed muddled at best and absent at worst.

Crispin Glover also said that he wanted to address taboo subjects. Well, he does do that. But why? The film seems to have no stance, no reason for addressing anything. Does he feel these things shouldn't be taboo? The film doesn't even give me an indicator of that. Taboo for the sake of taboo is not interesting. It can't even afford to make the taboo disturbing or inciting on any level because he hasn't made the audience care in any way.

Ignoring problems with the concept for a moment, the thing that actually shocked me most was how poorly the film was put together. The editing, cinematography, and other technical aspects seemed frequently to be extremely amateur. Glover said 125-150 thousand dollars went into the movie, and I feel that the money should have been spent on different designers (Glover actually did some design himself - I know I saw at least sound design in the credits). The painted sets are okay (not great), but used poorly. Parts feel like a photographed stage play - which would be fine if that went to any sort of purpose, but in Glover's hands it just feels sloppy. Other parts are filmed like a sort of Home Movie, of inferior quality to a lot of the stuff I see first-time filmmakers do on iMovie.

Perhaps the biggest problem with "What Is It?" is I can't even understand how seriously the film is to be taken. There are some parts that feel like Glover is screaming at you to think seriously. At other points, he seems off on his own little joke. Perhaps he meant for this to be ironic, or meaningful in some way, but I just felt that Glover couldn't even get himself to give his film any sort of serious attention.

Glover said he originally wanted it to be a short film. If only it had been. At seventy-two minutes, the film runs out of imagery and ideas in the first twenty, and it is arguable if the ideas were formulated enough to claim that they were even there for that period of time.

He tries too hard.

[jojodiamond · 5/10 · 18 February 2007]

I thought this movie was supposed to be a drama, not a comedy! I thought the slide show with readings from the eight books before the film was ridiculous, and it seemed like Glover was desperately flailing in his attempts to try to sound like Hunter Thompson on acid. He needs to find his own creativity instead of trying unsuccessfully to be like others. The whole thing was pointless, though there were a few lines here and there that did make me chuckle.

But seriously, I felt like Glover was trying so hard to disturb people that he forgot about direction and plot. Was I disturbed? No. Disappointed? A little. I think it could have been a good movie, but it just wasn't put together just right. Glover, you need a do-over. I would see it again, but I do believe the experience would be better suited for ten or maybe fifteen, but not $25.

It's fine if Glover wants the protagonist to be fighting with racism in his inner psyche, but nothing screams "I want to offend people" like playing Johnny Rebel's "Some N*****s Never Die, They Just Smell That Way." That's not art, that's begging for attention.

The Q&A session afterwards? He had interesting answers, but basically it was all about "I'm trying to disturb people to make them think." Kick the dead horse a little more, why don't ya?

What is it? I really don't know.

[istina · 7/10 · 9 February 1999]

I didn't know what to make of this film. I guess that is what it was all about really. I have never seen a film like it and I doubt that I really ever will again. Glover puts together something that is unique to him. I think to appreciate it you have to read some of his poetry, maybe see one of his slide shows. I really like this guy, he is just so bizarre I can't help it. Note: I saw this film before it was through its final editing, so maybe what I have seen and what others have seen are different. I will know, I guess, if I choose to view the film again. I think I will have to be properly drug influenced...

Did not like at all

[Vincentfoti · 1/10 · 24 November 2015]

I appreciate surrealist art. I like dark comedy, the subversive, the cryptic and the bizarre. however this movie is nothing more than a painful waste of time. it completely reeks of "trying too hard" and the use of actors with down syndrome acts only as a gimmick rather than adding any depth. i've seen Crispin glover in other things, and usually he passes as a decent actor. he thrives when he's playing some kind of weirdo. but the only worthwhile roles he's had were written and produced by other people. his own personal work in video or music (yes music) is mostly garbage. this movie is nothing than an answer to a trivia question.

What Is It - Behind the Scenes/Party

[james_Rey · 10/10 · 1 April 2012]

I worked on the set of this movie in Salt Lake City, Ut and have some behind the scenes footage. Crispin is a wonderful person and this movie is great. After the movie, Crispin threw us a party and it was captured on VHS. There weren't any digital cameras back then, sorry. there is a talent showcase at the end of the party which is hilarious. However you tube deleted the last part which is a stripper. I have seen videos containing more nudity that the one I posted but they took it down anyway. If you get a chance please check out these exclusive videos. enjoy!

Check it Out!!

http://www.youtube.com/crucifixxkiss

http://youtu.be/NqRs_x1Dryw

http://youtu.be/KaGVHGEKRS0

http://youtu.be/hBeFnJXVbSE

The title sums it up: What is this movie?

[LincMad · 1/10 · 22 October 2006]

What Is It? is a mish-mash of bizarre recurring motifs (snails, Shirley Temple, swastikas, and overtly racist music, among others) unfettered by any sort of narrative or plot or character development. The whole thing struck me as self-consciously "freak show," and I don't mean only the unusual casting decisions. It has the feel of a bad acid trip, far beyond any level of drug use one might attribute to Hunter S. Thompson or William S. Burroughs. The only movie to which I can compare it is Eraserhead (my second-least-favorite film of all time), which was by intent much more depressing, but I still found What Is It? a total waste of my time. It's one thing to give me a peek into the inner workings of someone else's mind -- even someone else's chemically altered consciousness -- but quite another to just throw weird visuals at me purely for the sake of weirdness.

Sure it's weird; why would you want it to be anything else?

[drworm-1 · 10/10 · 13 May 2005]

This first installment of Crispin Glover's personal magnum opus asks you to think a little, and so can't be recommended for any viewer who doesn't want to sit and puzzle over Glover's imagery or follow the surprisingly simple—but weirdly obfuscated—thread of his narrative. To the more casual viewer, yes, it's probably going to come off as a confusing mish-mash of odd, startling, and disturbing imagery for imagery's sake.

You get the sense that Glover doesn't mind that this is the case, and he'll almost as gladly listen to why someone hated the film as to why they enjoyed it. Glover's innate eagerness for and about his work and how audiences interpret it is strongly communicated not only through the film itself, but also through the unusual question and answer sessions that he frequently conducts following showings; he clearly hopes that people will continue to think about what he has presented.

The easiest way to interpret and dismiss the film is to label it as Dada or nihilist, a juvenile attack on the modern movie industry from an actor who's worked both without and within. But there's a reason why Glover performs his slideshow before showing his movie, and it's not only to sell books; his books juxtapose and create a narrative from images and text that Glover pieced together, and What Is It? does similarly with imagery drawn from Western culture.

What Is It? is an endearing and compelling film in ways one hardly expects while viewing. Much has already been made about Glover's use of actors with Down's syndrome, and indeed that is one of the most initially striking aspects of the film. So jarring, in fact, that many seem to interpret it as some sort of far-reaching crusade to see a more realistic and/or dignified portrayal of the disabled in movies and television—or, on the absolute other end of the spectrum, as a kind of direct exploitation of the disabled. But it's not either, and maybe that's part of what makes this film so uncomfortable for many: the underlying agenda is not a political one or one of hatred, but one of looking beyond the mainstream culture into a kind of outsider ugliness. It's not a film about Down's syndrome, but it is a film that is owned by the actors with Down's syndrome who appear in it.

I'm the sort of person who is entirely gung-ho when it comes to ugliness and strangeness being portrayed so starkly that it is beautiful; happily for me, this is pretty much exactly how What Is It? presents itself to viewers. Glover uses the strange images of snails, death, and the disabled in part because he wants his audience to feel discomfort at either the sheer oddness of the imagery or the visceral reaction one has to the dying screams of an anthropomorphized snail. In some ways, the weirdly compelling (and occasionally downright grotesque) elements of What Is It? remind me of the work of the painter Francis Bacon… he of the infamous popes, yes, and the odd distortions of the human figure that inevitably make viewers cringe and want to look away. Like Bacon's paintings, Glover's film manages to be opulent and humble, grainy and polished, chaotic and well-realized… and the contradictions help to make it all the more disconcerting. But still this is not an entirely serious film, and it largely manages to sidestep the greatest pitfalls of pretension through the use of humor that, for the most part, derives from the use (and juxtaposition) of familiar items, images, and names of popular culture. And when What Is It? is funny, it is very funny.

Overall, What Is It? is an impressive first film from Glover as a director and writer, and his presence as an actor in the film proves not to be nearly the distraction one might expect it to be. Watching it is like being an observer in the kind of dream that isn't exactly good or bad, but just strange… and that leaves you feeling slightly grimy when you wake up. If that's the kind of art you enjoy, What Is It? is likely to exceed your expectations and be well-worth the effort of catching it in the theatre, along with The Big Slide Show and Glover himself. All in all, it's an experience you're unlikely to forget any time soon.

what is it? u never know because your so taken aback by how morally wrong it is.

[mkkeenan · 1/10 · 20 March 2005]

I saw his film at the Ann Arbor Film Festival. I am a film student at the Univeristy of Michigan so I know a thing or two about film. And Crispin Glover's film is outrageous. He basically exploits the mentally challenged. Not only is Shirly Temple the anti-Christ (which I admit is a little funny) telling the mentally challenged to kill each other, but there is an obsession with killing snails. Crispin also plays with the idea of being in love with one of his actors who is as they all are, mentally challenged. PETA and Human Rights should be all over this thing. It's not 'counter-culture' as Crispin stated at the Ann Arbor Film Festival, it's exploitation.

Sumptuous Decadent Beautiful Ugliness

[meryles · 9/10 · 11 December 2002]

Hilarious, evocative, confusing, brilliant film. Reminds me of Bunuel's L'Age D'Or or Jodorowsky's Holy Mountain-- lots of strange characters mucking about and looking for..... what is it? I laughed almost the whole way through, all the while keeping a peripheral eye on the bewildered and occasionally horrified reactions of the audience that surrounded me in the theatre. Entertaining through and through, from the beginning to the guts and poisoned entrails all the way to the end, if it was an end. I only wish i could remember every detail. It haunts me sometimes.

Honestly, though, i have only the most positive recollections of this film. As it doesn't seem to be available to take home and watch, i suppose i'll have to wait a few more years until Crispin Glover comes my way again with his Big Slide Show (and subsequent "What is it?" screening)... I saw this film in Atlanta almost directly after being involved in a rather devastating car crash, so i was slightly dazed at the time, which was perhaps a very good state of mind to watch the prophetic talking arthropods and the retards in the superhero costumes and godlike Glover in his appropriate burly-Q setting, scantily clad girlies rising out of the floor like a magnificent DADAist wet dream.

Is it a statement on Life As We Know It? Of course everyone EXPECTS art to be just that. I rather think that the truth is more evident in the absences and in the negative space. What you don't tell us is what we must deduce, but is far more valid than the lies that other people feed us day in and day out. Rather one "WHAT IS IT?" than 5000 movies like "Titanic" or "Sleepless in Seattle" (shudder, gag, groan).

Thank you, Mr. Glover (additionally a fun man to watch on screen or at his Big Slide Show-- smart, funny, quirky, and outrageously hot). Make more films, write more books, keep the nightmare alive.

If you ever wondered how far someone could go to the left, then this is the movie for you

[Agent10 · 8/10 · 24 April 2005]

It takes a very special kind of person to make a movie that is so wretched, beguiling, disgusting and repulsive, but make it in a way that also makes it brilliant and the quintessence of personal cinematic liberation. Crispin Glover, in all of his "out there" antics and predispositions, truly made something that is unique. In a world that has become starkly partisan, this film seems to evade the standard lines of creativity and art and effectively startle everyone.

Right off the bat, the film takes on a rather distant paradigm (if there really is a model at all) and initially shapes it with the likes of Shirley Temple in front of a swastika and naked women pleasuring a man with cerebral palsy. It's rather shocking stuff, but if you had the opportunity for the Q&A sessions after the screenings, it clearly opens up a bag of worms that leaves you wondering whether this is art or just the lowest common denominator. In either guise, you sense the tremor that this film will ultimately cause. It will never be accepted, not even by the supposed auteurs of the world who boringly speak about the human condition. You may not like it, but it is certainly something worth watching.

I had the privilege to see What Is It? last night...

[LindaLurex · 10/10 · 2 June 2010]

All of the internet talk had gotten me thinking that this was going to be over an hour of plastered swastikas, snail killing and sex. That couldn't be less accurate. In my opinion, anyone who is offended by this movie has already been brainwashed by today's standards. If this movie isn't an absolute work of genius then I don't know what is. It hearkens back to the earlier days of classic film, where a filmmaker's movie was actually the filmmaker's movie and not a big budget studio production geared towards pleasing as many people as possible to make an even larger profit. What Is It? contains creative, complex characters, a thoroughly original storyline, and moves along at an appropriately leisurely pace. With the added bonus of Crispin's great knowledge and understanding of what makes a great film, it cannot be missed. This film will make you laugh, make some cry, and most importantly make you THINK. This is certainly the best film I have ever had the privilege of seeing. I eagerly await parts 2 and 3 of the IT trilogy along with anything else Mr. Glover is generous enough to throw our way.

A breathtaking masterpiece of incalculable magnitude

[lopaville-1 · 10/10 · 14 September 2010]

Crispin Glover has presented a monumental film that what will surely change cinema forever. Not only does it trace and honor the Afro-American roots that preceded Lumiere by almost a hundred years, but proudly restores that tradition and provides a very subtle critique of the modern movie business.

Profits are nowhere to be found in this low budget homage to Capra and Selznick. Hats off to to Glover for not pulling any punches whilst showing a decadent sequence involving a naked gentleman being ejaculated whilst laying inside a giant oyster. No expense - including excess pubic hair - has been spared.

On another note, I know what you must be thinking in the back of your mind: "wait, I think I have seen a graveyard sex scene before." Perhaps, but was it in the first five minutes? Did involve two fully clothed people with one too many chromosomes (each)? Crispin Glover proves that we have moved beyond the tired old traditions of repetitious childhood storytelling and myths and entered into a new realm wherein we are free to recreate and reimagine what it means to be a theater-going experience.

My long-time partner of two months, Brenda Velasquez, who recently left me, agrees with me. We might be like oil and water and sulfuric acid in the bedroom, but when the curtains go up, we are united before the grandeur of moviedom. Congratulations, Mr. Glover. We love your deliberately ratty film.

What Is It?

[lewisdawn-190-512230 · 10/10 · 24 February 2012]

I find it to be a trip down everyone's inner self that they refuse to explore..Egging on the perverted thoughts that one might have and forcing us to open our eyes to it.One can be sexually aroused or sexually disgusted,it all depends on how we wish to feel and what we wish to share.I personally find it arousing in a weird sort of way and having Crispin Glover there both in person and in the movie it's self is truly sensual..I would watch it a hundred times more as I have watched Willard..He is an amazing story teller both on and off screen.So if you want to explore your inner monsters and let go of your personal world as you see it..You must watch it and enjoy- 5 stars to Crispin and thank God he explores the tremendously exploding side of our inner wants..-Dawn

Excellent viscerally reactive film to corporate control in the media

[asignmentpast · 10/10 · 5 October 2009]

This film is very interesting. I have seen it twice and it seems Glover hit the nail on the head with what he claims to he wants to accomplish. I for one can relate to the outrage that the filmmaker clearly expresses against the current thoughtless corporate drivel that is an onslaught in our every media center, and the things that we as a culture are supposed to not "think" about due to corporate media control. The outrage that Glover expresses through the "outrageous" elements in the films is both clear in its visceral aggressiveness and beautiful in its poetic potency. I am glad I saw this film and it is even clearer that Glover is up to something interesting with part two of what will be a trilogy. It is fine! EVERYTHING IS FINE. See that also. People that dismiss this film as "thoughtless" or "pretentious" are really missing the boat. This is an intelligent films. If you can see it with his live show he performs before with his books, that is also very wroth while. The way you get in to his mindset is really something. You will have an experience!

Wonderful Spoof of Art House Movies!

[adm-harry-nelson · 10/10 · 22 June 2007]

Flat out the funniest spoof of pretentious art house films ever made.

This flick exposes all the clichés, and then some! Excruciatingly bad (Downs-Syndrome!) actors. Terribly heavy self important dialog. Scenes that are supposed to shock but fall flat. Jarring editing. Pointless plot points. All wrapped up in a kind of smirky miasma of disrespect for the audience and vague psych-drivel.

It achieves exactly what it was designed to. A hilarious satire of those tedious movies made by spoiled teenage trust-funders, to show to their parents when they ask them what they've been doing for the last two years! After "What Is It?" received its Cannes award, presenter Werner Herzog was rumored to have been told that the film was in fact a spoof, in part of his own films! He supposedly blew up at the info. To this day he refuses to discuss the incident.

Anyway, see it and laugh, this will be a classic of humor for many years to come.