Your “What is it?” film has been described as an exercise in highlighting taboos in our society, predominantly mainstream filmmaking. The film includes such emotional triggers as Hitler, Swastikas, featuring actors with handicaps, snail killing, and so on. Do you feel that mainstream critics see the film as merely a shock value piece or do they understand the questions you are asking people to contemplate on? After a decade has passed since its debut, do have any thoughts on seeing a Down’s Syndrome actress in American Horror Story series a mainstream television show?
CRISPIN: There are several questions in one with what you asked.
One question was about mainstream critics.
I tend to use the word “corporate” as opposed to “mainstream.”
I have found that reviews of the films from corporate professional film critics can often, although not always, be more thoughtful than non professional reviewers. I believe this can be true because many of the professional reviewers from a decade ago were older and actually did understand what I was referencing when speaking about the reaction of the continuing tightened restraints in corporate film making starting about 30 or more years ago. I have noticed that non professional film reviewers/gossip type columns tend to focus on the elements that would be considered hot point topics rather than the content of the message.
I have never sold the film as shocking. There is nothing in the film I would consider shocking. Also to clarify, there is nothing in the film about Hitler. Actors with disabilities, even in corporate film is and always was considered acceptable by corporate film making. It is not new to have actors with disabilities in film. It may be rare, but it is not new. What I have always made clear is that in “What is it?” the actors with Down’s Syndrome play characters that do not necessarily have Down’s Syndrome. That is the element that will not be seen in corporately funded and distributed films.
After a decade has passed since its debut, do have any thoughts on seeing a Down’s Syndrome actress in American Horror Story series a mainstream television show?
I am very careful to make it quite clear that “What is it?” is not a film about Down’s Syndrome but my psychological reaction to the corporate restraints that have happened in the last 30 or more years in film making. Specifically anything that can possibly make an audience uncomfortable is necessarily excised or the film will not be corporately funded or distributed. This is damaging to the culture because it is the very moment when an audience member sits back in their chair looks up at the screen and thinks to their self “Is this right what I am watching? Is this wrong what I am watching? Should I be here? Should the filmmaker have made this? What is it?” -and that is the title of the film. What is it that is taboo in the culture? What does it mean that taboo has been ubiquitously excised in this culture’s media? What does it mean to the culture when it does not properly process taboo in it’s media? It is a bad thing because when questions are not being asked because these kinds of questions are when people are having a truly educational experience. For the culture to not be able to ask questions leads towards a non educational experience and that is what is happening in this culture. This stupefies this culture and that is of course a bad thing. So What is it? Is a direct reaction to the contents this culture’s media. I would like people to think for themselves.
What were the first steps in getting the film off the ground and what were your challenges in doing your own independent film?
CRISPIN: “What is it?” started production as a short film in 1996. It took 9.5 years from the first day of shooting on the short film to having a 35 mm print of the feature film. I wrote it as a short film originally to promote the viability of having a majority of the characters that do not necessarily have Down’s Syndrome to be played by actors with Down’s Syndrome.
The way this came about was this. In 1996. I was approached by two young writers and aspiring filmmakers who were from Phoenix to act in a film they wanted to produce and direct. They made a monetary offer to my agents which they really should not have done as they did not actually have financing. Nonetheless it did get me to read the screenplay which I found to be interesting. This screenplay was not What is it? I found interesting things about the screenplay and was interested in the project, but I thought there were things about the screenplay that did not work. I came up with solutions that needed re working of the screenplay and I told them I would be interested in acting in the film if I directed it. They came to LA and met with me and wanted to know my thoughts. There were quite a few things but the main things was that most of the character were to be played by actors with Down’s Syndrome. They were fine with this concept and I set about to re writing the screenplay. David Lynch then agreed to executive produce the film for me to direct. This was very helpful and I went to one of the larger corporate entities in Los Angeles that finances films and met with them. They were interested in the project but after a number of meetings and conversations they let me know that the were concerned about financing a project wherein most of the characters were played by actors with Down’s Syndrome. The title of this screenplay at this point had become IT IS MINE. And will become part three of the “IT” trilogy. It was [not] known yet at this time that there would be a trilogy but it was decided that I should write a short screenplay to promote that the concept of having a majority of the characters played by actors with Down’s Syndrome was a viable things to do for corporate entities to invest in.
“WHAT IS IT?” movie trailer
This is when I wrote a short screenplay en titled What is it? We shot this short screenplay in four days. I edited that over a period of six months and the first edit came in at 84 minutes. The final feature length film of What is it? is 72 minutes. So the first version of the short film is longer than the final version of the feature film, and it was too long for the material I had at the time, but I could see with more work and more material I could turn it in to a feature film. Over approximately the next two years I shot 8 more days and edited this in to what is now the final version of the film. I locked the edit of the film about three years after the first day of shooting what was supposed to be a short film. Then there were a number of years of very frustrating technical problems that mainly had to do with SMPTE time code. Originally I was going to make the film the now old fashioned way of a complete photochemical process and not digital intermediate. An optical house in New York that did not give me enough information to let me know that the SMPTE time code had not been properly put on when the film was telecined. During this time I worked patiently on the final sound edit of the film with a number of interns. Finally that sound edit was finished and it became apparent that the film optical house was not telling me the truth and prices had fallen during this time so I was able to make the film using a digital intermediate to ultimately go out to a 35 mm print of the film. So from the first day of shooting what was to be a short film to having a 35 mm print for the film took 9.5 years.
Sometimes people ask me if the length of time it took for me to make the film had to do with working with actors with Down’s Syndrome. This was not the case. Even though the film took many years to make much of the delay were technical issues. What is it was actually shot in a total of twelve days which was spread over several years. Twelve days is actually a very short amount of shooting days for a feature film. The most important thing about working with an actor weather they have Down’s Syndrome or not is if they have enthusiasm. Everyone in I worked with had incredible enthusiasm so the were all great to work with.
Scene from “What Is It?”
When did you first start production?
CRISPIN:The film started production as a short film in 1996. It took 9.5 years from the first day of shooting on the short film to having a 35 mm print of the feature film. I wrote it as a short film originally to promote the viability of having a majority of the characters that do not necessarily have Down’s Syndrome to be played by actors with Down’s Syndrome.
The way this came about was this. In 1996. I was approached by two young writers and aspiring filmmakers who were from Phoenix to act in a film they wanted to produce and direct. They made a monetary offer to my agents which they really should not have done as they did not actually have financing. Nonetheless it did get me to read the screenplay which I found to be interesting. This screenplay was not What is it? I found interesting things about the screenplay and was interested in the project, but I thought there were things about the screenplay that did not work. I came up with solutions that needed re working of the screenplay and I told them I would be interested in acting in the film if I directed it. They came to LA and met with me and wanted to know my thoughts. There were quite a few things but the main things was that most of the character were to be played by actors with Down’s Syndrome. They were fine with this concept and I set about to re writing the screenplay. David Lynch then agreed to executive produce the film for me to direct. This was very helpful and I went to one of the larger corporate entities in Los Angeles that finances films and met with them. They were interested in the project but after a number of meetings and conversations they let me know that the were concerned about financing a project wherein most of the characters were played by actors with Down’s Syndrome. The title of this screenplay at this point had become IT IS MINE. And will become part three of the “IT” trilogy. It was known yet at this time that there would be a trilogy but it was decided that I should write a short screenplay to promote that the concept of having a majority of the characters played by actors with Down’s Syndrome was a viable things to do for corporate entities to invest in.
This is when I wrote a short screenplay titled What is it? We shot this short screenplay in four days. I edited that over a period of six months and the first edit came in at 84 minutes. The final feature length film of What is it? is 72 minutes. So the first version of the short film is longer than the final version of the feature film, and it was too long for the material I had at the time, but I could see with more work and more material I could turn it in to a feature film.
Perhaps more important than realizing the short film should be turned in to a feature film was that it became apparent that what the corporate entity was reacting to was not the viability of having a majority of the characters played by actors with Down’s Syndrome, but it was the concept itself that was the concern.
Sometime people think I am stating that having actors with Down’s Syndrome is taboo. That is not what I am stating. That is not taboo. One can easily see movies or television shows that include actors with Down’s Syndrome. It may not be common but it is available. What you will not see in a corporately funded and distributed film is an actor with Down’s Syndrome playing a character that does not have Down’s Syndrome whereas one will easily see an actor without a disability playing a character with a disability. Furthermore that is the kind kind of performance that can get nominated for an academy award in a best acting category. Whereas a person with a disability playing a character without a disability can cause severe cultural questioning.
Questions could be asked like “Why are you doing this? Are you making fun of these people? Are you taking advantage of these people?” Of course I had zero interest in doing any of these things. In the initialscreenplay which will eventually be part 3 of the trilogy having a majority of the characters played by actors with Down’s Syndrome solved a structural/conceptual problem in that screenplay. I realized that corporate entities in were concerned about any kind of questioning in general and this is the key problem right now in corporately funded and distributed film. Any kind of real questioning is considered taboo and taboo would not and will not be corporately funded or distributed. I realized that the short film as it was already contained the taboo of having people with Down’s Syndrome playing characters that did not necessarily have Down’s Syndrome and that since it was innate in the structure of the film and since I could see the genuine problem of negative corporate control resulting in no questioning. I might was well make sure that this becomes the central theme of the movie and the forthcoming trilogy.
Over approximately the next two years I shot 8 more days and edited this in to what is now the final version of the film. I locked the edit of the film about three years after the first day of shooting what was supposed to be a short film. Then there were a number of years of very frustrating technical problems that mainly had to do with SMPTE time code. Originally I was going to make the film the nowold fashioned way of a complete photochemical process and not digital intermediate. An optical house in New York that did not give me enough information to let me know that the SMPTE time code had not been properly put on when the film was telecined. During this time I worked patiently on the final sound edit of the film with a number of interns. Finally that sound edit was finished and it became apparent that the film optical house was not telling me the truth and prices had fallen during this time so I was able to make the film using a digital intermediate to ultimately go out to a 35 mm print of the film. So from the first day of shooting what was to be a short film to having a 35 mm print for the film took 9.5 years.
Steven C. Stewart wrote and is the main actor in part two of the trilogy titled It is fine! EVERYTHING IS FINE. I put Steve in to the cast of What is it? because he had written this screenplay which I read in 1987. When I turned What is it? from a short film in to a feature I realized there were certain thematic elements in the film that related to what Steven C. Stewart’s screenplay dealt with. Steve had been locked in a nursing home for about ten years when his mother died. He had been born with a severe case of cerebral palsy and his speech was very difficult to understand. People that were caring for him in the nursing home would derisively call him an “M.R.” short for “Mental Retard”. This is not a nice thing to say to anyone, but Steve was of normal intelligence. When he did get out he wrote his screenplay. Although it is written in the genre of a U.S. 1970‘s TV murder mystery movie of the week detective thriller truths of his own existence came through. Because of the dynamic of the genre style he had written it in truths came through much more clearly than if he had written it as a standard autobiography. It wasalso very important to Steve that he was playing the bad guy. He wrote about this issue and he wanted it to be understood that a person with a disability, emphasis on person, can have dark thoughts including a person with a disability.
As I have stated, I put Steven C. Stewart in to What is it? When I turned What is it? in to a feature film. Originally What is it? Was going to be a short film to promote the concept to corporate film funding entities that working with a cast wherein most characters are played by actors with Down’s Syndrome. Steve had written his screenplay in in the late 1970’s. I read it in 1987 and as soon as I had read it I knew I had to produce the film. Steven C. Stewart died within a month after we finished shooting the film. Cerebral palsy is not generative but Steve was 62 when we shot the film. One of Steve’s lungs had collapsed because he had started choking on his own saliva and he got pneumonia. I specifically started funding my own films with the money I make from the films I act in when Steven C. Stewart’s lung collapsed in the year 2000 this was around the same time that the first Charlie’s Angels film was coming to me. I realized with the money I made from that film I could put straight in to the Steven C. Stewart film. That is exactly what happened. I finished acting in Charlie’s Angels and then went to Salt Lake City where Steven C. Stewart lived. I met with Steve and David Brothers with whom I co-directed the film. I went back to LA and acted in an lower budget film for about five weeks and David Brothers started building the sets. Then I went straight back to Salt Lake and we completed shooting the film within about six months in three separate smaller productions. Then Steve died within a month after we finished shooting. I am relieved to have gotten this film finally completed because ever since I read the screenplay in 1987 I knew I had to produce the film and also produce it correctly. I would not have felt right about myself if I had not gottenSteve’s film made, I would have felt that I had done something wrong and that I had actually done a bad thing if I had not gotten it made. So I am greatly relieved to have completed it especially since I am very pleased with how well the film has turned out. We shot It is fine! EVERYTHING IS FINE. while I was still completing What it? And this is partly why What is it? took a long time to complete. I am very proud of the film as I am of What is it? I feel It is fine! EVERYTHING IS FINE. will probably be the best film I will have anything to do with in my entire career. People who are interested in when I will be back should join up on the e mail list at CrispinGlover.com as they will be emailed with information as to where I will be where with whatever film I tour with. It is by far the best way to know how to see the films.
After Charlie’s Angels came out it did very well financially and was good for my acting career. I started getting better roles that also paid better and I could continue using that money to finance my films that I am so truly passionate about. I have been able to divorce myself from the content of the films that I act in and look at acting as a craft that I am helping other filmmakers to accomplish what it is that they want to do. Usually filmmakers have hired me because there is something they have felt would be interesting to accomplish with using me in their film and usually I can try to do something interesting as an actor. If for some reason the director is not truly interested in doing something that I personally find interesting with the character then I can console myself that with the money I am making to be in their production I can help to fund my own films that I am so truly passionate about. Usually though I feel as though I am able to get something across as an actor that I feel good about. It has worked out well.
Scene From “Charlie’s Angels” 2000, Crispin Glover playing “Thin Man” villain
Steve was a genuinely great guy! It is hard to define what my relationship with Steve is/was. During the approximate 15 years I knew Steve from 1986 to his death in 2001 I would communicate with him in spurts. He started writing me short e mails urging to make his film after we shot his portions of “What is it?” in 1996. He would write simple things like “When are we going to make the film before I kick the bucket?”
Steve was definitely gracious and had a genuinely rebellious sense of humor. If he had only had one of those qualities I probably would not have related to him as much, but the fact that he had both a sense of humor and a sense of rebellion made it so I could very much relate to him.
I personally financed the film and had taken out no insurance if Steve were to die. Steve was a strong person and I knew that he has an inner need to get this story out. He had already stayed alive by getting an operation to get this film made and I knew he would stay alive no matter what to get the film completed.
About a month after we finished shooting I got a telephone call one morning and it became apparent that Steve was in the hospital with a collapsed lung again and that he was basically asking permission to take himself off life support and he wanted to know if we had enough footage to finish the film. I know that if I had said “No Steve. We do not have enough footage. You need to get better and we have to finish the film” He would have gotten whatever operation needed to get better and been happy to come back to the set and shoot. As it was we did have enough footage and it was a sad day and heavy responsibility to let him know that we would be able to complete the film.
In retrospect Steven C. Stewart was a great communicator. Steve has had great positive influence on my life and as much as I did like and enjoy Steve when he was alive, I realize even more how much he was important to me. It may sound sappy, but if Steve were here today I would be very happy to tell him how much he ultimately positively has affected my life.
Do you know what Shirley Temple’s reaction was to your character in “What Is It?” ?
CRISPIN: I would assume that she was used to her public image being utilized in art in a way that was different from the films that she appeared. Salvador Dali had use her image in the 1930’s in a manner that was decidedly different than how she appeared in her films of the era.
Shirley Temple, The Youngest, Most Sacred Monster of Contemporary Cinema by Salvador Dalí
What musicians are you influenced by? Do you plan on releasing any more music of your own?
CRISPIN: I do not really consider myself a musician. I wrote the lyrics for the original songs book readings and also performed the covers and that were on my record titled “The Big Problem ≠ The Solution. The Solution = Let It Be. The music was composed and played by Barns and Barns. I has some inline on the sounds of it, but I did not play music on the record. Yes there is another record that is long overdue to be released, but my film productions have taken precedent. Most of it was recorded in the 1990’s. I do hope to get to it soon. There is a very small amount of work for it to be completed.
(if you have never seen Barnes and Barnes “Fish Heads” video do yourself a favor)
For my own enjoyment I like listening to Beethoven and post Beethoven Romantic Era composers and also a lot of the Baroque Era composers.
front and back cvers for1989 Crispin Glover concept album, “The Big Problem ≠ The Solution. The Solution = Let It Be”
You were lead actor in “Willard” remake and have a book titled “Rat Catching”. Would you say you have a fascination with rats? If so what about them appeals to you?
CRISPIN: It was a coincidence about appearing in “Willard.”I made the book in 1984 from a binding originally published in the late 1800’s I found in a used bookstore in Los Angeles. I thought it could make an interesting book to re-work . I had already started taking old books from the 1800’s and reworking them in 1982. Rat Catching sales are quite strong. There are over 14,000 copies of Rat Catching in print now.
I was cast in Willard in 2003.
They ended up using some images from my book Rat Catching briefly in the title sequence of Willard.
I am publishing a book that I will have at starting at my next shows at the Egyptian Theatre here in Los Angeles March 18 and 19. The new book is titled “Round My House” and I originally made the book in 1985. So it took 3 years for me to actually publish it although I wanted to publish it before “Rat Catching” but it was too expensive at the time as it is a color book. Finally I am able to publish it.
You include Anton LaVey’s instrumental music in “What is it?” and also cast Adam Parfrey, a one time member of the Church of Satan, as the Minstrel. Do you identify with Anton Lavey’s philosophy and did you ever have the opportunity to meet him?
CRISPIN: Adam Parfrey is a friend of mine and ha published books of Anton LeVey. Adam is an intelligent person that has a sense of humor. I needed a piece of music that had a certain perfunctory rhythmic sound for the end title sequence and was at Adam’s place and the organ piece being performed by Anton LeVey was playing and I could tell it would be good for the film. It was a medley of Romantic Era pieces. I did not know much about LeVey and read some of his writing and understood the metaphor of the sense of self as being an important aspect. I liked the piece of music organ first and then recognized that the fact that it was being played by Anton LeVey would fit thematically in to the film.
Have you ever had any problems showing your film in Europe due to laws against the display of Swastikas in certain countries?
CRISPIN:No. Those laws in Germany are specific to curtail endorsement of the National Socialists. If someone watches “What is it?” it would be very hard to argue that the content of the film would be endorsing anything representing the National Socialism. If anything the film would have been put in to the same kind of exhibition of art that the National Socialists called “Degenerate Art.” Just to be perfectly clear I do not support anything having to do with disparaging anyone for there heritage and that kind of thought process goes opposite of my beliefs. I would hope to think that is clear to anyone watching the film. I believe in celebrating the unique elements of every individual.
Do you still do sculptural art pieces and exhibit your artwork? Would you be interested in showing at our gallery, Lethal Amounts (wink wink)?
CRISPIN:Thank you for the offer. I appreciate that. I made some of the sculptural pieces in the 1980’s. I have some of them left, but I never made a lot of them. Some of the books are actually more art pieces than stories. The ones that I perform in the shows are oriented towards performance. It is really the best way for me to display that particular kind of art. I’ve contemplated having art shows and been offered them at various times. To do it correctly would take a lot of work and time. My mind tends toward going to my own film productions these days.
The live aspects of the shows are not to be underestimated. This is a large part of how I bring audiences in to the theater and a majority of how I recoup is by what is charged for the live show and what I make from selling the books after the shows.
For “Crispin Hellion Glover’s Big Slide Show” I perform a one hour dramatic narration of eight different books I have made over the years. The books are taken from old books from the 1800’s that have been changed in to different books from what they originally were. They are heavily illustrated with original drawings and reworked images and photographs.
I started making my books in 1983 for my own enjoyment without the concept of publishing them. I had always written and drawn and the books came as an accidental outgrowth of that. I was in an acting class in 1982 and down the block was an art gallery that had a book store upstairs. In the book store there was a book for sale that was an old binding taken from the 1800’s and someone had put their art work inside the binding. I thought this was a good idea and set out to do the same thing. I worked a lot with India ink at the time and was using the India ink on the original pages to make various art. I had always liked words in art and left some of the words on one of the pages. I did this again a few pages later and then when I turned the pages I noticed that a story started to naturally form and so I continued with this. When I was finished with the book I was pleased with the results and kept making more of them. I made most of the books in the 80’s and very early 90’s. Some of the books utilize text from the binding it was taken from and some of them are basically completely original text. Sometimes I would find images that I was inspired to create stories for or sometimes it was the binding or sometimes it was portions of the texts that were interesting. Altogether, I made about twenty of them. When I was editing my first feature film “What is it?” There was a reminiscent quality to the way I worked with the books because as I was expanding the film in to a feature from what was originally going to be a short, I was taking film material that I had shot for a different purpose originally and re-purposed it for a different idea and I was writing and shooting and ultimately editing at the same time. Somehow I was comfortable with this because of similar experiences with making my books.
Every once in a while, but really very rarely, someone will come up to me during the book signing I think two times in the nine years I have been touring, and they have shown me a book they have done something similar with. They described to me that they came in to it on their own. It seems to be a specific art form that rarely people will just discover doing on their own.
When I first started publishing the books in 1988 people said I should have book readings. But the book are so heavily illustrated and they way the illustrations are used within the books they help to tell the story so the only way for the books to make sense was to have visually representations of the images. This is why I knew a slide show was necessary. It took a while but in 1993 I started performing what I now call Crispin Hellion Glover’s Big Side Show Part 1. The content of that show has not changed since I first started performing it. But the performance of the show has become more dramatic as opposed to more of a reading. The books do not change but the performance of the show of course varies slightly from show to show based the audience’s energy and my energy.
People sometimes get confused as to what “Crispin Hellion Glover’s Big Slide Show (Parts 1&2)” is so now I always let it be known that it is a one hour dramatic narration of eight different profusely illustrated books that I have made over the years. The illustrations from the books are projected behind me as I perform the show. There is a second slide show now that also has 8 books. Part 2 is performed if I have a show with Part 1 of the “IT” trilogy and then on the subsequent night I will perform the second slide show and Part 2 of the “IT” trilogy. The second slide show has been developed over the last several years and the content has changed as it has been developed, but I am very happy with the content of the second slide show now.
The books and films are all narrative. Sometimes people see thematic correlations between the content of my books and the content of the films.
The fact that I tour with the film helps the distribution element. I consider what I am doing to be following in the steps of vaudeville performers. Vaudeville was the main form of entertainment for most of the history of the US. It has only relatively recently stopped being the main source of entertainment, but that does not mean this live element mixed with other media is no longer viable. In fact it is apparent that it is sorely missed.
I definitely have been aware of the element of utilizing the fact that I am known from work in the corporate media I have done in the last 25 years or so. This is something I rely on for when I go on tour with my films. It lets me go to various places and have the local media cover the fact that I will be performing a one hour live dramatic narration of eight different books which are profusely illustrated and projected as I go through them, then show the film either What is it? Being 72 minutes or It is fine! EVERYTHING IS FINE being 74 minutes. Then having a Q and A and then a book signing. As I funded the films I knew that this is how I would recoup my investment even if it a slow process.
Volcanic Eruptions was a business I started in Los Angeles in 1988 as Crispin Hellion Glover doing business as Volcanic Eruptions. It was a name to use for my book publishing company. About a year later I had a record/CD come out with a corporation called Restless Records. About when I had sold the same amount of books as CD/records had sold it was very clear to me that because I had published my own books that I had a far greater profit margin. It made me very suspicious of working with corporations as a business model. Financing/Producing my own films is based on the basic business model of my own publishing company. There are benefits and drawbacks about self distributing my own films. In this economy it seems like a touring with the live show and showing the films with a book signing is a very good basic safety net for recouping the monies I have invested in the films
There are other beneficial aspects of touring with the shows other than monetary elements.
There are benefits that I am in control of the distribution and personally supervise the monetary intake of the films that I am touring with. I also control piracy in this way because digital copy of this film is stolen material and highly prosecutable. It is enjoyable to travel and visit places, meet people, perform the shows and have interaction with the audiences and discussions about the films afterwards. The forum after the show is also not to under-estimated as a very important part of the show for the audience.
This also makes me much more personally grateful to the individuals who come to my shows as there is no corporate intermediary. The drawbacks are that a significant amount of time and energy to promote and travel and perform the shows. Also the amount of people seeing the films is much smaller than if I were to distribute the films in a more traditional sense. The way I distribute my films is certainly not traditional in the contemporary sense of film distribution but perhaps is very traditional when looking further back at vaudeville era film distribution. If there are any filmmakers that are able to utilize aspects of what I am doing then that is good. It has taken many years to organically develop what I am doing now as far as my distribution goes.
-All the crispin glover visits to the Letterman show are amazing performance art pieces no doubt intended to mess with corporate media. At the end of the second appearance he shows some of his AMAZING sculptures! How can you not just appreciate everything Crispin Glover does?!