What is it? (6.8/10)

Crispin Glover, 2005.
From what I gather the film is about the conflict between different states of consciousness with in the Protagonist’s psyche, a character with Down syndrome and a passion for murdering snails. The project entirely financed by Glover lacks any lavish extravagances and has a prevailing ‘low budget’ feel to it. The ultimate result is a very interesting film with an exceptionally well done soundtrack; including Wagner’s Tannhauser overture and the Clock Work Orange theme.

According to Glover who was very sincere in his talk after the screening, the film was meant to be a reflection of his personal distaste with the mechanisms of censorship present within the current corporate Hollywood system. His intention was to make the viewer as uncomfortable as possible. Forcing them to question the images on the screen and the intentions of the director, rather then leaving the theatre in a complacent stupefied haze. He does this very well by exploiting every cultural taboo he can think of ranging from sex and racism, to fascism. I have an inclination that Glover’s explanation was a rehearsed boiler plate response, amid audience questions and comments such as, “Why are you trying to copy David Lynch? Why is your film so weird? You are nothing more then a misanthrope with more money then me!”

It would have been interesting to ask him if the images exist purely as a manifestation of his anger with corporate censorship, or are they a fulfillment of an innate human desire to look at what is forbidden. Does his aesthetic simply arise from the underlying beauty in the taboo, in the disgusting? Is this is why artists constantly strive to exploit the most disturbing images imaginable in their work? If so, is any other rationalization for films like this little more then intellectual abstraction?