Hammer to Nail Interview: Crispin Glover – NO! YOU’RE WRONG. or: SPOOKY ACTION AT A DISTANCE

Many actors have added multi-hyphenates to their resumes, dipping into other facets of auteur filmmaking. But no one has done it quite like Crispin Hellion Glover. For that, and many other reasons, he remains one of the most unique artists in the Hollywood sphere. Since the early 1980s, he has logged nearly eighty acting credits, all of them indelible characters in their own right. Mainstream audiences will know him from high-profile studio fare, like Back to the Future, Hot Tub Time Machine, Charlie’s Angels, and as Andy Warhol in Oliver Stone’s The Doors. But it’s in the Indie realm that he truly blossoms. From the Christmas-obsessed, prolific sandwich maker “Jingle Dell” in David Lynch’s Wild at Heart, to an exceptionally burnt-out office worker in Bartleby, to one of cinema’s most disturbing troubled teens in River’s Edge, Crispin Glover is a character actor who is also a character himself. When he’s not producing his own films and books, he continues to turn out top-notch performances in indie films, such as the existentially tormented titular character in the upcoming labyrinthian surreal drama, Mr. K.

At the moment, Glover is full steam ahead on No! YOU’RE WRONG or: Spooky Action at a Distance, a film he spent a decade writing, shooting, and editing himself. Glover wrote it, in part, with his now-late father, Bruce Glover (Diamonds are Forever, Chinatown), and they both perform in it as multiple characters at different ages and eras. If you’re familiar with Glover’s previous Volcanic Eruptions releases (Parts one and two of the It” Trilogy), you’ll be (somewhat) prepared for No! YOU’RE WRONG.

Glover has always shunned the traditional distribution routes, instead opting for the hands-on approach of touring his films around the world within the framework of something he calls “The Big Slide Show”. The program begins with a stylized audio-visual reading from his books (i.e. the slide show), followed by a presentation of his latest film, and a Q & A with the audience. You will never see these films without Glover’s involvement, making the experience not only unique, but also elusive. This is why I had to conduct the following interview, having only seen a trailer for No! YOU’RE WRONG. or: Spooky Action at a Distance. But, having previously experienced What is it? and It is Fine! EVERYTHING IS FINE! by way of The Big Slide Show, I can assure you that if he does come your way, you should do everything in your power to attend. No matter how you feel about the film itself, you’re guaranteed a transformative and unforgettable cinematic experience.

The day after the world premiere of No! YOU’RE WRONG, I spoke with Glover about the why he likes people-watching during screenings, working with David Lynch, the beauty of Formalist production design, why he doesn’t like to give concrete answers about his work, and how he was surprised to learn – after the fact – that David Lynch executive produced his first film. This interview has been edited for economy and clarity.

Hammer to Nail: It’s lovely to speak to you. I don’t expect you to remember this, but I did meet you twice before: once in 2006 at Sundance…

Crispin Hellion Glover: It was probably 2005, 2006, or 2007. I was there in 2005 with What is it? and again in 2007 with It is Fine! EVERYTHING IS FINE. I think I went in 2006 for something. Not for an official film release. Maybe some follow-up media stuff.

HtN: Yeah, I don’t think I saw your film there, but I have seen “The Big Slide Show” since.

CHG: Good. Were you able to see the film last night? [It premiered at New York City’s Museum of Modern Art on October 2nd, 2025].

HtN: No. I’m in Seattle. I’ve only seen the trailer and read the credit scrawl provided by P.R. But I’m gonna do my best to ask about it. I know you had your premiere last night so I’m dying to know how it went because it was your first time showing it to an audience.

CHG: It was a very nice reception. I’m very glad to have premiered it at MoMa. It was interesting for me because I’ve shown it to individuals before, but I’ve never shown it to an audience before and there are different things that an audience will react to as a whole [rather] than individuals. And there is some humor to it. Which… I can’t tell what reads as humor even to people I’ve shown it to as individuals. But when you get hundreds of people together, laughter and that kind of thing become more apparent. So, you’ve seen one or two of the other films [I directed]?

HtN: Yes, I’ve seen What is it? and It is Fine!

CHG: Oh, great! Very good. So those films have humor within them… and it’s pretty dark humor, for the most part… There are things with What is it? that the audience will laugh at sometimes – or certain people in the audience – that are not necessarily things that I think of as being funny. And it isn’t like they’re being mean or anything like that. It’s interesting to me. Sometimes they’ll laugh at things I think are funny. But sometimes not. And then there are things that I think are very funny that nobody laughs at…

[Both laugh]

CHC: What makes me laugh is that I know the audience is in a sort of an internal turmoil of how to react to certain things… But the new film isn’t operating that way. It’s a different kind of humor. And I was actually surprised at how much there was. Because I thought it was the kind of thing people would maybe internalize and have an internal [reaction like], “this is amusing”. But there was actually out-and-out laughing in places that I have thought of as being humorous. But I [didn’t expect] as much outward audible laugher [as there was]. Now, it could have been a super enthusiastic audience, being premiere night at MoMa. Maybe I won’t have that as much [at future screenings]. But it was nice to hear. And then I genuinely was interested to hear how people reacted to the film because it was my first audience. And it was very astute. I was surprised at how much people picked up on. Many of the people I [had previously shown it to] are filmmaker types, who have a certain kind of… I suppose, sophistication within cinematic… what-have-you. And I don’t know, maybe 90% of the people that came last night were filmmaker types. [I knew] some of the people who were there. But it was a very nice response. I was very pleased…

Read the rest on Hammer to Nail!

Paid in Puke 2025 Oscars Special!

It’s the 2025 Paid in Puke Oscars Special with our Academy Award Pukette, Denise Rodriguez! We all saw and loved a TON of movies this year, and most of them didn’t get nominated for anything! Regardless, we talk about the films we loved and why they didn’t get any Academy props, the Emilia Pérez mess, films about the trans experience that were actually good, the ethics of using AI in films, and why we come to Nicole Kidman for magic.

Films covered include: A Different Man, Anora, A Real Pain, Babygirl, Between the Temples, Bird, Challengers, Emelia Pérez, Flow, Ghostlight, I Saw the TV Glow, Love Lies Bleeding, Maria, Nightbitch, Nosferatu, Queer, Sing Sing, The Apprentice, The Brutalist, The Last Showgirl, The Substance, The Wild Robot, Will & Harper.

Listen to the episode!

Paid in Puke Podcast 2023 Oscars Special



It’s the Paid in Puke 2023 Oscars Special! We were lucky enough to get Denise Rodriguez back to round out the panel. Between the 4 of us, we’ve seen almost everything (except The Whale, for reasons we GET. IN. TO.) We go full At the Movies, with wildly different opinions on MANY of the films. The hot takes are flying. But we all agree that the Everything Everywhere leads and Angela Bassett deserve Legacy awards and that Colin Farrell is a lovely man. 

Paid in Puke Podcast Special: The Pukettes Interview w/ Ann Magnuson!

Welcome to our bonus interview with Ann Magnuson. In addition to behind-the-scenes look at filming “Making Mr. Right” in Miami in 1986, Ann discusses her early influences and media consumption, coming up in the 70’s NYC and London punk scenes, why her appearances in Hollywood films were rare, a juicy tidbit about the casting process of “Fatal Attraction”, the roles on her resume that are closer to her real persona, and auditioning for SNL. She’s living the true Art Life. We could have listened to her for hours. We hope this interview inspires you to dive deep into Ann’s staggering back catalog and then make some art of your own. As Ann says, “There’s no time to waste!”

Ann Magnuson Instagram

Ann Magnuson website

Buy a signed copy of new Blu-Ray of Making Mr. Right!

Ann’s You Tube channel

Paid in Puke: 2020 Oscars Special

NINTCHDBPICT000388505712

It’s the off season but we HAD to do an Oscars Special! Hear our picks for who we think SHOULD grab the gold, who we think we get it instead, and who we think got snubbed for the big 6 categories (Best Pic, Acting, and Directing).

Lots of shit-talking Joaquin Phoenix in this episode, if you’re into that.

Series 2 of Paid in Puke premieres on February 11th with Muriel’s Wedding!

Cheer Up, Sleepy Jean

I don’t remember if I’ve ever written here about my love for the Monkees. If I have, it’s been a long time since I’ve brought it up. It’s not that I’ve forgotten about them. They are on every playlist and I’m always happy for them to pop up in my shuffle. But they had a hipster revival a couple of years ago and I felt like their relevance was well covered by more prolific people.

But now Davy Jones has died. He is the first Monkee to go. To me, that feels significant (other than the obvious, “a man is dead” significance). The Monkees are definitely the first manufactured boy band. But they are also, in many ways, an alternative to the Beatles. I’m not saying they are BETTER than the Beatles, or even as good. But to me, they are more important. If I had to choose to listen to one over the other, I would choose the Monkees. Maybe it’s because I like a little whimsy in my psychedelic 60’s pop. Maybe it’s because it’s like listening to several great artists at once. Neil Diamond and Carol King each wrote some of the group’s biggest hits. Mike Nesmith eventually convinced the Powers That Be to let him write some songs, and what he came up with was some of their best work.

Mike was the most musically inclined. Peter was the weird one. Micky was the voice and Davy was the face. They were never as good alone as they were together.

It’s not exactly a John Lennon situation. 66 is young by today’s standards, but it’s not like he was in his prime or anything. Was he even recording? He’d be the last Monkee that I’d want to hear a solo album from. This is like Ringo dying first in terms of its impact on actual production of music. Personality-wise, it’s like losing George first.

Davy is dead. That means the Monkees are also dead. Even though they’ve been gone for a while, it really feels real now. From now on, whenever I hear their music, it will be a little sadder than it was before. There will be a ghost in the song.

Say, “Here’s to your fuck, Frank.”

Dennis Hopper was a great fucking actor. He made every speech he uttered an instant classic. I will miss him. Here are some of my favorites Hopperisms. They’re long but totally worth it.

“I now pronounce you The Devil and his Shorty.”

“I read a lot. Especially about things…and history. I find that shit fascinating.”

One thing I can’t fuckin’ stand is warm beer, it makes me fuckin’ puke!

Hotter With a Beard: Jon Hamm Edition

Hamm’s hairy potential is hinted at on “Mad Men” with his occasional five o’clock shadow and glorious chest hair. But here is Hamm’s face in full bearded glory.

Fantastic. I’m also a fan of the sexy crow’s feet. This is what a man looks like, people.

Roman is Burning

For the record (and by record, I mean “my blog”, which is a sort of record in this day and age), here’s what I think about that whole Roman Polanski mess. Yes, Roman Polanski raped a 13-year-old girl. Yes, it was “rape-rape”, as it involved alcohol, narcotics and an underage girl. Given the presence of narcotics, it still would have been rape-rape if she’s been of legal age. He also made some of the most amazing films of all time. These two things are, for the most part, mutually exclusive.

When the crime was committed, Polanski should have been tried and sent, not to jail, per se (though maybe for a little while), but certainly to a psychiatric prison where he received help. Because this man was not well at the time. His life till that point was filled with darkness that included the Holocaust and one of the most notorious serial killers in history. Both of these things directly effected his life. And he wasn’t coping with it well. Perhaps he’s somehow exorcised those demons since. Perhaps not. But at the time, he was definitely mentally ill. I have no doubt that had his wife and unborn child NOT been murdered by the Manson family, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion.

But since he wasn’t treated for his mental illness at the time of the crime, we are having this discussion years after the crime was committed. There are people who think they should just let it go (victim included). There are people who think he should be tarred and feathered for it. I think that since they did go through all the trouble of arresting him (finally), they should probably give him a trial. But if “temporary insanity” is not brought up, it is not a fair trial. I’m not saying he should be let off. I’m just saying sometimes fucked up circumstances make a person behave horribly and with whatever punishment he receives (or doesn’t receive), I hope they take that into consideration and get the man some help.

Vaya Con Dios, Bodhi

RIP: Patrick Swayze. You made the world a little more radical.