Crispin Glover, Back to the Future II, and money

This is what it sounds like when an artists take story-telling seriously. Crispin Glover:

“The reason I didn’t end up being in the [Back the Future sequels], it’s more complex than this, but I was asking questions the producer/director didn’t like. I was a serious actor as well, so when I started analyzing the screenplay, I had serious questions about things. There was a different end…it did get changed, I think there are other people had questions because there are things in it that could, particularly in this day, that could the thought of as, well, offensive. It had to do with money and what characters are doing with money.

But I didn’t stop with it. I said to Robert Zemeckis: It’s not a good idea for our characters to have a monetary reward because it makes the moral of the film be: Money equals happiness…What I was arguing for was that the characters should be in love. And that love should be the reward.”

Apparently Robert Zemeckis did not take kindly to these notes.

We should appreciate Glover’s attention to this. Glover in the end didn’t appear in the film (and every mover suffers a little due to the absence of Crispin Glover), but even if he had, it’s important that this kind of discussion occur among the creators of our entertainment culture.  Far too much in today’s popular entertainment still attaches this subject to the conclusion, and that’s problematic for a society made ever more keenly aware of how few Americans have money, and how many do not.

Watch the full interview here. It’s good.

(thanks, Blastr)


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s