The spirit of fiercely independent cinema is alive and well in the visionary work of Crispin Hellion Glover. Perhaps best known as a supporting actor in notable Hollywood hits ranging from 1985’s Back to the Future and 1991’s The Doors to Charlie’s Angels (2000) and 2010’s Alice in Wonderland, but when given the chance, Glover has chosen roles that run against the grinding wheels of Tinseltown. Idiosyncratic, odd, and endearing, Glover’s performances in edgier fare like 1988’s River’s Edge, Wild at Heart, (1990) and the ’03 remake of Willard, made lasting impressions for their combination of eccentricity and sincerity.
Yet Glover’s most personal creative force has been transmitting on a decidedly DIY, underground frequency. Starting in 1988, Glover began releasing a series of art books whose use of text and found, repurposed, and anachronistic imagery owes more to Max Ernst than any celeb memoir. Produced by Barnes & Barnes (of 1978 cult fave “Fish Heads” fame), Glover’s 1989 album The Big Problem Does Not Equal the Solution, The Solution Equals Let It Be is a synth-and-spoken-word slab of truly outsider music.
These forays into literary and sonic art were just a glimpse of what was to come. In ’05, Glover released his directorial film debut What is it? Two years later, It is fine! EVERYTHING IS FINE. premiered at Sundance Film Festival. Both films are part of the as-yet-to-be-completed “IT” trilogy. Unavailable as DVD or Blu-ray releases, Glover screens the films only as 35mm prints during personal appearances. He includes a slide show, narrating in tandem with images from his books.
While Glover’s films are hardly arcane cinematic curios, they’re somewhat veiled in mystery due to the very nature of their actual screenings. On his site, Glover summarizes What is it? as: “Being the adventures of a young man whose principal interests are snails, salt, a pipe and how to get home as tormented by an hubristic racist inner psyche.” While It is fine! EVERYTHING IS FINE. is briefly described as going, “into uncharted cinematic territory with screenwriter Steven C. Stewart starring in this semi-autobiographical, psycho-sexual tale about a man with severe cerebral palsy and a fetish for girls with long hair.”
Glover returns to Jacksonville on July 5 and 6, for a two-night run of his Big Slide Show, certain to be one of the more notable local cinema events this season.
When Folio Weekly contacted Glover about the possibility of an interview, he asked to respond to questions via email rather than phone, due to the constraints of his tour schedule. We readily agreed, and to say that Glover was both gracious and generous with his answers would be an understatement — the resulting uncut Q&A clocked in at 6,000-plus words. Due to obvious space limitations on the printed page, we ran a heavily truncated transcription of our exchange.
What follows is the full version of this interview, which takes us even further into the singular mind of this 21st-century auteur extraordinaire.
Folio Weekly: Could you please explain the story of What is it?
Crispin Hellion Glover: I’m very careful to make it quite clear that is not a film about Down syndrome, but my psychological reaction to the corporate restraints that have happened in the last 30 or more years in filmmaking. 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’s 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 its media? It’s 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 about the second film, It is fine! EVERYTHING IS FINE.?
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 into the cast of What is it? because he’d written this screenplay which I read in 1987. When I turned What is it? from a short film into 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 10 years when his mother died. He had been born with a severe case of cerebral palsy and he 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’s written in the genre of a murder detective thriller, truths of his own existence come through much more clearly than if he had written it as a standard autobiography.
As I have stated, I put Steven C. Stewart into What is it? when I turned What is it? into 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 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 degenerative 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 2000, this was around the same time that the first film was coming to me. I realized with the money I made from that film I could put straight into the Steven C. Stewart film. That is exactly what happened. I finished acting in 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 Los Angeles and acted in a lower budget film for about five weeks and David Brothers started building the sets. Then I went straight back to Salt Lake City 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 ‘87, I knew I had to produce the film.
Steven C. Stewart’s own true story was fascinating and then the beautiful story and the naïve, including his fascination of women with long hair, the graphic violence and sexuality, and the revealing truth of his psyche from the screenplay were all combined. There was a specific marriage proposal scene that was the scene I remember reading that made me say “I have to produce this film.”
I also knew I had to produce it correctly. I would not have felt right about myself if I had not gotten Steve’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 is 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 email list at crispinglover.com, as they will be emailed with information as to where I will be where and 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.
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 emails urging me 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 had 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 feel as if your films in any way are in part a continuation of a direct lineage of or particular school of filmmaking?
If What is it? is to be classified for various reasons then it is classified as a narrative film. The more broad classification of drama, and a drama that has humor sits well with me. The kind of narrative that it is uses is a cinematic syntax that has been used before by various filmmakers and it is not a new syntax; but it is not the same syntax that is usually used by corporately funded and distributed filmmakers. Buñuel is definitely a filmmaker that had influence on What is it? Formally he was a “Surrealist” with a capital “S”. The Surrealists being a “political” group as Buñuel described it in his beautiful autobiography, My Last Sigh. Now “surrealism” with a small “s” has come to mean something to do with art, and to me the most valuable thing I know about surrealism is using free association to get the subconscious levels for artistic expression. That element of surrealism is extremely valuable!
I am not genre-biased in any way and if there is something that truly interests me I would not veer away from any genre. That being said, I currently do not have a plan to write or direct a romantic, musical comedy, but that does not mean I would not. To me all good drama has humor in it and that is how I would classify What is it?: as a drama with humor. I would never call it a comedy though.
People should not view the film any differently from when they go see a film at a multiplex, although their experience might be different from going to the multiplex. I do not classify It is fine! EVERYTHING IS FINE. as experimental or underground. I simply consider it a drama. Although it is a drama with humor as any good drama should be.
The first two films are seemingly part of the “IT” Trilogy that is culminating in the forthcoming film, IT IS MINE. Have you finished the script for this last film? Would you mind giving us a general overview of the plot?
I should not go in into too much detail for part 3 of the “IT” trilogy yet as IT IS MINE. will not be the film I shoot next. There are other projects outside of the trilogy that I will shoot next. The Czech Republic is where I own a chateau built in the 1600‘s. I have converted its former horse stables into film shooting stages. Czech is another culture and another language and I need to build up to complex productions like and the existing sequel It is fine! EVERYTHING IS FINE.IT IS MINE. is an even more complex project than the previous two films put together, so it will be a while yet for that production. I will step outside of the trilogy for a number of films that deal with different thematic elements from the “IT” trilogy.
I needed to purchase property somewhere that I liked that I could have a good place to build sets. It fit the needs and when I purchased it more than ten years ago, the dollar was high against the Czech currency so it was a good value. Also property taxes are far lower in Czech than in the U.S. so an industrial-sized property is less expensive to maintain there than it would be in the U.S. I have now started shooting my next feature at my property in Czech. The crew and cast stayed at my chateau there.
I will be previewing from my next feature film, which marks the first time I have acted with my father Bruce Glover, who has been seen in such films as Diamonds are Forever, Chinatown and Ghost World. This is my first film to have been shot with 35 mm negative. My first two features were shot with standard 16mm film then blown up for a 35 mm negative from a digital intermediate. There are great things about digital technology. I love the grain pattern of film and this is also why I enjoy 16mm as well as 35mm. So far my feature film projects have been shot on film.
I have owned the chateau for many years now. It has been in a state of work to get both the chateau ready for housing the crew members and cast when I am shooting my own productions, and the 17,000-square-feet of former horse stables that are now the areas for the shooting stages where the sets have been built.
There has been an enormous amount of work here. When people hear I am coming to my chateau they always say, “Have a great time!” as though I am going on vacation. But I actually have way more difficult work here than at my house in L.A. In the last two years I have been at my property in Czech more than L.A., but also on the road with my shows and films or acting in other people’s films, more than either of my homes.
The sets for my next film productions were in construction for over two years now. At the same time the sets were being built I was in the process of continuing to develop the screenplay for myself and my father to act in together on these sets. The project with my father is the next film I am currently preparing to make as a director/producer. This will be the first role I have written for myself to act that will be written primarily as an acting role, as opposed to a role that was written for the character I play to merely serve the structure. But even still on some level I am writing the screenplay to be something that I can afford to make. There are two other projects I am currently developing to shoot on sets at my property in the Czech Republic. These films will be relatively affordable by utilizing the basic set structures that can be slightly re-worked for variations and yet each film will feel separate from one another in look and style yet still cinematically pleasing so they will be worth projecting in various cinemas.
Is there an overall narrative or idea that ties all of the “IT” trilogy films together?
The film What is it? started production as a short film in 1996. It took nine-and-a-half 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 syndrome to be played by actors with Down 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? but 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 reworking of the screenplay and I told them I would be interested in acting in the film if I directed it. They came to L.A. and met with me and wanted to know my thoughts. There were quite a few things, but the main thing was that most of the characters were to be played by actors with Down syndrome. They were fine with this concept and I set about to rewriting 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 they were concerned about financing a project wherein most of the characters were played by actors with Down 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 syndrome was a viable things to do for corporate entities to invest in.
This is when I wrote a short screenplay entitled 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 eight more days and edited this into 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 a digital intermediate. An optical house in New York, 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 nine and a half 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 syndrome. This was not the case. Even though the film took many years to make, much of the delay was 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 syndrome or not is if they have enthusiasm. Everyone I worked with had incredible enthusiasm so the were all great to work with
I’ve read that you feel highly protective of What is it? and It is Fine! EVERYTHING IS FINE., to the point of refusing to release these films commercially.
Why are you so opposed to releasing them to a larger audience? Do you think that you’d ever reconsider this stance?
Do think that there could possibly be a better appreciation and even understanding of your films if you released them with a detailed booklet chronicling the ideas and execution, director’s commentary, interview extras, etc.?
I am always confused if people ask why I have not chosen to distribute the films. I, of course, have distributed the films and I have recouped on the films. I, of course, self-distribute the films instead of distribute the films corporately. It almost seems at this point that almost everything is so corporately controlled that if someone actually chooses to do something that is not corporately backed that people do not understand that process as actually existing. As I say, I am confused by that. Distribution of course means to make available to the public, which I most certainly have done with my films. Previous to the 1950’s people exclusively saw films in movie theaters. The films were able to recoup and profit at that time in that fashion. It seems strange to me that people do not seem to understand that a theatrical experience in a cinema can be a very important thing for human development. Storytelling in a group setting around a fire is an ancient tradition and this kind of group social experience is something that humans as a social animal gain a lot from. One can watch a movie alone on a television screen or computer or telephone, which is one kind of experience. Also, people can see a film in a social environment and have human communication exchange, which of course is another kind of experience. Both kinds of experiences have their own value to the human experience. I would say the social experience at this time is particularly important.
Could you describe the slideshow? Are you essentially talking us through the books?
The live aspects of the shows are not to be underestimated. This is a large part of how I bring audiences into 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 1800s that have been changed into different books from what they originally were. They’re 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 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 into 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 books are so heavily illustrated, and the way the illustrations are used within the books, that 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 slideshow was necessary. It took a while, but in 1992 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 on 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’s 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 eight 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 U.S. 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&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 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 be 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 is spent to promote, 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.
This is the 10th anniversary of your Big Slide Show tours. During the Q&A parts, have you noticed some consistent questions and observations from your audiences?
Yes. I have at least six or seven hours’ worth of material to speak on each film. Usually the questions are variations on similar themes. I attempt to answer multiple questions that’ll arise by a single question. This leads to long answers, but it gets more questions answered. Every once in a while, there’ll be a question that is new and that’s always good.
Since you’re a truly DIY artist, I can’t imagine you trolling for demographics. But do you ever think these exchanges with the audiences ever somehow show up in your creative process or subsequent work?
Everything in life probably has an influence on later work in one way or another.
With a few exceptions, over the years most of your peers from the ‘80s’ either burnt out all together or involved themselves with really safe, predictable “blockbuster” projects. However, during that same time you’ve continued to enjoy this career as a cult favorite in films, an auteur/author/musician, and even created a cottage industry of sorts. In hindsight, do you think your success in operating on a different creative wavelength than most actors of your generation was guided by some master plan, intuition, providence, or maybe a combination thereof?
I have always been motivated by finding things that interest myself, although it is very difficult in the contemporary film industry to do that as I see corporate propaganda permeating virtually all work that comes forth which makes me more motivated to make my own films, but I generally am able to do that by working corporately.
Since your films are self-funded, what is the greatest actual expense? As a total outsider to the world of cinema, I’m curious as to what really devours what limited money you have over the course of creating one of your films.
I prefer to shoot on sets and this is expensive and time consuming.
It seems like you certainly have the vision, but a lack of funds has been an inhibitor to making more films, or at least completing them at a faster rate. While you’ve acknowledged that much of your income from your Hollywood roles goes right back into your own films, would you ever consider launching a crowdsourcing campaign to fund a film project?
I am not against any source for funding, but some are more practical than others. There are positives and negatives about crowdsource funding, but as I say, I am ultimately for any kind of funding that gets something interesting made.
Isn’t it high time for a reunion album with Barnes & Barnes, or at least a swanky reissue of The Big Problem Does Not Equal the Solution, The Solution Equals Let It Be?
There is another album that was recorded in the ‘90s that has a very small amount of work that needs to be completed and released. My film work has taken precedence.