Crispin Glover is a popular actor, writer, director and screenwriter. Crispin is known for his role in such movies as “Back to the Future”, “Rubin and Ed”, “Charlie’s Angels” and many others. During his career, Glover has been nominated for and won various awards. Some of them include Saturn Award, UFCA Award, Carnet Jove Jury Award, Chainsaw award and many others. In addition to this, Crispin has his own company, called “Volcanic Eruptions”. So how rich is Crispin Glover? It has been estimated that Crispin’s net worth is $3.5 million. The main source of this sum is his career as an actor, but Glover’s other activities have added to it as well. In the future this number might change, as Crispin continues working on many different projects.
Crispin Glover Net Worth $3.5 Million
Crispin Hellion Glover, or simply known as Crispin Glover, was born in 1964, in New York City. Both of his parents were actors so acting was not something new to Crispin. It’s no surprise that Crispin’s career as an actor began when he was only 13 years old. He first appeared in such shows as “Family Ties” and “Happy Days”. In 1983 Glover got the role in his first movie, which was called “My Tutor”. There he worked together with Matt Lattanzi, Caren Kaye, Clark Brandon, Kevin McCarthy and many others. From that time Crispin Glover’s net worth started to grow. After his role in “My Tutor”, Crispin gained more attention from other producers and received more invitations to act in movies. One of his most famous roles is that of George McFly in “Back to the Future”. Other movies that Crispin has acted in include “Beowulf”, “Alice in Wonderland”, “Epic Movie”, “Mr. Nice” and others. All these appearances added to Glover’s net worth.
In addition to his acting career, Crispin has also involved in music. In 1989 he released an album entitled “The Big Problem Does Not Equal the Solution, The Solution Equals Let It Be”. What is more, he also recorded his own version of “Ben”, originally by Michael Jackson. This also made Crispin Glover’s net worth higher. As mentioned before, Crispin also writes. It is said that he has written about 20 books. They include “Oak-Mot”, “The Backward Swing”, “Rat Catching” and others. Another activity which makes Crispin’s net worth grow is his work as a movie director. The first movie, that he directed was called “What Is It?”, which gained a lot of attention because it was really unusual. In 2007 his second movie was released, entitled “It Is Fine! Everything Is Fine”. This of course added to Crispin Glover’s net worth as well.
Finally, it can be said that Crispin Glover is a really talented and experienced actor, who has received a lot of acclaim because of his ability to portray weird and unusual characters. Undoubtedly, Crispin will act in many more movies and maybe will even create more movies of his own. In the future we will probably hear his name more often.
Has twice played characters whose present circumstances have been changed by time travel. In Back to the Future (1985), he plays George McFly, who changes from hen-pecked loser to successful writer as a result of his son traveling back to the 1950s. In Hot Tub Time Machine (2010), he plays Phil the bellboy, whose missing arm is restored as a result of a journey back in time to 1986.
In an earlier draft of the screenplay for Back to the Future (1985), his character, George McFly, went on to become a world-class boxer instead of a writer.
Attended The Mirman School, a private K thru 8 school for mentally gifted children in Bel-Air, California. His mother, Betty, remained active with the school after his graduation, choreographing student musicals and graduation ceremonies.
The way I normally answer questions is from a 1600-word page document that I have saved from my written interviews over the last [several] years of touring with my live shows and feature films I have directed. This means I can use that resource to answer certain commonly asked questions and respond in more detail to less commonly asked questions.
The Hero's Journey is the most basic story form. All stories and myths are, on some level, a Hero's Journey. It is almost impossible to relay any kind of story without utilizing some pattern from the structure of a Hero's Journey. One could simply say, "He went across the street." And this would be the hero leaving his normal world to set out upon his quest. It can come forth from the psyche in many different patterns, still work within a greater pattern, and still be good structure as long as it is reflective of an inner psychic truth.
[on strip clubs] The ecdysiast's art, the appreciation of the female form, the prurient music handpicked by the dancers contribute to an atmosphere I truly enjoy.
[on filmmaking] My favorite part is editing. That's where you are making the final art of what the movie is. Being on set is kind of the war element. Editing is a kind of, clean-up stage where the beauty comes into it.
There's a tradition in the American media to ask actors what the movies are about, but it always seems wrong. It seems like the directors and the writers only often see an actor quoted in what a movie is about.
I think humor delineates who your friends really are. I worked on Little Noises (1992) with Rik Mayall, and he described to me a theory of humor. With pack animals, if there's a sick one in the bunch, the others will growl at it and try to get rid of it. This translates to the comedian on-stage. There are two types of comedians. One who says, "Everybody laugh at that person," and the braver comedian who makes them laugh or growl at himself. It brings people together. The audience laughs at this sick thing: they become a part of this clan or tribe. And that's where you get your friends: you share a certain humor about the sick and the foolish.
At a certain point in an actor's career it is good to say to oneself "What am I?" and then figure something out. You could call this entity an archetype as opposed to a stereotype. I believe this conclusion of self is a good thing to stick with, and explore the entire universe from this point of view. This does not limit one, but expand. It is only good if one can get some kind of truth from within this point of view. If it is a false ideal, then it will become a "stereotype" as opposed to an archetype.
Probably my four favorite directors are Werner Herzog, Rainer Werner Fassbinder, Stanley Kubrick and Luis Buñuel, because with all of their work you can think beyond the edges of the film. They're not films that dictate to you, this is what you must think. They're all films that have compelling stories, but there are thoughts beyond the films themselves.
I'm not somebody who believes that darkness is something that should necessarily be hidden from children or anything like that. I think children like a lot of the same things that they like as adults' or rather, the other way around, adults like a lot of the same things that they liked when they were children.
I do like things that are not necessarily a reflection of what is considered the right thing by this culture. Somehow, promoting that status quo I find uninteresting. I have thought about that more as the years have gone on, and it's a feeling that I would not have been able to describe 15 years ago as I can now. But at the same time, I don't intellectualize it, I don't have a written manifesto or just say this is the only thing I can do or will do.
I think what eccentricity can represent in terms of the fear it engenders is a challenge to what is already considered right or good by people who have invested a certain amount into their life and livelihood that is not eccentric, but centric. If there's a challenge to that, that can make people concerned that either what is considered a safe way of living or a good way of living may be pulled out from under them. I can understand that. That's why countercultural film movements are important since it's lacking in the culture right now. There's an idea that there's value to an alternate point of view, but everything that's presented in the media is procultural, and it makes people nervous when there hasn't been a true discussion of alternate points of view. There's no general discussion in the media.
[on being called eccentric] Eccentric doesn't bother me. "Eccentric" being a poetic interpretation of a mathematical term meaning something that doesn't follow the lines--that's okay.
In the past, I've never tried to discount or stop what people are saying because on some levels I find it interesting. But if I look on the Internet or in news chat groups, I tend to read, "Oh, that guy's crazy, that guy's nuts. He's insane or psychotic." At a certain point, it does get a bit like, "I'm not. Really." Look, I one-hundred percent admit and in fact implore people to understand that, yes, I am very interested in countercultural things. But there's a difference between having artistic interests and being psychotic. That's more than a fine line of differentiation, and I do see that a bit too much.
[on absence of countercultural film] There's a healthiness to having something that people some people are taken aback by a little back, because what that means is that there's a discussion going on. And when there's nothing that's being taken aback, nobody's surprised, nobody's being tested or challenged, then there's no learning process going on, and it makes for a stupefied culture and I think that's happening.
The United States has its own propaganda, but it's very effective because people don't realize that it's propaganda. And it's subtle, but it's actually a much stronger propaganda machine than the Nazis had but it's funded in a different way. With the Nazis it was funded by the government, but in the United States, it's funded by corporations and corporations only want things to happen that will make people want to buy stuff. So whatever that is, then that is considered okay and good, but that doesn't necessarily mean it really serves people's thinking--it can stupefy and make not very good things happen.
[2002, in New York Press] Realism is always subjective in film. There's no such thing as cinema verite. The only true cinema verite would be what Andy Warhol did with his film about the Empire State Building [Empire (1964)]--eight hours or so from one angle, and even then it's not really cinema verite, because you aren't actually there. As soon as anybody puts anything on film, it automatically has a point of view, and it's somebody else's point of view, and it's impossible for it to be yours.
[2003, in "Ain't It Cool News", on contemporary movies] People watch movies--and it's vague ideas, it's vague notions, but people pick up on these things, that they are supposed to think certain ways or that they're not supposed to think, basically, and they don't. And then it's like, if you do any thing that's thoughtful, they think, "Oh, that's weird . . .".