Biografia

Is three years younger than Michael J. Fox, who played his son in Ritorno al futuro (1985), and 11 years older than Angelina Jolie, who played his mother in La leggenda di Beowulf (2007). Both films were directed by Robert Zemeckis.

A Norwegian record label is named "Crispin Glover Records". Their logo is his distinct hair style.

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.

Was one three actors from Ritorno al futuro (1985) who was replaced by another actor in the sequels. Eric Stoltz was replaced by Michael J. Fox in the original production. Claudia Wells was replaced by Elisabeth Shue in the sequels. Glover did not reach a financial agreement with the producers. This is why George McFly (played by Jeffrey Weissman) appears in only a handful of scenes, and also why the plot of Ritorno al futuro - Parte II (1989) revolves around him being assassinated.

Was a guest at the wedding of Madonna and Sean Penn. At the time, Crispin was working with Sean on A distanza ravvicinata (1986). At the wedding, Crispin met Andy Warhol, who he played four and a half years later in The Doors (1991).

[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 . . .".

[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.

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.

[on absence of counter-cultural film] There's a healthiness to having something that people some people are taken aback a little, 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.

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.