/// Analysis of Criticism ///

Anyone that does anything should, at some point, stop and reflect on how they do what they do and how they feel about it.

Part of being an artist is being a critic. Hell, most art begins in criticism ("Wow, all these bands suck! I'm going to start my own band and we are gonna do it right!")

Now, I am reluctant to call myself an 'artist' because I've only ever made one film, 4 years ago, and it was only 9 minutes long. Yes, it was well received and I may have done 'art' but... 'artist' implies repeating the act. Why haven't I continued 'art'-ing?.. mostly because I'm still trying to figure out what I love and hate about modern film.

This is also the reason I stopped posting (if you noticed - the last post was back in June). I found myself saying nice things about movies I could have done without seeing. I also found myself enjoying movies that offended my 'artistic' sensibilities. I needed to wrap my head around what inspires me and what pisses me off.

A month and a half later...
I feel about the Hollywood formula the same way I feel about corporate music - I find it distasteful and offensive but it is what I cut my teeth on and what made me choose these fields as areas-of-'artistic'-interest.

Meaning - there will always be a spot in my heart for the pandering drivel holed up at the local grind house, but, Hollywood needs to push things forward.

I'd love to sit here are sing the praises of all the 'independent' filmmakers out there "making the movies they want to make" but they, in turn, are pandering to the big guys in an effort to stop being independent.

I can't snow these people anymore.

David Kelly falls off the map for 4 years and returns to pen a Tony Scott film, helm a The Rock / Sarah Michelle Gellar-Prinze Jr. / Sean Wm. Scott vehicle, and to release a Darko 'Directors Cut'?!?!

Spike Jonze... 3 years later you announce something promising and begin work on a children's movie? (I am willing to concede some room to the children's movie being "Where The Wild Things Are" as written by Dave Eggers)

Chris Cunningham, "Necromancer" has been scrapped and "Rubber Johnny" took 4 years and is 6 minutes long.

Robert Rodriguez went the Eddie Murphy route and lost his edge. (I know what you're thinking but "Sin City" was long and slow)

Sophia Coppola... "Marie-Antoinette"? The only thing that gives me hope is the cast.

Steven Soderbergh - I understand that you use the corporate shill money to finance your experiments, but... to jump from "Bubble" to "Che"... what ever happened to the late 90's Soderbergh that made the money with movies that walked the line like "Out of Sight" and "The Limey"?

The few really holding up their end are David O Russel, Michel Gondry, Wes Anderson, and Jim Jarmusch.

I am WAY off topic...

I'm trying to reconcile the two distinct halves of my filmic brain. The problem... if I lean toward the "Hooray For Hollywood!" side, almost every movie becomes worthwhile to someone and the 'edgy' stuff is too niche. If I lean in the opposite direction, nothing is watchable except for the films SO conceptually stylized that no one in their right mind would go see them when they could watch stuff blow up for 2 hours and not run the risk of bumping into a subtitle.

Do I want to be a sycophant to The Academy or do I want to wallow in my own pharisaical canting?

Maybe both?
Embrace the duality of man and write two reviews for every movie?
Isn't that what I've kind-of been doing?