I think the Hollywood label is a bit hard to define.

A lot of the filmmakers mentioned in this thread have the unique distinction of being able to intermingle with the Hollywood sphere while still being labeled "independent." Lynch, Waters, Jarmusch, and Wes Anderson all remain somewhat separated from mainstream cinema, but that doesn't mean that a major studio won't produce or distribute one of their films.

Soderbergh is the one that operates most within the Hollywood tradition, but he still makes whatever he damn well pleases, whether it's a three hour movie about Che Guevera or the latest Ocean's 11 sequel.

I think a lot of good stuff has come out since the sixties. Some of it was produced by the Hollywood system, a lot of it was produced independently and then co-opted or distributed by Hollywood. Any time you're gonna talk about an artistic medium, you're going to find about 75% of it is garbage and 25% of it is worthwhile. The same goes for movies made before the 1960's. Lots of junk out there, but some wonderful stuff if you know where to find it.

I'm not sure whether I'd categorize Jarmusch & Lynch as "Hollywood." Lynch yes, lately tho' less so, but Jarmusch and Waters? I don't consider them to be Hollywood directors. Well, in that case since I'm pretty sure Hesher (2010) was indie-film candy money via Hollywood production, it did make me laugh, but it annoyed me in it's Hollywood formulaic way of insulting the audience's intelligence by non-explanation, completely unlikely scenarios and the obvious bullshit pathos via a deficient means of trying to be funny at the same time. There are lots of Asian films that seem very over-the-top with the histrionics, but can still elicit emotion from the audience. That's good storytelling. Hollywood films have lost that ability long, long ago...all shock value and special effects start to wear as time goes by.

I actually have very low expectations where Hollywood films are concerned and generally tend to pass them, unless it's something playing at a 2nd-run movie theater. . .I saw Hobbit: The Unexpected Journey at such a theater. I was genuinely interested in it. It was a 169-minute video game/chase scene though; I know that war after war and only men (yes 1 female main character in the whole film) made it true to that part of the actual story, but it just seemed to me it was all the directors "going through the motions" and substance was lacking, though the cinematography was good (I say good, not excellent). I saw a bit about the making of this film previous to seeing it and it just looked like a whole bunch of people working on this film and rushing to meet a deadline. I don't see that as inspired film-making and the end product proves it.

I've heard non-Hollywood actors/actresses who come to work in Hollywood say they did one film and had to leave because the atmosphere was "toxic." I believe that. I also saw Mike Myers in an interview say that he did not want to do another Austin Powers film after the 2nd one and was followed, harassed and basically bullied (in full mafioso style) until he would finally put out the final Austin Powers film, Goldmember, (I did genuinely like all the Austin Powers films). If this is how the Hollywood producers treat actual talent, I don't want to support them. Of course, the documentary Girl 27 (2007) pretty much confirmed to me that Hollywood has always been a grand Cosa Nostra since day 1.

Jarmusch did Night On Earth, and David Lynch did Mulholland Drive (which I've yet to see).

Yeah, and Waters is also a good example, tho' he wants to do a children's movie next! I'd say he's used himself up at that point! John Waters: Subversive Success

Haven't seen (or heard!) of Dirty Shame, but that sounds more up my alley.

All good examples, thanks for reminding me.

John Battles said:

I'm drawing a blank. Who did "Night on Earth" and/or "Mulholland Drive"? Like him , too.

But , JOHN WATERS STILL DOES A MOVIE EVERY 5 TO 10 YEARS. "DIRTY SHAME " WAS HILARIOUS , AND VIRTUALLY NO ONE I'VE SPOKEN TO HAS SEEN IT.

"entertained and informed" , yes! I don't think it sounds pompous at all.

Tarantino did those 2 movies, which I think is great, who has 2 classic movies in him? Most directors don't. But I am tired of his "masturbatory violence schtick" (thank you, Twitter)...

John Battles said:

In very recent history , I have'nt trusted too many movies not made by Tim Burton , Jim Jarmusch , or Guy Madden (But he's Canadian.) and maybe a couple of others. Only Burton has produced any blockbusters of those few , and most people in this country still think Quentin Tarentino is "Cutting Edge". The headaches I got from most of his movies  was "Cutting edge". Yes , he has been instrumental in re- releasing the works of Jack Hill , though Johnny Legend got the short end of the stick in that deal , and , he did it , first .There are always exceptions, movies that get past the 120 million bums on seats a week filter, but , I don't go toteh movies that much , anymore , unless it's a revival screening of a real film , which may sound pompous, but , we're there to be entertained and informed , no?

I'm drawing a blank. Who did "Night on Earth" and/or "Mulholland Drive"? Like him , too.

But , JOHN WATERS STILL DOES A MOVIE EVERY 5 TO 10 YEARS. "DIRTY SHAME " WAS HILARIOUS , AND VIRTUALLY NO ONE I'VE SPOKEN TO HAS SEEN IT.

In very recent history , I have'nt trusted too many movies not made by Tim Burton , Jim Jarmusch , or Guy Madden (But he's Canadian.) and maybe a couple of others. Only Burton has produced any blockbusters of those few , and most people in this country still think Quentin Tarentino is "Cutting Edge". The headaches I got from most of his movies  was "Cutting edge". Yes , he has been instrumental in re- releasing the works of Jack Hill , though Johnny Legend got the short end of the stick in that deal , and , he did it , first .There are always exceptions, movies that get past the 120 million bums on seats a week filter, but , I don't go toteh movies that much , anymore , unless it's a revival screening of a real film , which may sound pompous, but , we're there to be entertained and informed , no?

Well said! They've even clamped down on giving loans to indy film-makers because it's money not going to some big-budget flick. How are those unique ideas going to propagate in the world if they can't get a loan for a lousy $250,000 or so?

Lutz Vipinderwoman said:

I was just thinking something along the same lines yesterday. Specifically, nothing that even comes close to a situational drama that also caters to the human intellect/emotions above high school age. "Junk-food movies" is all Hollywood's got. I've heard it rationalized that they cater to the PG-13 crowd because that's the only age group (teenagers) that actually go out to see movies anymore, and because the present-day Hollywood executives are only business people, not the ex-vaudeville show people that actually started Hollywood once upon a time. So since only business people are at the helm, it's all just a "business gamble" and not exploration into actually creating an art form via drama. That's why they only do what's already proven people will spend money on, i.e., X-men comics and Lord of the Rings. That, in my opinion is not even entrepreneurship in a business sense though, and not fine art through the medium of drama at all. Thank goodness we so much independently owned theater. Screw Hollywood!

Damn, already tripping myself up, haha!

I don't include crime movies from this time for the most part, but I forgot about Steven Soderbergh who seems to have stopped making killer movies, BUT, made some gorgeous movies from Sex, Lies, and Videotape to the beautiful The Limey, a 'crime' movie that makes you think, filmed in warm amber and cool blue. He also made the strange Schizopolis and the solid crime thrillers Out of Sight and Traffic.

I was just thinking something along the same lines yesterday. Specifically, nothing that even comes close to a situational drama that also caters to the human intellect/emotions above high school age. "Junk-food movies" is all Hollywood's got. I've heard it rationalized that they cater to the PG-13 crowd because that's the only age group (teenagers) that actually go out to see movies anymore, and because the present-day Hollywood executives are only business people, not the ex-vaudeville show people that actually started Hollywood once upon a time. So since only business people are at the helm, it's all just a "business gamble" and not exploration into actually creating an art form via drama. That's why they only do what's already proven people will spend money on, i.e., X-men comics and Lord of the Rings. That, in my opinion is not even entrepreneurship in a business sense though, and not fine art through the medium of drama at all. Thank goodness we so much independently owned theater. Screw Hollywood!

Are we all too cool to add the Coen Brothers to this list? 

Jim Jarmusch gotta be up there as well. Coffee and Cigarettes, Ghost Dog and my film of all time, Night On Earth. He stays the right side of mainstream. No way will Hollywood ever make anything as good as the independants, art house etc.... They do try hard tho'.