So, I'm watching Charlie Rose last week and Dustin Hoffman shows up as a guest. I've never seen the famed Hollywood headcase interviewed, so I watched the hour long conversation about movies and Hollywood and A Walk on the Moon, which Hoffman produced.

Then, Hoffman really got me angry. He complained that he's always wanted to direct, but never had the chance. He said he had signed on to direct a few movies over the years, but that they fell through for one reason or another. He complained that with his name and reputation it'd have to be a really good movie, that the critics and public would treat him harshly if the movie failed.

I wasn't angry at first. I had to think about it. I had to think about all my struggling actor/artist friends and about how many people I know who would also love to direct a movie. Tony Dellaflora, a reporter for the Albuquerque Tribune is a good example. He's always wanted to make a movie.

So, he did. He made one about UFO's and Roswell and is in the process of making another about the life of local author John Gilmore. He saved up his money and bought digital film equipment and has been trying to get a film into the Taos Talking Pictures Festival and he doesn't have any of the connections that Hoffman has. He doesn't have the kind of money Hoffman has. He just actually wants to direct a film.

Now, Hoffman could do that. Hoffman could take a million of his own dollars and make a rather high end independent film and he'd be sure to get a distributor and a video distributor and he'd easily make his money back. He could hire young people to crew, design, and act in the picture. He could hire a young screenwriter and help them whip a good story into shape. He could make a lot of people's dreams come true.

But instead, he goes on Charlie Rose and whines about lacking confidence and how hard life is and how he has unfulfilled dreams. Meanwhile there's a nation full of talent, working for free in local theatres, making movies with whatever money they can scrape together, writing and publishing zines, with their own money earned through usually demeaning labor at "day jobs."

I don't resent Hoffman for succeeding. He struggled once too, and he made it because he's a fine actor. Most actors would give their eye teeth to put out a performance like Hoffman in The Graduate, or in Tootsie or Rain Man. I love him in American Buffalo and Wag the Dog. He can do whatever he wants with his talent. He can keep starring in goofy movies like Outbreak if he wants to.

But why is it that a guy like Kevin Smith can spend himself into debt on a film like Clerks while a man with Hoffman's credentials and opportunities would go on national television (okay, PBS) and whine? Hoffman bragged that A Walk on the Moon came in for under $8 million.

Tell you what Dustin, get some black and white film and invest $1 million yourself. You know you can get someone else to kick in $2 million measly Hollywood dollars. Hire some young talent, people who'll work for less than union wages, just to get experience. I'll bet, just because you're Dustin Hoffman, that some name talent will drop in for small character roles, just for the privilege of working with you. With your resources, you could make a fine film without studio support.

It's funny that a guy like Tony Dellaflora can spend all his free moments and cash on a film, knowing full well that it might never get screened, that Kevin Smith could get his friends together and use the convenience store he works in for a set, that Tarantino would sell his script for Natural Born Killers to Oliver Stone and use the money to make Reservoir Dogs while Dustin Hoffman complains. Sometimes I think that the worst thing about being a young artist is having to listen to successful artists bitch and moan.

Michael Maiello is completely in favor of "unsuccessful" artists bitching and moaning all they want.