Over at Self-Reliant Filmmaking, Paul Harrill announces his intention to boycott sequels and remakes. Noting that only seven of 2007’s 20 top grossing films thus far could be described as first generation, Harrill positions his gesture towards abstinence as a protest against the lack of “original” hit Hollywood films.

“Shutting myself in a dark room isn’t going to make the headache that is this list of movies go away, but…even if some of these movies are ok, I’m sick of the practice in general principle. Why encourage Hollywood to do it any longer?” Harrill also compares his sequel cold turkey to giving up caffeine, which he says he initially did 15 years ago in order to cure headaches, only to learn that (to paraphrase Arrested Development) he gets off on withholding. “I learned early on in the process how good it felt to just deny something to yourself.”

Harrill’s argument is a strange melding of political and personal: he wants to make choices that send a message, if not to than certainly about Hollywood; at the same time, he gives the impression that he enjoys self-denial far more than anyone could hope to enjoy Rush Hour 7 or Shrek 32. Is this a protest action, or pure personal fetishism? Harrill’s commenters don’t seem particularly eager to let him get away with either.

One tells him he’s “foolish” to intentionally avoid seeing a “superior” remake, such as James Mangold’s 3:10 to Yuma. Obviously annoyed by this line of argument (”I’m flattered you’re all so concerned about my moviegoing habits, especially considering the fact that I never asked anyone else join in”), Harrill again contextualizes his boycott in terms of fetishistic denial:

Let me be explicit: There is a component of denial to this for me. I’m actually interested in seeing Mangold “do” 3:10 to Yuma. But I won’t pay for it and encourage the studios in this general direction because it’s the general trend towards “franchising” all lite entertainment that troubles me.

I find the conversation between Harrill and his blog readers fascinating, not because I’m particularly invested in whether or not Harrill gives up sequels and remakes, but because of the conflict between public and private he’s dredged up by announcing his intention to do so.

Harrill admits that he takes pleasure in self-denial, but also contextualizes his plan as an effort to punish the studios for their lack of originality. His post plays more like a personal confession than a call to action, but within the public space of his blog, the personal is transformed into the political. It seems disingenuous for Harrill to say he “never asked anyone else join in” — why else would you make such an announcement on a blog with open comments? There seems to be something significant about going public with this, especially considering, as one commenter points out, that doing so is maybe not really necessary: “[H]ow many of those films listed above have you seen? Have you been on strike already and not even realized it? If not, what took you so long?”