Moore-d

[suryanijan]

Associated Press - Disney blocking release of  Moore's 9/11 film[/size]

Miramax confirms that it has been told not to distribute 'Fahrenheit 911'

Michael Moore's documentary linking U.S. President George W. Bush with powerful Saudi families, including that of Osama bin Laden, is stirring up controversy even before its release.  

Michael Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11,” which criticizes President Bush’s handling of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and connects the Bush family with Osama bin Laden’s, won’t be released through Miramax Films on orders from parent company Disney.

Disney chief executive Michael Eisner said Wednesday the company “did not want a film in the middle of the political process where we’re such a nonpartisan company and our guests, that participate in all of our attractions, do not look for us to take sides.”

Moore believes The Walt Disney Co. is worried the documentary would endanger tax breaks the company receives from Florida, where Bush’s brother Jeb is governor and where Disney World is located.

“What tax break?” Florida Gov. Jeb Bush responded.

“We don’t give tax breaks, that I’m aware of, to Disney,” Bush said. “I appreciate the fact that Disney creates thousands and thousands of jobs in our state.”

Moore said he officially found out Monday that Miramax would not be allowed to distribute the film, but his agent learned this a year ago.

“They had told my agent last year — Eisner himself told my agent, Ari Emanuel — that there was no way they were going to release this film, and he told him why. Because he did not want to anger Jeb Bush in Florida,” Moore said Wednesday night. “He wasn’t going to let a little documentary upset the Bush family.”

But Miramax co-founder Harvey Weinstein wanted to go ahead with the film, and spent $6 million finishing it, Moore said.

“Harvey thought he’d change their minds. We went ahead and made the movie anyway,” he said.

Could controversy help the film?

Moore said only when it was announced that  “Fahrenheit 9/11” would make its world premiere as one of 18 films screening in competition at the Cannes Film Festival, which begins May 12, did Disney “finally decide to deal with it.”

Whenever it was decided, the timing couldn’t be better to stir up discussion.

“Heading into Cannes, you’ve got this whole controversy that people will be talking about — Miramax not being able to release the film. It adds to the mystique of the film, it adds to the danger,” said Paul Dergarabedian, president of box-office tracker Exhibitor Relations.

“With a lot of filmmakers, this would not be a good thing,” he said. “When it comes to Michael Moore, there’s not really a downside to him to have controversy.”

But Moore said: “This is not a good thing. ... No filmmaker wants to have his distribution blocked.”

The confrontational director won an Academy Award for his 2002 documentary “Bowling for Columbine,” about the Columbine High School shooting and U.S. gun control policy. The film earned $21.5 million at the box office, making it the highest-grossing documentary ever.

Dergarabedian said “Fahrenheit 9/11” will find a distributor, possibly even before Cannes.

[suryanijan]

Continued ...

• Moore and the Mouse
May 5: Disney CEO Michael Eisner discusses his decision not to distribute Michael Moore's controversial new film, "Fahrenheit 911".
CNBC

Eisner agreed, telling CNBC: “That film will get a distributor easily.”

Miramax spokesman Matthew Hiltzik said that Weinstein remains passionate about the film, and that Miramax and Moore are working together to find another company to help release it.

Mel Gibson, director of “The Passion of the Christ,” had difficulty finding someone to release his graphic telling of the last hours of Christ’s life. Major studios were wary because some religious leaders feared it would foster anti-Semitism.

But whether filmgoers showed up at theaters to be inspired or appalled, they showed up — and “The Passion,” under independent distributor Newmarket Films, has made more than $366 million in the last 10 weeks.

Corporate censorship?
Meanwhile, Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., has asked the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation for a hearing on what he called a “disturbing pattern of politically based corporate censorship of the news media and the entertainment industry.”

Lautenberg argued Wednesday in a letter to his committee chairman, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., that Disney (through Miramax) has the violent “Kill Bill — Vol. 2” in theaters now, but is blocking Moore’s film based on its political viewpoint.

In the movie, Moore interviewed author Craig Unger about his book “House of Bush, House of Saud,” which details the Bush-Saudi relationship going back to the 1970s.

“I found about $1.4 billion in investments and contracts going from the House of Saud to companies in which the Bushes and their allies — I’m including Dick Cheney, for example — have had prominent positions,” Unger said.

The book and the film also say the government helped 140 Saudis leave the United States on Sept. 13, 2001 — two dozen of whom were bin Laden’s relatives.

While he hadn’t seen the film, Unger said, “There’s clearly a big audience for this and I think the intent to kill it will fail.” He pointed to several recent books besides his own that critically examine the Bush administration, including Ron Suskind’s “The Price of Loyalty,” Richard Clarke’s “Against All Enemies” and Bob Woodward’s “Plan of Attack.”

Moore previously ran into interference with one of his own books, “Stupid White Men.” Publication was postponed after Sept. 11, 2001, and publisher HarperCollins considered canceling the book or editing its criticisms.

After lengthy discussions, “Stupid White Men” came out uncensored and went on to top The New York Times nonfiction best-seller list.

The Florida governor alluded to Moore’s success, saying he “wouldn’t go watch a movie if it enhanced his large net worth.”

“It wouldn’t be ... the first documentary that Mr. Moore has made that is critical of my family,” Jeb Bush said. “No big shock.”

******************************************

OK, not saying that I agree or disagree with Moore's beliefs & rants.  The issue here is more that of censorship.

[JCVaughn]

OK, not saying that I agree or disagree with Moore's beliefs & rants.  The issue here is more that of censorship.

No, it's not.

By it's very nature, censorship can only be committed by a government.

And in a marketplace where he can take this film to another distributor, it could not possibly rise to the definition of censorship.

Additionally, Disney as the company who paid for the film, would entirely be within their rights to sit on it and not distribute it. They instead are allowing him to go elsewhere with it.

Since Senator Mitchell (the Chairman) and Michael Eisner (the CEO) are a major Democrat and a major Democratic donor, respectively, they aren't looking out for the President. They are looking out for their company's bottom line, which is their legal responsiblity to the company' shareholders.

Further, Michael Moore is a racist who has publically and more than once suggested that the people on the 9/11 flights were scared and didn't take the planes back over because they were white, that they wouldn't have gone down if they were black.

Virtually all of his "allegations" have been proven to be outright fiction, yet he still claims the "documentary" tag even though he admits it's just his opinion.

He is a vile, repugnant excuse for a human being.

[suryanijan]

Good point, JC.

[JCVaughn]

Good point, JC.

Hey, I'm really sorry if that sounded harsh.

I really seriously didn't mean it that way, if that's how it sounded. I've been meaning to get back on here and post this all morning.... but lunchtime didn't get here soon enough.

[flerk]

He is a vile, repugnant excuse for a human being.

And a sack of shit.

I hate Rush Limbaugh.

[JCVaughn]

And a sack of shit.

I hate Rush Limbaugh.

Flerk -

Dude. I think you're eating way too much margerine.

:o

Tex

[suryanijan]

JC, no worries, mate.  Not offended at all.  However, do slightly disagree with the idea that censorship is not the issue here as (if what they claim is true) coercion from any form of govt authority onto film distributors is still censorship.  It just means a less direct form of censorship but ultimately achieves the same aim.

I really do not care if Moore gets his film distributed but it does concern me when backing for any artistic efforts are withdrawn due to political manipulations from government agencies.  More so because where I live, that is a huge issue.  If the nations that lead the way in supposed free speech begin to practise censorship, then there is really no hope for pseudo democracies on the arse end of the world.

Anyway, just wanted to bring this to the table for discussion as I enjoy hearing different views from peeps.  Opens the mind and all that, ya know?  LOL.  Now if I can only open my eyes ... coffee ...

P/S.  I've only ever watch Bowling for Columbine and read Stupid White Men once.  Thought he was fairly amusing in a very in-your-face kind of way but found him completely paranoid, unobjective and annoyingly sanctimonious.  Struck me as a bloke I would use for a dart board if I bumped into him in a pub.

[Delvie]

They had told my agent last year � Eisner himself told my agent, Ari Emanuel � that there was no way they were going to release this film, and he told him why. Because he did not want to anger Jeb Bush in Florida,� Moore said Wednesday night.

Anything that Moore says he was told is automatically suspect.

I'm really sorry if that sounded harsh.

Understandable. Moore brings that out of a good many people who have figured out his manipulations. This whole thing is yet another publicity stunt.

[JCVaughn]

JC, no worries, mate.  Not offended at all.  

Well, good. I feel better then.  ;)

However, do slightly disagree with the idea that censorship is not the issue here as (if what they claim is true) coercion from any form of govt authority onto film distributors is still censorship.  It just means a less direct form of censorship but ultimately achieves the same aim.

But that's just it... the reported coercion has been reported by Moore and not third parties.

Senator Mitchell, the new chairman of Disney, is a lifelong partisan Democrat. Nothing wrong with that, unless you're looking for a vast right wing conspiracy.

Michael Eisner, the CEO and former chairman, is one of the largest Democratic donors of the last 20 years. Again, no problem with that, unless you're looking for Moore's vast right wing conspiracy.

Again, as he does time and again, Moore says there is a conspiracy and supports this with his own opinion.

Corporations, particularly in a relatively free market environment, cannont censor. We have collectively dummed down the word until it not longer has a precise meaning.

If I as a writer make a contract with company to do something (make a film for them) and take their money to do so in exchange for them owing the film or owning rights to it, that contract has NOTHING to do with free speech. It's a contract. It's business. It is not a free speech issue. He can take the film elsewhere or make a similar film for another company.

If I were a Disney stockholder, I would think this is the first thing they've done right in the last few months.

This situation is similar to the contract we enter into as passengers on airplanes. Even with state-owned carriers abroad, we abrigate certain of our own rights for the duration of the contract (the flight).

If the government comes and says I can't say a certain thing -- and let's face it, that's what political correctness is all about -- that's censorship.

The final result is Moore is free to take his slobby primadona routine to another company, where the publicity he's received from this leads me to believe that more people will actually see it.


(I am still waiting for my membership card and secret decoder from the vast right wing conspiracy and am somewhat disappointed not to have been contacted yet)

[suryanijan]

Again, putting on my ole reporter hat, why did Disney go into a contract with Moore if they did not expect anything other than controversial, one-sided & rabid from him?  They obviously would have received an outline before they would even back him.

There is obviously much more to the story but I do agree that this would lend to Moore's campaign & publicity drive for his new movie.  The man is seriously in hate with his own country.

Hey, re the secret decorder .. ya think they have them in ring form?  Ya know .. like the Wonder Twins' ring ...?  If so, where do I sign up?  LOL.

[JCVaughn]

Again, putting on my ole reporter hat, why did Disney go into a contract with Moore if they did not expect anything other than controversial, one-sided & rabid from him?  They obviously would have received an outline before they would even back him.

Well, since Disney owns Miramax (though the arrangement gets sketchier and sketchier rather than clearer), this is technically true.

Disney has plenty of problems "in house" between them and Miramax, which is pretty widely perceived as out of control.

Hey, re the secret decorder .. ya think they have them in ring form?  Ya know .. like the Wonder Twins' ring ...?  If so, where do I sign up?  LOL.

The truly amazing thing about this is that while there were always decoder wheels and decoder charts, there was NEVER a decoder ring until just a few years ago (like three or four years). That is despite it being in the vernacular for decades! Weird, but true.

[JCVaughn]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3565069&thesection=news&thesubsection=world

[flerk]

Here is an article from the L.A. Times about this thread.

THE BIG PICTURE
A game of politics played on '9/11'

Michael Eisner's handling of the new Michael Moore film makes him an easy target for the left and right.        
     
       By Patrick Goldstein, Times Staff Writer        

Busting Michael Eisner upside his head is so easy you almost feel guilty about taking another potshot at Disney's longtime lord of the manor. Then again, why not? He's the showbiz equivalent of Fidel Castro — even after years of dictatorial excess, he's been impossible to dislodge from power. In the past decade, Eisner has cavalierly forced out Jeffrey Katzenberg, Joe Roth and dozens of other gifted executives; hired and abruptly fired Michael Ovitz, paying him off with an obscenely rich settlement package; made a disastrous $5-billion purchase of News Corp.'s Family Channel; presided over the precipitous decline of ABC-TV and Disney's fabled animation kingdom and — oh, yes — let personal pique push Steve Jobs' wildly profitable Pixar franchise out the door. Next to certain members of the Bush administration, it's hard to think of anyone who's made more bad decisions and alienated more people without getting the boot.

 As you've probably heard, Eisner's latest blunder is his decision to block Disney-owned Miramax Films from distributing Michael Moore's incendiary new documentary, "Fahrenheit 9/11," which is slated to debut Monday at the Cannes Film Festival. Although Eisner didn't bother to see the movie himself — the only executive who viewed the film is Brad Epstein, a Disney production vice president — he's already implicitly labeled the film a one-sided political tract, telling reporters that Disney "is such a nonpartisan company," people "do not look for us to take sides." Eisner's ill-conceived decision has managed to accomplish a rare feat in today's poisonously partisan times: aggravate the left and the right simultaneously. Liberals are crying censorship while conservatives want to box Eisner's mouse ears for giving Moore — an obnoxious publicity hound and longtime thorn in the right's side — a tidal wave of sympathy and free publicity.
 
 So far, the news coverage has gone Moore's way, with the filmmaker portrayed as the latest artist under siege in a world dominated by huge media conglomerates. But I think the story line is more complicated than that, in terms of both showbiz politics and turbulent personal relationships. When Moore, Eisner and Miramax czar Harvey Weinstein are wrestling in the sumo ring together, there's so much more going on than meets the eye that it would make your head spin.

 Let's be clear: This is a world-class publicity stunt. Even Moore has acknowledged that he knew a year ago Eisner was angry with Miramax for buying the film and would never distribute it. Moore and Weinstein have planned for ages to sell the film at Cannes but conveniently waited to leak the story till just before the festival began. That said, Eisner's contention that Disney is too respectful of its family reputation to ever "take sides" is pretty laughable. Disney's ABC radio network is steeped in politics, being a home in many cities for such right-wing commentators as Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, who just the other day compared U.S. troops' torture of Iraqi prisoners to frat-house pranks. Disney-owned KSFO-AM in San Francisco happily aired thousands of hours of gay- and liberal-bashing vitriol from host Michael Savage before he left last June in a contract dispute.

 Even if you don't believe Moore's contention that Eisner shied away from the film because it might jeopardize tax favors for its Orlando theme parks from Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Disney is hardly a virgin when it comes to currying political favors. It takes sides all the time, giving tons of money to politicians, including a $1,000 personal contribution from Eisner to George W. Bush's 2000 presidential campaign. In Florida, Disney has so much clout that in a 2001 meeting with Jeb Bush and his executive staff, Eisner gave the governor fiscal advice, urging that he continue to use the tourist tax imposed in central Florida to promote tourism — and Disney World — rather than allow it to be diverted to finance a new basketball arena.

[flerk]

Part 2


 If you were Eisner, having endured a debilitating series of stockholder challenges to his leadership, would you want to alienate Jeb Bush, who as the governor of Florida serves as a trustee for the state employees' pension fund, which owns roughly 7.3 million shares of Disney stock? (The fund was part of the 45% of shareholders who withheld approval of Eisner's board reappointment in March.) You could imagine that Eisner, having no doubt seen how scrupulously the Bush administration rewards its friends and punishes its enemies, has good reason to avoid embarrassing the president. After all, when Bush urged the country to return to normality after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, he didn't tell citizens to take the Universal City tour. He said "Go to Disney World in Florida. Take your families and enjoy life."

 Of course, Disney isn't the only player with ulterior motives. It's hard to imagine anyone relishing, and benefiting from, Eisner's discomfort more than Weinstein. Unable to persuade Eisner to approve proposals that would pump fresh cash into the Miramax coffers, Weinstein has chafed under Eisner's tightfisted rule for years. In his mind, transforming Eisner's refusal to distribute "Fahrenheit 9/11" into a publicity bonanza is surely the equivalent of sweet revenge. I'm betting that somewhere in the Miramax marketing department there's already a poster with the slogan: "The Movie Michael Eisner Didn't Want You to See!"

 Weinstein suffered horribly during the recent Oscar season because Eisner's penny-pinching forced Miramax to walk away from "The Lord of the Rings," which swept the awards. Whenever Weinstein has tried to expand his empire, either by investing in a Manhattan entertainment complex or buying the IFC and Bravo cable channels, Eisner has nipped plans in the bud. What really enrages Weinstein is Eisner's dismissive style. When Weinstein wanted Disney to invest in "The Producers," Eisner didn't just say no, he told Weinstein that investing in Broadway shows was for small-town dentists. (Undeterred, Weinstein bought in with his own money and made a mint.) From Weinstein's point of view, if the "Fahrenheit" controversy puts even one more small nail in Eisner's coffin, it's worth the effort ? anything that puts Eisner a step closer to the door puts Weinstein a step closer to getting his company back.

 What really makes Eisner look bad here isn't so much his refusal to distribute a Michael Moore movie. It's the disquieting sense that, like our present political leadership, he's so cut off from reality ? and so consumed with holding onto his job ? that he can't successfully navigate a crisis. In Washington, the Bush administration is flailing in a quagmire because it's unwilling to admit a mistake. In Hollywood, Disney is frittering away its legacy because its generalissimo has created a company that can't get rid of him.

 Eisner is right about one thing: "Fahrenheit 9/11" won't go unseen. And Disney has every right to distance itself from art it finds racist, anti-Semitic or uncomfortably satiric. It's unfair to lump Disney in with the Sinclair Broadcast Group, which refused to air ABC's "Nightline," having decided it was somehow seditious to honor our war dead by showing their pictures on the air. By preempting "Nightline," Sinclair prevented its viewers from being able to judge the material for themselves.

 Eisner's most grievous error was refusing to judge "Fahrenheit 9/11" on its merits. It's a depressing sign of our culture's disrespect for artists that people now hysterically trash art sight unseen. This applies not only to Eisner but also to the multitude of critics who pilloried Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" and Kevin Smith's "Dogma" long before they saw the films. As it turns out, neither film led to a worldwide wave of anti-Semitism or the destruction of the Catholic Church.

 By seeing "Fahrenheit 9/11," Eisner could've found a graceful way to deprive Moore and Weinstein of their PR bonanza. Better still, he could've taken the opportunity to prove that freedom of speech still thrives, even in the lofty reaches of corporate America. It would be a thrill to hear a man so devoted to all-American values that he often poses wearing mouse ears saying: "I found myself disagreeing with nearly everything Michael Moore has to say. But that made it all the more important for a company that believes in open discourse and diversity to allow the American public to make up its own mind, especially at a time when our soldiers in Iraq are giving their lives to promote democratic ideals."

 No doubt, Hannity and Limbaugh would use the Disney airwaves to attack Eisner as cravenly unpatriotic while Moore would still complain Disney wasn't spending enough money marketing the film. But that would offer a convincing argument that if there's room in the Disney universe for a bunch of malcontents like Michael Moore, Rush Limbaugh and Harvey Weinstein, this must be a hell of a free country.