 |
| |
|
|
Verto
|
|
quote:
By Andrew Gumbel
Los Angeles
Michael Moore, the establishment-bashing comedian and film-maker, accused the Walt Disney Company of political censorship yesterday because the company is refusing to distribute his latest documentary lambasting the Bush administration’s handling of national security since 11 September.
Controversy over the film, entitled Fahrenheit 911, erupted on the front page of the New York Times and elsewhere just days before Mr Moore is due to take the film to the Cannes Film Festival for its world premiere.
In an open letter to supporters, Mr Moore accused Disney of trying to kill the film, which is being produced by the Disney subsidiary Miramax, because the company was worried about its business interests in Florida and did not want to offend Governor Jeb Bush, the president’s brother.
“I would have hoped by now that I would be able to put my work out to the public without having to experience the profound censorship obstacles I often seem to encounter,” he wrote. “For nearly a year, this struggle has been a lesson in just how difficult it is in this country to create a piece of art that might upset those in charge.”
Disney officials appeared to be caught off guard by this onslaught and denied that the company’s decision was motivated by political interests in Florida. They also pointed out they had made it clear a year ago that they wanted no involvement with Fahrenheit 911, which was picked up by Miramax against the wishes of its corporate parent. [My emphasis -ed.]
Both the New York Times and Variety, the entertainment industry trade paper of record, suggested the flap over Mr Moore’s film could drive a further wedge between Michael Eisner, the Disney chairman, and the Weinstein brothers who run Miramax. The Weinsteins and Mr Eisner have been at loggerheads for some time, and speculation is rife in Hollywood that Miramax may prefer to find a new corporate sponsor when its contract with Disney comes up for renewal later this year.
In other quarters, the fortuitous timing of the controversy caused some people to wonder whether Mr Moore is really the victim of an attempted corporate muzzling, or whether he is deliberately creating a controversy where little or none exists to generate publicity and trigger a bidding war for the US distribution rights to the film, which have yet to be settled. “This seems almost too good to be true. I smell a rat,” said one well-placed Hollywood source with strong connections to both Disney and Miramax.
Miramax spokesman Matthew Hiltzik remained tight-lipped, saying only: "We're discussing the issue with Disney. We're looking at all of our options and look forward to resolving this amicably."
Whatever the true story, the grizzled documentary-maker has once again put himself front and centre of a political row likely to inflame partisan passions on all sides. In 2001, he fought with his publishers, Harper Collins, over the publication of his anti-Bush book Stupid White Men, which Harper Collins felt was politically insensitive in the immediate wake of 11 September. The book was delayed but eventually released in its original form, becoming an overnight bestseller.
Last year, Mr Moore cried censorship again after his unabashedly political speech at the Oscars – he called Mr Bush a “fictitious” president who had just started the Iraq invasion for “fictitious reasons” -- was greeted with jeers and boos. His film about gun violence, Bowling for Columbine, had just picked up the Academy Award for Best Documentary and went on to gross $22 million in North America alone, from an original budget of about $3 million.
Fahrenheit 911 was conceived as a provocative project from the outset. It promises to blow the cover on the cosy connections between the Bush family and the Saudi royal family and show how the White House has only exposed Americans to greater danger, instead of protecting them, since the suicide attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon two and a half years ago.
Mel Gibson’s production company, Icon, was originally involved but dropped out this time last year for unknown reasons. (Rumours of political pressure abound in the Moore camp, although Mr Gibson is conservative enough to have political misgivings of his own.)
Miramax then decided to pick up the $6 million production cost on its own. Despite the near-certainty of making a profit on the venture, this was done over the express opposition of Mr Eisner. “Michael Eisner asked me not to sell this movie to Harvey Weinstein; that doesn't mean I listened to him," Mr Moore’s agent, Ari Emanuel, was quoted saying in the New York Times. "He definitely indicated there were tax incentives he was getting for the Disney corporation [in Florida] and that's why he didn't want me to sell it to Miramax. He didn't want a Disney company involved."
Whether or not Florida was a factor, Disney certainly came under pressure from other quarters. Various conservative organisations threatened to boycott Disney, blasting the company, as one right-wing Internet activist put it, “for involving itself with this vile director and his offensive abuse of a national tragedy that is considered sacred to most Americans”.
At the same time, Miramax was bombarded with messages from the other side of the political fence praising the company for its support of Mr Moore.
Miramax would clearly like Disney to distribute the film in the United States, because it would avoid the need to share profits with another company. Miramax appears to have held out some hope that it could bring Mr Eisner around once the film was completed. There is no indication, however, that it was counting on this, or that Mr Eisner has somehow reneged on an earlier promise.
“The only thing that’s new here is in Disney’s reaffirmation of their previously stated position,” one well-placed source said on condition of anonymity. “Miramax never said it was distributing the film, even if people assumed it would find a way.” [My emphasis- ed.]
The source also denied that Fahrenheit 911 was causing any significant personal friction between Mr Eisner and Mr Weinstein, pointing out that they could hardly be getting along worse as it is: “There’s plenty of other issues to have catfights over.”
Mr Moore was not immediately available to answer the charge that he was creating controversy for promotional purposes. He is still at work finalising the print to be shown at Cannes. |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:35
|
|
Skywalker: Well, this perspective is consistent (although it overlooks the essential role of media publishers for a message to reach an audience, meaning that a private censorship can be nearly as efficient - if not more - at silencing speech as public censorship).
And please edit your sig. I have no problem with you quoting me*. I have a problem with you pretending I say it is ok to kill a pregnant woman and her children. As you have read, I insisted in the thread that I condemned the barbarous action.
*actually, Plato has a misleading quote of me in his sig: the "I admit the Bushies haven't willingly manipulated intelligence" was preceded by a "for the sake of argument" which Plato conveniently forgot. By that time, I had never believed the Bushies were free of intelligence manipulation. Yet, since it's an actual quote, I don't ask for a correction. By the same token, I see nothing wrong in you suoting me. I see something wrong in you using a cowardly technique, making me look like meaning something I didn't mean 
Edit: if you want to show the monster I really am, simply link to the thread. And people will make their minds while reading it.
Last edited by Spiffor on 06-05-2004 at 07:57
|
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
I must admit I never quite understood why our capitalists and libertarians find morally agreeable so many things from private interests, that they'll never accept from the State.
I can understand why Disney wouldn't want to publish Moore. I find it extreme that Disney bullies a daughter company on this topic. But I do fail to see why privately-made censorship is morally superior than publicly-made censorship  |
And you're a shining light of European political activity? God help you all.
quote:
Originally posted by Azazel
The corporation is not a person. |
Laughable. The corporation is owned by people, and represents their combined interests for financial purposes. What, have the cyborgs taken over already?
quote:
Originally posted by Azazel
It isn't fully a person, legally. |
As far as the money is concerned, it is.
quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Cash in your pocket, or cash not out of your pocket that otherwise would be, all adds up the same no matter what label you put on it. |
Actually, there is a difference, a big one.
To pay tax you generally have to do something, like be profitable for instance. Reducing taxes is an incentive to do more, like profitable things.
A corporate subsidy often rewards doing nothing of value, or doing a lot of little value. You don't need to innovate or adapt, just suck the ***.
Large difference.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tingkai
|
|
To find the Northwest Passage
Aug 2001
time: 13:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by JohnT
Ludd, do yourself a favor and read the articles and not just the responses to them. Here, let me lay down the timeline:
May 2003: Disney informs Moore, Moore's agent, and Miramax that they will not distribute the film.
May 4th, 2004: Michael Moore publishes an open letter complaining of the Disney company's decision.
May 5th, 2004: MM is now "too busy" to answer embarrassing questions about the timing of the controversy (and his decision to sit on it for a year) because he is supposedly finishing post-production.
Puh-leeze! |
No interviews? Funny, I saw him on BBC this morning. He also did interviews Tuesday.
Moore said that he and Miramax were trying to resolve the issue through negotiations with Disney. Miramax execs said the same thing. They didn't want to make it public while these talks were underway. That makes sense cause you don't want to piss of a megacorporation.
And the fact stands that Disney is the one trying to block the film.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
JohnT
|
 |
Capitalist
Mar 1999
time: 00:35
|
|
Let me quote from the article that Verto quoted. If it is incorrect, then my apologies:
quote:
Mr Moore was not immediately available to answer the charge that he was creating controversy for promotional purposes. He is still at work finalising the print to be shown at Cannes. |
So, I guess he's just ducking American sources.
quote:
Moore said that he and Miramax were trying to resolve the issue through negotiations with Disney. Miramax execs said the same thing. They didn't want to make it public while these talks were underway. That makes sense cause you don't want to piss of a megacorporation. |
The above doesn't make any sense. Miramax is owned by Disney, there is nothing to negotiate as far as they are concerned. Now Harvey Weinstein might have one of his famous 7 hour tantrums and throw his considerable weight around, but the fact is that his paycheck is signed in Orlando, not New York*.
Secondly, it was Moore who made it public in the first place. Having his agent crawl his ass, making him backtrack faster than the French during the blitzkrieg, doesn't absolve him of the responsiblity nor does it give him the "right" to say "well, we wanted to keep this secret."
Sorry, but again, MM is proving himself to be no friend of the truth.
Thirdly, Disney is not trying to "block" the film... they just don't want to release it under their banners. Believe it or not, this isn't that unusual... even Mel Gibson, a far bigger Hollywood player than MM could even dream of being, couldn't find distribution for his movie. Where were the cries of "censorship!" then? Oh, wait, The Passion wasn't a "real" movie, just a film for religious ****ers, right?
*you know what I mean.
Last edited by JohnT on 06-05-2004 at 08:35
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
05-05-2004 21:57
. 
|