I'm no great fan of Michael Moore's politics, but I do believe him to be a talented filmmaker. While one can quibble with the "facts" presented in his "documentaries," there's little question that his work is, at the very least, entertaining.
Even though his anti-gun screed Bowling for Columbine won an Academy Award and was one of the more commercially successful documentaries in recent memory, The Walt Disney Company has elected to block its Mirimax division from distributing his new film, Fahrenheit 9/11, in the U.S.
In the wake of the film's premiere at Cannes this past week, the first reviews are in.
From Time:
“Fahrenheit 9/11” may be seen as another example of the liberal media preaching to its own choir. But Moore is such a clever assembler of huge accusations and minor peccadillos (as with a shot of Wolfowitz sticking his pocket comb in his mouth and sucking on it to slick down his hair before a TV interview) that the film should engage audiences of all political persuasions.
From the BBC:
Moore himself appears less in this film than he has in his previous documentaries, leaving most of the talking to politicians, soldiers, parents, experts and assorted real Americans.There is highly selective editing, but the story is not totally one-sided. For example, there are soldiers in Iraq who believe in their mission, as well as those who say they are disillusioned.
But the movie's conclusions - true or otherwise - and highly emotional interviews with bereaved parents and injured soldiers will have a big impact on audiences around the world.
It's easy to assume that Fahrenheit 9/11 will be little more than a far-left, anti-war, anti-Bush rant, with only token lip service paid to any opposing views, but I'd like the option to see for myself.
Unfortunately, that may not be an option any time soon. The future of the film in the U.S. seems uncertain at best. With Miramax unable to distribute it, the Weinsteins must buy back the rights from Disney and then shop it around themselves. Of course, it is Disney's right as a publicly traded corporation to act in its shareholders' best interests, and the company clearly believes distributing the film itself is not the best strategy.
While I may disagree with the content of the film, I still believe Americans have a right to see it if they so choose.
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. — Evelyn Beatrice Hall, The Friends of Voltaire
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
1 - KBeilke
I have heard that a side-company of Miramax should be releasing it. I think Lions Gate Films or something. I'm pretty sure it will get released, because when there is a buck to be made, someone will take advantage...
Of course, the DVD will always be there in a couple of months.
2 - Natalie Davis
And folks in Cannes saw Moore's film yesterday. Fear not, those who want to see it will get that opportunity. And knowledgeable people already know about Bandar Bush and the Saudi connection. We already have no trust for the Shrub and his minions. Disney may have delayed Fahrenheit 911, but it can't kill it or pretend that antipathy for all things Dubya doesn't exist.
3 - Al Barger
Oh please with all this poor oppressed Michael Moore NONSENSE. Disney didn't want a thing to do with this film, and made that clear from the start.
Moore has admitted that he was just hamming that up for publicity. Surprise.
In the reality of our capitalist system, though, Moore is pretty significantly successful, and there is no shortage of media outlets eager to pimp his stuff. Good for him, and them.
However, let's be really clear that THE DISNEY CORPORATION DOES NOT OWE IT TO ANYONE TO DISTRIBUTE ANY FILM THEY DON'T WANT TO.
Also, please note that A PRIVATE COMPANY DECLINING TO DISTRIBUTE A MOVIE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE CENSORSHIP.
Moore is welcome to shop his crap around to any company wanting to make a deal- or he can print up videos and sell them himself on the street corner.
It's all good- it's just not Disney's corporate responsibility to pimp your politics.
4 - Scott Pepper
My title for this post has just become out of date. Focus Features has secured U.S. distribution rights for the film.
link
5 - Doug Valenta
I thought Focus bought it like a week ago. If you were wondering what the film is actually about, it apparently especially tracks the ties between the Saudi royal family and the Bush family surrounding the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks (the private jet, et al). At any rate, someone had to make a movie out of it, and I guess it had to be Michael Moore, whom I like him about as much as I like Ann Coulter, although I suppose I'll watch it anyway. Also, I'm pretty sure Lion's Gate is not associated with Miramax.
6 - Natalie Davis
I guess the film went over well in Cannes. Well, good.
7 - bhw
THE DISNEY CORPORATION DOES NOT OWE IT TO ANYONE TO DISTRIBUTE ANY FILM THEY DON'T WANT TO
The corporation owes it to its shareholders to distribute films that will make money, in spite of a bigwig's personal politics. This film will make money. And with its many certain flaws, it's probably a hell of a lot better than some of the crap Disney has been shoveling lately.
Treasure Planet, anyone?
8 - Mark Saleski
ah, i just love Michael Moore posts....ya can just see those conservative forehead veins pulsing...
9 - Mac Diva
Actually, my favorite 'conservative forehead veins' entry today is Howard Owens' declaring an obscure march by a few hundred Iraqis in support of the U.S. (organized by who knows whom) the real news in Iraq last week. Apparently, the revelations about abuse of Iraqi detainess ain't so hapnin', but that is. A second theme that has emerged is that American media is suppressing the Nick Berg story. Yes, you read that right. One can almost see Howard's veins popping as he laments that the entire American media is not Free Republic.
10 - RJ Elliott
Mac,
A simple question:
Which story has the media given more attention and time to:
A) Some humilitated Iraqi terrorists
or
B) A beheaded American civilian?
11 - Al Barger
BHW, I highly doubt that Disney's refusal to distribute Moore's film has anything to do with their personal politics. Moore is a lightning rod for criticism from the right. He's one of the top couple of media figures that cheeses off the right wing.
If Moore's film makes the company $5 million dollars, say- and 10,000 Republican families to go to Universal theme parks instead of Disney, then the company is losing money.
In the reasonable business outlook of a huge outfit in the unique public position of Disney, they absolutely don't need the hassle. They've got enough problems without looking for Moore.
12 - bhw
Al, Disney's been pissing of the right wing for YEARS with their gay-day special events and their progressive domestic partner employee benefits. Michael Moore's film wouldn't have made that big an impact, in my opinion.
13 - Al Barger
Perhaps Michael Eisner's calculations indicate otherwise. They might well have figured that this was just buying trouble that could be avoided.
Again this whole Disney/Moore flap is utterly calculated on Moore's part. As a fan of guerrilla media operations, I consider this a brilliant gimmick from Moore. Now everyone has to see the film that's TOO HOT for Disney.
Brilliant marketing from Moore, but it doesn't say anything about Disney.
14 - bhw
I'd be willing to admit that Eisner knows a thing or two more than I do about his company's finances. I just don't think that the *average* American consumer, lefty or righty, has the strength of his or her convictions to boycott a company like Disney. They own too many media/entertainment outlets, and people are too spoiled to deny themselves anything because of their principles.
15 - Al Barger
Well, how much could they make off Moore's little documentary relative to the HUGE CHUNK of the American media dollar gets spent on Disney products. It wouldn't take a massive ongoing boycott, but leaving aside anything else, one percent of their theme park customers making one simple choice of going to a different theme park would dwarf anything they could possibly make off Moore. That's not counting the cost of ill will to the rest of their businesses, like movies and tv.
For a small independent film studio, Moore's stuff would be a hugely valuable PR coup. For Disney, it would be pure poison.
16 - RJ Elliott
Great points by all made in these posts.
Anyway, I just want to harp on the fact that this is in no way "censorship." I believe all rational folks can agree on that.
Other than that, I have enjoyed following the debate. :-]
17 - Al Barger
Thank you RJ, and as a Disney stockholder, I'd like to urge you to go see The Alamo, line up some tickets for the Broadway production of The Lion King, and of course stop off at the department store to buy some Mickey Mouse print towels your children can use to try their wet little butts when they hit the shower after working up a fine sweat out in the yard listening to a totally KICK ASS Disney CD, and getting down with "The Bare Necessities."
And that's not even starting on television.
Man, we rule the world!
BOW BEFORE ME, MY MINIONS
18 - bhw
line up some tickets for the Broadway production of The Lion King
Got 'em! Taking the kids in the fall....
19 - Al Barger
Kick ass!