 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Forums - The lounge
Subject: speaking of Michael Moore.....
Original Message Date: 05-May-04 @ 04:50 AM - speaking of Michael Moore.....
May 5, 2004
Disney Forbidding Distribution of Film That Criticizes Bush
By JIM RUTENBERG
ASHINGTON, May 4 — The Walt Disney Company is blocking its Miramax division from distributing a new documentary by Michael Moore that harshly criticizes President Bush, executives at both Disney and Miramax said Tuesday.
The film, "Fahrenheit 911," links Mr. Bush and prominent Saudis — including the family of Osama bin Laden — and criticizes Mr. Bush's actions before and after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
Disney, which bought Miramax more than a decade ago, has a contractual agreement with the Miramax principals, Bob and Harvey Weinstein, allowing it to prevent the company from distributing films under certain circumstances, like an excessive budget or an NC-17 rating.
Executives at Miramax, who became principal investors in Mr. Moore's project last spring, do not believe that this is one of those cases, people involved in the production of the film said. If a compromise is not reached, these people said, the matter could go to mediation, though neither side is said to want to travel that route.
In a statement, Matthew Hiltzik, a spokesman for Miramax, said: "We're discussing the issue with Disney. We're looking at all of our options and look forward to resolving this amicably."
But Disney executives indicated that they would not budge from their position forbidding Miramax to be the distributor of the film in North America. Overseas rights have been sold to a number of companies.
"We advised both the agent and Miramax in May of 2003 that the film would not be distributed by Miramax," said Zenia Mucha, a company spokeswoman, referring to Mr. Moore's agent. "That decision stands."
Disney came under heavy criticism from conservatives last May after the disclosure that Miramax had agreed to finance the film when Icon Productions, Mel Gibson's studio, backed out.
Mr. Moore's agent, Ari Emanuel, said that Michael D. Eisner, Disney's chief executive, asked him last spring to pull out of the deal with Miramax. Mr. Emanuel said Mr. Eisner expressed concern that it would endanger tax breaks Disney receives for its theme park, hotels and other ventures in Florida, where Mr. Bush's brother, Jeb, is governor.
"Michael Eisner asked me not to sell this movie to Harvey Weinstein; that doesn't mean I listened to him," Mr. Emanuel said. "He definitely indicated there were tax incentives he was getting for the Disney corporation and that's why he didn't want me to sell it to Miramax. He didn't want a Disney company involved."
Disney executives deny that accusation, though they said their displeasure over the deal was made clear to Miramax and Mr. Emanuel.
A senior Disney executive elaborated that the company has the right to quash Miramax's distribution of films if it deems their distribution to be against the interests of the company. Mr. Moore's film, the executive said, is deemed to be against Disney's interests not because of the company's business dealings with the government but because Disney caters to families of all political stripes and believes Mr. Moore's film could alienate many.
"It's not in the interest of any major corporation to be dragged into a highly charged partisan political battle," this executive said.
Miramax is free to seek another distributor in North America, although such a deal would force it to share profits and be a blow to Harvey Weinstein, a big donor to Democrats.
Mr. Moore, who will present the film at the Cannes film festival this month, criticized Disney's decision in an interview on Tuesday, saying, "At some point the question has to be asked, `Should this be happening in a free and open society where the monied interests essentially call the shots regarding the information that the public is allowed to see?' "
Mr. Moore's films, like "Roger and Me" and "Bowling for Columbine," are often a political lightning rod, as he sets out to skewer what he says are the misguided priorities of conservatives and big business. They have also often performed well at the box office. His most recent movie, "Bowling for Columbine," took in about $22 million in North America for United Artists. His books, like "Stupid White Men," a jeremiad against the Bush administration that has sold more than a million copies, have also been lucrative.
Mr. Moore does not disagree that "Fahrenheit 911" is highly charged, but he took issue with the description of it as partisan. "If this is partisan in any way it is partisan on the side of the poor and working people in this country who provide fodder for this war machine," he said.
Mr. Moore said the film describes financial connections between the Bush family and its associates and prominent Saudi Arabian families that go back three decades. He said it closely explores the government's decision to help members of the bin Laden family leave the United States immediately after the 2001 attacks. The film includes comments from American soldiers on the ground in Iraq expressing disillusionment with the war, he said.
Mr. Moore initially planned on producing the film with Mr. Gibson's company, but last May it pulled out.
"The project wasn't right for Icon," said Alan Nierob, a spokesman for Icon, adding that the decision had nothing to do with politics.
Miramax stepped in immediately. The company had previously produced one of Mr. Moore's films, 1997's "The Big One." In return for providing most of the new film's $6 million budget, Miramax was positioned to distribute the film.
While Disney's objections were made clear early on, one executive who spoke on condition of anonymity said the Miramax leadership hoped it would be able to prevail upon Disney to sign off on distribution -— which would ideally hoping happen this summer, before the election and when political interest is high.
Disney Forbidding Distribution of Film That Criticizes Bush
By JIM RUTENBERG
ASHINGTON, May 4 — The Walt Disney Company is blocking its Miramax division from distributing a new documentary by Michael Moore that harshly criticizes President Bush, executives at both Disney and Miramax said Tuesday.
The film, "Fahrenheit 911," links Mr. Bush and prominent Saudis — including the family of Osama bin Laden — and criticizes Mr. Bush's actions before and after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
Disney, which bought Miramax more than a decade ago, has a contractual agreement with the Miramax principals, Bob and Harvey Weinstein, allowing it to prevent the company from distributing films under certain circumstances, like an excessive budget or an NC-17 rating.
Executives at Miramax, who became principal investors in Mr. Moore's project last spring, do not believe that this is one of those cases, people involved in the production of the film said. If a compromise is not reached, these people said, the matter could go to mediation, though neither side is said to want to travel that route.
In a statement, Matthew Hiltzik, a spokesman for Miramax, said: "We're discussing the issue with Disney. We're looking at all of our options and look forward to resolving this amicably."
But Disney executives indicated that they would not budge from their position forbidding Miramax to be the distributor of the film in North America. Overseas rights have been sold to a number of companies.
"We advised both the agent and Miramax in May of 2003 that the film would not be distributed by Miramax," said Zenia Mucha, a company spokeswoman, referring to Mr. Moore's agent. "That decision stands."
Disney came under heavy criticism from conservatives last May after the disclosure that Miramax had agreed to finance the film when Icon Productions, Mel Gibson's studio, backed out.
Mr. Moore's agent, Ari Emanuel, said that Michael D. Eisner, Disney's chief executive, asked him last spring to pull out of the deal with Miramax. Mr. Emanuel said Mr. Eisner expressed concern that it would endanger tax breaks Disney receives for its theme park, hotels and other ventures in Florida, where Mr. Bush's brother, Jeb, is governor.
"Michael Eisner asked me not to sell this movie to Harvey Weinstein; that doesn't mean I listened to him," Mr. Emanuel said. "He definitely indicated there were tax incentives he was getting for the Disney corporation and that's why he didn't want me to sell it to Miramax. He didn't want a Disney company involved."
Disney executives deny that accusation, though they said their displeasure over the deal was made clear to Miramax and Mr. Emanuel.
A senior Disney executive elaborated that the company has the right to quash Miramax's distribution of films if it deems their distribution to be against the interests of the company. Mr. Moore's film, the executive said, is deemed to be against Disney's interests not because of the company's business dealings with the government but because Disney caters to families of all political stripes and believes Mr. Moore's film could alienate many.
"It's not in the interest of any major corporation to be dragged into a highly charged partisan political battle," this executive said.
Miramax is free to seek another distributor in North America, although such a deal would force it to share profits and be a blow to Harvey Weinstein, a big donor to Democrats.
Mr. Moore, who will present the film at the Cannes film festival this month, criticized Disney's decision in an interview on Tuesday, saying, "At some point the question has to be asked, `Should this be happening in a free and open society where the monied interests essentially call the shots regarding the information that the public is allowed to see?' "
Mr. Moore's films, like "Roger and Me" and "Bowling for Columbine," are often a political lightning rod, as he sets out to skewer what he says are the misguided priorities of conservatives and big business. They have also often performed well at the box office. His most recent movie, "Bowling for Columbine," took in about $22 million in North America for United Artists. His books, like "Stupid White Men," a jeremiad against the Bush administration that has sold more than a million copies, have also been lucrative.
Mr. Moore does not disagree that "Fahrenheit 911" is highly charged, but he took issue with the description of it as partisan. "If this is partisan in any way it is partisan on the side of the poor and working people in this country who provide fodder for this war machine," he said.
Mr. Moore said the film describes financial connections between the Bush family and its associates and prominent Saudi Arabian families that go back three decades. He said it closely explores the government's decision to help members of the bin Laden family leave the United States immediately after the 2001 attacks. The film includes comments from American soldiers on the ground in Iraq expressing disillusionment with the war, he said.
Mr. Moore initially planned on producing the film with Mr. Gibson's company, but last May it pulled out.
"The project wasn't right for Icon," said Alan Nierob, a spokesman for Icon, adding that the decision had nothing to do with politics.
Miramax stepped in immediately. The company had previously produced one of Mr. Moore's films, 1997's "The Big One." In return for providing most of the new film's $6 million budget, Miramax was positioned to distribute the film.
While Disney's objections were made clear early on, one executive who spoke on condition of anonymity said the Miramax leadership hoped it would be able to prevail upon Disney to sign off on distribution -— which would ideally hoping happen this summer, before the election and when political interest is high.
Message 21/69 06-May-04 @ 04:47 PM Edit: 06-May-04 | 04:48 PM - RE: speaking of Michael Moore.....
bs, you're being stupid. He IS doing something about it, he's making fucking feature films to get his point out there to people. What the hell are *you* doing?
sounds like someone you know had a little rant on the man and that's about all you know about him. just shut up till you get some first-hand facts, ok? Do you even know what he's "bitching" about?
and the point of "bowling" was that guns are bad, mmmkay? There's no one reason for Columbine, he was simply pointing out the state of America's relationship with guns today. And it was scary. And very real... if you saw it...
sounds like someone you know had a little rant on the man and that's about all you know about him. just shut up till you get some first-hand facts, ok? Do you even know what he's "bitching" about?
and the point of "bowling" was that guns are bad, mmmkay? There's no one reason for Columbine, he was simply pointing out the state of America's relationship with guns today. And it was scary. And very real... if you saw it...
Message 22/69 06-May-04 @ 09:46 PM Edit: 06-May-04 | 09:51 PM - RE: speaking of Michael Moore.....
Zazza
Posts: 1502
Link?: No link
File?: No file
He did manage to get the local Wal-Mart to stop selling ammunition!
The kids at Columbine were killed with ammo from the local Wal-Mart, fyi
And he asked the local people why they thought it happened.. and they didn't know...
He did point out that 'The Industry' in Columbine was manufacturing missiles... and he interviewed the kids at the school, who seemed to hate it with a vengeance, and felt very alienated, stressed etc..
I think he was more trying to find out what was going on.
He was also pulling up the NRA for running pro-gun rallies in the area just after the kids got killed... and suggesting that promoting gun culture at syuch a time was being a bit insensitive to the recently bereaved parents...
BS.. read 'Stupid White men' before you comment about Michael Moorer, he is a bit of a prat in some ways but he does a lot of good work..
The kids at Columbine were killed with ammo from the local Wal-Mart, fyi
And he asked the local people why they thought it happened.. and they didn't know...
He did point out that 'The Industry' in Columbine was manufacturing missiles... and he interviewed the kids at the school, who seemed to hate it with a vengeance, and felt very alienated, stressed etc..
I think he was more trying to find out what was going on.
He was also pulling up the NRA for running pro-gun rallies in the area just after the kids got killed... and suggesting that promoting gun culture at syuch a time was being a bit insensitive to the recently bereaved parents...
BS.. read 'Stupid White men' before you comment about Michael Moorer, he is a bit of a prat in some ways but he does a lot of good work..
Message 23/69 07-May-04 @ 01:23 AM Edit: 07-May-04 | 01:55 AM - RE: speaking of Michael Moore.....
edit: i see your point. but still have mine, hard to explain and not worth arguing over the internet about.
Message 25/69 07-May-04 @ 05:14 PM - RE: speaking of Michael Moore.....
Zazza
Posts: 1502
Link?: No link
File?: No file
So, BS, have you actually read his book?
Message 26/69 07-May-04 @ 09:47 PM - RE: speaking of Michael Moore.....
BS...what do you mean by "do something"
I mean..I dont like the guy much, but he definitely has the exposure necessary to break open the veil of bullshit. just seems like theres plenty of BS on his side too
but...do something? Writing best sellers, and making documentaries isnt doing something?
do you mean...like...get involved in politics?
heh. he'd be fckin DEAD in five years. period
I mean..I dont like the guy much, but he definitely has the exposure necessary to break open the veil of bullshit. just seems like theres plenty of BS on his side too
but...do something? Writing best sellers, and making documentaries isnt doing something?
do you mean...like...get involved in politics?
heh. he'd be fckin DEAD in five years. period
Message 27/69 07-May-04 @ 10:03 PM - RE: speaking of Michael Moore.....
jesus christ BS.. what the fuck do you want him to do... manifest world peace?
he got some guy a fucking pancreas transplant when his insurance company wouldn't cover it!
does that qualify?
or do you have to subcontract for one of those companies that you dad works for to get something done? Like forcefully ass fucking POWs?
so what if Moore "twists or contorts" the truth? you've got Condi Rice lying to our fucking faces days after 9.11! "no one could have imagined that terrorists would hijack a commercial airliner and use it as a missle" and just two months prior to that statement, the Pentagon had a safety drill... for what you ask? just in case a plane happened to crash into the building!
and lets not forget the G8 summit in Genoa. They shutdow airspace above and around the summit in fear that someone may crash a commercial airliner into the building.
that certainly seems like "no one could have imagined" to me!
pick the right fucking wars to fight, the right battles to have.
he got some guy a fucking pancreas transplant when his insurance company wouldn't cover it!
does that qualify?
or do you have to subcontract for one of those companies that you dad works for to get something done? Like forcefully ass fucking POWs?
so what if Moore "twists or contorts" the truth? you've got Condi Rice lying to our fucking faces days after 9.11! "no one could have imagined that terrorists would hijack a commercial airliner and use it as a missle" and just two months prior to that statement, the Pentagon had a safety drill... for what you ask? just in case a plane happened to crash into the building!
and lets not forget the G8 summit in Genoa. They shutdow airspace above and around the summit in fear that someone may crash a commercial airliner into the building.
that certainly seems like "no one could have imagined" to me!
pick the right fucking wars to fight, the right battles to have.
Message 28/69 07-May-04 @ 10:25 PM - RE: speaking of Michael Moore.....
here's a little copy&paste from a (F)airness and (A)ccuracy (I)n (R)eporting email...
quote
ACTIVISM UPDATE:
Eisner's Fantasyland Excuse for Censorship
May 7, 2004
On the television network that his company owns, Disney CEO Michael Eisner
dismissed the idea that forbidding Disney subsidiary Miramax to distribute
a controversial new documentary by Michael Moore was a form of censorship.
"We informed both the agency that represented the film and all of our
companies that we just didn't want to be in the middle of a
politically-oriented film during an election year," he told ABC World News
Tonight (5/5/04), referring to Moore's Fahrenheit 911, which examines the
connections between the Bush family and the House of Saud that rules Saudi
Arabia.
On its face, Eisner's statement will have a chilling effect. A major
movie studio with an announced policy of only releasing apolitical films,
in an election year or any other year, will discourage filmmakers from
tackling important themes and impoverish the American political debate.
(That Moore and Miramax were given advance warning of this policy hardly
mitigates its censorious impact.)
But Eisner's statement cannot be taken at face value, because Disney,
through its various subsidiaries, is one of the largest distributors of
political, often highly partisan media content in the country-- virtually
all of it right-wing. Consider:
* Almost all of Disney's major talk radio stations-- WABC in New York,
WMAL in D.C., WLS in Chicago, WBAP in Dallas/Ft. Worth and KSFO in San
Francisco-- broadcast Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Indeed, WABC is
considered the home station for both of these shows, which promote an
unremitting Republican political agenda. (Disney's KABC in L.A. carries
Hannity, but has Bill O'Reilly instead of Limbaugh.) Disney's news/talk
stations are dominated by a variety of other partisan Republican hosts,
both local and national, including Laura Ingraham, Larry Elder and Matt
Drudge.
* Disney's Family Channel carries Pat Robertson's 700 Club, which
routinely equates Christianity with Republican causes. After the September
11 attacks, Robertson's guest Jerry Falwell (9/13/01) blamed the attacks
on those who "make God mad": "the pagans and the abortionists and the
feminists and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make
that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all
of them who try to secularize America." Robertson's response was, "I
totally concur." It's hard to imagine that anything in Moore's film will
be more controversial than that.
* Disney's ABC News prominently features John Stossel, who, though not
explicitly partisan, advocates for a conservative philosophy in almost all
his work: "It is my job to explain the beauties of the free market," he
has explained (Oregonian, 10/26/94). No journalist is allowed to advocate
for a balancing point of view on ABC's news programs.
Given the considerable amount of right-wing material distributed by
Disney, much of it openly promoting Republican candidates and issues, it's
impossible to believe that Disney is preventing Miramax from distributing
Fahrenheit 911 because, as a Disney executive told the New York Times
(5/5/04), "It's not in the interest of any major corporation to be dragged
into a highly charged partisan political battle." Disney, in fact, makes
a great deal of money off of highly charged partisan political battles,
although it generally provides access to only one side of the war.
So what is the real reason it won't distribute Moore's movie? The
explanation that Moore's agent said he was offered by Eisner-- that Disney
was afraid of losing tax breaks from Florida Gov. Jeb Bush-- is more
persuasive than Eisner's obviously false public rationale. But more
relevant may be Disney's financial involvement with a member of the same
Saudi family whose connections to the Bush dynasty are investigated by
Moore. Prince Al-Walid bin Talal, a billionaire investor who is a
grandson of Saudi Arabia's King Fahd, became a major investor in Disney's
Eurodisney theme park when it was in financial trouble, and may be asked
to bail out the troubled project again.
It's not unprecedented for Disney to respond favorably to a political
request from its Saudi business partner; when Disney's EPCOT Center
planned to describe Jerusalem as the capital of Israel in an exhibit on
Israeli culture, Al-Walid says that he had personally asked Eisner to
intervene in the decision. That same week, Disney announced that the
pavilion would not refer to Jerusalem as Israel's capital (BBC, 9/14/99).
Whatever the true motive of Disney's decision to reject Moore's film, it's
not the one that Eisner and other company spokespersons are advancing in
public. Journalists covering the issue should go beyond Disney's
transparent PR stance and explore the real motivations involved.
ACTIVISM UPDATE:
Eisner's Fantasyland Excuse for Censorship
May 7, 2004
On the television network that his company owns, Disney CEO Michael Eisner
dismissed the idea that forbidding Disney subsidiary Miramax to distribute
a controversial new documentary by Michael Moore was a form of censorship.
"We informed both the agency that represented the film and all of our
companies that we just didn't want to be in the middle of a
politically-oriented film during an election year," he told ABC World News
Tonight (5/5/04), referring to Moore's Fahrenheit 911, which examines the
connections between the Bush family and the House of Saud that rules Saudi
Arabia.
On its face, Eisner's statement will have a chilling effect. A major
movie studio with an announced policy of only releasing apolitical films,
in an election year or any other year, will discourage filmmakers from
tackling important themes and impoverish the American political debate.
(That Moore and Miramax were given advance warning of this policy hardly
mitigates its censorious impact.)
But Eisner's statement cannot be taken at face value, because Disney,
through its various subsidiaries, is one of the largest distributors of
political, often highly partisan media content in the country-- virtually
all of it right-wing. Consider:
* Almost all of Disney's major talk radio stations-- WABC in New York,
WMAL in D.C., WLS in Chicago, WBAP in Dallas/Ft. Worth and KSFO in San
Francisco-- broadcast Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Indeed, WABC is
considered the home station for both of these shows, which promote an
unremitting Republican political agenda. (Disney's KABC in L.A. carries
Hannity, but has Bill O'Reilly instead of Limbaugh.) Disney's news/talk
stations are dominated by a variety of other partisan Republican hosts,
both local and national, including Laura Ingraham, Larry Elder and Matt
Drudge.
* Disney's Family Channel carries Pat Robertson's 700 Club, which
routinely equates Christianity with Republican causes. After the September
11 attacks, Robertson's guest Jerry Falwell (9/13/01) blamed the attacks
on those who "make God mad": "the pagans and the abortionists and the
feminists and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make
that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all
of them who try to secularize America." Robertson's response was, "I
totally concur." It's hard to imagine that anything in Moore's film will
be more controversial than that.
* Disney's ABC News prominently features John Stossel, who, though not
explicitly partisan, advocates for a conservative philosophy in almost all
his work: "It is my job to explain the beauties of the free market," he
has explained (Oregonian, 10/26/94). No journalist is allowed to advocate
for a balancing point of view on ABC's news programs.
Given the considerable amount of right-wing material distributed by
Disney, much of it openly promoting Republican candidates and issues, it's
impossible to believe that Disney is preventing Miramax from distributing
Fahrenheit 911 because, as a Disney executive told the New York Times
(5/5/04), "It's not in the interest of any major corporation to be dragged
into a highly charged partisan political battle." Disney, in fact, makes
a great deal of money off of highly charged partisan political battles,
although it generally provides access to only one side of the war.
So what is the real reason it won't distribute Moore's movie? The
explanation that Moore's agent said he was offered by Eisner-- that Disney
was afraid of losing tax breaks from Florida Gov. Jeb Bush-- is more
persuasive than Eisner's obviously false public rationale. But more
relevant may be Disney's financial involvement with a member of the same
Saudi family whose connections to the Bush dynasty are investigated by
Moore. Prince Al-Walid bin Talal, a billionaire investor who is a
grandson of Saudi Arabia's King Fahd, became a major investor in Disney's
Eurodisney theme park when it was in financial trouble, and may be asked
to bail out the troubled project again.
It's not unprecedented for Disney to respond favorably to a political
request from its Saudi business partner; when Disney's EPCOT Center
planned to describe Jerusalem as the capital of Israel in an exhibit on
Israeli culture, Al-Walid says that he had personally asked Eisner to
intervene in the decision. That same week, Disney announced that the
pavilion would not refer to Jerusalem as Israel's capital (BBC, 9/14/99).
Whatever the true motive of Disney's decision to reject Moore's film, it's
not the one that Eisner and other company spokespersons are advancing in
public. Journalists covering the issue should go beyond Disney's
transparent PR stance and explore the real motivations involved.
Message 29/69 08-May-04 @ 01:54 PM - RE: speaking of Michael Moore.....
Anyone seen the Errol Morris documentary 'The Fog of War' with Robert McNemara? Is it any good? Its out here in Dublin next week... can't wait to check it out...
Message 30/69 12-May-04 @ 08:28 PM - RE: speaking of Michael Moore.....
Saw that documentary ^ - Its really excellent - fantastically put together - Although not as sensational as Micheal Moore's stuff, in terms of film making it doesen't even compare - Anybody interested in recent history and American foreign policy should check it out...
http://film.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/Critic_Review/Observer_Film_of_the_week/0,4267,1185294,00.html
http://film.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/Critic_Review/Observer_Film_of_the_week/0,4267,1185294,00.html
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
There are 69 total messages for this topic
Reply to Thread
You need to register/login to use the forum.
Click here to Signup or Login !
[you'll be brought right back to this point after signing up]
Back to Forum
