Fahrenheit 9/11

[ono]

The original release date of November is a bit late in the game.  To have the proper impact, the film needs to be released sometime in mid-October for the word to have gotten out, and for the polls to be seriously effected.  Although now, we might not even see a release.

That said, it doesn't surprise me at all that this has happened.  Money makes the world go 'round.  Sad but true.  I thought Disney was gonna boot Eisner.  Guess I lost track of that story.  Anyway, I don't get what Disney is so afraid of -- other than (heaven forbid) making people think and "alienating certain audiences."  Bleh.  Of course, I really do see what they're afraid of -- that some breadbasket or Bible belt idiots are going to hear of this movie, not even see it, and then boycott Home on the Range 2: Barbecue Boogaloo.  There are many routes Disney could've taken here.  Simply say Disney does not endorse the ideas expressed in the film.  But then again, that too would be taking a side.  Or even release the film anyway, figure out how to play both sides of the fence, fan the controversy, and enjoy the swim in all that fresh money it'll rake in.  And how dare they even consider an opinion before conferring with a focus group.

[cine]

Wednesday, May 5th, 2004
Disney Has Blocked the Distribution of My New Film... by Michael Moore


Friends,

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.

Yesterday I was told that Disney, the studio that owns Miramax, has officially decided to prohibit our producer, Miramax, from distributing my new film, "Fahrenheit 9/11." The reason? According to today's (May 5) New York Times, it might "endanger" millions of dollars of tax breaks Disney receives from the state of Florida because the film will "anger" the Governor of Florida, Jeb Bush. The story is on page one of the Times and you can read it here (Disney Forbidding Distribution of Film That Criticizes Bush).

The whole story behind this (and other attempts) to kill our movie will be told in more detail as the days and weeks go on. 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 (well, OK, sorry -- it WILL upset them...big time. Did I mention it's a comedy?). All I can say is, thank God for Harvey Weinstein and Miramax who have stood by me during the entire production of this movie.

There is much more to tell, but right now I am in the lab working on the print to take to the Cannes Film Festival next week (we have been chosen as one of the 18 films in competition). I will tell you this: Some people may be afraid of this movie because of what it will show. But there's nothing they can do about it now because it's done, it's awesome, and if I have anything to say about it, you'll see it this summer -- because, after all, it is a free country.

Yours,

Michael Moore
mmflint@aol.com
www.michaelmoore.com

[El Duderino]

YEAH! MICHAEL! he's so awesome

[Ravi]

Lions Gate and Newmarket to the rescue?

[pete]

ah now more peopel will flock to see the movie due to the publicity.

man, if only harvey would stand behind his foreign films the way he stands behind michael moore...

[Jeremy Blackman]

ah now more peopel will flock to see the movie due to the publicity.

The publicity and censorship awareness is very good, and I should have expected an explosion like this with Moore's media savvy.

man, if only harvey would stand behind his foreign films the way he stands behind michael moore...

He's standing by this movie because of his faithful alleigance to the Democratic party, not necessarily because of ideology or free speech.

[MacGuffin]

Moore's '9/11' sparks firestorm
Source: Hollywood Reporter

A developing controversy over Michael Moore's upcoming documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11," which promises to be critical of President Bush, has rapidly escalated into a call for a congressional hearing into corporate censorship of the news media and the entertainment industry.

Reacting to media reports that the Walt Disney Co. is refusing to allow its Miramax Films subsidiary to distribute the Moore documentary, Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., sent a letter Wednesday to Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, requesting a hearing "on the disturbing pattern of politically based corporate censorship of the news media and the entertainment industry in recent weeks."

Said Lautenberg: "While corporate leaders rarely exercise discretion over gross indecency or violence, we have seen a number of corporate conglomerates censor material recently based on a political viewpoint."

In particular, Lautenberg cited the case of Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11," a documentary about the Bush family's relationship with the Saudis and America's foreign policy post-Sept. 11, which is scheduled to receive its world premiere at the upcoming Festival de Cannes. "Disney, which is currently distributing 'Kill Bill' -- one of the most violent movies in history," Lautenberg wrote, "is refusing to distribute the new film by Michael Moore because it is critical of President Bush."

Although not available for comment, Moore, who won an Oscar for his most recent documentary, "Bowling for Columbine," posted a message on his Web site. Citing a New York Times report published Wednesday, Moore claimed that Disney had turned thumbs down on the film because "it might 'endanger' millions of dollars of tax breaks Disney receives from the state of Florida because the film will 'anger' the governor of Florida, Jeb Bush."

In an interview with CNBC on Wednesday, Disney CEO Michael Eisner said Disney did not want to be involved in the politically charged film's distribution because it "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."

In his call for a hearing, Lautenberg also cited the Sinclair Broadcast Group's refusal to air "Nightline's" tribute to the U.S. military's Iraqi war casualties last week; CBS' rejection of a MoveOn.org advertisement during the Super Bowl; and CBS' decision last year not to air "The Reagans" miniseries.

In an even more pointed attack on Disney, Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., weighed in with a letter to Eisner, in which he charged: "By muffling Miramax and Mr. Moore, you are stifling criticism of the Bushes, protecting the Saudis and shortchanging stockholders by gagging a proven moneymaker."

Insiders at Disney appeared to be taken by surprise by the sudden firestorm of criticism surrounding "9/11" because, in Disney's view, the issue had been settled a year ago. To some, the whole issue appeared an attempt to create publicity for the movie on the eve of its premiere.

"In May 2003, the Walt Disney Co. communicated to Miramax and Mr. Moore's representatives that Miramax would not be the distributor of his film," senior vp corporate communications Zenia Mucha said. "Contrary to his assertions, Mr. Moore has had and continues to have every opportunity to either find another distributor or distribute the film himself."

Miramax, which released Moore's 1998 docu "The Big One," became involved in "9/11" last year after Mel Gibson's Icon Prods. backed out of the film. Miramax provided most of the project's $6 million budget through what sources familiar with the project described as a bridge loan. Although the loan does not obligate Miramax to release the movie domestically, according to the same sources, it put Miramax in first position to take U.S. distribution rights.

Disney immediately logged its objections. Contractually, it can prevent Miramax from taking on movies that are rated NC-17 or exceed certain budgets. In the case of "9/11," it invoked a clause that allows it to reject projects that in Disney's judgment are not in the best interests of the company.

Miramax has never put "9/11" on its upcoming release schedule, though Moore hopes to see the film released in time for the fall political season. According to sources, Miramax's distribution of the film had become "a dead issue," but after seeing the nearly completed movie, Miramax co-head Harvey Weinstein hoped to assist Moore in finding another distributor -- possibly with Miramax retaining a financial interest or playing a role in overseeing the movie's marketing.

Focus Features, a subsidiary of Universal Pictures, has expressed interest in the film, and a screening could be set up before Cannes, according to other sources. Focus executives were not available for comment.

Another possible contender could be Newmarket Films, which distributed Icon's "The Passion of the Christ" -- especially because Miramax might want to maintain some interest in the film, a consideration that would be easier for an indie entity like Newmarket to accommodate than a specialty unit like Focus.

A spokesperson for Newmarket declined comment and indicated that president and partner Bob Berney had not yet screened "9/11."

"We are continuing to evaluate our options," Miramax spokesman Matthew Hiltzik said. "We are looking forward to resolving this amicably and finding a distributor who will take proper care of the film."

Moore and Eisner did appear to agree on one thing.

In his Web message, a defiant Moore proclaimed: "Some people may be afraid of this movie ... but there's nothing they can do about it now because it's done, it's awesome, and if I have anything to say about it, you'll see it this summer."

In his CNBC comments, Eisner predicted, "That film will get a distributor easily."

[MacGuffin]

Moore: Anti-Bush film will be seen



(CNN) -- Oscar-winning documentary filmmaker Michael Moore has said the Walt Disney Company is blocking distribution of his new film critical of U.S. President George W. Bush. He spoke to CNN anchor Hala Gorani about the controversy.

Gorani: What was your communication with Disney?

Moore: Almost a year ago after we'd started making the film, the chairman of Disney, Michael Eisner, told my agent that he was upset that Miramax had made the film -- Disney owns Miramax -- and he will not distribute this film.

Miramax said don't worry about that, keep making the film, we'll keep funding it. The Disney money kept flowing to us for the last year. We finished the film last week, and we take it to the Cannes film festival next week.

On Monday of this week we got final word from Disney that they will not distribute the film. They told my agent they did not want to upset the Bush family, particularly Gov. Bush of Florida because Disney was up for a number of tax incentives, abatements ... whatever. The risk of losing this -- we're talking about tens of millions of dollars -- they didn't want to risk it over a little documentary.

Arguing Disney's point, Michael Eisner said, look we don't want to take part in a partisan film right before the election in America. So to be fair to the company, if they feel it hurts their bottom line, why haven't they the right to say they don't want to distribute it?

Our media companies are invested with the public trust. That trust states that they're there to allow all voices to be heard. We live in a free and open society where dissent is not to be stifled or silenced. They have violated that trust. We have only got a few studios left, right, and if we get to a point where they can decide that only these voices can be heard, how free and open is our society at that point?

So Disney signed a contract to distribute this, they got cold feet, they're afraid. Yes, the Bushes will not like this movie ... they will really not like this movie. Because we're going to show things like they haven't seen before about the Bush family, about the war in Iraq and a number of other things.

So what's your next step? You don't have a distributor now but you've had so much publicity in the last few days out of this, you've probably had people calling you to say they're willing to distribute this movie and internationally will it be seen?

The good news is that internationally we already have distributors in much of the world. So it will be seen outside of America for sure some time this year. But I hope it doesn't happen where an American film maker makes a film about America and it can't be seen in America.

What is the message to the rest of the world then? It's not a good message so I'm hopeful we'll shortly have an American distributor. One good thing about Americans regardless of their political stripe is that they don't like to be told they can't see something -- that's what Disney has said. And I'm pretty confident we'll prevail here.

[SoNowThen]

http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,12589,1210805,00.html


It's a PR stunt. They knew back in 2003 it wouldn't be distributed through Disney.

[cine]

It's a PR stunt. They knew back in 2003 it wouldn't be distributed through Disney.

Moore: Almost a year ago after we'd started making the film, the chairman of Disney, Michael Eisner, told my agent that he was upset that Miramax had made the film -- Disney owns Miramax -- and he will not distribute this film.

Miramax said don't worry about that, keep making the film, we'll keep funding it. The Disney money kept flowing to us for the last year.

[SoNowThen]

Yeah, that's Miramax, quite a different entity than Eisner. Not that I like Disney or anything, but they have a point to wanna stay out of any political hurricane, which is what Moore's films are. He's going on like they're trying to bury the film, but everyone knows it'll get sold and seen. No one's being censored here.

Moore's just doing what he does best, which is self-promotion. Kudos to him, cos it seems to be working.

[Redlum]

Focus Features, a subsidiary of Universal Pictures, has expressed interest in the film, and a screening could be set up before Cannes, according to other sources.

I love those guys

Will it really be that revelatory? I have no idea what the hell is going on any more. My distrust of most media has left me with a sense of detachment from eveyrthing I read or hear. Plus, I think they should really have seperate 'Lite News' and 'Heavy News' programs. I find it uncomfortable to listen to a report on mistreatment of prisoners of war, followed by celebrity breast enhancement rumours.

Is Michael Moore sitting something big, or is he just making something small common knowledge? I wonder if he could do a gritty expose on Tony Blair and it make for compelling viewing.

[cron]

Will it really be that revelatory? I have no idea what the hell is going on any more. My distrust of most media has left me with a sense of detachment from eveyrthing I read or hear. Plus, I think they should really have seperate 'Lite News' and 'Heavy News' programs. I find it uncomfortable to listen to a report on mistreatment of prisoners of war, followed by celebrity breast enhancement rumours.

Is Michael Moore sitting something big, or is he just making something small common knowledge? I wonder if he could do a gritty expose on Tony Blair and it make for compelling viewing.

What you need to do is look up for good newspapers and turn off the TV. You Britons invented The Guardian, fer fork's sake.
And even in that way , reading the news still makes me want to cry.

[cine]

And even in that way , reading the news still makes me want to cry.

You should buy a television! Whoooa man.

[pete]

but after thinking about it (all day), I'm reminded that this movie really will not make that much of an impact.  it's not gonna detract the Bush supporters, and the probably not that many voters in the middle.  From Michael Moore, Al Franken, to Rush to Coulter to Hannity, to actually informed people like Noam and Molly Ivins (and conservative intellectuals like Robert Bellah)--none of them has made any dent.  They've made dents in their careers, and perhaps each others' careers, and maybe in the history of punditry--but there's no Triumph of the Will or Why We Fight in these works.
Did I just use a lot of words to say "preaching to the choir"?  Maybe.  But the other point I wanna make is that pundits and critics are by nature self-serving at first, their ideologies second, and their targets third.  Not really a messed-up priority at all, it's logical, and we are all like that, but people need to be reminded.