I admit to a serious dislike of Michael Moore’s past work and present politics (to put it mildly), which I intend to express by not seeing his next film – which I feel is a proper response (and before you ask, I’ve given Moore enough fair chances already; I see no reason why I should give him another). Those who wish to may go watch it a billion times for all I care, as I doubt that the mere viewing of it will destroy Western society as we know it, or even convince a significant number of people who weren’t predisposed to be convinced, so as both a concerned American and a partisan Republican it’s not my problem.
So understood? Good.
In that case, there’ll be no misunderstanding, then. Like Ray Bradbury, I’m pissed as all hell that Moore ripped off ‘homaged’ Farenheit 451 for the title of Moore’s own movie:
LOS ANGELES (AP) – Ray Bradbury is demanding an apology from filmmaker Michael Moore for lifting the title from his classic science-fiction novel “Fahrenheit 451” without permission and wants the new documentary “Fahrenheit 9/11” to be renamed.
“He didn’t ask my permission,” Bradbury, 83, told The Associated Press on Friday. “That’s not his novel, that’s not his title, so he shouldn’t have done it.”
Just so we’re clear, this wasn’t an accident. The choice of title was deliberate:
Joanne Doroshow, a spokeswoman for “Fahrenheit 9/11,” said the film’s makers have “the utmost respect for Ray Bradbury.”
“Mr. Bradbury’s work has been an inspiration to all of us involved in this film, but when you watch this film you will see the fact that the title reflects the facts that the movie explores, the very real life events before, around and after 9-11,” she said.
This would be that special meaning of ‘utmost respect’, by the way: the one that includes the concept of ‘waiting six months to get back to the author that you’re ripping off ‘homaging’ when he calls up to complain about your use of a movie title’. That’s not a partisan sneer, note: that’s a ‘f*cking Hollywood’ sneer, which is not the same thing. Anyway, they knew, but Moore’s got more money and political influence than Mr. Bradbury, so he can pretty much do as he pleases got to stay true to his artistic vision.
Now, I understand full well that Moore almost certainly has the law on his side, which means that Mr. Bradbury is SOL. There will be no renaming of the film, no apology, certainly no admission of wrongdoing – only the already proffered feeling of Moore being ’embarrassed’, which means nothing, really. That’s annoying, but the way things go.
I am also aware that, in the grand scheme of things, some may feel that the wishes and opinions of an elderly fantasist (especially one who may have been affected by his advanced age) have to be measured against the fierce and pure needs of Anybody But Bush. If you take that latter position, fine. Actually, no: you’re not going nearly far enough. What those of you taking the latter postion need to do is go to your library shelves right now, take down your copies of Something Wicked This Way Comes and R is for Rocket and The Illustrated Man and The Martian Chronicles and all the rest… take them, put them in a neat paper bag and get yourself to the nearest used bookstore. I’m sure that you should be able to get enough for them to buy yourself a matinee ticket to Farenheit 911. All of you ready to believe that this is just a publicity stunt of Bradbury’s, feel free to do likewise. That’ll show him.
As for the rest of you, the ones who think that it wasn’t cool what Moore did… jeez, could you just send him a note or something saying so? I’m not calling for a boycott or anything, mind you: if you want to see this film, see this film. I won’t say a word. Just don’t be shy about expressing how you feel about what happened with the title.
One way, or the other.
(Via Ann Althouse)
Moe
I dont say this as a fan of Moore (which I’m not – I’ve liked his movies, I hated the one book of his I’ve read, I’ve never really liked the man), but as a freelance writer/artist alarmed by the increasing trend of loony protectionism of authors, software companies, etc. towards anything that even faintly smells like it’s their intellectual property:
Ray Bradbury can stuff it. He can stuff it because he doesn’t own the title or the phrase “Fahrenheit 911” any more than Ray Bradbury owes any part of his title to Gabriel Fahrenheit (long-forgotten 17th-century physicist and designer of the Fahrenheit scale). He can stuff it because George Orwell’s estate doesn’t own title rights, or name rights, or even complaining rights, to the litany of crappy dystopia books called “2084.” He can stuff it because by his loony standard he owes an apology to Shakespeare for “Something Wicked This Way Comes” and one to Dickens for “A Graveyard For Lunatics: Another Tale of Two Cities.”
Could Moore have named his movie something else? Yeah, he could have, and he should have – not because he would’ve been “ripping off” Bradbury, but because “Fahrenheit 9/11” is a limp title. But does anyone – even Bradbury – seriously think Moore “stole” the title of Bradbury’s book to boost ticket sales? What’s going on inside Ray’s head, there? Is he claiming people will confuse Moore’s anti-Bush screed with a new work of speculative fiction by aged master Ray Bradbury, or think that Ray Bradbury co-directed this latest attack on Bush’s war on terror – just like Ashton Kutcher co-wrote “Dude, Where’s My Country”?
The only thing that matters in Moore’s movie is, is he going to keep it accurate? It doesn’t matter if he calls it “Seventeen Grown Men Having Sex With A Donkey” as long as he keeps it straight.
Pretty much, yeah, to most of ML and IL. Moore’s a lout who should have handled it better, but I’ll see the movie anyway. Bradbury’s being an ornery old jerk floating unworkable suggestions, but I’ll read his books anyway, if that’s OK. Hell, I think Orson Scott Card’s a fantasist nut, but I’m sure I’ll get around to Ender’s Game soon.
And as an afternote – I’m all for full and just criticism of Moore’s movies on their merits, and most especially their accuracy. What fries my cheese is to see debate degenerate immediately to the level of “the messenger is ugly and fat, let’s throw rocks at him,” especially if those rocks lead us to embracing the view that those who give nods to the titles of literary materworks without their authors’ express permission deserve public castigation.
On an after-afternote, it always disappointed me that no actual debate ever happened over the actual argument presented in Bowling For Columbine – that gun violence in America isn’t the product of guns, but of a malevolent and long-standing culture of fear and paranoia – just a ton of shouting over controversial scenes and its filmmaker’s antics.
“malevolent and long-standing culture of fear and paranoia”
this is true.
and the Bush people are throwing gasoline on the fire.
everybody repeat: change is insecurity
Something Wicked This Way Comes…
Errr… following Bradbury’s logic, shouldn’t the estate of William Shakespeare have something to say about this?
” What fries my cheese is to see debate degenerate immediately to the level of “the messenger is ugly and fat, let’s throw rocks at him,””
Then I suggest that you take it up with somebody who’s deliberately doing that. I went to some trouble to isolate out my specific objections: I am aware that I cordially loathe what Moore does for a living, but I felt that this particular act of numbskullery would be apparent even to those who didn’t share my disapproval. I guess we’ll see if I was right, huh?
Moe
PS: Also, yes, I am specifically stating that Michael Moore is trying to play off of Ray Bradbury’s success (‘ripping off’). The former is a filmmaker of moderate notoriety who will be a trivia question twenty years from now; the latter is a brilliant writer who will be assigned reading well into the Third Millenium and quite possibly the Fourth.
“Errr… following Bradbury’s logic, shouldn’t the estate of William Shakespeare have something to say about this?”
Public domain, Anarch; more to the point, if you were working on a project that specifically drew from a living author’s work, and you were informed that said author had called up to complain, and you had the ‘utmost respect’ for that author… how long would you take to call the author back? And would you measure that in minutes, hours, days or months?
I don’t dispute your assessment of Moore’s and Bradbury’s eventual roles in art and history, Moe. I dispute your assessment of their notoriety today. The fact of the matter is that far more Americans know of Michael Moore right now – because of the flak over the Oscars, because of the hype over the movie – than have actually read Fahrenheit 451 (which is apalling).
No, I don’t think Moore is trying to cash in on Bradbury’s name. He doesn’t need to – he could’ve named this movie anything and people would’ve lined up in droves to see it and denounce it because he’s good at playing the sideshow barker and the right has been excellent at accomodating him in that role. He named this movie the same way he named his last book (after the Kutcher movie) – out of laziness and on the spur of the moment (he let an audience at the Book Expo vote for that title over another one; I saw it on C-SPAN2 waiting for George Crile).
It’s absurd to suggest that a movie that was going to be preposterously controversial – that was designed and marketed as such – got a lift off a scifi writer’s fame, even if that writer is a titan of the genre. And that makes this a nonissue cluttering up what should be a real issue, which is, is this guy telling the truth in this movie, and if so, what does he have to say?
I’ll certainly concede that Michael Moore is being a prick; that’s pretty much his stock and trade, and I say that as someone who does not “cordially loathe” what he does for a living. I do, however, find myself agreeing with Iron Lungfish that this kind of IP protection is, well, overstated. The point of mentioning “Something Wicked This Way Comes” (which I see IL actually addressed above) is that I can’t really see Bradbury’s title as “ripping off” Shakespeare — public domain or not — because there’s no particular connection between the phrase and the substantive character of Shakespeare’s works.
As to relative longevity, I suspect that Bradbury’s legacy will be that of a brilliant SF writer whose appreciation will always be marginal at best. [And I say that as a devoted SF geek myself; our little corner of the noosphere is not, nor will it ever be, mainstream.] Moore’s legacy will be more short-lived, undoubtedly, but will be exposed to a far greater audience. In that sense, no, I don’t think your stance that Moore is “playing off” of Bradbury’s success has any legs, at least insofar as it’s identifiably Bradbury’s; the phrase “Fahrenheit 451” may be commonly known, but I know from bitter past experience that most people haven’t got the faintest idea what it means, where it comes from (“It’s a book, right? I think I saw the movie.”), who wrote it, or what it’s about.
To summarize this rather unwieldy post, then — “I’m sorry, I haven’t the time to write a short one”, or words to that effect — I adhere to the following points:
[Added in proof: I also agree with IL that this is appalling. And since he’s making these points much better than I, I’ll shut up now :)]
Usual disclaimers, including all the ones about mileage and opinionhood, apply.
Public domain, Anarch;
Moe, you talk about this as if book titles weren’t public domain.
more to the point, if you were working on a project that specifically drew from a living author’s work, and you were informed that said author had called up to complain, and you had the ‘utmost respect’ for that author… how long would you take to call the author back? And would you measure that in minutes, hours, days or months?
Moore, as previously stated, is a lout. But give a lout his due: it’s painfully obvious from interviews that Bradbury vehemently dislikes Moore, his work, and his political opinions. Would you want to call him back for what was likely to be a shouting match with an aging genre legend?
If I were Moore, I would have dumped the title and come up with something better – everyone wins. But Moore is a staunch, intractable idealogue who almost never budges on anything once he’s decided he’s right, and grumpy opposition from Bradbury (who blames him for “killing” the Clark campaign and lying about Bush’s service record) would have pissed him off into staying where he is instead of gracefully conceding the title.
So what does raising this issue demonstrate, other than that Moore, once again, is an unpleasant person? As I said, I don’t like shoot-the-messenger attacks, even when the messenger presents a very tempting target. Evaluate his accuracy and his ideas. At what point does “X is an ass” become a relevant point of debate?
“No, I don’t think Moore is trying to cash in on Bradbury’s name.”
OK, I concede that Moore is currently more famous. I also understand that you originally approached this issue from an intellectual properties point of view, which is a position that has some heft to it, and which makes this situation look a bit different. Indeed, I conceded from the start that Bradbury almost certainly doesn’t have a legal leg to stand on…
But, geez. Six flipping months to return the man’s call. And no apology, only embarrassment.
1:57 comment typed out without seeing 1:54 and 1:55 comments: to expand on the previous comment, I will concede the IP agruments (the ‘public domain’ bit was me talking out of my butt, but I’m not going to delete it precisely because I have the ability to).
But, geez. Six flipping months to return the man’s call. And no apology, only embarrassment.
Ohhhhhhhh….
Michael Moore’s a bitch, he’s a big fat bitch
He’s the biggest bitch in the whole wide world
He’s a stupid bitch if there ever was a bitch
He’s a bitch to all the boys and girls…
</comity>
[And God help me if this ends up making the rounds of the blogosphere…]
I should make an adjustment to whether or not it’s proper to castigate Moore for being an ass.
I think it’s right and proper to castigate X for being an ass, as a rebuttal to the proposition “X is not an ass” or “X is a good person” or “X is a living saint.” As Michael Moore tends to portray himself as the all-American working-class Joe who fights for the working-class Joe, he’s cultivated an aura of righteous indignation and holier-than-thouness which leaves him fair game to such a castigation. But such a castigation should be proportional to the offense – the dual one of being an ass while at the same time being holier-than-thou.
What the “X is an ass” argument is not a valid response to is whatever X is saying. If Michael Moore says “GM’s practices are bad for America,” it’s not a valid response to say “Michael Moore’s an ass” – even if you think he’s a total ass. If Michael Moore says “The same cultural and media impulses that lead us to kill each other in such huge numbers are the same ones that lead us to invade other countries with reckless abandon,” it’s again not a valid rebuttal to say “Michael Moore’s an ass.”
Dammit, Anarch, don’t make me laugh at my own glowering vehementness. Vehementicity? Vehemency? Och, you ken what I mean.
I had some sympathy for Bradbury (but a slight amount. Both his legal and ethical ground is almost nonexistant) until I read the full interview with him.
He’s the dictionary definition of a cantankerous old crank. And I don’t say this in some effort to defend Moore, which is neither needed nor warranted. He just is.
“He is scornful of the Internet (telling one reporter it’s “a big scam” by computer companies) and ATMs (asking, “Why go to a machine when you can go to a human being?”) and computers (“A computer is a typewriter,” he says, “I have two typewriters, I don’t need another one”).”
“Video games are a waste of time for men with nothing else to do. Real brains don’t do that….I love all of the arts. I love motion pictures. I love stage. I love theater.”
It’s weird to see a science fiction writer turn into a grumpy old luddite.
On an after-afternote, it always disappointed me that no actual debate ever happened over the actual argument presented in Bowling For Columbine – that gun violence in America isn’t the product of guns, but of a malevolent and long-standing culture of fear and paranoia . . .
For what it’s worth, I don’t find this to be a persuasive argument. The vast majority of gun violence in the country takes place among two groups of people — two groups which, not coincidentally, overlap greatly. The first group is composed of those who are members of American subcultures who place a great deal of emphasis on honor/shame and its signifiers, and who will take lethal action to seek and protect honor and respect. The second is composed of people who either participate in illegal/underground economies, or who live in areas of concentrated poverty, or both — in other words, people who don’t have much, if any, access to police protection for their rights, property and safety.
Much ado…
Yes, that is exactly what he did. F-451 is required reading in many schools across the country. He is completely and totally playing off the familiarity of the book. I’m not saying it is illegal, just marketing. Can we not all see the parallel with the titles? Is Moore not relating the plot of a widely read book with Bush’s presidency?
Have we all forgotten what F451 is about? Is F451 not a warning about people with too much power? Hello!
If Moore isn’t trying to capitialize off the plot of Bradbury’s book then he would have come up with a different title.
Moore is using the name Fareh
” What fries my cheese is to see debate degenerate immediately to the level of “the messenger is ugly and fat, let’s throw rocks at him”
I just wanted to say… I really liked that ‘fries my cheese’ from a purely linguistic p.o.v. Must try to use that (without laughing).
And yes, you cannot copyright a title – though you can of course turn it into a trademark and own it that way. No idea whether Bradbury has done this. Shakespeare, of course, didn’t, or his descendants would have bought this planet decades ago.
Can I also add, and I understand Moe gets angry and I’d rather that, when he does (pause while I get Incredible Hulk image of Moe out of my head) he does it in this way rather than any other, but I’m beginning to not like this growing fad of being snarky by strike-throughs. It seems too much like a very thin veneer, and although I appreciate that may well be the point, people are using it to try to get away with the more partisan, aggressive comments (not referring so much to Moe here, more to some others I’ve seen) as if to say, “Oh, well, I crossed it out, it doesn’t count.” Yes, it does.
(Throws ball back to Moe or anyone else still around)
“but I’m beginning to not like this growing fad of being snarky by strike-throughs.”
Well, seeing as it’s you saying it… I was very annoyed at the time – not so much, now – but I probably overdid it a tad (yes, that’s in space terms).
Yeah, I did think it far more likely you’d be using the technique to show veiled anger than to be ‘clever’ – was thinking more about posts I’ve seen recently from others and was just hoping it doesn’t become too popular webwise, though that’s doubtless a folorn hope…
Anyway, didn’t mean to sound all high horse, if I did.
(Hmm… once upon a time, I think there were two ‘r’s in what I have decided to spell ‘folorn’…)
Re: “Have we all forgotten what F451 is about? Is F451 not a warning about people with too much power? Hello!
“If Moore isn’t trying to capitialize off the plot of Bradbury’s book then he would have come up with a different title.”
This, actually, is called making an allusion. It’s a rhetorical tactic. It’s not theft of an idea, it’s one of the ways we as communicating individuals have intellectual conversation — Moore, that is, is using an idea that Bradbury made part of our culture to make a point about another part of our culture.
This is not “stealing” anything from Bradbury. This is not trying to capitalize on Bradbury’s fame to make money off his own movie. This is using an idea that belongs to our culture to communicate something else to our culture. It’s no different than using a word that was coined by someone — say, Shakespeare, for instance — because it’s the word you need to communicate a given idea.
This is probably why Moore did not return Bradbury’s phone call, btw: because Bradbury’s objection was just too goofy to be believed. It would be, yes, exactly like someone objecting to the use of the term “1984” or “Brave New Word” as a metaphor — those ideas belong to the culture now. So does Bradbury’s metaphor.
Also, titles cannot be copyrighted. It’s why the Replacements could name one of their albums Let It Be and not be sued by the Beatles.
Moe, you talk about this as if book titles weren’t public domain.
Interesting question this, . . . . . (long boring legal discussion) . . . . , so, you see that although book titles aren’t in the “public domain,” per se, there are relatively few prohibitions against ripping them off (aside from the potential trademark issues that I addressed in Part II.A, supra, but which likely do not apply here).
As for the title: Leave Bradbury out of it. This is the most idiotic title I’ve seen in a long while. Fahrenheit 9-11, “the temperature at which freedom burns”? It’s like a bad SNL parody.
(Care to mix one more image/metaphor into that soup?)
I’m going to see it. I’ve read bits of Moore’s books, but not seen his films.
At the very least, I liked the soundtrack to the trailer.
That’s not much of an endorsement… but it’s all I can be certain of.
A last, desperate gasp for attention by Bradbury.
And, of course, an opportunity to bash Moore who has, once more, produced a work receiving critical acclaim and, quite likely, box office success.
Just in: Walt Whitman is demanding an apology from Bradbury for lifting I Sing the Body Electric.
delagar,
I never said he broke the law. I only claim he is trying to make money of the “allusion”. I didn’t even say he was wrong to do it. I’ll even go as far as to give him points for being clever.
I even said in my post, “I’m not saying it is illegal, just marketing.”
I think Moore does what he does to make money. Not to make a point. That’s a personal opinion that I base on his actions.
“I only claim he is trying to make money of the “allusion”.”
As has been brought up in the thread before, the number of people more likely to watch a movie because it contains a reference to a Ray Bradbury novel is a tiny fraction of the people who are going to watch the movie anyway. I’m sure he picked that name because he thought it was clever and artistic and it invokes vague ideas about fascism, not because he thought he could play off Bradbury’s ‘fame’.
I love and honor Ray Bradbury: he’s a writer of fantastic fiction whose words have furnished my mind.
In the matter of laying claim to the title Fahrenheit 9/11 because of the novel Fahrenheit 451, however, Ray Bradbury’s being an idiot: the polite thing to do when someone you like and admire is behaving like an idiot is to politely ignore them. I like Michael Moore the better if that’s what he did.
sidereal: It’s weird to see a science fiction writer turn into a grumpy old luddite.
Not so much when it’s Ray Bradbury. So many of his stories are essentially luddite: he wrote some lovely stories in appreciation of rockets (remember “Rocket Summer”?) but he wrote many more stories in horror and gloom at dehumanizing technology. As Spider Robinson said in another context, who said technology has to be dehumanizing?
“(remember “Rocket Summer”?)”
(Grumping) Fine, fine, let me just go load up the briefcase with Bradbury for the rest of the week. This week was supposed to be Lovecraftian Horror week, but I guess we’re going to have to switch things around, huh?
😉
Moe
PS: As for Robinson… if it weren’t for Robinson I’d never have picked up any John D MacDonald novels, and if that never happened… I shudder at the prospect of what my life would have been like without access to Travis and Meyer.
No Donald Westlake Dortmunders, either. The mind reels.
(Grumping) Fine, fine, let me just go load up the briefcase with Bradbury for the rest of the week. This week was supposed to be Lovecraftian Horror week, but I guess we’re going to have to switch things around, huh?
Yes. I was re-reading The Martian Chronicles just the other day. Everyone should! (Also, I want to go re-read Fahrenheit 451, when I can find my copy: haven’t read it in well over a decade.)
PS: IMO Robinson’s gone downhill a bit: Callahan’s Place was a great bar to hang out in, but since it turned into Mary’s Place SR’s been taking himself too seriously. It’s about drinking and puns and having a good time!
I didn’t say he was playing off the fame of Bradbury. I think he is playing of the image created that is already famous in order to make more money.
Picking a name that is clever and artisitic and invokes the images he wants will help him make money.
I am not saying that there is someone out there saying, “F451 was good, this move has a similar name so I will go see it.”
Blue wrote: Picking a name that is clever and artisitic and invokes the images he wants will help him make money.
Quite seriously, Blue, I doubt if “making money” is ever Michael Moore’s first motivation. (It may well be a motivation, even a strong onem but that’s capitalism for you.) Moore’s first motivation in making movies is to get people to go see the movies. This will, of course, make him money. But I don’t think he makes movies in order to make himself rich: I think he makes movies because he has something to say.
You may dislike Moore himself: I often do. You may dislike what he has to say: many people do. But he’s shown no signs of being the kind of person who will compromise what he has to say in order to make more money, and until then, I think we can assume that for Moore, the attention is more important than the money.
Rephrased accordingly: Picking a name that is clever and artisitic and invokes the images he wants will help him get attention.
Agreed. And there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that.
IMO Robinson’s gone downhill a bit
A bit? Not only has Spider not written anything worthwhile since Mindkiller, he’s managed to retroactively ruin everything good he’s ever done. And the scary thing is that now he’s writing a book based on an outline by Heinlein.
Moe: It’s okay; I’ll do the Lovecraft this week. (I’m 120 pages into a book of his collected works – near the end of The Dunwich Horror – with a five-hour plane ride tomorrow.)
Jesurgislac and Josh: I honestly don’t think Spider Robinson’s written anything worth reading since he switched from short fiction (Callahan’s Crosstime Saloon, Time Travelers Strictly Cash, Callahan’s Lady, etc.) to long fiction (pretty much anything after that).
For the thread, and specifically Blue and Jesurgislac:
I suspect that this may apply to both Moore and Bradbury here.
(Huh; Typepad apparently doesn’t like <u>.)
EDG: I like Mindkiller. I like the Stardance trilogy. I like The Free Lunch, self-conscious though it is at times. I do not like many of the later short stories, Mary’s Place or Callahan’s Brothel or whatever. I think Spider Robinson lost out somewhere, but I’m not sure the distinction is between long and short stories.
I’ve read the quote from Rober Bloch before, though I can’t remember where.
Jesurgislac: See, I couldn’t make it through any of those – I struggled through fifty pages of Free Lunch because I Like Spider Robinson, Dammit, but had to give up at that point due to intense disinterest – but I enjoyed Callahan’s Lady. Perhaps to the general fandom Robinson’s shark appears somewhere other than the division between his short and long fiction, but I can say that I categorically like his short work and categorically dislike his long work, so I figured maybe other folks had the same thought. 🙂
As for the Robert Bloch, I suspect that it’s a fairly common quotation (at least as far as quotes of horror-fiction introductions go); it comes from a twenty-year-old introduction to a book that’s been in print for nearly 40 years, and it speaks to what I imagine is the insecurity in a lot of writers and artists. 🙂
It is very obvious that I wasted the few minutes reading your article, because it was a charge of hatred and jealousy, of a success story. Your critique of the movie based on the name is a pathetic try. keep up the good work, you might succeed , one time.
Huh! I must’ve missed where Moe critiqued the movie. But you’re right–your waste of time is obvious. But that wasn’t Moe’s fault.
Moe,
Why don’t you like Michael Moore? And why the hell does it matter if he called his documentary “Fahrenheit 911” or any other thing?