I’m not a well-educated consumer of Michael Moore’s output. I’ve seen him speak, and he’s a bit too over-the-top for my tastes. I’ve seen him quoted where he went beyond hyperbole into unsubstantiated claims territory. I find him abrasive somewhat as well.
I do consider him an American entitled to Freedom of Speech, without attempts to censor his message, however.
The Walt Disney Company is blocking its Miramax Films division from distributing Michael Moore’s documentary “Fahrenheit 9/11,” which criticizes President Bush’s handling of Sept. 11 and connects the Bush family with Osama bin Laden’s.
Moore attributes Disney’s decision to concerns that the documentary will endanger tax breaks the company receives from Florida, where Bush’s brother Jeb is governor.
That last bit wouldn’t surprise me if it were true, but then neither would it surprise me if it’s simply Moore guessing.
Disney representatives Zenia Mucha and John Spelich did not return calls early Wednesday.
It shouldn’t surprise you and it is true. The part of your post about the tax breaks did not come from Michael Moore. This was a direct conversation between Disney and Michael’s agent Ari Emmanuel (yes, Rohm’s brother). Ari has been an agent for many years, i believe even before Rohm’s political career. So leave your doubts behind on how much this one stinks. And having met Michael Moore I will say that I liked him immensely and I dealt with Ari earlier in his career and found him smart and shrewd but truthful.
I wrote it wouldn’t surprise me Wilfred if Moore was right. I meant what I wrote.
I have seen instances where Moore exaggerated past the technical truth (or at least he was careless in his choice of words) though. So, to counter any example folks may dredge up to discredit him, I’ve acknowledged it up front.
Regardless, I agree with you. What Disney is doing stinks to high heaven.
This conversation is true as reported by Moore’s agent? Where?
In any case I think it is certainly as/more likely that Disney didn’t want to be affiliated with anything that could be construed as insensitive with respect to 9/11. That may make them spineless in your opinion, but it isn’t censorship.
Every time Moore creates a film he claims that it has been censored, yet mysteriously they all get released to massive audiences and he wins awards for them. Either it is the weakest censorship in the world or he is a liar. Considering his work I tend to believe the latter.
This has nothing to do with freedom of speech and everything to do with playing to kind of crowd that will go out and rush to see something if he can get a whiff of ‘censorship’ around it.
This conversation is true as reported by Moore’s agent? Where?
In any case I think it is certainly as/more likely that Disney didn’t want to be affiliated with anything that could be construed as insensitive with respect to 9/11. That may make them spineless in your opinion, but it isn’t censorship.
Every time Moore creates a film he claims that it has been censored, yet mysteriously they all get released to massive audiences and he wins awards for them. Either it is the weakest censorship in the world or he is a liar. Considering his work I tend to believe the latter.
This has nothing to do with freedom of speech and everything to do with playing to the kind of crowd that will go out and rush to see something if he can get a whiff of ‘censorship’ around it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/05/national/05DISN.html?hp
tried to make a link but it wouldn’t preview
Mr. Moore’s agent, Ari Emanuel, said 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 particular 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.
Mr. Holsclaw: So far, all we have is Moore’s agent’s side of things. However, there are several indications that’s the accurate side.
First, apparently the production company (Miramax) has no problem with the film and want to see it released. As the production company, they’re on the hook if the movie tanks or if there exists some kind of liability issue.
Second, as you note, Moore has a pretty good track record with his movies. They gain critical acclaim and make money.
Third, I’m unaware of Moore claiming any of his movies were censored.
First, apparently the production company (Miramax) has no problem with the film and want to see it released. As the production company, they’re on the hook if the movie tanks or if there exists some kind of liability issue.
I don’t think you can legitimately compare the possible damage each company risks by having its name attached to a film attacking a sitting President. Miramax wins even if the movie tanks because it had “courage” and will, ostensibly, reap the benefits of that “courage” among the Hollywood creative set. Disney loses because the profits it reaps if the movie does well will be lost in the boycotts (actual and silent) of their products (I can hear the calls already, listen close) for being attached to this, leaving aside any tax break shenanigans.
Moore calls his films art and therefore plays a bit with the truth IMHO. That’s OK, its entertainment (despite an Oscar in documentary film, hehe). Disney, like, say, the NY Times, has every right to limit the risk to its bottom line by determining how comfortable they are with the substantiation of facts in the film.
Moore has a right to be outraged. With all this free publicity, once he finds a distributor and people flock to theaters to see what the controversy is all about, how is he going to spend all his money?
Hopefully Moore will spend his largesse on making many more films that shine a light on corporate and government cockroaches.
How’s that a priori reasoning coming, Seb?
So that’s where Zenia Mucha ended up.
Non-residents of New York may not know this, but Ms Mucha’s former employer was one George Pataki, whom Mucha served in the role of communications director. What she seemed especially good at communicating was spite.
As for the Disney decision, I doubt it qualifies as censorship, as I’m sure Moore will have an alternate distribution deal lined up shortly. It does seem to confirm the suspicion, though, that Disney is being run by folks with the intellect of…
…wait for it…
…mice.
I have seen instances where Moore exaggerated past the technical truth (or at least he was careless in his choice of words) though.
Boy, that’s charitable. For future reference, when someone in ideological opposition does the same thing, one tends to refer to it as “lying.”
Why does Disney’s decision not to want to be attached to a film of this nature “stink to high heaven?” Their reputation is not Moore’s to fritter away, and with all their recent management and financial troubles, they need this like they need a hole in the head.
Hopefully Moore will spend his largesse on making many more films that shine a light on corporate and government cockroaches.
While he continues to prevent his own employees from unionizing, outsources his web work to Canada, and sends his kids to private schools. A real man of the people, is Our Mike.
Censorship? Please.
Weinsteins? Democrats
Eisner? Democrat
Fatso? Democrat
Disney OWNS Miramax and has a contractual veto right. They are choosing to exercise it. Disney is a family oriented company and doesn’t need the heat from the public.
Moore’s film will get distributed by somebody else.
This is a contractual dipute among rich, and in this case, apparently incompetent,Democrats. That’s it.
Weinstein didn’t clear this in advance? Moore didn’t worry about that? Eisner didn’t put his foot down immediately? Knuckleheads all.
You are weakening the definition of censorship by applying it here. Moore has no legal right to have his art distributed by another party. Neither does any other artist. This is a commercial matter.
well, Disney may have done something objectionable here, but I sure wish Michael Moore were less annoying.
First, Freedom of Speech has nothing to do with this –the First Amendment only limits government power over speech. Disney can do what it wants.
Second, I’m sure he’ll have no problem getting his movie distributed, but now he has enormous added publicity. I’m sure Moore will milk this pseudo-scandal for all its worth (I know I would.)
First, Freedom of Speech has nothing to do with this –the First Amendment only limits government power over speech.
But that’s exactly what Moore is claiming IS happening. The government (via Jeb Bush’s alleged threat to “endanger tax breaks the company receives from Florida”) is attempting to limit his speech.
IIRC, Disney is one of the bigger, if not the biggest employer in the Orlando area.
If ol’ Jeb really did threaten Disney over this, then he’s dumber than I thought, as Disney could respond with a bunch of layoffs and blame them on GOP retaliation.
It’s “Rahm” Emmanuel, by the way, not “Rohn.”
Zenia Mucha worked for Al D’Amato for years before she worked for Pataki.
Looks like another of lie…
Pet peeve of mine: Assume the stuff about Jeb Bush is made up. Just because it’s not government censorship, does not mean it’s not censorship. Just because the First Amendment isn’t implicated doesn’t mean that free speech isn’t implicated. I suppose it should be “freedom of speech” rather than “Freedom of Speech”, but that’s a quibble.
Disney would not violate the Constitution by firing every Democrat on staff–not that they would, you couldn’t make movies anymore–but I’d hope we’d all think it was a problem.
Not that they necessarily have even a moral obligation to distribute a film they find offensive, but when it sounds like it’s the movie’s attitude towards the President that gets it into trouble–it makes me rather queasy. Especially when one consideres how much power these ginormous media companies have over what comes over the airwaves–Disney owns ABC, doesn’t it?
Assuming Moore’s telling the truth. He may not be, but Stan, the fact that Disney’s publishing subsidiary printed a teeny weeny anti-Bush book is not very good evidence at all about whether they’d distribute a major anti-Bush movie. (Disney saying it never planned to distribute the movie in the first place is obviously more relevant.)
Sebastian, you’re giving a reason for the censorship — spinelessness — not offering an alternative.
And I’m not sure this is over, yet.
Miramax confirmed that Disney told the company it can’t release the film. “We hope to amicably resolve the situation in the near future,” Miramax spokesman Matthew Hiltzik told The Associated Press.
Harvey hates Eisner. (Well, I guess everybody hates Eisner.) Fighting this serves the latter while pimping the movie at the same time. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
If Disney is in actuality being threatened by Jeb in Florida, the anger in this whole story should be directed toward Jeb Bush and not Disney. Disney has a bottom line to think about. There is no excuse for a governor to put pressure on someone for saying something that offends him, his political side or his brother. It is disgusting.
IF it is true, of course.
Jeb Bush’s alleged threat to “endanger tax breaks
Unless there has been a change in the state government of Florida between Thursday and today (and Jeb is now the King of Florida). There isn’t anything Jeb can do about the tax code.
Katherine on the airwaves, more and more of the media flow comes via cable which is one of the reasons ABC’s financial performance is something less than stellar. On the concentration of Media Power, see ABC’s financial performance more diversity than ever before.
I don’t even agree that Disney spinelessness is ‘censorship’. There is no inherent right (Constitutional or otherwise) to have your allegedly artistic work published or otherwise subsidized by any particular private company. Disney isn’t burning the negatives. That would be censorship. It isn’t killing people who try to show the movie. That would be serious censorship. It isn’t even trying to keep Moore from distributing the movie through other channels. That may or may not be censorship depending on how they did it. All they are doing is choosing not to distribute it themselves.
That is exercising their own concept of taste. I’m not surprised that Moore has to interpret it ‘censorship’ as he has no experience with the idea of good taste.
Oh, okay. (Yglesias downgrades it to ‘stifling.’) But suggesting that their concept of taste is in fact ‘good’ taste — see your last sentence — is a stretch that no sane human being should attempt without a net.
Alas poor Michael; his right to free speech is being stifled at the top of his lungs. And since Miramax is the only film distribution company in existence, his latest documentary will never see the light of day.
This is what surprises me; he is a businessman and he’s acting shocked that a company would do something that they feel is in their best interests? Exactly what hole does that man live in so we make sure no one else falls into it? As Sebastian pointed out, no one is telling him that he can’t distribute it.
Phil claimed: While he continues to prevent his own employees from unionizing, outsources his web work to Canada, and sends his kids to private schools. A real man of the people, is Our Mike.
Phil, I’ve literally never taken enough of an interest in Moore to know that he had a child (just checked on IMDB – he does have one daughter) let alone where she goes to school. If you didn’t know enough to know that he only has one child, is the rest of your “information” of a similar quality?
Reality Check Question:
Who among those upset by this announcement oppose Bush and/or really want to see this movie?
Who among those ambivalent about this anouncement support Bush and/or wouldn’t see it if someone paid you?
I’ve never seen a Moore film, so I’m not likely to rush out and see this one, but I do object to Disney’s position on principle here.
Edward,
I have seen everything the guy has made and read all his books.
I will go see this one as well. (know thy enemy)
This is a straight commercial matter. There is NO censorship involved. Moore signed a contract, so did Miramax, so did Disney (it’s probably multiple contracts). All that’s happening here is one party is asserting its rights under that contract.
Millions will see Moore’s film when it is distributed by somebody else.
If this is censorship? Then so is each week of American Idol/Survivor, then so is the fact I never got a recording contract or that your gallery won’t carry my sketches.
CNN just ran something a short while ago about him outsourcing to Canada… I found it hard to believe being a hero to the hard working American.
This is the company… atleast they “claim” Michael Moore is a customer. They could be lieing as well as CNN…
http://www.plankdesign.com/2004/index.php
You tell me, M. du Lac. If you really care, which I doubt you do — there’s little hypocrisy that you won’t excuse if it comes from an ideological compatriot. I guess if I don’t actually know how many times he’s spawned, but know that he sends his spawn to private school, my information gets scare quotes.
But to preserve your precious little fingers from having to Google something, here is the WHOIS result for michaelmoore.com, which shows that his server is located in and administered in Montreal. The same company, PLANK Multimedia, also does his web work. Guess Mr. Moore couldn’t find any American web hosts or designers who might want jobs. Pity, that.
One place to find some of the rest is here, but I expect you’ll pooh-pooh it. Feel free to look for other sources on your own.
Oh, sorry, “sources.” Thought I’d save you the trouble of typing the scare quotes.
In response to Edward, I:
1. Was not a Bush voter in 2000, and will not be one in 2004.
2. Have seen Roger & Me and The Big One, and was a regular viewer of “TV Nation.” I enjoyed parts of each, disliked parts, found parts incredibly funny, and found parts incredibly dishonest. Having Rick Nielsen in a movie is always a plus.
3. I still own a copy of Downsize This! Again, liked parts, disliked parts, funny, dishonest, etc.
4. I think Moore is an attention-seeking, blowhard, hypocritical polemicist who jumped the shark about halfway through “TV Nation.” Nobody here is trying to censor him; Disney is making a decision based on their bottom line, which is fine. Moore does the same thing. So it doesn’t bother me a bit.
Edward, now were you this upset when Mel couldn’t find a major theatrical distributor for the Passion, just asking.
Mel didn’t have a production entity funding his film and then refusing to distribute it. Not the same situation.
Mel had a distribution agreement on the Passion but they changed their minds do to the uproar about the movie.
Come to think about it, why isn’t Bill Sammon going to be on Sixty Minutes this Sunday to discuss his book about Bush. Could it be censorship?
Isn’t the concern best described by Katherine’s post? Nobody would consider, even for a moment, not broadcasting the hagiographic pile of feces that Lionel Chetwynd wrote and produced about Shrub and 9/11 for Showtime. (It helps to be a WGA member to understand what a hack Chetwynd is, but that’s another conversation.) On the other hand, there is a pattern of what Sebastian H. would call “good taste in action” that seems to suppress a particular political viewpoint. Whether it’s Clear Channel with the Dixie Chicks or Stern, or Sinclair Broadcasting with the Nightline show, or the cowards at Disney in this instance. One doesn’t have to call it censorship to recognize a disturbing pattern.
Wilifred says: “Mel didn’t have a production entity funding his film and then refusing to distribute it. Not the same situation.”
I have no clue about Wilifred’s experience in life. But the idea that there is no right of refusal, no right to change one’s mind, is odd. However, the logic makes me eager to engage in a contract with Wilifred.
On the other hand, there is a pattern of what Sebastian H. would call “good taste in action” that seems to suppress a particular political viewpoint. Whether it’s Clear Channel with the Dixie Chicks or Stern, or Sinclair Broadcasting with the Nightline show, or the cowards at Disney in this instance. One doesn’t have to call it censorship to recognize a disturbing pattern.
What’s disturbing about it? People are making commercial decisions. It happens every day everywhere. Nobody has a license that says no matter what I say/sing/draw etc, someone else has to publish/play/distribute.
Executives as a commercial matter are choosing to distance themselves from “artists” whose sentiments they judge to be damaging to their business interests. That’s it. This is much ado…
“Who among those ambivalent about this anouncement support Bush and/or wouldn’t see it if someone paid you?”
Umm. Hard a tough time choosing among the options. Never seen a Moore film. Not sure why, way too left for me, but I am just not a fan of polemics. Also have never listened to Air America.
Wouldn’t vote for Bush if you paid me..wait I’m a Texan, vote isn’t gonna matter so somebody make me an offer.
Ambivalent. This is showbiz, real money, and these people avoid political controversy. Eisner has enough trouble right now, doesn’t need this. I am more disturbed by the Stern and Sinclair situations.
And by the trend. Moore and Barbara Ehrenreich are off my political radar, but thirty years ago…nah, come to think of it they would have been even more off the political map thirty years ago. Have we moved to the right or the left in my lifetime? I need a Michelin guide to the political map.
Phil: What I thought when I first read your comment was “Wait a minute, does Michael Moore have kids?” Nor do I actually care where his daughter goes to school. That’s between Moore and his wife and, to a certain extent, their daughter.
As for the WHOIS data, that’s a fair point: I should have looked up whois myself. I can tell you, though, that I’m not especially scandalized by the news that he “outsources” his web work to Canada. The US and Canada are in many ways economic Siamese twins, especially in the IT world.
One place to find some of the rest is here, but I expect you’ll pooh-pooh it.
You’re right: I don’t consider a 1997 gossip article to be an especially reliable source of data, but it’s evidence of a kind.
I’m not a big fan of Michael Moore’s (I’ve been to see one of his movies, read a couple of his books) but I enjoy him a lot in small doses: he’s a big ol’ troublemaker for the left, and god knows the right has so many big ol’ troublemakers who are much loonier and nastier than Moore that they can hardly point the finger.
“I do object to Disney’s position on principle here.”
Ok, but what principle are you talking about? I’m pretty sure it isn’t the principle that anyone has a right to have Disney distribute their movie. Is it the principle that once a company is involved in making a movie it is required to itself distribute that same movie? Lots of Hollywood types are going to be shocked by that? What principle is at stake here?
“On the other hand, there is a pattern of what Sebastian H. would call “good taste in action” that seems to suppress a particular political viewpoint.”
First, I think you are factually wrong if you think that the left-wing viewpoint regularly gets squashed with respect to books, TV and movies. Moore won an Academy Award in the Documentary catagory for a left-wing film that wasn’t a documentary. Franken has many best selling books. These viewpoints are not being ‘suppressed’ in any normal sense of the word. If you want to see plays and movies being suppressed, look to Cuba. Disfavoured artists are dying in jail there. Michael Moore hasn’t even missed a meal.
Second, there isn’t any philosophical reason why good taste would not in fact cut against some viewpoints. I don’t think that in fact it is effectively doing so, but if it were that would be the normal function of the concept of ‘taste’. Good taste is by its very definition a winnowing of the bad from the good. The distasteful from the not-distasteful. Disney likes its relatively clean image, and they have every right in the world to monitor the content that goes out under their name in order to keep it.
“(It helps to be a WGA member to understand what a hack Chetwynd is, but that’s another conversation.)”
I’m curious to learn how being WGA helps one understand this. I’m rather skeptical, but I’m prepared to be educated.
“Have we moved to the right or the left in my lifetime?”
Yes, Bob.
We’ve become a bit more extreme in what the mainstream encompasses, though not to the point where, say, the worst of George Wallace or the Weathermen has made it in.
Overall, I’d say there’s been more of a rightward shift, but I’m not objective in thinking so. On the other hand, would Barry Goldwater, whom so many of us, including myself, now think better of, disagree?
I’m not much of a fan of Moore, as he steps over the line too often for my taste. I’m also not jumping to conclusions about this Disney controversy.
That said, when did “doing the right thing” get eroded to mean “doing what is legally within your rights”? We are all guaranteed rights which allow us to do things that range from inconsiderate to morally repugnant.