The notorious right-wing, Reaganite, propoganda machine of Hollywood is crushing the dissent of Michael Moore:
Walt Disney on Wednesday found itself the focus of a controversy over its refusal to allow the group’s Miramax studio to release the latest film by Michael Moore, the gadfly Oscar-winning director.
Mr Moore, director of the anti-gun Bowling for Columbine, proclaimed himself a victim of censorship in an open letter on his website on Wednesday that said Disney had this week “officially decided to prohibit our producer, Miramax, from distributing my new film, Fahrenheit 9/11.”
According to Disney, the subsidiary’s independent-minded managers Harvey and Bob Weinstein were told a year ago that the production, exploring alleged links between the family and government of president George W. Bush and Saudi Arabians, including relatives of Osama bin Laden – would not be allowed into cinemas under a group brand.
A sobering day indeed when even the ‘limousine-liberals’ of Hollywood decide that Mr. Moore’s recipes of fabrication and manipulative agit-prop are too much even for them to stomach.
In his website posting Mr Moore indicated that he intended to keep the controversy simmering. “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”.
And right there is Mr. Moore’s next best-selling book (“Stupid Movie Moguls”).
Yes, David, God forbid there actually *were* anything of such nature to report. What I don’t get is why they won’t distribute something you claim is fiction when they’re in the business of .. well, fiction. “Ah, but it is the wrong sort of fiction, the one that borderlines on truth.” Can’t have that.
In the interest of observing more than one side of each story, let Facts be submitted to a candid world. A quick quote from a related NY Times article:
A sobering day indeed when even ‘globalist illuminati’ libertarians decide that all dissent they don’t like amounts simply to ‘recipes of fabrication and manipulative agit-prop’.
Little do they know that helping to propagate every smear that the dominant regime finds convenient is one of the best ways to erode, slowly but surely, those very liberties they hold so dear.
PG
I assume that does not mean Alex cannot understand why something claiming to be a documentary, but which is in fact fiction (or more accurately disingenuous falsehoods), might be regarded differently by Hollywood compared to, say, Dumbo the Elephant. That he claims anything Michael Moore spouts ‘borderlines on truth’ indicates his day job is clearly that of a veteran comedy script writer. That said, as ‘borderlines on truth’ is the same as saying ‘is not in fact truth’, maybe he should be congratulated on stating the obvious: Michael Moore is a liar.
No Peter, not all dissent we don’t like, just the ones that really are ‘recipes of fabrication and manipulative agit-prop’… or is pointing out something is dissembling drivel not permitted if the target of that dissembling drivel is those cheerful protectionists, the Bush family?
As for them being ‘the dominant regime’, the elephants and donks all pretty much agree on 90% of everything the state does, so forgive me if US party politics do not strike this particular globalist illuminati as anywhere near as important as most people think.
Dissent? What dissent?
Moore is just a serial liar and an apologist for communism and third world dictorships. There is no real dissent here, just stupidity.
Moore: Guns bad-America bad-Cuba good.
Thats not dissent. Its willful ignorance, or worse, love of tyranny.
And how does pandering to the dominant left-liberal ideology of the elites count as dissent?
If you want real dissent try this.
Rumour has it that the US Government owns the rights to Saddam Hussein’s “Habibah and the King” and a well known studio wants to make a musical of it.Julie Andrews and Danny De Vito to star.
Maybe Alex couldn’t care less for what the content of Moores movie is as much as he cares about commercial censorship. Political messages that are being stopped because the politicians might not like it is something I cannot stand, without saying anything about Moores movie. It’s just one of those things.
Just because you hate anything that smacks of Moore doesn’t mean that those who protest his censoring endorse him. And in this case, the reason is obvious; commercial, commercial, commercial bliss.
And leave Dumbo the hell out of this.
Beautiful I see no signs of censorship yet everyone is screaming it. How about he pulls some money out of his ass like Mel Gibson, and puts the on the screen himself…talk about freedom of expression. No one wanted to run the distribution of The Passion, yet he forked over the money himself and people ran it.
Sounds more like Moore wants a free ride rather then showing where his convictions really lay.
So, from posts like Shawn’s I gather that, around here, “dissent” is defined only as that kind of protest material that asserts your own opinion. Fair enough. In the rest of the English-speaking world, though, it means simply “difference of opinion”.
The problem with your attacks on Moore (whose material, just for the record, I see as partisan spin and manipulation, and whose position on guns I wildly disagree with) is that they miss the blaringly obvious evidence of censorship. A censorship that is perpetrated (in this case) by Disney, for reasons like being worried about the tax breaks he’s getting as privilege for already being among the wealthiest; tax cuts that the rest of us (in the USA) are paying for.
Simply because you disagree with Moore’s content, you seem happy that such censorship is going on, neglecting the fact that the censors have their boot firmly planted on your face, too. Their not being easily definable as “statists” doesn’t change the extent of their tyranny on individual citizens. But you will refuse to see this, because the strict adherence to an ideology blinds you.
In the same way, in Orwell’s words you will see a condemnation of communism only, failing to understand those same words as a warning against fascism, defined by Mussolini as the merger of corporate power and state: exactly what’s going on here. And the crushing of dissent, any dissent (remember: “difference of opinion”) is just a mere symptom of it.
I believe a lover of liberty ought to be watchful of every symptom of this cancer, everywhere — even when it means defending the right to free speech of those you disagree with. I have no doubt about this in my heart — the same heart in which Moore’s blatant bias resonates so hollow.
Thanks for listening.
PG
Alex, Peter:
It’s NOT censorship. Disney is a private corporation which owns its property. It is not stopping the release of Moore’s film. It is merely not providing a means of distribution. Neither are you. Moore is as entitled to Disney’s distribution system as I am. I’m sure his film will get released, he’ll just have to find someone else to pony up. Either way he won’t be seeing my cash for a ticket.
Movies tend to get shelved for commercial reasons. Studios won’t release a movie if it tests badly. They’ll also recut it or reshoot it if it tests badly, and if they can. You can call that “commercial censorship” if you like, but I’m not sure Mr Moore’s claims about the reason decision are likely to stand up.
Even if you believe Jeb Bush had the will to legislate out of spite, and that he not the Florida legislature has the power to change tax breaks in Florida, how long would it last? Who on that model of politics ultimately wields more power in Florida? Jeb Bush or Disney? What’s the turnover of Walt Disney World, Orlando, FL?
I think Disney corp, whether for noble reasons or reasons of filthy lucre, was within its rights to stiff the Moore movie. It is a publicly traded private enterprise. Michael Moore has no “right” to demand that corp X or Y publish his films. If the Moore film had been blocked by govt. censorship, that would be a different matter, but this is not, as far as I can see, a bar on Moore’s right to air his views, whatever they may be.
Peter, and others: let’s be clear. I defend 100 pct the right of the Moores, Ted Ralls, Gonzales’s and sundry others to say what they want. But if they demand a penny of taxpayers’ money to facilitate their odious opionions, they can go and take a long running jump.
Defending freedom of speech alas means defending the liberties of those one despises. Being a libertarian means tolerating some hateful bedfellows at times.
It’s the same spoiled attitude of all these lefty Hollywood stars who claim they are being subjected to a “McCarthyite witch hunt” because their workload has fallen off. Studios, quite rightly from the point of view of their shareholders, don’t engage stars to whom the public has taken an active strong dislike.
I don’t know whether getting (non-existent) government censorship all muddled up in their heads with a purely commercial decision not to hire them is sheer stupidity or … uh, well, stupidity. The entire star system, which has served Hollywood so well for almost 100 years, is based on putting stars the public has taken a shine to into vehicles and sitting back and raking in the money at the box office. Susan Sarandon, Danny Glover, Dustin Hoffman, Tim Robbins, Barbra Streisand and the rest of them surely understand that people don’t pay good money to go and watch people they hate … But no. Like Michael Moore, they think it’s a sinister plot to stifle the truth.
Moore was on Newsnight gloating about all the publicity he is getting from this Disney thing. He admitted that Disney told him they would not distrubute it as early as a year ago. Disney is having financial problems and probably is not to keen on pissing off all those people who actually like Bush and his policies.
This is not censorship, this is a company making a decision not to release something for financial reasons. It happens all the time in the movie business (and music), we are just hearing about it because that fat oik is such a good self-publicist.
Seems like a plain attempt at self-promotion. Disney told hom they would not distribute the film back in May 2003. Now of course, the gasbag will play the victimization game to make his crappy movie more attractive to his braindead audience.
I will give him credit for his clear, obvious marketing. Like outlining the target audience on the cover of his books (“Stupid White Men”…).
Whether you agree with him or not, he’s perfectly within his rights making a fuss…. Tell me you wouldn’t support a right wing author who was blocked by his publisher for fear of offending the left.
It’s the nature of the game that the company censoring output will do so quietly, hoping they won’t lose any moore fans’ custom in other areas, & attempting not to offend people. The same happens in the music business; record companies may sit on records they feel are too contraversial. The only way the artists’ fans are going to know about this is if said artist kicks up a fuss.
It is within Moore’s (moral) rights to publicise this with a view to making his fans pissed off with Disney/less likely to spend on their products. Seeing as this move is a response to anticipated public pressure, he can try & mobilise pressure on his side, & we’ll see which side’s agenda makes the most financial sense to disney. I see no big problem, either with Disney or Moore’s actions; they’re both just trying to promote their interests.
The *only* dodgy bit is the possible involvement of government; gaining/losing tax breaks on the basis of how politically acceptable to the ruling elite one’s output seems is plain f**ed up, but i’m not sure I buy that allegation for now; I’d need significantly more evidence.
The BBC’s (Don’t) Have Your Say featured this question:
Should Michael Moore’s film be released?
(As though it was a public policy issue.)
I know we’re not supposed to ‘quote the whole bloody thing’, but here are three responses in a row from people who have so far failed to master the art of walking upright. The first is from someone who didn’t quite understand the question:
What kind of questions is this? Don’t we live in democracies that cherish the right to free speech? Of course his film should be released. I doubt it breaks any laws on obscenity etc. Release it, watch it and then form your own opinion on its worth for heaven’s sake!
John Franklin, Macclesfield, UK
Next up to bat, someone else who doesn’t understand the free market:
Of course it should be released. If America is trying to export democracy and freedom they should have nothing to fear from the healthy criticism of one man. Personally, I see Michael Moore as a patriot who truly loves his country and will do anything to save it. To try and silence him would be a mistake, and yet another example of America’s growing inability to handle reality.
Gerry Noble, Salisbury, UK
Here’s third, in this unbiased thread, in a row:
M. Moore’s excellent work won’t probably be released until after the US election. Jeb Bush, governor of Florida and Disney’s sponsor will not let this documentary ruin his brother’s campaign. Democracy and freedom of speech at its forte!
Jake, Backs, UK
All three dripping with anti-American hatred and vitriol. As, of course, was the original question.
Tell me you wouldn’t support a right wing author who was blocked by his publisher for fear of offending the left.
A_t – No, as it happens, I wouldn’t think it was my business to second-guess the decision-makers in a commercial enterprise unless I owned shares in it. Then I might ask for an explanation. Although probably not.
Verity, if Disney have binned the film on the basis of anticipated public pressure, what’s wrong with using public pressure to make them release it?
That ass hat has made enough money that he could publish it himself if he had enough faith in his own work that it would make a profit. Perhaps he’s too much of a big fat pussy to take the risk on his own?
Actually, if large numbers of people genuinely *were* going to boycott disney on the basis of the movie, I think the issue is “what’s wrong with the public” more than anything else. I wouldn’t stop buying Penguin books for instance, if they published a few works by authors with whom I disagreed. I recognise that media outlets cater to a great variety of tastes & opinions, & that variety being available is one of the things that makes our society great. Attempting to restrict the diversity available and demanding the suppression of a film you presumably weren’t interested in seeing in the first place, are pretty dodgy actions in my view.
What proof has been put forth that Disney is crumbling due to pressure from Jeb Bush? Memos, phone taps? Or is it just MM’s say so?
Even if true, has any one considered that the solution is to do away with such subsidies, and the possible extortive element if they are threatened to be taken away? Why is Disney getting subsidized with tax breaks? Of the course the next logical step is why are corporations taxed anyway, but going further will stray too far from the topic.
a_t, other than what Moore’s claiming, I don’t see anyone “restricting diversity” or “demanding supression” of anything.
“The whole story behind this (and other attempts) to kill our movie will be told in more detail”
Moore should make a movie about it. He can tell his harrowing tale of starving in the North Dakota gulag and using his blood to write the script on toilet paper. Then the complex methods used to smuggle the toilet paper script out of the gulag to the freedom fighters in the jungles of upper-west side Manhattan.
“I laughed, I cried, I stuffed my face.” Roger Ebert
Moore is wealthy enough to distribute his film himself, just like Mel Gibson’s dissenting “Passion.” I’m sure he, like Gibson, can use the big movie powers’ dislike of his film to beef up the ticket sales – as it appears he is doing. Of course Gibson had whole churches buying tickets. Moore will get whole trotyite cells buying tickts – figure twenty or thirty for the whole of the US.
What censorship is he on about? probably the same Oliver Stone was a “victim” of when trying to get his film on Castro, “Comandante”, played on TV in the US.
The Age of the Internet of the internet renders that sort of claims pretty meaning less anyway.
If MM is really so concerned about having his movie seen why doesn’t he put it on Kazaa or some other Peer to peer network? That’s obviously not as profitable an option, but he is a man of great humility as we all know!
MM is no Orwell trying to publish Animal Farm, though its probably what he is trying to be portrayed as.
I used to see Moore on TV in the US and I thought he was a big, fat, bullying blowhard back then, too. He’s a grandstander. This whole thing about Disney is grandstanding. He’s a big, fat, self-indulgent jerk.
As several posters have said above, if he cares that much about his movie and has that much faith in it, let him distribute it himself. Absolutely no one is stopping him. Jeb Bush won’t be standing outside his house with the Florida State Troopers or anything.
A_T raises an important point which has nothing to do with the rights and wrongs of Michael Moore (whom I loathe for his comments immediately after 9/11). The same issues would apply if we were talking about a film made by say, Rush Limbaugh or PJ O’Rourke (one of my heroes).
About a month ago shareholders of Disney tried to kick Eisner out of his job. The guy is under pressure to deliver. I honestly think he doesn’t give a damm about Moore or any other self-declared film-maker — he wants to make his firm a better performer in the stock market. It’s as simple as that.
Disney is obviously well within its rights not to distribute the film. Moore has no “right” to that distribution network and should go looking for other means. Assuming that he does, the film is likely to be a success among the “anti-Bush” crowd and get roundly condemned by the other side. And we will see rebuttals of Moore’s “facts” (lies and distortions) everywhere from the regular media to the blogosphere. Somewhere in the film there will also be some grains of truth that do need a hearing, even if hard to detect through all the junk.
Having said this, there is one aspect that does reek of censorship (even if it is of the “self-” kind): The strong-arm nature of the current U.S. Administration (which includes a tendency towards acting vindictively) coupled with the rise of a rabidly partisan faction (egged on by war and revenge) has sent a clear chill throughout the regular media. Just look at the way the Bush press conference was handled, or the lack of a serious challenge to Administration statements and policies within regular media establishments. On the other side we have the growth of outlets like Fox News where the pro-govt bias could not be clearer and where there is little challenge outside of blogs and books. Though both the internet and books have a relatively limited audience here.
“a_t, other than what Moore’s claiming, I don’t see anyone “restricting diversity” or “demanding supression” of anything.”
Ok, i’ll go through it again…
Disney refuse to distribute Moore’s film… why? because they fear loss of custom, from people who wouldn’t have gone to see his movie anyway, but would disapprove & wish to punish Disney for distributing it.
It’s these people’s attitude I take issue with. This idea that one should use consumer power to suppress things one doesn’t agree with/like (be it gangsta rap or Moore’s films), not through natural market forces (if no-one’s interested, it won’t sell), but through making a nuisance of oneself & kicking up a fuss about what other people choose to watch/read/believe.
Sounds pretty much like an effort at suppressing diversity of opinion in the media to me… & it’s something I have no interest in doing, even to things I think are positively evil & untrue. I’ll go out of my way to denounce them, but I’m hardly going to try & punish the publisher. If they only publish stuff I hate, clearly I’m not going to buy any of it, & they lose out that way.If they publish some things that are to my taste, i’ll buy them, & hope that in the long run the (superior in my mind) views I hold will prevail, & demand for that which I think is bad will fade to nothing. Simple as that.
If I’m opposed to a school of thought, I’ll try & argue with it’s purponents or potential converts; not attempt to stop them watching films. I don’t feel the need to go meddling in other people’s lives, but clearly the people who would have exerted ‘public pressure’ do.
Only a central planner/socialist would describe a profit-seeking corporation’s choice to not invest in a book, movie, or other media product as “censorship”. Censorship can only be enacted by government. Investors are not “censoring” when they choose not to invest in something. Rather, they are making a choice.
Regarding the allegation that Jeb Bush has pressured Disney into dropping the movie, that would be serious is it were credible. However, nothing printed by the New York Times has any more credibility that a Michael Moore “documentary”. A newspaper that denies any responsibility for preventing its reporters from lying should not be taken seriously.
Two facts:
Fact 1: MM made his movie Farenheit 911.
Fact: 2 Disney made its decision over a year ago.
Michael Moore’s certainly getting a lot of mileage over his movies by creating controversy. It’s money in his pocket to claim supression, victimization, and whatever else, over Disney’s decision.
So until I see MM put his money into distributing his film, I firmly state that not only is there no restriction of diversity or supression of anything, but what there is instead is a nice little publicity stunt.
Moore’s old enough to remember that the flap over The Last Temptation of Christ was the biggest advertising campaign anyone could have done for what was otherwise a boring movie.
(BTW, Farenheit 451 was a wonderful movie that spoke eloquently about supression. Too bad MM hasn’t been able to speak eloquently)
Toolkien,
Corporations are taxed as it’s an easy way to hide the extra tax that is inevitably passed onto consumers through higher prices. But you knew that anyway 🙂
Rob.
If only Michael Moore was being censored. Everyday on the train to work, I see some local “progressive” thumbing earnestly through one of his books. The boy’s definitely able to afford a better brand of donut, that’s for sure. He certainly could distribute the movie himself.
Garth writes: “The strong-arm nature of the current U.S. Administration (which includes a tendency towards acting vindictively) coupled with the rise of a rabidly partisan faction (egged on by war and revenge) has sent a clear chill throughout the regular media. Just look at the way the Bush press conference was handled, or the lack of a serious challenge to Administration statements and policies within regular media establishments. On the other side we have the growth of outlets like Fox News where the pro-govt bias could not be clearer and where there is little challenge outside of blogs and books. Though both the internet and books have a relatively limited audience here.”
For decades mainstream media has been dominated by “progressive” liberal-left and tranzi opinion. That news outlets like Fox are now challenging this is a good thing. I would not so much call Fox pro-government as tilted towards the right in general. This is a healthy corrective to the domination of the left.
As to the “chill wind”, it is hardly surprising that in the post 911 environment more Americans are less inclined to sit back and take the kind of rabidly anti-American hate mongering spouted like Moore. This is also a good thing. Since the 1990’s spitting on America has gone largely unchallenged. Now, maore patriotic Americans are having their voice heard. This is not a chill wind, its a breath of fresh air.
Being a victim of McCarthyism in present day America is good for a few extra million at the box office.
A-t: It is within Moore’s (moral) rights to publicise this with a view to making his fans pissed off with Disney/less likely to spend on their products.
Spreading lies & communist ideals is certainly within the guy’s rights but is most certainly not moral.
The only crushing where Michael Moore is concerned, is of the type that occurs when he plops his corpulent rear onto chairs designed for normal size, non-Jabba type humans.
And please… McCarthyism? Michael Eisner is meaner to parking lot attendants, shoeshine boys, his wife, and his friends, than he has been to Michael Moore. If this is McCarthyism, well then, it’s Charlie McCarthyism – rather wooden, with complaints and humor voiced to the public by a dummy.
I read that some commentator gave him the nickname ‘Landfill’.
Precisely my point. Allegations of McCarthyism or censorship are pure oxygen.
Precisely my point. Allegations of McCarthyism or censorship are simple posturing.
Anyone who thinks this is censorship is a moron. Censorship is when you forcibly prevent something being expressed – for example by jailing people, torturing them, killing them, fining them large amounts of money, making it illegal to distribute the material, destroying copies etc. A corporation deciding not to broadcast a film is, as has been mentioned, perfectly legitimate. A corporation does not owe its distribution mechanisms to anyone at all – it can choose to grant or deny the use of its distribution for any reason it sees fit, and no one’s rights have been infringed because no one has any right to use a corporations distribution network except the corporation itself or someone it has granted that contractual right to.
Michael Moore is still perfectly free to show the film in public in America. So, once again – those who cry censorship are simply morons.
The utter lack of understanding of what censorship is and isn’t is breathtaking.
Disney has the right to distribute or not distribute whatever it chooses. Period.
There is no Libertarian issue here. Michael Moore can make any film he chooses with his own money. If he chooses to use other people’s money he will ahve to bend to their wishes. That is not censorship. He can maek whatever he wants with his own money.
The fact that so-called Libertarians don’t get this is shameful.
michael moore, stupid fat guy
http://img.pksp.jp/imageout.cgi?u=57868&sn=428294&o=5&ss=&ps=