Disney Forbidding Distribution of Film That Criticizes Bush (Moore's Fahrenheit 911)

Status
Not open for further replies.

w4rma

member
Joined
Aug 13, 2003
Messages
724
Location
United States of America
By JIM RUTENBERG

WASHINGTON, May 4 — The Walt Disney Company is blocking its Miramax division from distributing a new documentary by Michael Moore that harshly criticizes President Bush, executives at both Disney and Miramax said Tuesday.

The film, "Fahrenheit 911," links Mr. Bush and prominent Saudis — including the family of Osama bin Laden — and criticizes Mr. Bush's actions before and after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Disney, which bought Miramax more than a decade ago, has a contractual agreement with the Miramax principals, Bob and Harvey Weinstein, allowing it to prevent the company from distributing films under certain circumstances, like an excessive budget or an NC-17 rating.

Executives at Miramax, who became principal investors in Mr. Moore's project last spring, do not believe that this is one of those cases, people involved in the production of the film said. If a compromise is not reached, these people said, the matter could go to mediation, though neither side is said to want to travel that route.

In a statement, Matthew Hiltzik, a spokesman for Miramax, said: "We're discussing the issue with Disney. We're looking at all of our options and look forward to resolving this amicably."

But Disney executives indicated that they would not budge from their position forbidding Miramax to be the distributor of the film in North America. Overseas rights have been sold to a number of companies.

"We advised both the agent and Miramax in May of 2003 that the film would not be distributed by Miramax," said Zenia Mucha, a company spokeswoman, referring to Mr. Moore's agent. "That decision stands."

Disney came under heavy criticism from conservatives last May after the disclosure that Miramax had agreed to finance the film when Icon Productions, Mel Gibson's studio, backed out.

Mr. Moore's agent, Ari Emanuel, said that Michael D. Eisner, Disney's chief executive, asked him last spring to pull out of the deal with Miramax. Mr. Emanuel said Mr. Eisner expressed concern that it would endanger tax breaks Disney receives for its theme park, hotels and other ventures in Florida, where Mr. Bush's brother, Jeb, is governor.

"Michael Eisner asked me not to sell this movie to Harvey Weinstein; that doesn't mean I listened to him," Mr. Emanuel said. "He definitely indicated there were tax incentives he was getting for the Disney corporation and that's why he didn't want me to sell it to Miramax. He didn't want a Disney company involved."

Disney executives deny that accusation, though they said their displeasure over the deal was made clear to Miramax and Mr. Emanuel.

A senior Disney executive elaborated that the company has the right to quash Miramax's distribution of films if it deems their distribution to be against the interests of the company. Mr. Moore's film, the executive said, is deemed to be against Disney's interests not because of the company's business dealings with the government but because Disney caters to families of all political stripes and believes Mr. Moore's film could alienate many.

"It's not in the interest of any major corporation to be dragged into a highly charged partisan political battle," this executive said.

Miramax is free to seek another distributor in North America, although such a deal would force it to share profits and be a blow to Harvey Weinstein, a big donor to Democrats.

Mr. Moore, who will present the film at the Cannes film festival this month, criticized Disney's decision in an interview on Tuesday, saying, "At some point the question has to be asked, `Should this be happening in a free and open society where the monied interests essentially call the shots regarding the information that the public is allowed to see?' "

Mr. Moore's films, like "Roger and Me" and "Bowling for Columbine," are often a political lightning rod, as he sets out to skewer what he says are the misguided priorities of conservatives and big business. They have also often performed well at the box office. His most recent movie, "Bowling for Columbine," took in about $22 million in North America for United Artists. His books, like "Stupid White Men," a jeremiad against the Bush administration that has sold more than a million copies, have also been lucrative.

Mr. Moore does not disagree that "Fahrenheit 911" is highly charged, but he took issue with the description of it as partisan. "If this is partisan in any way it is partisan on the side of the poor and working people in this country who provide fodder for this war machine," he said.

Mr. Moore said the film describes financial connections between the Bush family and its associates and prominent Saudi Arabian families that go back three decades. He said it closely explores the government's decision to help members of the bin Laden family leave the United States immediately after the 2001 attacks. The film includes comments from American soldiers on the ground in Iraq expressing disillusionment with the war, he said.

Mr. Moore initially planned on producing the film with Mr. Gibson's company, but last May it pulled out.

"The project wasn't right for Icon," said Alan Nierob, a spokesman for Icon, adding that the decision had nothing to do with politics.

Miramax stepped in immediately. The company had previously produced one of Mr. Moore's films, 1997's "The Big One." In return for providing most of the new film's $6 million budget, Miramax was positioned to distribute the film.

While Disney's objections were made clear early on, one executive who spoke on condition of anonymity said the Miramax leadership hoped it would be able to prevail upon Disney to sign off on distribution -— which would ideally hoping happen this summer, before the election and when political interest is high.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/05/national/05DISN.html
Note Drudge has this article up as his headline on his site.

Alot seems to be going on here. Miramax owns North American distribution rights to the movie. Disney owns Miramax and is blocking Miramax from publishing the movie in North America. One of the reasons they give is they are afraid of economic retribution from Gov. Jeb Bush against Disney World.
 
Not to be smarmy, but the question begs to be asked: so what? A private company decides not to market a movie that may or may not be profitable for them.

Not seeing a problem.

It might "seem" like there's pressure from those in power, but unless there's solid proof it's all so much speculation.

And even if there was....well, yeah, people with power and influence use that influence to get what they want.

If "Farenheight 911" is anywhere near as good of a documentary as "Bowling for Columbine", then....well, there are other places the public could just as easily get that kind of disinformation.
 
You know, I support the 1st Amendment as much as the 2nd, but for some reason when I defend Moore's freedom of speech I always feel like I need a shower afterwards. I certainly hope Disney sticks to their guns on this one.
 
Michael Moore is an idiot. He doesn't know the first thing about a free and open society. What he does know is how to lie, as well as how to twist and distort the truth until it is a warped, useless falsehood. I hope Disney sticks to their guns, as was previously stated. The less air time he gets, the better.
 
Disney owns Miramax and is blocking Miramax from publishing the movie in North America. One of the reasons they give is they are afraid of economic retribution from Gov. Jeb Bush against Disney World.
Says who? This fear is based on what?

Claiming that Gov. Bush is using threats or intimidation against a company to keep them from exercising their right to freedom of the press is a serious allegation.

Unless this can be proven, I'm with Nightcrawler - "So what?"
 
Disney owns Miramax and is blocking Miramax from publishing the movie in North America. One of the reasons they give is they are afraid of economic retribution from Gov. Jeb Bush against Disney World.

This doesn't hold up to even the barest scrutiny. Jeb Bush as Governor and putative candidate for the Presidency in 2008 is somehow going to go after one of the largest employers in his State?

Eisner is trying to keep as much ammo away from Roy Disney et al. as he can. Distributing Moore's latest propaganda piece wouldn't help that effort.
 
Disney World is already in trouble and laying off employees, raising ticket prices, etc. The reason they are sitting on this film is because they see the pro-Bush/pro-war poll numbers and don't want to piss off half the US population in one shot. Bowling for Columbine was released believing that most Americans believe in "reasonable gun control" and hate the NRA, and still only made $22 million. Releasing an anti-Bush movie would be suicide right now.
 
Claiming that Gov. Bush is using threats or intimidation against a company to keep them from exercising their right to freedom of the press is a serious allegation.

Not saying that was the case hear, but this kinda behavior is far from unknown in this country. Pharmacuetical companies will NEVER under ANY circumstance question or publicly critize the FDA. To do so would be economic suicide as all it takes is one self-serving bureaucrat to "indefinately delay" the introduction of a blockbuster drug to send their stock price tumbling down. So everyone in the industry kowtows the FDA line.
I don't see it crazy at all that a multi-billion dollar company that likely donates millions to each political party would try to avoid angering the ruling party. If they released a movie angering the GOP, they'd have to spend on campaign contributions FAR more than they'd earn from a theatrical release just to win back the political favor of the GOP.
I bet the movie is a bunch of lies, but now I want to see it anyway.
preferably in someway without sending a wooden nickel to the slimeball moore.

atek3
 
I'm with the "so what?" crowd. A company decides that releasing a certain movie would hurt it's profits because it goes against the trend and would likely be business suicide.

"At some point the question has to be asked, `Should this be happening in a free and open society where the monied interests essentially call the shots regarding the information that the public is allowed to see?' "

Since when did Moore advocate a free society? Oh, a free society where he can make any movie he wants, even if it would be a bad business decision, but where law abiding citizens cannot own firearms. It costs money to make a movie. It can also affect the interests and holdings of a company. A business exists to make money. Michael Moore can take his money, fund the film and show it anywhere he pleases. His First Amendment rights are not being violated, he can still distribute information anyway he pleases, if he can afford it.
 
You have a right, as protected by the Constitution, to express your opinion, be it through film, the written word, or oral address.

However, you don't have a "right" to be published. Disney isn't violating Mr. Moore's rights by not distributing his film.

Because, you have a right to express your opinion. No one else is under any obligation to listen, though.

Regardless, this is probably an economic decision that has more to do with the internal conflicts and troubles over at Disney than it does with any conspiracy on the part of the Republican Party.
 
Just shows to go ya

that the Left's idea of a "right" is always somehow a right to be given something, to be bankrolled. Real human rights consist mainly of being left alone, not supported by someone else's money.
 
Congress shall pass no law abridging freedom of speech or the press.

The 1st amendment doesn't even come into play here.

Campaign finance reform however is another story...
 
I get the feeling that "harshly criticizes President Bush" means "engages in bizarre conspiracy theories about President Bush".
 
Possibly Disney does not want to get caught up in another Bowling for Columbine fiasco.
 
[ding ding ding]Campaign finance reform however is another story...[/ding ding ding]

Mayhaps Disney does not want to be seeen as Kerry campaign tool in an election year.
The fallout from that could be taxing...
 
Could it be that while Miramax only cares about the $$$$

Disney actually has standards....:confused:

No...gotta be some conspiracy :D
 
I'm certain that Moore can find another company to distribute the film, or use his own funds to release it.

Then again, it could be those neo-conservative Jooooooos! :neener:
 
Not to be smarmy, but the question begs to be asked: so what? A private company decides not to market a movie that may or may not be profitable for them.

Bingo. There is no right to have corporations distribute your movie for you.
 
Yup, another person that could care less since it's Moore.

BTW- If you go to www.IMDB.com you'll find that Bowling is the second highest rated documentary right now. *sigh*
Well I'm off to sign up and cast my vote. ;)
 
Beav,

did I read you right? That we'd tolerate suppression of free speech as long as it's Michael Moore's speech?
 
I thought he was an "Independent" film maker?

I always thought Moore's claim to fame was that he was an "Indie" film maker and therefore was free from the shackles and "corporate think" that lesser film makers had to deal with.

It's an independent film, let him work the phones to find art houses in major cities to run the film, just like other Indies have to do.

It's been said before; you have the freedom to speak, you don't have a right to be heard or published. Most people don't understand that.

The real bottom line is Moore desparately needs these kinds of pseudo-conspiracies to prove to his kool aid drinking fan base that the Bush Cabal is truly running their lives and only he can tell the real story before they take him out.

He'll leverage this little dust up (which I truly believe is a financial issue. $22 million in revenue ain't crap, considering the promotional expenses) and turn it into another "The man is oppressing me" series of speeches on Air America (is that still on anyway) or the Daily Show et al.

"The Awful Truth", to borrow his own line, is that Moore lives in a Lily White gated compound on Long Island that is well into 7 figures. He trots the old baseball cap crap out to impress the less discerning masses that buy into the phony populist garbage he spews. He's about as much a man of the people as John Forbes Kerry or Teddy Kennedy.
 
The subject of this thread is misleading. Disney said right from the start that they didn't want this film distributed under their name or under the name of one of their divisions. They weren't even the first distributor to choose not to distribute the film.

They are's keeping the film from being distributed other than by choosing not to be the ones that distribute it.

Moore already gets lots of free press, and has considerably more oppertunities to get his opinion heard than the rest of us. It's pretty sad that he wants to make it sound like his freedom of speech is being infringed upon.

It's not like his "documenteries" are unbiased reportings on facts.

It should be a pretty clear sign that when a liberal organization like Disney doesn't want to distribute your propaganda that you've stepped over the line and lost your credibility.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top