Disney Forbidding Distribution of Film That Criticizes Bush

Its a rubbish pun.

No, I don't think it's a conspiracy, I just think it's bullshit business sense. Disney has companies like Miramax to put some distance between it and any controversy ... The film is most likely going to make money ..

Do you think they'll allow its release after the election? Or after Bush leaves office?

besides, they're going to distribute Pocahontas 6, and this time it's going to have an animated nude scene.

the Christian right is much farther to the right than Disney is. and their boycott was fucking stupid. Boycott disney for the right reasons, aka, because their overpriced parks suck and that they don't release any interesting films, like, ever.

http://www.spitfirelist.com/f301.html

(also pour one out for Big Thunder Mountain Railroad; you were always my favorite before you turned on your human masters and began destroying them)

Uh, these theme parks have been around for years under governors of different parties (well, California anyway, dont know about Florida but I'd assume).

Most corporations are politically conservative, it's in their best interests financially. But culturally inside of Disney, I don't think Disney is considered very conservative at all. They've been very supportive of gay rights for years.

Cecil Farris Bryant 1961 1965 Democrat
William Haydon Burns 1965 1967 Democrat
Claude Roy Kirk, Jr. 1967 1971 Republican
Reubin O’Donovan Askew 1971 1979 Democrat
Daniel Robert Graham 1979 1987 Democrat
John Wayne Mixson 1987 1987 Democrat
Robert Martinez 1987 1991 Republican
Lawton Mainor Chiles, Jr. 1991 1998 Democrat
Buddy McKay 1998 1998 Democrat
Jeb Bush 1999 Republican

So to say that Disney World is in Floriday because of it's republican governors is just dumb.

I'm not certain the original poster meant that the parks were built there cuz they were republican strongholds, because Florida sure as hell wasn't until much later.

The funny thing about florida is while our senators/governors have been largely democratic, since 1952, 10 of the 13 Republican Presidents have won Florida...even Bush Sr. in his last losing campaign.

Not that I can't see why, Kerry is a pushover watered-down candidate and while he's no Bush in terms of shittiness, he's hardly a great candidate. Guess that means "lesser of two evils" voting again.

Disney Has Blocked the Distribution of My New Film... by Michael Moore

May 5, 2004

Friends,

I would have hoped by now that I would be able to put my work out to the public without having to experience the profound censorship obstacles I often seem to encounter.

Yesterday I was told that Disney, the studio that owns Miramax, has officially decided to prohibit our producer, Miramax, from distributing my new film, "Fahrenheit 911." The reason? According to today's (May 5) New York Times, it might "endanger" millions of dollars of tax breaks Disney receives from the state of Florida because the film will "anger" the Governor of Florida, Jeb Bush. The story is on page one of the Times and you can read it here (Disney Forbidding Distribution of Film That Criticizes Bush).

The whole story behind this (and other attempts) to kill our movie will be told in more detail as the days and weeks go on. For nearly a year, this struggle has been a lesson in just how difficult it is in this country to create a piece of art that might upset those in charge (well, OK, sorry -- it WILL upset them...big time. Did I mention it's a comedy?). All I can say is, thank God for Harvey Weinstein and Miramax who have stood by me during the entire production of this movie.

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

Yours,

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

Let's put this into perspective: The Miramax brothers, particularly Harvey, have been significantly invested Democratic politics for years. They financed the film in order to serve their political crusade, knowing before the film was even finished that Disney wasn't going to distribute it. They knew a year ago that they could take it elsewhere for distribution, but that it would cost them part of the gross. This arrangement will almost certainly cost Michael Moore nothing, and in the end, the value of the publicity is much greater to all involved. It's classic Weinstein strategy, only this time Harvey hasn't threatened to beat anyone up over it--yet.

Further, why would Disney, a company already seeing its film division get its ass handed to it on nearly a monthly basis, want to step in and distribute something so polarizing? Nobody seems to have an answer for that--this wasn't a case of Disney re-negging on anything. It was a case of Miramax bringing a film that they knew Disney wouldn't want so they could, as usual, maximize their own position against a company that doesn't want to do business with Miramax anymore.

And in the end, this movie will get picked up and see widespread distribution if it's any good.

FWIW, as my gay friend (an employee at Disney) likes to say:
Q. How many straight people does it take to screw in a light bulb at Disney?
A. both of them

This sentence explains pretty clearly how this IS a censorship issue. It's not as if Michael Moore is claiming that his 1st amendment rights are being violated. FWIW I'm not sure what your gay friend has to do with any of this.

But this film is being withheld, not by Miramax, not for business or artistic reasons, but by the parent corporation under political duress (wouldn't want to piss off the GOP and endanger tax breaks or political leverage).

Your conspiracy theorizing about them purposely trying to withhold the film is just that, theorizing. You're making assumptions, treating them as facts and using them as a club to beat Weinstein and Moore over the head.

;-)

To say that Disney doesn't have "business reasons" for not wanting to release the film is a theory in itself--one that I suspect is related to your political views Milo. You and the New York Times theorize just as much as I do, yet there's something wrong with me doing it. There's no independent verification or vetting of the Miramax statement, and despite Miramax's reputation, the NYT prints it anyway. This whole thing has all the credibility of Page 6 gossip.

Disney is under no obligation to distribute Miramax films. They have final approval on everything. No matter who financed the film--and it's not clear whether Disney had a direct role in this from the article, though truly inquiring minds want to know--Disney almost certainly advised distribution possibilities early on. It's no different than any other film Miramax brings to the table--Disney is always at liberty to protect their financial interests. But only since this is a liberal piece of propaganda do we hear a chorus of "censorship" from all the usual suspects. What about all the other films that have been made at Miramax that the Weinsteins sat on and never distributed or sent straight to video? Is that censorship too? No, it's not. Censorship is a loaded word that connotates government action, which is exactly why Moore is using it.

You need to read this book, obviously.
. I can assure you that, as someone who's dealt with Miramax on multiple occasions, that they are never above stretching the truth or playing dirty when it comes to their films.

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.

"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 had the right to quash Miramax's distribution of films if it deemed their distribution to be against the interests of the company. The executive said Mr. Moore's film 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, which does not have a release date, 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.

Seriously, Don, what are you talking about? The article doesn't just print some "statement"; it starts off by saying that "executives at both Disney and Miramax" said that Disney blocked Miramax from distributing the film, and goes on to quote people from both companies, along with Moore's agent. Plus it gives lots of background details. It seems like a fine news article.

Or how about this "But Disney executives indicated that they would not budge from their position forbidding Miramax to be the distributor of the film in North America."

Did the Times make it up? What possible reason can Disney have for "forbidding" the distribution of this film? They don't get to decide what gets distributed based on business or artistic reasons, but only in extreme cases (ie Kids, maybe Bully - but I can't remember who released the latter).

To say that Disney doesn't have "business reasons" for not wanting to release the film is a theory in itself--one that I suspect is related to your political views Milo.


Disney doesn't get to make those decisions.

From the article, and verified in Biskind's book and elsewhere -
"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."

Which of those qualifies here? Is Moore facing an NC-17 rating? Production is wrapped, so "excessive budget" couldn't apply. Is it porn?

No.

Disney is scared that it's politically offensive to people in positions of power.

You and the New York Times theorize just as much as I do, yet there's something wrong with me doing it. There's no independent verification or vetting of the Miramax statement, and despite Miramax's reputation, the NYT prints it anyway. This whole thing has all the credibility of Page 6 gossip.


Ah, multiple sources from both companies and the filmmaker = "Page 6 gossip."

Your bias is showing, Don.

What about all the other films that have been made at Miramax that the Weinsteins sat on and never distributed or sent straight to video? Is that censorship too? No, it's not. Censorship is a loaded word that connotates government action, which is exactly why Moore is using it.


Yes, Don, already covered those. Miramax has a history of shelving films that aren't commercially viable to them. Duh.

The difference, as already covered, is that this isn't being shelved by Miramax, it's being shelved by Disney for political reasons. This isn't Miramax killing the Battle of Shaker Heights because it was a critical and commercial failure.

This is censorship. As to "government action" - has anyone, Moore, Miramax, ILXers mentioned state involvement? Free speech or the First Amendment? No. So drop the "it can't be censorship without the government" angle.

The weakest element of any libertarian dogma is always the view that power relationships only exist between the state and individuals.

The Miramax charge is very serious--it implies that there is something unethical or possibly illegal in the way Disney lobbies the Florida government. This charge is predictably denied by Disney, but isn't vetted at all. Does anyone think that Florida is suddenly going to start taxing Disney like everyone else? Does anyone in their right mind think that Jeb Bush can pull that off, or that he'd want to over a movie that probably won't even gross $50M domestically? If that's not a preposterous concept, then why? The NYT doesn't say. If the film has obvious monetary value, it's going to get picked up--the Weinsteins know this, and so does everyone else. This is merely pre-film publicity that, as hstencil noted, shows that the NYT is the willing tool of Miramax that they've always been.

Surely you wouldn't argue that Disney is protecting its business interests by losing money on a film that has already been paid for, is a guaranteed money-maker, has critical cachet (one of the primary reasons for the Miramax/Disney venture) and will now spend a great deal of money on lawyers to battle over.

Has there been any indication that Disney is willing to even let Miramax sell the film to another distributor? I haven't seen it.

Nobodies mentioned state involvement. I'm pointing out that Moore uses the term "censorship" because he knows that word implies his freedom being taken away, even though he is merely participating in a contractual relationship that he himself agreed to. It's just as ridiculous as Prince calling himself a slave to Warner Brothers.

This has nothing to do with my dogma Milo. And really, it serves you better to not imply your interpretations of libertarianism with whatever my dogma is.

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

I am almost certain that Miramax has this deal on every film they produce.

Miramax doesn't say that; Moore's agent says that. (At least in this article.)

No, not libelous. As it was reported, it's hearsay.

The point is that people can raise charges any time they want. And it's likely that the person on the other side is going to deny it if it's damaging. So then what, right?

Were I reporting on this, I'd explore the plausibility of the charges more. What is the relationship between Disney and Bush, for example. What about the state of Florida or California? What is the relationship between Disney and Miramax? What interests are at stake, other than poor Harvey having to lose points on gross by taking it to another distributor? What would other major distributors have to say about this film? Are there other "executives" at other companies that have expressed interest in the film or would like to pick it up? Is this film hot or cold? Under the pressure of deadline, maybe a lot of these questions couldn't be answered. But if that's the case, then maybe the story wasn't ready to run.

Miramax doesn't say that; Moore's agent says that

Maybe the reporter could have asked Miramax asked that question. And without that assertion, this movie is suddenly like any other that is sitting on the shelf looking for distribution.

About the only people not directly cited are Jeb Bush and Eisner himself.

Yes, it's being shelved for political reasons. That doesn't make it censorship.

That's exactly what it is. Forbidding the release of something for political reasons is censorship.

Disney thinks that in the long run it will hurt the company financially to associate with films like this. Same for NC-17, etc. However, that's not the position taken by Miramax: Miramax says there's quid pro quo on issues of taxes and other things related to Jeb Bush. It's not believeable in the slightest.

"Films like this"?

That's a laugh, Don. So the idea that Disney is scared of the GOP isn't believable, but that Disney harbors some fear of being associated with a political film to such an extent that it will harm their overall business is believable?

WTF?

Did Bowling For Columbine cost MGM/UA business?
No.

Nobodies mentioned state involvement. I'm pointing out that Moore uses the term "censorship" because he knows that word implies his freedom being taken away, even though he is merely participating in a contractual relationship that he himself agreed to. It's just as ridiculous as Prince calling himself a slave to Warner Brothers.

Moore used the term censorship, because it is censorship.

If you can find where WB refused to release Prince's albums because they were politically provocative, you might have an argument.

This has nothing to do with my dogma Milo. And really, it serves you better to not imply your interpretations of libertarianism with whatever my dogma is.

It has everything to do with your dogma. And you asserted that it can't be censorship because the govt. wasn't directly involved - so yes, the libertarian concept of power dynamics is completely relevant.

Ah, so Miramax can find alternate distribution if they're willing to hurt their business interests. And it just so happens that the film would play in fewer/smaller theaters than a Miramax release.

No, this is merely a contractual disagreement between two parties. Were Moore or Miramax contractually prevented from getting distribution elswewhere, then I'd agree with you.

and you asserted that it can't be censorship because the govt. wasn't directly involved

No, I didn't assert that. I said that the reason Moore used that word is because he thinks his cause--his contractual agreement with another party--is equivocable to what the State does. It's not the same thing at all.

Ah, so Miramax can find alternate distribution if they're willing to hurt their business interests. And it just so happens that the film would play in fewer/smaller theaters than a Miramax release.

This isn't true either. Films are typically negoiated for distribution on a film by film basis. Negotiations for the number of screens with another distributor won't have anything to do with whatever Disney would have done or not.

Answer me this Milo: if Disney refuses to agree to distribute a film before it is even made, is that censorship?

Well, they'll deny it, but they may be lying! It doesn't make the charge - one guy recounting a conversation he says he has with Eisner - any less newsworthy.

Maybe the reporter could have asked Miramax that question.

Maybe he did... but it looks like Miramax isn't playing:

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."

Tell you what, which films has Disney refused to release by Miramax? A film that was religiously offensive. It didn't prohibit (as I checked) the release of Kids or Priest - or any of Quentin Tarantino's gorefests or anything else.

So now they're prohibiting the release of a film that has no chance of an NC-17, isn't a religious satire (as Dogma was) and whose maker has no track record of damaging the companies involved (again, MGM/UA seemed to feel no aftershocks from BfC).

IOW, a conservative corp. is prohibiting the release of a politically sensitive film because it may offend people in positions of power.

That's censorship. That's cutting off dialogue for political reasons.

No, I didn't assert that. I said that the reason Moore used that word is because he thinks his cause--his contractual agreement with another party--is equivocable to what the State does. It's not the same thing at all.

"Censorship is a loaded word that connotates government action"

Censorship does no such thing.

This isn't true either. Films are typically negoiated for distribution on a film by film basis. Negotiations for the number of screens with another distributor won't have anything to do with whatever Disney would have done or not.
Of course they do. Miramax has a massive marketing engine, distribution pull, etc. Going to another distributor means not having those outlets, not having that pull, not having the brand name. A Miramax film plays more screens than your average Focus film plays more than... so on down the line.

Answer me this Milo: if Disney refuses to agree to distribute a film before it is even made, is that censorship?
Disney isn't doing the distribution.
Disney is forbidding the distribution by another party for political reasons.

And before the inevitable "it just offends you politically" line, that's already been used once - yeah, this bothers me for political reasons. The film sounds stupid, Moore's an ass and his whiny liberalism bothers me. I don't care. I've got a problem with a corporation refusing to release a picture purely under political duress. It's that nasty anti-corporate civil libertarian streak in me, I suppose. I don't think corporations should have license to do as they please simply because they've got the power to do so.

It's not going to lose money, they've already paid for it, Moore's films haven't inspired any kind of backlash before, Disney has experienced no significant backlash from Miramax films before (to such an extent that it hurt their business).

So it looks like the only way this possibly endangers Disney's business interests is the scenario described in the Times article - it's politically sensitive and offensive to powerful Republicans.

That doesn't mean it should be championed, cheered on, or even ignored or anything else. If people don't raise hell, even for a schmuck like Moore, where does it go from here?

We already have a news media where alternative viewpoints are given little or no consideration, do we want that to travel into the more artistic realm?

I saw that when I think it was last released theatrically, 79 or so. Fucked up film.

.... Milo .. I somewhat agree with your followup .. It should be challenged .. but it's still their decision...

Don, much of what you're saying - particularly when examining the business end of the industry - is reasonable and intelligent and well-put, but to refuse to see this as a censorship issue is denial, when CORPORATE censorship is a frustrating part of everyone's daily life and when there is immense financial pressure to comply with it all the time your ability to say no to this encroachment diminishes every time someone waives their civil rights by saying yes.

Thinking I can probably get some feedback from Mr. L Clark on this (I haven't IMDBd but I think Kids was Miramax, but unsure of Bully) but it may take a day or two.

Who's for Moore going to Disney with a passel of Make-A-Wish cancer kiddies for a nice photo op? And before anyone bitches, I've *so* been that tumour tot in the Magic Kingdom.

Disney almost certainly did not pay for this movie. You can make the argument (easily) that giving Moore's film distribution in place of another film may cost Disney money. What's more, the article in question alludes to the fact that Disney was never going to distribute this film--if anything, the article avoids anydiscussion of Disney's right of refusal per its contract with Miramax. In other words, if Miramax independently produces a movie (which is something that they do), is Disney given first right of refusal or not? I don't know the answer to this, but it's highly relevant. This sort of agreement--first right of refusal--is very common in the film industry, and refusal is never considered censorship. Was it censorship that Mel Gibson's film got refused multiple times when it was in development? He has had a development deal with at least one studio for years, and The Passion was rejected, which was why he resorted to independent financing. There are plenty of worthy examples of corporate censorship, but this isn't one of them.

Referring to this film as somehow "censored" because one party has exercised their contractual right is preposterous, especially in the light that a refusal by Disney relegates the film to the open market.

There's no evidence that "powerful" Republicans will or can act adversely towards Disney as a corporation if Disney distributes this film. The only place this was asserted was by...Michael Moore. Is Disney afraid that the usual theocrats will raise their voices? Yes. Does Disney want to support inflammatory, partisan filmmaking in widespread release? Apparently not. Since Miramax can take this to any number of other distributors and Disney has no property rights to the film, it can hardly be called censorship.

In any case, things getting thrown in the vaults or going direct-to-video happen b/c the creator wasn't able to leverage guaranteed theatrical release. It's as much a contractually-sought-after privilege as final cut.

What's more, the article in question alludes to the fact that Disney was never going to distribute this film--if anything, the article avoids anydiscussion of Disney's right of refusal per its contract with Miramax
Disney's "right of refusal" is for extreme cases, as already discussed. This doesn't fit into any extreme criteria, aside from "it criticizes the President."

He has had a development deal with at least one studio for years, and The Passion was rejected, which was why he resorted to independent financing.
It wasn't rejected for political reasons. Just like your previous examplse. It was rejected as unmarketable - a violent passion play told wholly in Aramaic/Greek/etc., Gibson rumored to not even want to include SUBTITLES? Gee golly, I don't know why anyone was worried about putting out money for that!

But, still, this isn't financing, this is distribution. The money has already been put out.

Referring to this film as somehow "censored" because one party has exercised their contractual right is preposterous, especially in the light that a refusal by Disney relegates the film to the open market.

What "open market" is this? From the biggest 'indie' distributor around to...?

Your continued line of excuses for Disney's decision still come back to the fact that you haven't found a reason that releasing this film, in any way other than that described in the Times article, endangers Disney's business.

1) Critiques on Moore for his knee-jerk sensibilities and an escalatory defense by his carefully cultivated league of undergraduate Mooreons (or Moore-rites, depending on your p.o.v.)

2) The likelihood the film will be in some part simplistic, polemic, and incendiary.

3) The possibility that either the Bush family or other figures in the film will take legal action against the film under accusations of slander/libel.

4) There's a strong chance that the film won't be very good. Cinematic nastiness, a la the exploitative Charlton Heston shit last glimpsed in Bowling For Columbine; shoddy filmmaking. Nothing half as well-conceived as TV Nation.

I think that Miramax's decision not to carry this film is exclusively a business decision - perhaps an over-safe one, and by some accounts a cowardly one - but solely concerned with market-image and the desire to avoid such a foolish controversy as the one that's beginning to brew. The company's refusal to place themselves at a flash point in what appears to be an escalating culture-war (bound to flourish during this campaign season) smacks in no-way of censorship, only an understandable timidness.

Admittedly, the general public probably neither knows nor cares that Disney owns Miramax. But in the event that the film were produced/distributed by the Weinstein's company, there's very little doubt in my mind that right-wing radio/tv would 'expose' this fact as a piece of heavy ammo against a company it's already targeted with its vitriol.

Right, there's nothing political at all about Gibson's rejection of Vatican II, or his portrayal of Jews, or...

But since no one knew about Gibson's wacked out philosophies or how he'd portray Jews before the film was made...

And, again, there's a difference in distributing a film you've already paid money for, and shelling out millions of dollars for a film done in foreign - dead - languages poss. without subtitles. Did anyone refuse to distribute Gibson's movie on the chance that it might offend Jews?

bullshit, people have known about Gibson and his batshit-crazy father for years, it just became more widely reported (and commented on) during the run-up to release. In many ways similar to Moore, I don't doubt that Gibson enjoyed the pre-release controversy (although clearly Moore would be lucky to benefit to the same degree).

Not true. Hutton Gibson's (Mel's father) books The Enemy Is Here! and Is the Pope Catholic? were published in 1994 and 1978 respectively.

No one bothered to look though.

You still haven't made one convincing argument that this is a relevant form of censorship. The obligations for which Disney must release films for Miramax is muddy at best.

Arguing that The Passion--a film loaded with politics--was not picked up for mere "business reasons" and then arguing that the Moore film was "censored" doesn't pass the laugh test.

As mentioned above me, it is logical to assume that the political nature of the film will be bad for business. If the subject matter were Bill Clinton and, say, accusations of sexual battery were being made, no one would be saying that Disney is acting as a censor. It seems a large stretch that a significant portion of filmgoers associate Miramax with Disney, but Disney has worried about this very subject for the past several years. In fact, it's one of the many reasons that Disney is almost certainly going to quit doing business with the Weinstein brothers when the contract is up. As a corporation, Disney is trying to return focus to their core business, which is family entertainment. Miramax has been a bad fit for the company since the beginning, and if anything, this whole uproar is more about showing Miramax the door than anything else. And if it is truly censorship, you'd see a lot more studios and distributors joining the chorus in that accusation. The fact remains that films get shelved for all kinds of reasons, and so does development. The only reason it's relevant in this case is because it's a political season and the subject is Bushco.

As for Miramax financing the film in the first place, my suspicion is that they do not act completely independently when distribution is involved in the deal. My suspicion is that Miramax greenlit the financing before they got approval from Disney to distribute--one of those "it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission" sorts of cases. Then, after the check was cut, Harvey had to go to Michael and tell him about the project. To which Eisner, who at the time was already fighting for his corporate relevance, probably told Harvey that there was no way in hell Disney was going to prioritize something like this. The Weinsteins have been pissing off Disney for the past several years making moves like this, including the way that "Gangs Of New York" got made. My guess is that Harvey was probably on a very short leash at this time last year, and instead of telling Eisner what he was doing before he did it, he went and wrote a check to Moore. And since Eisner isn't exactly in a formidable position politically at Disney anymore, I'll bet that Harvey thought he could leverage his way into distribution. But it turns out that the conservative outcry--not from Jeb or some sort of government entity, as Moore would like to believe, but the usual lobby groups whom Disney has grown weary of fighting--was all over Harvey and Moore. And like CBS, they went down with the ship.

And haven't we established that Disney isn't shelving the film so much as passing on it, or have I misunderstood?

HaHaHa!! Harvey:The People's Friend! Money means nothing to him as long as the truth is told!

Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11," which criticizes President Bush's handling of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and connects the Bush family with Osama bin Laden's, won't be released through Miramax Films on orders from parent company Disney.

Moore believes The Walt Disney Co. is worried the documentary will endanger tax breaks the company receives from Florida, where Bush's brother Jeb is governor.

The director says on his Web site that he was told Tuesday that Disney had "officially decided to prohibit our producer, Miramax, from distributing my new film."

But in a statement Wednesday, Disney spokeswoman Zenia Mucha said Moore has known since May 2003 that Miramax would not release his film.

Whenever it was decided, the timing couldn't be better to stir up discussion: "Fahrenheit 9/11" is making its world premiere as one of 18 films screening in competition at the Cannes Film Festival, which begins May 12.

"Heading into Cannes, you've got this whole controversy that people will be talking about - Miramax not being able to release the film. It adds to the mystique of the film, it adds to the danger," said Paul Dergarabedian, president of box-office tracker Exhibitor Relations.

"With a lot of filmmakers, this would not be a good thing," he said. "When it comes to Michael Moore, there's not really a downside to him to have controversy."

The confrontational director won an Oscar for his 2002 documentary "Bowling for Columbine," about the Columbine High School shooting and U.S. gun control policy. The film earned $21.5 million at the box office, making it the highest-grossing documentary ever. He's also known for the 1989 film "Roger & Me," which explored the effects of General Motors on his hometown of Flint, Mich.

Dergarabedian said "Fahrenheit 9/11" will find a distributor, possibly even before Cannes.

Disney chief executive Michael Eisner agreed. "That film will get a distributor easily," he told CNBC in an interview Wednesday from Disneyland.

Eisner said Disney "did not want a film in the middle of the political process where we're such a nonpartisan company and our guests, that participate in all of our attractions, do not look for us to take sides.

"But I think it's a totally appropriate film and I can think of about 11 people who would love to have it," he added.

Miramax spokesman Matthew Hiltzik told The Associated Press: "We hope to amicably resolve the situation in the near future."

Moore did not respond to a request for comment from The Associated Press.

Mel Gibson, director of "The Passion of the Christ," had difficulty finding someone willing to release his graphic telling of the last hours of Christ's life. Major studios were wary because some religious leaders feared it would foster anti-Semitism.

But whether filmgoers showed up at theaters to be inspired or appalled, they showed up - and "The Passion," under independent distributor Newmarket Films, has made more than $366 million in the past 10 weeks.

Meanwhile, Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., has asked the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation for a hearing on what he called a "disturbing pattern of politically based corporate censorship of the news media and the entertainment industry."

Lautenberg argued Wednesday in a letter to his committee chairman, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., that Disney (through Miramax) has the violent "Kill Bill - Vol. 2" in theaters now, but is blocking Moore's film based on its political viewpoint.

In the movie, Moore interviewed author Craig Unger about his book "House of Bush, House of Saud," which details the Bush-Saudi relationship going back to the 1970s.

"I found about $1.4 billion in investments and contracts going from the House of Saud to companies in which the Bushes and their allies - I'm including Dick Cheney, for example - have had prominent positions," Unger said.

The book and the film also say the government helped 140 Saudis leave the United States on Sept. 13, 2001 - two dozen of whom were bin Laden's relatives.

Unger said that while he hadn't seen the film, "There's clearly a big audience for this and I think the intent to kill it will fail." He pointed to several recent books besides his own that critically examine the Bush administration, including Ron Suskind's "The Price of Loyalty," Richard Clarke's "Against All Enemies" and Bob Woodward's "Plan of Attack."

Disney has a contractual agreement with Miramax principals Bob and Harvey Weinstein allowing it to prevent the company from distributing films under certain circumstances, such as an NC-17 rating or a budget of more than $30-35 million.

Miramax had a similar conflict in 1995 with "Kids" director Larry Clark's graphic depiction of juvenile delinquency. Because Disney was contractually prohibited from releasing unrated movies, and had forbidden Miramax from releasing NC-17 films, the Weinsteins set up a new company, Shining Excalibur Films, to distribute "Kids."

Moore previously ran into interference with his book "Stupid White Men." Publication was postponed after Sept. 11, 2001, and publisher HarperCollins considered canceling the book or editing its criticisms.

After lengthy discussions, "Stupid White Men" came out uncensored. It almost immediately sold out a first printing of 50,000 and went on to top The New York Times nonfiction best-seller list.

How many Hollywood execs had read his father's anti-Vatican II screeds? I'm betting the number was round, if you know what I'm saying.

You didn't reply to the second part, about how no one knew what the portrayal of Jews would be like.

But, once more, financing is not distribution. The film has been made, with Disney's money. If Moore's film was done entirely in dead languages without subtitles, I'd argue that not funding it was apolitical, too. If Gibson's film had been refused distribution because it was Christian, I'd argue that was political, too.

Good thing the two situations aren't analgous at all.

Except for the "film is being withheld for political reasons" part? Yeah, that's censorship. I know you don't want to believe that a corporation would censor political dialogue, but...

Arguing that The Passion--a film loaded with politics--was not picked up for mere "business reasons" and then arguing that the Moore film was "censored" doesn't pass the laugh test.
Wow, Don, dishonest much?

You've presented no evidence that passing on financing Gibson's Passion was political. You presented innuendo.

I'll go ahead and quote my earlier response to this line, since you seem determined to ignore it:
" It was rejected as unmarketable - a violent passion play told wholly in Aramaic/Greek/etc., Gibson rumored to not even want to include SUBTITLES? Gee golly, I don't know why anyone was worried about putting out money for that!

But, still, this isn't financing, this is distribution. The money has already been put out."

Now, Don, for the million-dollar question making the Passion relevant to this... Did anyone refuse to distribute the Passion on political grounds.

Distribution.
Financing.

Wow.

As mentioned above me, it is logical to assume that the political nature of the film will be bad for business.
How? Did Kids hurt Disney's business? Did Dogma?

Did Bowling For Columbine hurt MGM/UA?

Did any of Moore's books or TV shows bring harm to their parent companies?

No.

My suspicion is that Miramax greenlit the financing before they got approval from Disney to distribute--one of those "it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission" sorts of cases.
You mean, they ran their business like they always do?

Here's the part of the AP article that you didn't embolden, Don:
Disney has a contractual agreement with Miramax principals Bob and Harvey Weinstein allowing it to prevent the company from distributing films under certain circumstances, such as an NC-17 rating or a budget of more than $30-35 million.

Hmm... NC-17? Nope. Large budget? Nope.

(Funny that Eisner refers to politics - not 'bad business')

You mean it was controversial, and still got distributed? Widely, even?

Don's argument was that passing on the financing of the Passion was as political as pulling Moore's film for fear of pissing off the GOP. I said that his views were unknown at the time, and no one could know how he would portray Jews (since the film didn't exist). It was a tough sell, just like any film told in dead languages without subtitles would be. Just like any subtitled film would be, actually.

Anti-Defamation League in having a wider knowledge of anti-Semitic wackos than the average person or Hollywood exec SHOCKAH!

Nah, Disney's reluctance couldn't have anything to do with those theme parks or the GOP.

Of course they're "nonpartisan" - like most big corporations, it could be said that they're most interested in currying favor with any and all politicians (especially those in office), which is what critics of Big Media are always going off about - how media conglomerates are going to tend to sqelch critiques of those in power (whoever they may be), because they don't want the negative attention come tax-time, regulation-time, etc.

So, that's why it's worthwhile to make a bit of a fuss when stuff like this happens (like when CBS refused to air the MoveOn.org Superbowl ad, using wimpy excuses that didn't bear out with their own practices) - to point out how the media conglomerate atmosphere is not healthy for airing critical viewpoints. (Of course, Moore can and will take his movie elsewhere, no one's forcing him to distribute it through Miramax, etc., etc.)

This thread reminds me of your comments on statistical analysis Milo. That one where you have very little experience explaining things from a working knowledge of a subject, but you attempt to make up for it with your political POV.

Everyone who saw Gibson's script knew what was in it. There were multiple revisions that circulated for at least a year prior to shooting that I know of. Charges of anti-semitism were rapant long before a frame was shot. Pre-screenings, prior to secured distribution, brought on similar charges. The fact remains that Gibson absolutely was censored in the same manner that you say Moore has been. Censorship, by definition, isn't limited to "politics", as you have asserted. Go look it up. But in this case, Michael Moore uses that word when no one in the industry except for him sees it that way. Michael Moore, as usual, is whoring himself for publicity. He has not been censored--he's been rejected on sound premise. What's next--when Disney ends their relationship with Miramax, that's censorship too? Disney wants to get out of the non-family enterprises and suddenly it's censorship?

The Moore example is a splitting image of Gibson's adventure. Gibson's film was seen as less valuable in the marketplace for the language barrier, but even subtitles wouldn't have overcome the "censorship" hurdle that Gibson faced for the political-religious content. It is well known that Gibson considered adding subtitles throughout at one point during development, but it still got him no takers. Explain that one. It was Gibson's treatment of Jews that scared off producers as much as it was the language component.

Disney is in massive corporate upheaval and are making significant changes in corporate strategy. Do you know anything about that? You don't seem to.

They will get rid of Miramax in the next two years. They are in the process of ditching interests that do not serve the corporate mission. Do you know why they originally picked up Miramax? You don't seem to. They did it to develop their studio and give it artistic clout. The problem was and is, the Weinsteins are horrible with budgets and have continually produced films that did not fit the Disney mission and/or ran over in budget. That was passable behavior five years ago, but in the past three years Disney has been more and more irritated by Miramax. From a strategy standpoint, polarizing films do not fit Disney's corporate agenda. No one in Hollywood sees this as "censorship" any more than they would see Disney refusing distribution for a hardcore porn film from Miramax. It's not the political point of view Disney is rejecting, it's the political nature of the film that Disney doesn't like in 9/11.

It's all very tired.

Thus far, your working knowledge of film financing and distribution seem none too strong, as you've leapt back and forth from distribution to financing.

Everyone who saw Gibson's script knew what was in it. There were multiple revisions that circulated for at least a year prior to shooting that I know of. Charges of anti-semitism were rapant long before a frame was shot. Pre-screenings, prior to secured distribution, brought on similar charges.
"Everyone who saw"? Boy, that was, what, a few thousand people tops?

Pre-screenings prior to distribution - how did they effect its distribution again? Who bought the movie then was unable to show it or refused to show it again?

No one.

That's why the two situations aren't analgous, Don.

Gibson had a difficult time funding a large-budgeted film done entirely in dead languages without name actors that originally was to be done without subtitles.

Moore - no difficulty funding it. No subtitles. He's a name himself for the audience this would attract.

Now, if you can find me where someone purchased the distribution rights to Gibson's film and then was barred from or refused to distribute it for political or religious reasons, you'll have an argument that the two situations are similar.

But you won't find any of that, because it never happened.

Uh-huh. The Weinstein's difficulties and Disney's "changing corporate strategies" and jettisoning Miramax are all irrelevant.

You still have no explanation as to how releasing the film is "bad business" - specifically, bad for their business interests, not "doesn't coincide with their corporate agenda" - for Disney, but not for everyone else.

If the film is going to incite massive boycotts and pressure from the general population, or damage the Disney brand - then it would, presumably do the same for every other major distributor. Bad business all around, meaning that finding a distributor wouldn't be easy.

Or, the film isn't going to incite any of that, and wouldn't damage Disney's business interests or anyone else's. Good business, making it easy to find a major distributor.

The difference is that Disney has a relationship with two states that have GOP governments that are party-loyal, and it would be hurt by damaging those relationships. Exactly what is being alleged by Moore and Miramax.

money money money money

That doesn't change the fact that Disney is silencing Moore/Miramax because of the film's political content. This is what I take issue with.

It's not about good business or bad business as Don claims, because it will make money and it has been paid for, and because it won't invite any kind of damage to the distributor's bottom-line. It's only bad business for Disney because it jeopardizes their position in GOP-run states (one in particular) where they make a great deal of money. Which is why Miramax and Moore's claims, despite Don's denials, make complete sense.

Rejecting Moore's film is not about making money--this film will almost certainly be profitable. Eisner knows this. Disney is interested in making money, but they reject deals all the time that are likely to be profitable. Disney is much more concerned about governing their corporate image these days, and the reasons for that are obvious.

The fact that Disney allegedly owns the film, or financed it in any way (by extending credit, allegedly, with authorization by Miramax) actually shoots Milo's argument in the face. Hollywood runs on hits, and Moore is bankable following his Oscar win. That is why there will be a dozen distributors lined up to take it off of Disney's hands--it is seen as a profitable venture. Let's see--Disney agrees to finance a film, thus giving it life, but declines to distribute because it doesn't fit their corporate strategy...even though it will easily find distribution? It's censorship to fund art and then essentially waive the rights to profit off it? That makes no sense, and that's exactly why no one in Hollywood who produces movies finds the action of Disney to be censorship. Go ahead--get me one quote from a studio head or distributor who thinks that Disney is censoring anything. I'll be waiting to eat crow.

As stated by Eisner in the AP, the film does not fit Disney's corporate strategy. In the late 90s, the film probably would have. This is not the case anymore. Disney is more conservative now than it has ever been, and corporate strategy will continue to reflect this. There are vast problems within Disney's film and animation divisions, and the strife with Miramax on multiple projects over the past few years (Cold Mountain, Kill Bill, Gangs of NY, etc. have all been corporate bloodbaths) and Pixar's recent middle finger are symptomatic of the pressure on Disney to focus on core competencies. Disney has come to recognize the on going right-wing protestations as a symptom of overall problems and not merely run-of-the-mill kook gatherings. That's why, although the business is very profitable, Disney doesn't (openly) fund pornographic films: it conflicts with their overall corporate strategy.

Yes, the film's political content is why it's not getting distribution. But were the political polarity reversed, the same thing would be happening. It's not the political perspective that bothers Disney, it's the fact that it's political in general--Disney is moving more and more away from controversial projects for this reason. The same thing was true for The Passion--believe it or not, distributors and producers (who finance films) don't always want to deal with controversial projects, even if they see them as potentially profitable.

Finally, it's simply absurd on every level to think that any state has the ability to push Disney around. In both Florida and California, Disney continues to provide enormous revenue streams, employment, tourism, etc. to those states. Disney cannot afford to kill their customers off, so in that sense the state governments have a marginal interest in what's going on. But other than that relatively inconsequential detail, Disney weilds enormous leverage over state governments no matter who is governor. Do you think they were able to extract tax breaks from politicians if they wanted to appease them? That may have been the case back when the theme parks were initially built, but the vast success of the Disney enterprise makes them the bully on the block--not Bushco or any of its subordinates.

You're right, Don. The GOP and Jeb Bush have not issued a public statement that they're pressuring Disney on this. I'm shocked.

I suppose that's why we look at the situation and possible motives, rather than simply relying on our trust in the GOP and corporate honesty, right?

Rejecting Moore's film is not about making money--this film will almost certainly be profitable. Eisner knows this. Disney is interested in making money, but they reject deals all the time that are likely to be profitable. Disney is much more concerned about governing their corporate image these days, and the reasons for that are obvious.
But that still fails to explain this. Disney's brand isn't in danger - it's a Miramax product, and Moore's previous works haven't damaged his corporate parents.

The fact that Disney allegedly owns the film, or financed it in any way (by extending credit, allegedly, with authorization by Miramax) actually shoots Milo's argument in the face. Hollywood runs on hits, and Moore is bankable following his Oscar win. That is why there will be a dozen distributors lined up to take it off of Disney's hands--it is seen as a profitable venture.

This argument fails because it assumes that the situation remained constant throughout (GOP pressure could have been applied at any time, what happened a year ago is not what happened last week), and fails again because, in your own words, Weinstein and Miramax did this without Disney's prior consent.

That makes no sense, and that's exactly why no one in Hollywood who produces movies finds the action of Disney to be censorship. Go ahead--get me one quote from a studio head or distributor who thinks that Disney is censoring anything. I'll be waiting to eat crow.
Well, two things -
First, find me the opposite quote. Your "everyone in Hollywood thinks" lines don't hold water.

Second, why would I care what a "studio head" says or thinks? Last I checked, media execs aren't known for their support for the free exchange of ideas.

Yes, the film's political content is why it's not getting distribution. But were the political polarity reversed, the same thing would be happening.
Would it? Have we seen where a film with similar placement on the spectrum, on the right side, got kicked from its distributor for its right-wing viewpoint?

No.

Finally, it's simply absurd on every level to think that any state has the ability to push Disney around. In both Florida and California, Disney continues to provide enormous revenue streams, employment, tourism, etc. to those states.
And the states can push back, especially Florida.

What it comes down to, Don, is that you've admitted that this is being quashed for political reasons, that it's not about "good business" for Disney, as you previously stated, and now your argument is about "corporate image." It's very convenient, now, that Disney has chosen this particular film to worry about their corporate image, when no evidence exists that it would damage the image. Did MGM/UA get punished? Did any of Moore's parent companies/distributors? No.

But you've admitted to what I take issue with - corporate interference with political speech.

No one has suggested that this be 'required.' I certainly haven't.

And if Miramax had simply passed on funding the project, fine - that happens in Hollywood all the time. If Miramax had passed on distributing the project, fine.

But that's not what happened. The film was financed and a distribution agreement was reached, and now the parent corporation is shutting it down purely because of the political content - that's censorship.

don said he thought the weinsteins are lefties and financed moore's film knowing that disney wouldn't let miramax distribute and that their decision would get the film more publicity, etc?

it doesn't sound like they're shutting it down, just like they don't want to be associated with it. which is fine. they're not, like, trying to SUPRESS it, are they? the film won't disappear, will it? no, someone else will distribute it but everyone will have heard more about it, because of all this junk.

I'm sure they are playing this up as much as possible now for publicity and/or support. Of course they are.

RJG, no, I wouldn't. I've said that repeatedly - if Miramax did this for reasons of artistic or commercial failure, or if Disney did it because the film is NC-17/porn and posed a real danger to the Disney brand, then that's one thing. Doing this based purely on the political content is another entirely.

politically divisive=bad for business

in a perfect world, moore wouldn't have needed to/felt like he had to/just wouldn't have make/made this film.

business is business.

Moore's previous films didn't hurt the parent companies, his books and TV shows didn't either.

if they are avoiding association to maintain an corporate IMAGE, why are you so bothered? you can think to yourself "miloaukerman, disney is bad, isn't it??? look what they've done" and they won't get any of your money, in the future, and, eventually, they will be in trouble. no?

crosspost

And yes, I'm bothered. That's why I'm saying something. What's your solution, if you're bothered by someone or something's conduct, just be quiet and let it slide (even on such a tiny level as this)?

Which isn't censorship. As I've maintained all along.

that it's not about "good business" for Disney, as you previously stated

actually, it is about good business for Disney--Moore's film contradicts with Disney's overall strategy, which means that while it may be profitable in the short term, it is not good for the long term. Good business for any firm means reconciling overall strategy.

and now your argument is about "corporate image."

Their corporate image supports their corporate strategy; in this case the two are obviously interrelated. It's not a new argument at all.

It's very convenient, now, that Disney has chosen this particular film to worry about their corporate image

Do you think Disney could back out of Kill Bill or Cold Mountain years and tens of millions of dollars after the fact? You have no idea what you are talking about. Disney has been unloading properties for the past three years and passing on deals that were or are conflicting with corporate strategy. Why do you think Disney continues to put distance between itself and Miramax? The investment in Moore's film, whatever it was, was nothing compared to the large productions Miramax has taken up lately. "Gangs" barely got made, and the same goes for Kill Bill. Disney was very unhappy with both; Cold Mountain went way over budget, even in pre-production. Disney's not happy with Miramax at all.

when no evidence exists that it would damage the image

Disney is getting out of the business of controversial projects. Thus, it conflicts with corporate image and overall corporate strategy to distribute controversial films. Conflicting corporate strategy, or tactics that undermine corporate strategy, weakens a company's position. Disney feels that a lack of succinct corporate strategy has hurt their business overall--elements such as controversial films do not add to their core competencies. Even though they may be profitable in the short term, Disney feels like they are outside the scope of the business. To say that Disney wouldn't be hurt by projects that contradict their strategy, even though they are profitable, is absurd.

But that's not what happened. The film was financed and a distribution agreement was reached, and now the parent corporation is shutting it down purely because of the political content - that's censorship.

No, what happened was Miramax approved financing and Disney NEVER DID approve distribution. Ever. Disney is not required to distribute all Miramax films, which is why they don't. The parent corporation is not shutting down the film or the distribution. The parent corporation provided for the film's existence (allegedly, but we really don't know the details of the financing structure) and now has decided not to distribute. However, the parent company is not preventing distribution or adding any additional cost. Miramax will now be able to negotiate with other distributors and if the film appears to be a hit, work from a position of financial strength.

What would qualify as censorship?

actually, it is about good business for Disney--Moore's film contradicts with Disney's overall strategy, which means that while it may be profitable in the short term, it is not good for the long term.
Why not? What makes it bad "for the long term"? Has Moore brought ruin to any company he worked for previously?

Their corporate image supports their corporate strategy; in this case the two are obviously interrelated. It's not a new argument at all.
Well, your argument started out by calling the Times article "page 6 gossip," and has travelled far and wide. So it's newer, if not new.

Do you think Disney could back out of Kill Bill or Cold Mountain years and tens of millions of dollars after the fact?
Do we have evidence that they tried? No.
Do we have evidence that they wanted to? No.

Disney's not happy with Miramax at all.
No one disagrees with that. Thing is, it doesn't matter here.

Disney is getting out of the business of controversial projects.
Such as?

What other situations like this have taken place? Which films have they refused to release because of political content?

It's convenient that this is the turning point, isn't it?

To say that Disney wouldn't be hurt by projects that contradict their strategy, even though they are profitable, is absurd.
You continue to assert that this project damages their corporate image. You still haven't shown how.

Disney is not required to distribute all Miramax films, which is why they don't.
Do I need to quote the "NC-17 or overbudget" line again?

Miramax will now be able to negotiate with other distributors and if the film appears to be a hit, work from a position of financial strength.
But never as strong as releasing it in the first place.

I'm glad you say I'm "just wrong," Don, but the attempts to portray yourself as a know-everything really don't work, sorry.

I don't know everything, just a lot more than you do on this subject and a few others that I can think of. Hopefully this does not give you an inferiority complex.

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

This is bullshit bet-hedging language and really does indicate a certain fear of reprisal from a certain um vengeance minded political party to me. Whether the Bush family would need to be directly involved in that is sort of beside the point.

Disney has a contractual agreement with Miramax principals Bob and Harvey Weinstein allowing it to prevent the company from distributing films under certain circumstances, such as an NC-17 rating or a budget of more than $30-35 million.

Hmm... NC-17? Nope. Large budget? Nope.

...seems to indicate a profound misunderstanding of the phrase "such as".

Disney is obv not interested in being boycotted, and is sad to see the money this film would bring in go. But it wouldn't bring in nearly as much money as they could lose to theme parks, etc.

Compared to when? Which golden days are you yearning for? Walt Disney (the guy, not the company) was an FBI informant during the McCarthy era. And all that said, media moguls probably still tend toward liberalism more than most other kinds of moguls (I see that Howard Stringer, for example, is into John Kerry for at least 2 grand.)

I think the Disney/Moore thing is pretty despicable for the message it sends, and coming on top of the Sinclair Broadcasting stuff, it definitely reconfirms all the fears about corporate concentration of media ownership, etc. On the other hand, all of these guys are just playing power games with each other. There's nothing "ideological" per se; throwing Moore overboard is an easy way to show a little public fealty to the lords of the realm, which is kind of owed after the lords have helped you extend your core copyrights for another generation. It's just like Bill Gates throwing a couple grand at the Republicans; I seriously doubt Gates has much interest in the Republican platform -- his own father's been out there lobbying against the repeal of the estate tax. But the Bush administration settled the monopoly suit, so Gates has to show at least a little loyalty in return. This kind of stuff is all just court intrigue, it's got nothing to do with anything but personal relationships and people protecting their asses. Which is, of course, reprehensible but also completely predictable -- and all the more reason to regulate media ownership more carefully, since whoever the moguls are and whoever the rulers are, they're probably mostly going to behave the same ways.

Boycotts? Has there been any mention of that, any indication that they would happen? Was the MGM Grand boycotted when Bowling for Columbine was released? No.

Surely, either Disney, Miramax or Moore smacks of or has smacked of something. Especially since the subject is "rife" with speculation - that's when things "smack of" the most.

EDITORIAL
Eisner and Me

The Walt Disney Co. may be a purveyor of humor and fantasy, but it's not treating Michael Moore's documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" as a laughing matter. Disney's decision to block its Miramax Films division from distributing "Fahrenheit 9/11," which links the Bush family to Osama bin Laden's, has the filmmaker crying foul. "I would have hoped by now that I would be able to put my work out to the public without having to experience the profound censorship obstacles I often seem to encounter," he wrote on his website.

Put the somber protests aside for a moment, though, and you might wonder whether Disney and Moore himself are really crying all the way to the bank. Both sides benefit from the decision. Moore gets to pound the anti-corporate drum and receives gobs of free publicity, while Disney placates conservatives outraged by its original backing of the film.

When "Fahrenheit 9/11" appears next week in competition at the Cannes Film Festival, it's certain to be among the most-talked-about films. Moore's book "Stupid White Men" was hardly hurt by publisher HarperCollins' near-cancellation of its publication. It was an instant bestseller in the United States and Europe. The more he's threatened by the guys in Armanis, the better Moore seems to make out. Could there be a "Michael Eisner and Me" film in the works?

Well, no. But even if neither side ends up losing in the brouhaha, there is something troubling about the power to quash projects that corporate consolidation is creating. Disney isn't distancing itself from the film because of any convictions; it's doing so because it has none. Its only wish is to offend as few people as possible and, if Moore's side of the story is right, to preserve state tax breaks for its theme parks in Florida, which depend on the goodwill of Gov. Jeb Bush.

No doubt Moore can get a new release deal. But a fledgling director with a controversial film wouldn't be in the same position. All this is hardly on the scale presented by science fiction writer Ray Bradbury's "Fahrenheit 451," which depicted a future in which a fireman's job is to burn all books, but it isn't exactly reassuring.

Moore is in the fortunate position of being able to have the last laugh. Maybe the subject of his next film should be Disney itself.

Bill of Rights
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V
undsoweiter...

Bill of Rights

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Corporations may not hinder the speech of Michael Moore, and indeed must pay him for the privilege of distributing his speech and speech-related entertainment products. Under no circumstances can his speech be restricted. By anyone.

The mouse that censored
What's in Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 911" that Disney doesn't want you to see?

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Craig Unger

May 6, 2004 | On a gorgeous March day, Michael Moore and I strolled outside the fortresslike Saudi Arabian Embassy on New Hampshire Avenue in Washington. I had just finished writing my book, "House of Saud, House of Bush," and the Oscar-winning director was interviewing me for his new movie, "Fahrenheit 911," which explores the links between the Bush family and the Saudis. Before long, security officers began cruising warily through the area, taking note of Moore and his film crew. For a few minutes, the crew worried that Saudi security would not allow the shooting to continue. But then, in a breathtaking display of P.R. savvy, a young Arab woman in Western attire burst out of the embassy and ran toward Moore. "Mr. Moore, Mr. Moore!" she exclaimed. "We're such great fans of yours!"

Right. It is highly unlikely, of course, that Moore's new movie will ever be shown in the repressive Saudi kingdom that is the guardian of Wahhabi Islam, but Tuesday a serious question arose as to exactly when and if it will be shown in the United States after the Walt Disney Co. announced that it was blocking distribution of Moore's film.

The announcement was the latest skirmish in an ongoing series of media battles that has seen the Sinclair Broadcast Group ban ABC's "Nightline" homage to the Americans who have died in Iraq and Clear Channel remove shock jock Howard Stern, a recently converted critic of President Bush, from its radio stations.

The reasons behind Disney's decision are not hard to fathom -- they have to do with politics and money. In "Fahrenheit 911," Moore takes a critical look at President Bush's actions before and after 9/11 and examines the president's ties to prominent Saudis, including both the royal family and the bin Ladens. According to Moore's agent, Ari Emanuel, Disney fears that if it distributes the anti-Bush movie, Jeb Bush, the Florida governor and the president's brother, might withdraw tax breaks that Disney gets in Florida for its theme park and hotels. Disney CEO Michael Eisner "definitely indicated there were tax incentives he was getting for the Disney corporation," Emanuel told the New York Times. "He didn't want a Disney company involved."

Moore said in response, "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?"

But exactly what is in the movie that could so alienate the first family? I have some idea because Moore interviewed me for the movie for several hours, both in front of the Saudi Embassy and on the roof of the Hay-Adams Hotel in Washington, with the White House in the background. Moore had been among the first to assert in the press that a large-scale evacuation of prominent Saudis from the United States began shortly after 9/11 -- for which he was derided by critics as a conspiratorialist.

As it happens, my research for "House of Bush, House of Saud" backed up his charges. As I told him during the interview for the movie, denials from the FBI, the Federal Aviation Administration and the White House itself notwithstanding, I had found a total of eight planes stopping in 12 American cities, picking up over 140 passengers, including more than two dozen members of the bin Laden family. I recounted the story of how two young Saudi billionaires, Salem bin Laden and Khalid bin Mahfouz, had journeyed to Houston in the '70s and become friendly with James Bath, a friend of George W. Bush's in the Texas Air National Guard. And I told of how the Saudis had put more than $1.4 billion in investments and contracts into companies tied to the Bushes and their close associates.

Of course, Disney's refusal to distribute the movie does not mean another distributor won't be found. As the controversy broke into the open, Moore was busily readying his movie to be shown at the Cannes Film Festival next week. And in a message on his Web site he seemed optimistic that the movie would be seen this summer:

"For nearly a year, this struggle has been a lesson in just how difficult it is in this country to create a piece of art that might upset those in charge (well, OK, sorry -- it WILL upset them ... big time. Did I mention it's a comedy?). All I can say is, thank God for Harvey Weinstein and Miramax who have stood by me during the entire production of this movie ... I will tell you this: Some people may be afraid of this movie because of what it will show. But there's nothing they can do about it now because it's done, it's awesome, and if I have anything to say about it, you'll see it this summer -- because, after all, it is a free country."

How unsurprising that the LA Times finds this charge credulous in any way. There's no proof anywhere that goodwill from Disney will ensure tax breaks from Jeb Bush--those tax breaks have been there for decades, and Jeb Bush has not shown even one time that he is able to shove Disney or the tax code in Florida. In fact, Bush has battled Disney directly--not through the film division, but with the parks--on issues that have come up (take the bullet train, for example), and Disney has won. But apparently it's a little too much to ask for the LA Times to do rudimentary research.

And how unsurprising that Salon--which fancies itself as a relevant news organization and not some partisan propaganda machine--doesn't bother to investigate Emmanuel's or Moore's allegations.

- Michael Moore

1. It's craven of Disney not to release the film.
2. It's not, however, "censorship". Disney has no obligation, certainly no constitutional one, to have to invest money in Moore's artwork. ("You HAVE to release my 8mm student film! It's a rant against the Bushes!" "Eh, no we don't.")
3. While there may be no direct tax/other benefits to be lost by angering Jeb Bush, there are many reasons that corporations shy away from political speech that directly and personally criticizes specific government officials with a lot of discretionary power. Disney is no different. Particularly given Eisner's slipping grip on management.
4. It's disingenuous to think that by not releasing the film, Moore's message has been buried. Hundreds of people have seen this film already. Moore's getting lots of press (for free), and he'll probably still find a distributor.
5. Moore is hardly an investigative journalist. Anything in the film is already well documented (if true) or just false. He's hardly above exaggerating and deliberately misleading for comic/shock effect. The issues can still be debated. In fact, talking about Disney is tiresome. Why not talk about bush and the saudis?

Who would have to report on this for you to even listen - the Washington Times, maybe?

Or if you'd like to change the subject, start convincing me that Disney censored Rush Limbaugh by booting him from the ESPN NFL pregame show. Nobody yelled censorship then, even though Limbaugh was specifically told that he could say whatever he wanted when he was hired. ESPN wanted him to be controversial, but as soon as the controversy started, he got the same treatment Moore got. Hmm, I don't remember the NYT, the LAT, and Salon whining about issues of free speech back then. The reason is that it wasn't censorhip then and it's not now in Moore's case.

Funny, although Michael Moore claims that this issue of "censorship" would upset him no matter the political flavor, I'm certain he stood silent while Limbaugh got canned. Yes, Moore's got principles, they're just circumstantial.

Apparently, I know what the fuck I am talking about on this.

To be totally honest Rush Limbaugh should never never have been hired in the first place (any more than I or you or any run of the mill fan should.) I think that was obvious before he made that idiotic comment. Also Rush quit, so I'm not sure what your point was.

"Stop changing the subject" by... directly responding?

Or if you'd like to change the subject, start convincing me that Disney censored Rush Limbaugh by booting him from the ESPN NFL pregame show. Nobody yelled censorship then, even though Limbaugh was specifically told that he could say whatever he wanted when he was hired.
Uh-huh.

ESPN (didn't can) Limbaugh for racist commentary that directly threatened the ESPN brand. You might have noticed that a large number of professional athletes are black. You might have noticed that a large number of ESPN commentators and anchors are... black. You might have noticed that a large number of ESPN interviews and programs depend on... those black players.

Now, if Michael Moore starts doing something that threatens the Disney brand, and I've said this all along - great. I have no problem with Disney pushing Miramax away from NC-17 films, for instance. I have no problem with Disney pushing Miramax away from a Michael Moore film that said "Disney is e-vil."

But, Michael Moore is being censored for his political viewpoint and the political viewpoint of his work. Not because it's bad for business - unless you include the possibility of GOP reprisals.

Michael Moore's work has never brought damage to the reputation or bottom-line of any company that worked with him.

Apparently, I know what the fuck I am talking about on this.
Wait, Don, so now unnamed sources are telling the God's honest truth? Which is it?

Your problem, as I've stated previously Milo, is that you don't think that Moore's propaganda will be damaging to Disney. You essentially back this up by saying that Moore's various ventures of the past five years have been very profitable, and that the short term financial impact should matter more to Disney. Eisner, a person with knowledge far beyond yours, disagrees with you. Eisner, who by most accounts is a liberal like you, disagrees with you. He says that the Moore film is a bad fit for the company because in the long term, Disney is harmed by controversial films like Moore's. You think you know more about the Disney brand, despite Eisner being widely recognized as a branding genius for the way he turned around the company in the late 80s.

You also think you know more about how deals get set up with Miramax. If Michael Moore thinks he had a distribution deal with Miramax that could only be rejected, as Moore said on NPR today for "two reasons": budget and NC-17, then Moore has an easy win lawsuit on his hands. But there's a reason Moore will never sue: because he's lying. To my knowledge, which I am almost certain is more than yours, Disney has never written a distribution contract with that kind of simplicity, certainly not before the film was completed. Now that we know Moore was sitting on his line of bullshit for at least one year, we also know his motives should (as usual) be questioned. Why believe an off the record comment about Moore only having a financing deal for the movie? Because it's much more likely to be true than not. Because that's how deals get written between Miramax and Disney. Because Miramax has autonomy to sign deals but distribution must always be approved by Disney. Because Harvey knows that Eisner is not going to sign off on shit like this, and because Harvey wants to make Eisner look bad whenever possible. Because the Weinsteins always play hardball. Because the Weinsteins deal is done in 2005 and they want to make sure everyone knows who is walking away from that contract.

Here are two predictions that you can bet your life on:
1.Michael Moore will never produce a shred of evidence that Jeb Bush has leverage against Disney. If the GOP is so strong, then why hasn't Eisner been acquiescing to them since 1984? Milo can't explain this and neither can Moore. It's simply not believable that the governor of Florida will start raising taxes on Disney, which is arguably the most important driver of tax revenue in the state. Certainly not in an election year.

2.Michael Moore will never produce a shred of evidence that he had a signed distribution deal with Disney.

I said that his projects have not damaged the reputation or brands of anyone he worked with. Have any publishing companies or TV networks been screwed by his projects? Did MGM/UA face massive boycotts, etc.?

No.

And they've been profitable.

I suppose it's pointless if you're going to just make up/misrepresent this stuff, and in your first prediction hyperbolize to the point of silliness (find me where anyone has suggested that the "governor of Florida will start raising taxes"), Don.

You trust Disney and Eisner, I don't. You've got beef with Moore's politics, so do I - but in a different way. It's that simple.

Moore's agent told The New York Times that Disney didn't want to alienate the Bush family for fear that it could jeopardize the tax breaks the company enjoys in Florida, where the president's brother is governor.

But legislators say Disney didn't solicit any tax breaks during this year's session, which concluded last week.

The governor's office vehemently rejected any suggestion that Bush would be in a position to strike at Disney.

''This is not true. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous,'' Bush spokeswoman Alia Faraj said, noting that a change in the state's tax code would require legislative authority. ``There are statutes in place that outline what corporations have to do, what requirements there are to be eligible, and that goes for every single corporation that applies for an incentive.''

But Disney does make its presence known in Tallahassee. Disney is among the biggest political contributors to state elections in Florida, kicking in more than $590,000 to the political parties and their candidates in the 2002 and 2004 election cycles.

Disney has been an aggressive contributor to the Republican and Democratic parties in Florida races as well as on the national scene.

The evidence continues to mount--in fact, there's no evidence whatsoever to the contrary--that Disney is not avoiding distribution to please Bushco.

You want the evidence to mount.

When You Wish Upon A Star... by Michael Moore

May 7th, 2004

Friends,

Thank you for all the incredible letters of support as my film crew and I once again slog our way through the corporate media madhouse. Does it ever end? Are we ever going to get control of our "free press" again? Can you wish upon a star?

The Disney spin machine has been working overtime dealing with this censorship debacle of theirs. I don't think they thought they would ever be outed. After all, they know that all of us are supposed to adhere to the unwritten Hollywood Code: Never tell the public how business is done here, never let them have a peek at the man behind the curtain.

Disney has been hoping for nearly a year that they could keep this thing quiet. As I promised on Wednesday, here are the details behind my sordid adventure with the Magic Kingdom:

In April of 2003, I signed a deal with Miramax, a division of the Walt Disney Co., to finance and distribute my next movie, Fahrenheit 9/11. (The original financier had backed out; I will tell that story at a later date.) In my contract it is stated that Miramax will distribute my film in the U.S. through Disney's distribution arm, Buena Vista Distribution. It also gives Miramax the rights to distribute and sell the movie around the world.

A month later, after shooting started, Michael Eisner insisted on meeting with my agent, Ari Emanuel. Eisner was furious that Miramax signed this deal with me. According to Mr. Emanuel, Eisner said he would never let my film be distributed through Disney even though Mr. Eisner had not seen any footage or even read the outline of the film. Eisner told my agent that he did not want to anger Jeb Bush, the governor of Florida. The movie, he believed, would complicate an already complicated situation with current and future Disney projects in Florida, and that many millions of dollars of tax breaks and incentives were at stake.

But Michael Eisner did not call Miramax and tell them to stop my film. Not only that, for the next year, SIX MILLION dollars of DISNEY money continued to flow into the production of making my movie. Miramax assured me that there were no distribution problems with my film.

But then, a few weeks ago when Fahrenheit 9/11 was selected to be in the Cannes Film Festival, Disney sent a low-level production executive to New York to watch the film (to this day, Michael Eisner has not seen the film). This exec was enthusiastic throughout the viewing. He laughed, he cried and at the end he thanked us. "This film is explosive," he exclaimed, and we took that as a positive sign. But "explosive" for these guys is only a good word when it comes to blowing up things in movies. OUR kind of "explosive" is what they want to run from as fast as they can.

Miramax did their best to convince Disney to go ahead as planned with our film. Disney contractually can only stop Miramax from releasing a film if it has received an NC-17 rating (ours will be rated PG-13 or R).

According to yesterday's New York Times, the issue of whether to release Fahrenheit 9/11 was discussed at Disney's board meeting last week. It was decided that Disney should not distribute our movie.

Earlier this week we got the final, official call: Disney will not put out Fahrenheit 9/11. When the story broke in the New York Times, Disney, instead of telling the truth, turned into Pinocchio.

Here are my favorite nuggets that have come out of the mouths of their spinmeisters (roughly quoted):

"Michael Moore has known for a year that we will not distribute this movie, so this is not news." Yes, that is what I thought, too, except Disney kept sending us all that money to make the movie. Miramax said there was no problem. I got the idea that everything was fine.

"It is not in the best interests of our company to distribute a partisan political film that may offend some of our customers." Hmmm. Disney doesn't distribute work that has partisan politics? Disney distributes and syndicates the Sean Hannity radio show every day? I get to listen to Rush Limbaugh every day on Disney-owned WABC. I also seem to remember that Disney distributed a very partisan political movie during a Congressional election year, 1998?a film called The Big One... by, um... ME!

"Fahrenheit 9/11 is not the Disney brand; we put out family oriented films." So true. That's why the #1 Disney film in theaters right now is a film called, KILL BILL, VOL. 2. This excellent Miramax film, along with other classics like Pulp Fiction, have all been distributed by Disney. That's why Miramax exists -- to provide an ALTERNATIVE to the usual Disney fare. And, unless they were NC-17, Disney has distributed them.

"Mr. Moore is doing this as a publicity stunt." Michael Eisner reportedly said this the other day while he was at a publicity stunt cutting the ribbon for the new "Tower of Terror" ride (what a pleasant name considering what the country has gone through recently) at Disney's California Adventure Park. Let me tell you something: NO filmmaker wants to go through this kind of controversy. It does NOT sell tickets (I can cite many examples of movies who have had to change distributors at the last minute and all have failed). I made this movie so people could see it as soon as possible. This is a huge and unwanted distraction. I want people discussing the issues raised in my film, not some inside Hollywood fracas surrounding who is going to ship the prints to the theaters. Plus, I think it is fairly safe to say that Fahrenheit 9/11 has a good chance of doing just fine, considering that my last movie set a box office record and the subject matter (Bush, the War on Terror, the War in Iraq) is at the forefront of most people's minds.

So what will happen to my movie? I still don't know. What I do know is that I will make sure all of you see it by hook or crook. We are Americans. There are a lot of screwed up things about us right now, but one thing that most of us have in common is that we don't like someone telling us we can't see something. We despise censors, and the worst censors are those who would dare to limit thoughts and ideas and silence dissent. THAT is un-American. If I have to travel across the country and show it in city parks (or, as one person offered yesterday, to show it on the side of his house for the neighborhood to see), that is what I will do.

More to come, stay tuned.

Yours,

Michael Moore
http://www.michaelmoore.com
mmflint@aol.com

Moore's films are popular in Europe because they're the ONLY dissenting mainstream voice coming out of the US. That's ONE voice among the vast floods of US films, TV movies, series, and documentaries that dominate the European market. Moore's films are also widely criticised along the kind of sophisticated cinematographic lines you sketch in your post - but where's the alternative?

That's what makes Disney's action so disgusting. There is so much work for investigative journalists to do in the States - planet-size scandals, mind-bogglingly blatant wrongs - great material - and NO films that tackle them (I won't mention the spineless press and the craven networks)...

Just to explain - we get upset about this stuff, because through no choice of our own, we are part of your global empire. The presidents you elect determine vast chunks of our national politics. We want answers - we want US blindspots and national eccentricities examined(support for genocidal regimes, slaughter of foreign, preferably brown-skinned, civilians, an addiction to money politics and cheap oil.. y un largo etcetera) - even if you don't.

So if you want investigative documentaries that avoid that unpleasant "rudeness" that upsets you so much, that are "clever" and "much with a camera", please, go ahead and make them. There's a proven market worldwide - and in the States. There are book spinoffs and tie-ins and you might even win an Oscar... if you can anyone to distribute them, that is.

http://www.kvia.com/Global/story.asp?S=1864093
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040513/REPO13-3/TPEntertainment/Film
http://www.hollywoodreporte.com/thr/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000509417

This, is also U & K:
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=industryNews&storyID=5123763

Not helping himself:

He has given no evidence to substantiate his allegations, but he said that "someone connected to the White House" and a "top Republican" had put pressure on film companies not to release the film.

"The potential of this film to have an effect on the election is much larger than they [film studios] thought," Moore said.

More interesting:

Moore has revealed that he had three undercover film crews embedded with US troops in Iraq.

"I was able to sneak three different freelance crews into Iraq," he said on Saturday.

The soldiers had "expressed disillusionment that they had been lied to", said Moore.

The film from Iraq was a "very important" part of the documentary, he added.

"It is certainly something the Bush administration does not want people to see," said Moore.

My apologies in advance for the long post and the copyright infringement.

----------
Elements of Myth Enter Into Post-9/11 Flights by Saudis (reprinted from the WSJ today)

by Alan Murray

The secret evacuation of Saudi nationals from the U.S. after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks has achieved grassy-knoll status. Craig Unger, author of "House of Bush; House of Saud," calls it "the single most egregious security lapse related to the attacks." Every Bush hater can cite the basic details: At a time when Americans were grounded, more than 140 Saudis, including members of the bin Laden family, were spirited out of the U.S. without questioning by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

It's a myth. But like all great myths, it has such suggestive power that it will live on for years, despite its feeble connection to fact.

In a recent column, I criticized Michael Moore for adopting this myth, both in his most recent book, "Dude, Where's My Country," and in his new movie, "Fahrenheit 9/11." I mentioned I hadn't seen the film -- Mr. Moore declined to make it available before the Cannes festival -- but I relied on a synopsis provided by his publicist.

Mr. Moore responded, not by disputing the facts of the Saudi flights, but with a blistering attack on me for daring to "review" a synopsis. On his Web site, he said that everything I wrote about the film was "completely false." This despite the fact it all was quoted directly from his book or the synopsis, and confirmed in a telephone interview with Mr. Moore himself.
But perhaps I shouldn't have picked on the hero of Cannes, who has long had a loose relationship to truth. The Saudi story has made its way into much more respectable journalism. And the flood of critical e-mail I received after writing that column convinced me the myth has considerable staying power.

For what it's worth, here are the facts, as gathered by the staff of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission:

Between Sept. 14 and 24, 2001, six chartered flights carrying mostly Saudi nationals among their 142 passengers departed from the U.S. The 9/11 Commission found "no credible evidence that any chartered flights of Saudi Arabian nationals" left before U.S. airspace reopened. Moreover, all six flights "were screened by law-enforcement officials, primarily the FBI" to ensure that no one of interest was allowed to leave. The most controversial flight, filled with members of the sprawling bin Laden family, left Sept. 20. Of the 26 people aboard -- 23 passengers and three private security guards -- the FBI interviewed 22 before the plane was allowed to leave.

Last week, I reviewed these facts with Mr. Unger, who is now a principal proponent of the Saudi flight myth. "I think most of that is true," he replied. "I never said any flight left the U.S. while there were still restrictions on U.S. airspace."

I asked Mr. Unger, what's the problem then? He pointed to an account, first reported in the Tampa Tribune, of a Lear jet with three Saudi passengers that flew from Tampa, Fla., to Lexington, Ky., on Sept. 13, 2001, as part of an effort to help prominent Saudis who feared reprisals in the U.S. While commercial airspace was open at that time, private planes still weren't allowed to fly, according to Mr. Unger. He said he believes it couldn't have flown "without a special favor from the White House." Moreover, he says, he's not sure "the FBI did their job thoroughly" in screening passengers on the Saudi flights that later left the U.S.

The 9/11 Commission still is investigating the Tampa flight, but it has found no evidence that any discussion of Saudi flights rose higher than Richard Clarke, former antiterrorism czar and now a prominent critic of President Bush. Moreover, the coordinated Saudi flights turned out to be a convenience for FBI officials, who were able to screen all passengers and interview any they wished -- something they wouldn't have been able to do if the same passengers had traveled on commercial airlines. To check the FBI's work, the 9/11 Commission this year ran the names of all passengers on the Saudi flights against current terrorism-watch lists, and found no matches.

As for bin Laden family members, Mr. Clarke strongly suggested in his public testimony to the commission that they had been under close surveillance by U.S. officials for some time. "The FBI was extraordinarily well aware of what they were doing in the United States," he testified. Mr. Clarke, who has shown no hesitancy to criticize the Bush White House, concludes the Saudi flight story "is a tempest in a teapot."

There are plenty of reasons to question President Bush's handling of national-security matters during the past 3½ years. But there is no reason to rely on mythology in the process. Let's have a great debate. But stick to the facts, please.

June 1, 2004
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
The Great Escape
By CRAIG UNGER

Americans who think the 9/11 commission is going to answer all the crucial questions about the terrorist attacks are likely to be sorely disappointed — especially if they're interested in the secret evacuation of Saudis by plane that began just after Sept. 11.

We knew that 15 out of 19 hijackers were Saudis. We knew that Osama bin Laden, a Saudi, was behind 9/11. Yet we did not conduct a police-style investigation of the departing Saudis, of whom two dozen were members of the bin Laden family. That is not to say that they were complicit in the attacks.

Unfortunately, though, we may never know the real story. The investigative panel has already concluded that there is "no credible evidence that any chartered flights of Saudi Arabian nationals departed the United States before the reopening of national airspace." But the real point is that there were still some restrictions on American airspace when the Saudi flights began.

In addition, new evidence shows that the evacuation involved more than the departure of 142 Saudis on six charter flights that the commission is investigating. According to newly released documents, 160 Saudis left the United States on 55 flights immediately after 9/11 — making a total of about 300 people who left with the apparent approval of the Bush administration, far more than has been reported before. The records were released by the Department of Homeland Security in response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by Judicial Watch, a conservative, nonpartisan watchdog group in Washington.

The vast majority of the newly disclosed flights were commercial airline flights, not charters, often carrying just two or three Saudi passengers. They originated from more than 20 cities, including Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Detroit and Houston. One Saudi Arabian Airlines flight left Kennedy Airport on Sept. 13 with 46 Saudis. The next day, another Saudi Arabian Airlines flight left with 13 Saudis.

The panel has indicated that it has yet to find any evidence that the F.B.I. checked the manifests of departing flights against its terror watch list. The departures of additional Saudis raise more questions for the panel. Richard Clarke, the former counterterrorism czar, told The Hill newspaper recently that he took full responsibility for approving some flights. But we don't know if other Bush administration officials participated in the decision.

The passengers should have been questioned about any links to Osama bin Laden, or his financing. We have long known that some faction of the Saudi elite has helped funnel money to Islamist terrorists —inadvertently at least. Prince Ahmed bin Salman, who has been accused of being an intermediary between Al Qaeda and the House of Saud, boarded one of the evacuation planes in Kentucky. Was he interrogated by the F.B.I. before he left?

If the commission dares to address these issues, it will undoubtedly be accused of politicizing one of the most important national security investigations in American history — in an election year, no less.

But if it does not, it risks something far worse — the betrayal of the thousands of people who lost their lives that day, not to mention millions of others who want the truth.

Craig Unger is the author of "House of Bush, House of Saud: The Secret Relationship Between the World's Two Most Powerful Dynasties."

I'd be glad to--right after the Academy does.

NANOOK REVISITED

55 min. c.1990 vhs

Revisits Inukjiak, of Nanook of the North, the site of Robert Flaherty's filming where Eskimo oral tradition still retains the memory of Flaherty's shoot, and learns that, among other things, the man's name was not Nanook, the women said to be Nanook's wives were actually Flaherty's, the Inuits thought what Flaherty was asking them to do for the camera so hilarious they couldn't stop laughing. Though Flaherty was something of a fraud, the myths he created are proudly celebrated-not totally true but, like most myths, rooted in reality.

that's bullshit, enrique. (what happened in 1929 btw? nanook was 1922.) documentary films, which claim to be drawn from reality, have a responsibility to the truth. there's a difference between spinning facts in an ideological manner and misrepresenting those facts, or advancing disproved theories or falsehoods.

i don't think disney cared about specifics like this when they refused to distribute the film, though i suppose it's possible. so discussing this in the context of disney's reasons is not really apposite. that said, i continue to be disappointed in michael moore.

the situation with "nanook" is complicated. nanook and flaherty *collaborated* on a representation, not so much of the life "nanook" (real name, i can't remember--but that isn't so unusual for documentaries) and his family led but a version of the life led by nanook's recent ancestors. for example, inuits used guns to fish by the 1920s, but the film shows them hunting with spears. this obviously falls under the category of profilmic manipulation. the film is still extraordinary for numerous reasons.

The Man with the Movie Camera??

ironically moore's slippery notion of truth on such specifics may only serve to undermine (in many eyes) his larger points, which may be sound.

(x-post)
what about "the man with the movie camera" enrique?? does dziga vertov knowingly advance certain lies about moscovian swimwear ca. 1929???

my deepest apologies

There's are different orders of falsehood, I think. All documentary claims to do is represent the surface of reality -- but obviously the 'truth' is elsewhere, in the links, the argument. I've got big reservations about MM, as I do about all docs, as it goes (as far as I can tell, people only ever like docs they agree with).

no way, some of those Christian Right docs on heavy metal are super-hilarious!

the question here is, does the profilmic manipulation actually serve to advance some mistruth or grave misperception about reality? i don't think so.

documentary is complicated. i think it should be held to standards of truth, but those standards can't be determined easily given the nature of the medium. it's complicated--what the "there is no objective truth" people are doing is running from that complexity into the safety of cynicism.

(x-post again)

i don't think vertov "problematized" anything nor did he set off to make a film that was "about" documentary. he made one very particular kind of documentary, one organized from isolated fragments of reality.

i would guess a lot of people are more credulous than you think. often the mode of informing people is more persuasive than what you're informing them of.

(x-x-post)

i don't think that's true, only liking documentaries you "agree" with. what does it mean to "agree" with a documentary that has a multiplicity of viewpoints and doesn't advance a single argument? or what if you have...mixed feelings about the argument but admire the form?

does that mean he should consciously advance a bit of information he knows to be false? or refuse to argue with those who would present information that contradicts that information advanced in his film?

his films have a powerful polemical effect that depends in large part on there being truth claims at the bottom of his larger arguments.

As for 'false' info -- MM doesn't seem to be any more false than any newspaper article or CNN broadcast. Sure, it's annoying, but it's not a great basis for banning the film. 'Executive Decision' 'lies' about the Mid-East. 'Black Hawk Down' (which would be called a 'documentary' in 1029s-speak) 'lies' about Somalia.

as i said, this probably doesn't discredit his larger argument, and still less does it discredit the larger story about saudi/american collusion, but it does allow people to pretend as much, and more important, if moore's film were to be shown full of such falsehoods, it should undermine his documentary authority (whether or not he should have any, i dunno).

i don't see how a camera angle could mitigate the falsity of saying that saudis were shepherded out of the country during the flight ban.

The reason I posted that column from the WSJ is because I assume most people who will read this thread do not get the WSJ or see it with any regularity--you have to pay to get access on the web because it is outside of the WSJ OpEd section. I assume that many people around ILX see the Times, especially since it is free on the web.

I've still never heard of Alan Murray, tho I only read the WSJ occasionally, not every day.

(And yeah, I know a lot of people around here bitch about registering for the NYTimes, but my point is that it's at least accessible and I assume that many more people here read that than the WSJ.)

-- hstencil (hstenci...) (webmail), June 1st, 2004 8:48 AM. (hstencil) (later) (link)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

i think that's unfair. it wasn't the WSJ types who were crying this. "right wingers" are no more monolithic than "left wingers"--there is a diversity of tone and point of view. the whole thing about the saudis being sent off on a plane just after 9/11 always seemed a bit far-fetched to me. as i've pointed out numerous times, we don't need recourse to such "smoking guns" to advance arguments against the policies and hypocrisy of the bush administration. (even if perhaps this one is true.)

i think we're basically in agreement a/b the documentary, hstencil. i think that if--IF--moore was being knowingly dishonest on this or any point, that speaks poorly for him and his film. it would potentially serve to undermine any more sound points he had to make, since while not being "objective" in some platonic sense i think we can agree that documentaries such as moore's rest their credibility on some agreeable relationship with truth-telling.

Regardless of the exact time-line, the people who harp on the Saudi flights are like the JFK people who won't shut up about the Grassy Knoll. It's an interesting detail, but largely irrelevelant. What I *do* want to see presented in Farenheit 9/11 are the historical financial connections between Bin Laden and Bush's oil companies as well as a detailing of Bush's derailing of the Treasury Department's Operation Green Quest that was looking into the financial interrelationships between Al Qaeda and Saudi Arabia.

Forget the plane flights, follow the money.

Are we seeing a slow motion coup?
i think saudi arabia is a far more unstable place than we have been led to believe (again the cbc touched on this aswell)