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.

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)