[Article]Disney 'blocks' Moore documentary

ixoy

From BBC News :

Controversial director Michael Moore has said film studio Disney is refusing to release his new documentary, which heavily criticises President Bush.
Fahrenheit 911 was to be distributed by Miramax, a division of Disney.

But Disney has "officially decided to prohibit" Miramax from distributing the film, the director said on his website.

Moore, who won an Oscar for Bowling for Columbine in 2003, questioned whether in a "free and open society" Disney should be making such a decision.

Fahrenheit 911 links Mr Bush with powerful families in Saudi Arabia, including that of Osama Bin Laden, and attacks his actions before and after 11 September.

Miramax, run by Hollywood moguls Harvey and Bob Weinstein, agreed to distribute the documentary but Disney signalled it was not happy with the deal.
Disney bought Miramax 10 years ago but retained the rights to block films it deemed against its interests, such as adult-rated films.

But the New York Times said Miramax did not agree this was a situation where that clause should be invoked.

"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," Moore said on his official site.

"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."

Miramax spokesman Matthew Hilzik told the New York Times: "We are discussing the issues with Disney. We're looking at our options and look forward to resolving this amicably."

But Zenia Mucha, a Disney spokesman, said: "We advised both [Moore's] agent and Miramax in May of 2003 that the film would not be distributed. That decision stands."


Moore's agent, Ari Emanuel, accused Disney and its chief executive Michael Eisner of fearing a loss of tax breaks if it backed the release in the US.

Moore will give Fahrenheit 911 its world premiere at the Cannes Film Festival, but no date has been set for a US release.

Absolute, complete and utter disgrace. First Ammendment? Hah! What's the point if, in principle, you can't exercise it properly?

cruiserweight

I doubt if it will be released his year in the states, apparently there is some sort of election in November and George does not want to look bad.

I do not see what Disney's problem is. Moore already laid the foundations for such links in "Dude Where's My Country". Anyway his facts are often sketchy at best and obscure.

Memnoch

this is no surprise... they tried to block Michael Moore's book "Stupid White Men"..

i think in this case they are just trying to postpone it till after election time in the US, since the public there have a particularly short memory.

all they do by trying to block it like this is add more credibility to his claims.

I do look forward to seeing it myself..

My opinion is that Bush has gained the most from 9/11 and the events following it, and my personal opinion is also that 9/11 was preventable, and was allowed to happen by the powers that be. Hopefully MM's documentary will highlight some intersting points about Bush's relations with the Saudi's and the Bin Laden family.

ixoy

I wonder how the TV stations are reporting this in the States? The New York Times clearly wants it released, but I can imagine Fox news:
"Rampant raving Leftie lunatic Michael Moore was left frothing at his liberal lips today, when Disney announced that it would not be seeking to distribute his latest movie 'Farenheit 911'. The movie is a completely unfounded attack on the administration and sees Michael Moore - known for his unfounded and downright savage attacks on his own peope - attempt to try and discredit popular president George W. Bush. This movie comes at a time when men and women are dying in Iraq, trying to fight for those values that he dares to say the US administration are preventing. Well we at FOX News can you that this is one movie we're all looking forward not to seeing."

sceptre

Originally posted by Memnoch
this is no surprise... they tried to block Michael Moore's book "Stupid White Men".

"They" last time was Rupert Murdoch's Random House. "They" this time is Michael Eisner's Disney. While I don't doubt the possibility of Rupert actually having a political agenda, Disney's decision is probably prompted purely by tax breaks and the possibility of losing them for not playing along.

MeatProduct

While I can see that there is an argument for blocking the film until Bush is in power I don't really see why the film would be allowed after Bush is re-elected (if he is). I imagine it would make for a very uncomfortable term of office if Bush got in and then this film was released which showed Bush to be even more of a gobsh*te then everyone had already thought. Of course, since America is the land of the free, Bush wouldn't give a crap if the whole country was against him so I have just managed to counter my own point here .

America needs more of these films to be shown, that much is clear.

Nick

Sand

Disney/Miramax arent obligated to release Moores filims - if they dont want to they dont have to. They are most likely footing the bill, theyre a profit driven organisation and if they feel this would work against their interests theyre hardly likely to release it.

Assuming Moore is the free thinking genius people claim he is then he can simply distribute the filim on the internet for download. Of course, he wouldnt make any money that way but ..... making money is greedy afterall.

they tried to block Michael Moore's book "Stupid White Men".

Possibly on the grounds of the overwhelming stupidity contained within, such as all the historical strife in the Balkans comes from the assassination of Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand, that the strife in NI is motivated by the unbelievable oppression of the Catholics and other gems that demonstrate his genius. Sure, Moore made a lot of cash from it, feeding peoples fantasies but to be associated with such moronic claims would be a tad embarrassing.

America needs more of these films to be shown, that much is clear.

If it needs documentaries it needs them to be halfway intelligent. If its needs comdedy that appeals to the lowest common denominator then "dude wheres my car" is funnier.

Fionnan

Mirimax/Disney funded the making of the film. It is their film, Disney can decide when to release it. Moore knew who was financing his film, he could of looked for a different financier( there probably wud have been no trouble considering the money Bowling for Columbine made). I suspect that the Disney/Mirimax deal was financially the most rewarding for Moore himself. Any1 know the details.

Hobbes

First Ammendment?

ahem...

"Correctly interpreted, the First Amendment does not prohibit all restrictions on speech. It doesn't prohibit private restrictions at all. Our constitution is a series of constraints on government, not on individuals or even powerful corporations. It is not a violation of the First Amendment for the Microsoft Network, if it so desired, to forbid postings that criticize Bill Gates. Microsoft is not the government, at least not yet. Similarly, CompuServe's censorship of sex newsgroups may offend freedom lovers but does not violate the First Amendment."- William Bennett Turner in WIRED magazine 4.03, "What Part of 'No Law' Don't You Understand?"

sceptre

I pulled this from the news link from the movie on imdb.

Conservatives Try To Bowl Over Disney
15 May 2003 (StudioBriefing)
Disney has again come under attack from conservatives as a result of the decision by its Miramax unit to back Michael Moore's (Bowling for Columbine) next documentary, Fahrenheit 911. On Wednesday, Steve Wood, who operates the Republican website GOPUSA.com, took note of the fact that some conservatives are talking about boycotting Disney products and cancelling vacations at the Disney theme parks, "and I'd have to say that we will certainly think twice now about spending our hard-earned money at Disney, knowing that it might be used to support someone like Michael Moore. ... Disney has every right to fund Michael Moore, but we also have every right to take that into consideration when we choose how to spend our disposable income." Tom Perrault of the Christian-conservative Crosswalk website wrote Wednesday that Disney ought to "refrain from actively supporting an anti-family and/or anti-conservative agenda." Perrault also objected to the fact that the voice of Ellen DeGeneres is featured in the upcoming Pixar/Disney cartoon, Finding Nemo. He concludes: "With literally hundreds and hundreds of perfectly viable options, Disney goes with someone whose personal lifestyle is antithetical to the throngs of families who are supposed to eagerly flock to the theaters on May 30th [when Nemo opens]."

Old news but it's obvious that people were miffed that the movie was part-produced by Miramax from the moment the original backing announcement was made. Which won't come as much of a surprise I suppose.

It'll still be distributed outside the US.

ixoy

Originally posted by Hobbes
ahem...

"Correctly interpreted, the First Amendment does not prohibit all restrictions on speech. It doesn't prohibit private restrictions at all. Our constitution is a series of constraints on government, not on individuals or even powerful corporations. It is not a violation of the First Amendment for the Microsoft Network, if it so desired, to forbid postings that criticize Bill Gates. Microsoft is not the government, at least not yet. Similarly, CompuServe's censorship of sex newsgroups may offend freedom lovers but does not violate the First Amendment."- William Bennett Turner in WIRED magazine 4.03, "What Part of 'No Law' Don't You Understand?"

Uh huh, I actually meant to qualify myself on that. I think my irritation was more that I read it being that, his work created, he couldn't now display it. However, it seems that there are still options open.

Miramax were going to distribute the movie but they can distribute it now through someone else. This will, naturally, force a profit share but that may be better than nothing at all (the movie cost $6 million). The actual deal doesn't affect us here in Europe because the distribution rights have already been sold (Abbey Films, I think, distribute most of the movies in Ireland). I'm not sure what sort of hold Moore himself has on the movie but it would seem odd he went for the Disney-backed Miramax after going originally to Icon Productions, owned by ultra-right wing Mel Gibson. What's with all the Republican-supporting distributors on his part???

Hobbes

Wasn't it miramax that ruined Mallrats?

Btw, censorship in the US is pretty rampant and is hardly new. They don't even show live anymore (its on a delay feed) due to Ms Jackson showing her booble.

Latest one is the documentry honouring the people killed in Iraq one year on was censored in a number of states.

ixoy

Originally posted by Hobbes
Btw, censorship in the US is pretty rampant and is hardly new. They don't even show live anymore (its on a delay feed) due to Ms Jackson showing her booble.

Nipplegate? We can also thank our own spokesman, Bono, for that. His swearing + Janet culminated in the new FCC rules regarding censorship. Nonetheless they're examples of curtailing certain elements of a presentation, not the presentation itself. They're also for moral, rather than political reasons. I think the fact this is a mixture of political and financial is what irritates me. I can't see how, defensibly, Disney could ever claim this decision was made with families in mind whereas they might be able to argue not showing "Requiem for a Dream" uncut on similiar grounds. The fact that there's still such great confusion and downright misinformation amongst many Americans, during an election year, means that this sort of movie, presenting the other side of the story, should also be seen.

vorbis

free country I suppose. Disney can show whatever they want of their own stuff. While I like Moore, he does have a tendency not to let the facts get in the way of his arguments. He's worth watching but I wouldn't be expecting a full objective documentary from him.

bonkey

Originally posted by Hobbes
Wasn't it miramax that ruined Mallrats?

No-one ruined mallrats. Its a great movie the way it is

Miramax have every right to refuse to disty Moore's movie for whatever reason they want. I would be of the opinion, however, that once they refuse to disty it, it is wrong of them to hold him to any sort of contract forbidding him from seeking an alternate disty.

jc

Hobbes

Originally posted by bonkey
No-one ruined mallrats. Its a great movie the way it is

It made more money from DVD sales then it did in the cinema in the US. Kevin Smith goes into great details through the commentary about how they destroyed trying to get show it to people.

Cork

Originally posted by Memnoch
this is no surprise... they tried to block Michael Moore's book "Stupid White Men"..

Does Moore support Ralph Nader?

Is a vote for Nader not a defacto vote for George W.?

Memnoch

ya the Nader issue it kinda true. But Nader is a lot better than the democrats or the republicans, if only ALL democrat voters could realise that

Cork

Kerry's tax plans would hinder Foriegn direct investment by US companies. From an Irish ecomony point of view - Kerry won't be doing us any favours.

A vote for Nader will only aid Bush in the US electoral system.

Why is Moore aganist the democrats?

gandalf

Originally posted by Cork
A vote for Nader will only aid Bush in the US electoral system.

Why is Moore aganist the democrats?

You already answered your question

sceptre

Originally posted by Cork
Why is Moore aganist the democrats?

They're a little too Republican for his liking.

Kerry's tax plans would hinder Foriegn direct investment by US companies. From an Irish ecomony point of view - Kerry won't be doing us any favours.

You're very incorrect I'm afraid. That section of Kerry's plan for corporate taxation is angled at companies that move their manufacturing base for products that will be sold in the US to countries outside the US (Taiwan, Malaysia and so on). On the subject of Irish jobs and Kerry's taxation plan, he's proposing to retain an exemption for companies whose foreign operations target foreign markets. Pretty much all US investment in Ireland falls into this category. I'd simply say "all" but I'm not sure that it's 100.00%. It's close enough though - Ireland is used as a European base for most of the major foreign investment, including the major US investment by the likes of Dell, Microsoft and Intel. Nothing to worry about there then. So even if his plan to repatriate $639 billion hoarded overseas by US companies actually goes through, it isn't going to affect us leprechauns. US companies that pay for services in places like Shannon Aerospace aren't going to be affected either. In other words, Kerry's tax plan isn't really going to make an iota of difference to US investment in Ireland. Might even help it when the specific exemption for foreign operations that sell in foreign markets remains.

pork99

Originally posted by vorbis
free country I suppose. Disney can show whatever they want of their own stuff. While I like Moore, he does have a tendency not to let the facts get in the way of his arguments. He's worth watching but I wouldn't be expecting a full objective documentary from him.

He's what you would call a polemicist? I enjoy his books & films but I can take or leave his politics. Yes his facts can be a bit shakey but can't you make your own mind up? I also enjoy reading P. J. O'Rourke without always agreeing with his political points.

If either author is banned or suppressed I'm upset. I hope that all Disney achieve by this is to give Michael Moore free publicity for his film given that he should find an alternative distributer. "The film they tried to ban" you can't pay for publicity like that! I look forward to seeing it.

BaZmO*

Originally posted by pork99
He's what you would call a polemicist? I enjoy his books & films but I can take or leave his politics. Yes his facts can be a bit shakey but can't you make your own mind up?

Totally agree there. I can never understand why people get on his case so much for the slight inaccuracies in his books. My impression of MM is that he's a comedian/film-maker with a slight political edge, rather than a political journalist with a comedic edge.
The thing I've noticed also is that what comes up time and time again by his detractors when nit-picking at his book are the points he made about European wars (Northern Ireland in particular).
Correct me if I'm wrong but I was under no illusion whatsoever that those comments were purely tongue in cheek. I don't read Michael Moore's books for political enlightenment, I read them because they are entertaining, while also touching on some serious political issues.
His books are written in a, for want of a better expression, dumb-downed way, i.e. without the usual political rhetoric that you get in other political reporting.


B.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by Cork
Is a vote for Nader not a defacto vote for George W.?

Isn't it this attitude that copperfastens a two-party system (with little to choose between the parties)?

bonkey

Originally posted by BaZmO*
I can never understand why people get on his case so much for the slight inaccuracies in his books.

My impression of MM is that he's a comedian/film-maker
with a slight political edge, rather than a political journalist with a comedic edge.

Firstly...I'd mostly agree with your assessment of MM.

I think the reason why people get on his case so much is that he doesn't make it clear that he is firstly a film-maker / comedian and secondly a documentary-maker / socio-politcal commentator. Not only does he not make it clear, but many people believe him to be mostly the latter, or a melange of the former and the latter.

The problem I have with him is that too many people come up and start saying "if you want to educate yourself about whats going on in the world, read Michael Moore". In the accuracy stakes, thats about as good a suggestion as saying "if you want to educate yourself about whats going in in the world, read the US Administration's Press Briefing transcripts".

Moore positively loathes the Bush Administration...and mostly for the reason that the likes of Al Franken dislikes them as well - because he insists they are trying to pass off falsehood as truth, and that this makes them liars.

But Moore is no different. He produced a mix of fact and fiction which he bills as a documentary, not a mockumentary. When challenged on some of the issues, he denied that they were falsified. When it was proven that they were falsified, he basically shrugged his shoulders and used the "I'm an entertainer" argument...that it wasn't incumbent on him to be honest.

I like reading/watching Moore's stuff. Its a good springboard for things to look further into...but it ain't a good reference source in its own right. The problem that I think many people have with Moore is not so much that he's not a good reference source, but rather that he does nothing to try and dispel the notion that he is a good reference...and I would even go so far as to say that he actively promotes it.

Ultimately, though, despite my criticism of the guy, I don't think Disney are right to shut him down like this, and I'm not even sure they have the legal right to intervene.

From what I've been reading, the conditions imposed when Disney purchased Miramax gave them the right of refusal on distying "big" movies (costing over $30M) or those with an NC-17 or higher rating. Moore insists the movie was made for a fifth of that, and that its rating will be below the NC-17 level, so Disney have no right whatsoever to intervene.

I mean...consider this...Miramax disty the Kill Bill movies. So clearly its not adult content, disturbing images, blood, guts, or anything like that which could be the problem with Fahrenheit.

So why is it being blocked? I see three possibilities, and no way to decide between the two I think are probable :

1) Political content
2) Fears that the public don't want to deal with 911 yet (as was similarly seen with how long movies which dealt with Vietnam took to come about)
3) (outside shot) Someone in Disney really doesn't like Moore.

jc

earwicker

Interesting discussion. I'm puzzled about one or two things, though. As far as the "inaccuracies" of Bowling For Columbine are concerned, Moore himself has addressed them on his website:

here

The objections are not terribly serious, and even if you believe them they don't really harm the arguments being made. Make of them what you will.

I'm also wondering what genre of film his films might be called if not documentary?

"Mockumentary" would apply to fiction--like The Office. Moore uses the documentary format, and interprets "real-life" situations as he sees them. This is essentially how other documentary filmmakers operate.

If anything, the Moore controversy is probably useful for seeing that "facts" are notoriously ambiguous things that require interpretation and dialogue.

bonkey

Originally posted by earwicker
Interesting discussion. I'm puzzled about one or two things, though. As far as the "inaccuracies" of Bowling For Columbine are concerned, Moore himself has addressed them on his website:

here

The objections are not terribly serious, and even if you believe them they don't really harm the arguments being made. Make of them what you will.

Indeed. Make of them what you will. But if you are going to make anything of them, it would also be useful to read the actual criticisms to which Moore was chiefly responding as well as the followup to Moore's article by the same author where he looks at how Moore is further being deliberately misleading in many of his responses, and completely ignoring many of the criticisms laid at his feet to boot.

"Mockumentary" would apply to fiction--

Yup...and when you read about the amount of splicing of interviews that was done in order to misconstrue the "feel" of what happened, you will see why I used that term.

I mean...I'm sorry...but the first time I went and read Moore's defence of his movie, I lauged out loud when I read this gem :

I can guarantee to you, without equivocation, that every fact in my movie is true.

Sure Mike...thats because - by definition - if it wasn't true, it wouldn't be a fact. But what about the stuff that isn't fact? Or what about saying that there is nothing in the movie which isn't true?

Sorry, but half of Moore's responses are as evasive and misleading as the movie. He misrepresents much of the criticism he responds to, he ignores more than he addresses, and ultimately uses sleight-of-hand like the above comment to make statements that when looked at a bit more carefully are not as meaningul as they say.

One last example. Moore insists that "every word out of Charlton Heston's mouth was uttered right there in Denver," (concerning the Denver speech).

Yup. It was. But it wasn't all that was said. And what was used from the speech was very well spliced to completely change the tone.

As the critic that Moore is responding to says in his own reply :

If I splice together Moore saying "I venerate the memory of the firefighters and policemen who died trying to save people from the terrorists on 9/11" and turn it into "I venerate the memory of the terrorists of 9/11," he did say every word, yes, but that's no defense of having butchered his statement.

f anything, the Moore controversy is probably useful for seeing that "facts" are notoriously ambiguous things that require interpretation and dialogue.

It should be useful for that, yes.

The problem is that too many people seem to see Moore as some sort of straight shooter exposing and condemning how others are massaging the truth to their own ends....whilst happily indulging in the same practice himself and insisting that he is still being upfront and honest.

jc

Cork

Originally posted by oscarBravo
Isn't it this attitude that copperfastens a two-party system (with little to choose between the parties)?

Whats wrong with having 2 a 2 party state - It is far better than unstable coalition governments depending on the support of independants.

I maintain Moores films and books preach to the converted.

"Stupid White men" seems to be the the gospel for many socialists. Sad really.

Disney, is under no obligation to allow distribution.

sceptre

Originally posted by Cork
Whats wrong with having 2 a 2 party state - It is far better than unstable coalition governments depending on the support of independants.

Nothing. But there's nothing wrong with a three-party system either. In the US, where you can't even count on senators and representatives from your own party to vote in favour of your bill, nasty coalitions don't ever come into play.

"Stupid White men" seems to be the the gospel for many socialists.

I rather doubt it. PJ O'Rourke isn't the gospel for non-socialism even though he writes better and is funnier. I'd assume that The Wealth of Nations is the original gospel for free enterprise, partly replaced by Friedman's Free To Choose and the like for the libertarians, and that the additions made by others since, including Nash, would be the real gospel for socialists, though The Wealth of Nations can be read quite easily in a socialist context as well. I'm assuming Marx doesn't win the prize as hardly anyone's read the stuff (though probably more than Smith). Or maybe stuff by Jeremy Bentham or John Stuart Mill. Even for the "sudden socialists", Naomi Klein's book probably converted more than Moore. Obviously the more upmarket socialist tends to decry Moore in favour of Chomsky. And there's a big long list of more obvious candidates I could supply but these are enough.

Obviously I'm using the word "socialists" in the normal sense rather than definitions used by people who use the word "pinko". Your more extreme socialist (this is your pinko) doesn't regard Moore as his bible either.

earwicker

Originally posted by bonkey
Indeed. Make of them what you will. But if you are going to make anything of them, it would also be useful to read the actual criticisms to which Moore was chiefly responding as well as the followup to Moore's article by the same author where he looks at how Moore is further being deliberately misleading in many of his responses, and completely ignoring many of the criticisms laid at his feet to boot.

I took it as read that those older sources you cite would be already familiar to interested parties.

It seems odd to me that IF Moore has so grossly mistated the facts, then why hasn't he been sued? America's a litigious place, and those who were allegedly misrepresented would appear to have fairly robust resources.

Spacedog

MM is funny and informative.

If he's simply a crackpot spouting fibbulious lies through verb trickery and rude editing of that patron saint of the bangstick, Heston (wow, he can talk!). then why is Eisner browning his clavins that it might be seen before human rights activist Boy George Bush runs for re-electarooneyhoo?

BaZmO*

Originally posted by Spacedog
MM is funny and informative.

If he's simply a crackpot spouting fibbulious lies through verb trickery and rude editing of that patron saint of the bangstick, Heston (wow, he can talk!). then why is Eisner browning his clavins that it might be seen before human rights activist Boy George Bush runs for re-electarooneyhoo?

I don't think that anybody is saying that he is "crackpot spouting fibbulious lies". People are just saying that you can't take everyhting that he is saying as gospel, cos afterall he does have his own agenda, albeit a slightly more righteous one than Dubya!


And I'd imagine that the reason why Eisner is "browning his calvins" as you so eloquently put it is because the movie will reveal a lot of unpalatable truths regarding the relationship between the Bush and Bin Laden families which will not do Dubya any favours in getting re-elected!

bonkey

Originally posted by earwicker
I took it as read that those older sources you cite would be already familiar to interested parties.

How can a response to Moore's article be older than the article itself?

And I find it amusing that you took it as read that the critique Moore was chiefly responding to, and the ensuing response to Moore's article didn't merit a mention because they would be known, but Moore's response itself was not well known enough and was worth linking.

Indeed, it is interesting that you took it as read that people would be familiar with these two articles which hafve far more criticisms than were answered, and which clearly point out that Moore is dodging many issues and refusing to even acknowledge others.

Why is it interesting? Because even being aware of these facts, you still presented Moore's comments as a fait accompli which debunk the criticism levelled at the movie.

Isn't that type of misdirection exactly what Moore is also being criticised for?

It seems odd to me that IF Moore has so grossly mistated the facts, then why hasn't he been sued?

Which is dealt with in the links I posted to.

Moore himself makes the same point.

The critic in question points out that if one were to apply the same logic that Moore uses to the people Moore himself says are doing exactly the same thing, one can only conclude that because they haven't been sued either, Moore must be wrong.

Then again...you are familiar with these articles, so you already knew that the answer to your point was in there.....right?

jc

ReefBreak

The Times (of London) has a column about this issue today:

Michael Moore: the world's first recyclable martyr

oscarBravo

Originally posted by Cork
Whats wrong with having 2 a 2 party state

Let me answer that by extrapolation: the problem with a one-party system is that there's not much point voting. Whether you vote for that one party or not, that one party will be elected.

The problem with a two-party system is in the second part of what I said: when there's little to choose between the parties. In this case, there's still not a lot of point voting, because whichever way you vote, you vote for a (broadly) corporate-oriented right-wing conservative party.

The attitude I criticised is, in essence, that a vote for a left-wing party simply means that the "wrong" right-wing party might get in.

Mind you, a bigger problem might be the electoral system. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the US have a similar FPTP setup to the UK? As in, you only get to vote for one candidate in any given poll? If so, there's really relatively little hope of a third political force emerging.

It is far better than unstable coalition governments depending on the support of independants.

Better for whom? In what way?

vorbis

we're effectively the same oscarbravo.
Theres never been a government in this country dominated by either FF of FG. Enlgand, labour or tories, germany dem socialist or the other crowd

Spacedog

Originally posted by BaZmO*
...People are just saying that you can't take everyhting that he is saying as gospel...

I certainly hope not, don't get me started on the gospel!!!!!! Moore is more credible than that dusty manuscript. If Jesus were here he'd want Eisner to distribute the movie. therefore Michael Eisner is the devil! QED!

earwicker

Originally posted by bonkey
How can a response to Moore's article be older than the article itself?

And I find it amusing that you took it as read that the critique Moore was chiefly responding to, and the ensuing response to Moore's article didn't merit a mention because they would be known, but Moore's response itself was not well known enough and was worth linking.

My post was a throwaway to address the fact that your initial response branded Moore as a liar and didn't provide any links. You seemed to have clearly made up your mind against Moore's "truthfulness," and the link I posted simply pointed to Moore's first reply to the Hardy site's allegations, which so many people are familiar with. I thought it might be good for those not familiar with his take on things to read it. That's all. No conspiracy. No wish on my part to cover up anything. But I did go on to say that those who read the allegations and responses will make of them what they will. I made no statements about anything having or lacking merit. You seem to be more annoyed about my dismissal of your links as old news. I misread the links in your second post.

Originally posted by bonkey
Indeed, it is interesting that you took it as read that people would be familiar with these two articles which hafve far more criticisms than were answered, and which clearly point out that Moore is dodging many issues and refusing to even acknowledge others.

Why is it interesting? Because even being aware of these facts, you still presented Moore's comments as a fait accompli which debunk the criticism levelled at the movie.

Isn't that type of misdirection exactly what Moore is also being criticised for?

Once again, I said make of the criticisms what you will: that's hardly treating them as a fait accompli. I also said that regardless of where one might stand on them, they do not detract from the main argument Moore makes. I also said that such editing is employed by all documentary film makers who are in the business of crafting narratives, and that "facts" are ambiguous and open to interpretation/ dialogue.

The author of the critique's nit-picking does not seem to be simply motivated by the search for the "truth" about Columbine, but rather presses the value of truth in the service of an opposing point of view. What is that? Why? By contrast, Moore's agenda is pretty obvious.

You accuse me of "misdirection," by which I take you to mean that I was wilfully misleading readers of this thread by not posting a link to the response to Moore. Fair enough. I made no claim to the truth. I have been debating the whole notion of truth by saying that Moore does what most documentary film makers do: manipulate material to craft a narrative. I never said he was above criticism, but I don't think arguing about the truth of his manipulations is the point. If most documentary film makers are at it, then surely the real issue lies in how a loaded term ("truth") that a great deal of people still (uncritically, in my view) believe in is being bandied about. I was suggesting that the debate is perhaps most constructively viewed as a look at what "truth" means, and is not about "the truth."

That's why I'm not outraged by the cobbling together of Heston's words (for example) from different speeches. This is just how such film making works and most of the debate seems to be due to the surprise of those not familiar with film making not knowing this. Even the author of the criticisms pulls Moore's response apart, all the while editorializing and recontextualizing. It happens all the time: we quote someone else, and ride a certain point. I had fun watching it in the smoking debate that just concluded. The advocacy system works on the same principle.

For me, this debate is an interesting one because it brings us back to the bones of rhetoric and its power to shape perception. I'm certainly not arguing for pure objectivity, even if I am a little nostalgic for it (sometimes). I'm more interested in the question of how to navigate a cultural terrain that cannot be saturated by objectivity. It seems to come down to pick a side that you can live with. I can live with Moore's overall argument more easily.

Interesting stuff.

bonkey

Originally posted by earwicker
The author of the critique's nit-picking does not seem to be simply motivated by the search for the "truth" about Columbine, but rather presses the value of truth in the service of an opposing point of view. What is that? Why? By contrast, Moore's agenda is pretty obvious.

Agreed, the critic is not searching for the truth about Columbine. I think he's more interested in trying to highlight what he perceives - rightly or wrongly - as Moore's hypocracy, of engaging in many of the tactics that he is lashing out at others for using. I also feel there is a conscious effort on his part to act as a counter-weight to - or to dispel the myth of (if you prefer) - Moore's being some sort of "shoot-from-the-hip, tell-it-like-it-really-is" man of the utmost integrity.

You accuse me of "misdirection," by which I take you to mean that I was wilfully misleading readers of this thread by not posting a link to the response to Moore. Fair enough. I made no claim to the truth. I have been debating the whole notion of truth by saying that Moore does what most documentary film makers do: manipulate material to craft a narrative.

My apologies. I misread your stance somewhat.

I never said he was above criticism, but I don't think arguing about the truth of his manipulations is the point.

Agreed, but I simply felt that offering the response to criticisms unseen to "make of what you will" was not a terribly balanced approach, which I was somewhat more incensed by when you seemed to dismiss the criticisms and the ensuing reply to Moore's response as old hat - it gave the appearance that you were trying to somehow protect Moore's credibility. Like I said - i misread your stance somewhat.

If most documentary film makers are at it,

But are they? I'm not convinced they are to as significant an extent as Moore is. And more importantly, I feel that those who are considered to be that prone to "slant" are generally considered to be pushing some sort of agenda, or vision (i.e. something may be considered very pro-Bush, or very anti-big-corporations), whereas Moore seems to engage in as much misdirection as any and is considered to be some sort of modern-day truth-sayer.

That's why I'm not outraged by the cobbling together of Heston's words (for example) from different speeches.

But hold on. You have a message effectively saying "this man is horrid. You know why he's so horrid...just look at the things he's done and said.... (cue edited melange). Now, maybe its just me, but if Heston really is that horrid a man, why couldn't they get some unedited footage showing him saying something genuinely loathsome, rather than having to cleverly manage the editing to cast some relatively benign statements into a far darker, more condemning collage?

Even if you want to argue about the relvance of truth, surely there is something morally dishonest about insisting someone is so bad, but only being able to produce evidence through misdirection?

Don't get me wrong. A lot of Moore's stuff is really well put together, and the message is pretty straight. But the problem is that there is enough misdirection lying around that, ultimately, I consider none of it to be trustworthy. Its a good springboard to find stuff thats worth reading more about....but thats all. And I guess it irks me that so many people seem instead to treat Moore as the definitive on how an issue really is.

For me, this debate is an interesting one because it brings us back to the bones of rhetoric and its power to shape perception.

Indeed. But I think there's a secondary issue which is the standards (which I would say are dropping) at which people are prepared to accept rhetoric rather than seeing it for what it is.

It seems to come down to pick a side that you can live with. I can live with Moore's overall argument more easily.

Likewise....but not because Moore made it, or because of how he made it, or even because he made it. Many of his arguments strike chords with me, but I still dislike the way in which he has made many of them.

Interesting stuff.

Indeed, but I suppose we should get back on-topic. If you're interested in continuing this, let me know and I'll split the thread in two.

jc

Typedef

Actually.

I'm quite glad Disney has decided not to distrobute this film.

Quite simply Michael Moore is an embaressment to Liberals, not to mention being a tad hypocritical with his "Down with the man and his money making schemes... buy my book... heal!" message. Maybe he means well, but, he can sure milk it, in selling and I emphasise 'selling' his prole feed to people.
Frankly I have no time for it, you can't be against the machine and make millions out of it's mechisma. You can be a good person, but, wether you are theoreticall aligned or misaligned from the machine, you still serve a purpose for it, just like Michael Moore. Except in Michael Moore's case, while he's against the Imperialist American State, he's getting pretty fat off of miliking it! I'm pretty sure Michael Moore believes in his message, but, it is very convienent that he can make millions out of selling his anti-establishment message, using entities like the 'established' (no pun) Disney to do so.

If anything fringe psychotics like Michael Moore drive people towards the sort of quasi-religous dogma Bush spews and so, in the interests of ridding Bush from power and getting a Democrat back into office in the US, so we can all get on with the business of making *real* money, it's just as well Michael Moore is silenced until after the election.

Real world, nobody in the Western world would care a damn, if George Bush was running a better economy then Clinton did, real world. Everybody knows a Republican Administrations in the US, means War, Deficit and money towards more 'traditional' facets of the economy.

Politicains are the 'same' everywhere, they simply sell a different message. That's fine, if George Bush fixes the American economy, he can stay in power for 20 years as far as I'm concerned, either way, Israel will rule the Palestinians, either way, the US will cause wars. All we pay for with a new regieme is a different shade of the same old grey!

That's the real reason people hate Bush, he's bad for prosperity, if, from the moment he'd got into power, US economic growth had gone from 4% to 6.5% pa, instead of 4% to 0.1% pa, nobody would have a bad word to say about the man.

So, being honest, we all want Bush out, because we want to get rich. That's fine, let's not disguise our desire to be rich in some sort of self righteous belief that morality has any relevance in Western Society.

Michael Moore or another like him, was an enivatibility, since there is such a market for his prole feed, people who convice themselves that it's Bush's social, as opposed to economic polices that they hate. Thus I maintain, if Bush had doubled American economic growth, books, like Stupid White Men would have 'flopped' ignominiously.

bonkey

Apparently the latest on this is that Disney have pointed out that they informed Moore a year ago that his film would not be distributed.

After some bluster and denials, Moore has apparently come out with a new explanation of how it is true that he was told this, but that he's still not just trying to sensationalise and attract publicity by making a fuss over it being a big shock a year later.

The more Moore gets press-coverage, the more it becomes apparent that he is little different to those he seeks to denigrate.

jc

ixoy

Well I can't be surprised that he knew - I asked earlier on why did he go to Disney-backed studio, knowing their stance on such political fodder. I mean you or I could surely have seen it coming - why not a man who knows damn well how to use the media?
As much as I find Moore a welcome tonic from the right-wing rantings (a yin to their yang), this smacks of a publicity stunt too far.

BaZmO*

Originally posted by bonkey
Apparently the latest on this is that Disney have pointed out that they informed Moore a year ago that his film would not be distributed.

Here's his explanation.


B.

TuathaDeDanaan

Moore is a lier and self promoting america hating propogandist, from the money he has made from his books and his films he could finance the film itself. How he constantly gets away with his fabrications is a mystery. Implying he is being censored is the latest stunt. I dont see how you can be censored by a corporation that follows the free market.

More about Moores lies..
http://www.revoketheoscar.com/:rolleyes:

ixoy

Originally posted by TuathaDeDanaan
I dont see how you can be censored by a corporation that follows the free market.

You don't? The fact that they're a corporation means they have to look after their corporate interests. If it's not in their fiscal interest to support or release something, then they won't do it (generally). Just because there's a "free market" doesn't mean a corporation is always free to act on it (they are answerable to shareholders after all).

Sand

You don't? The fact that they're a corporation means they have to look after their corporate interests. If it's not in their fiscal interest to support or release something, then they won't do it (generally). Just because there's a "free market" doesn't mean a corporation is always free to act on it (they are answerable to shareholders after all).

So dont sell the rights to them then? Sell them instead to a company that will distribute it? Or better yet release the filim free for download. Dont give in to these corporate capitalist republican bastards after all - unless theyre paying for our manhattan appartments and chartered jet flights. Mike Moore, fighting for the little man.

More about Moores lies..

Thats a hilarious site, not so much for the content as for the bile with which the guy tears into M.Moore.

"Who are you trying to fool, you lying ****! You've done nothing but piss and moan about the 2000 election since it took place, despite the fact that every recount showed Bush the winner. And on top of that you predicted that the 2002 election was going to be "Payback Tuesday", but instead it turned into "Bleeding from the Rectum Tuesday" for you and your left-wing buddies. So rather than simply admit your error you removed the letter from your site and hid under a rock like a ****ing coward."

Keee-Rist, his medical bills must be huge with blood pressure like that:)

sleepwalker

But Moore is no different. He produced a mix of fact and fiction which he bills as a documentary, not a mockumentary. When challenged on some of the issues, he denied that they were falsified. When it was proven that they were falsified, he basically shrugged his shoulders and used the "I'm an entertainer" argument...that it wasn't incumbent on him to be honest.

are you referring to "Bowling for Columbine" here or another documentary he made ? because I reme.ber on his website he wrote an article about how all of his facts were legitimate. when or where did he admit to making things up ??

vorbis

are you referring to "Bowling for Columbine" here or another documentary he made ? because I reme.ber on his website he wrote an article about how all of his facts were legitimate. when or where did he admit to making things up ??

This has already been mentioned. He basically dodged most of the issues raised regarding the movie. Theres plenty of sites with info on it. I'd have to agree that Moore was merely looking for free publicity with this stunt.

bonkey

Originally posted by sleepwalker
are you referring to "Bowling for Columbine" here or another documentary he made ?

Bowling.

because I reme.ber on his website he wrote an article about how all of his facts were legitimate.

And I can say that every fact in a Stephen King novel is also legitimate.

Does it mean that every single item in the novel is fact, or that said facts are not deliberately presented in a manner to be misleading?

Nope. It doesn't. Isn't english great

when or where did he admit to making things up ??

Yup. But Moore presenting an inconsistent story isn't entirely news, now is it?

When the initial criticisms came out, he shrugged some of them off with the "entertainment" excuse for his spin. When it grew more acrimonious, he fell back on answering a small handful of points, some of which bore some relevance to the actual criticism, and presented his response as a fait accompli debunking of all of the criticism which had been levelled at him.

jc

I see the Film/documentry faranheit is being shown at the Cannes Film festival which starts this week.

lee_baby_simms

I found 'bowling' more enjoyable than the poor tabloid books he writes, but the fact is that Moore is very handy in the editing room and 'bowling' is unfortunately scattered with false claims and misleading facts.

Moore has a knack for using footage out of context and also just bald faced lying at times. This is a shame as i generally agree with his political persuasions. Now before u ask, im not a heston fan, its just he gets really shafted by moore.

For example, Heston's "cold dead hands" speech, which leads off Moore's depiction of the Denver meeting, was not given at Denver after Columbine. It was given a year later in Charlotte, North Carolina and was in no school shooting context.


Moore doesnt claim that heston is racist but doesnt give the viewer much choice in thinkin otherwise. Heres an excerpt from an internet article regarding hestons mixed ethnicity remark:


The remarks stem from Heston's answer (after Moore keeps pressing for why the US has more violence than other countries) that it might be due to the US "having a more mixed ethnicity" than other nations, and "We had enough problems with civil rights in the beginning." A viewer who accepts Moore's theme that gun ownership is driven by racial fears might conclude that Heston is blaming blacks and the civil rights movement.

But if you look at some history missing from Bowling, you get exactly the opposite picture. Heston is talking, not about race, but about racism. In the early 1960s, the civil rights movement was fighting for acceptance. Civil rights workers were being murdered. The Kennedy Administration, trying to hold together a Democratic coalition that ranged from liberals to fire-eater segregationists such as George Wallace and Lester Maddox, found the issue too hot to touch, and offered little support.
Heston got involved. He picketed discriminating restaurants. He worked with Martin Luther King, and helped King break Hollywood's color barrier (yes, there was one.). He led the actors' component of King's 1963 march in Washington, which set the stage for the key civil rights legislation in 1964.


But Moore doesnt mention any of this.

These are just two examples of many. For more columbine truths: http://www.hardylaw.net/critiques.html

Now dont get me wrong, im not pro right or against what Michael Moore believes in.
I just think hes not the 'salt of the earth, common joe' he wants us to believe. He distorts, hides and bends truths to bring the audience round to his thinking.

That said im looking forward to his new movie. Bound to be entertaining. Has to taken with a pinch of salt though.:p