Moore vs. the Mouse
More here from Craig Unger, author of House of Bush, House of Saud. Basically, Disney is forbidding its subsidiary Miramax from distributing Michael Moore’s latest, Farenheit 911, which details the connections between the Bush and bin Laden families and also explores the strange evacuation of Saudis (including bin Laden family members) from the US shortly after 911. Moore’s agent claims Disney didn’t want to endanger tax breaks from Florida governor Jeb Bush; Disney claims the film will alienate a large portion of its audience. As the NYT points out, either explanation is depressing. Atrios isn’t worried as obviously someone will distribute it, but for other reasons this is a hugely big deal. First, we are talking about a corporation here that somehow would rather toe the Republican party line than make money. Bowling for Columbine cost $4-million and made $55-million worldwide. This new film is a fucking guaranteed class-A superprofit, and Disney sans Pixar needs every penny. Secondly it’s not the first time a corporate owner has blocked otherwise profitable product for ideological reasons (Stern, Nightline, etc). So if Disney is willing to give away $50-mil, and ClearChannel to lose 8.5 million listeners, how much of a chance will they give films, shows and books that aren’t a guaranteed profit?</br />UPDATE: The backlash begins, although the only thing that’s in question is when Moore learned Disney wouldn’t distribute the film.
Is it possible that Disney doesn’t want to distribute the film because they realize that despite all the trendy support received by Michael Moore, he is but a third-rate propagandist whose recent films and books have been shown to contain a litany of exaggerations at best, outright lies at worst? Just a thought.
Jer, while I value having conservative readers, you’re going to have to do better than that. I studied the truth-bending of Roger & Me in documentary class and the moral of the story was not that Mr. Moore is a lying liar, it is that all documentaries bend the truth in some way. Also, I know he was wrong about some stuff in Columbine, and I thought he came to flawed conclusions, but so does everyone. Anyway, the point is not about the quality of the film or filmmaker: how would we know that unless it got released?
Oh and BTW Jerms – as a vanquished hockey pool foe, you owe me $50! I tried to email you but I must have an old address.
You will receive your recompense forthwith and I’ll e-mail you my address as well.
You’re right about not knowing the quality of a film until it’s released; a valid point. You’re also right about documentaries bending the truth in some way; just like journalism, it is impossible not to let one’s subjectivity creep into your form of expression.
My beef with Moore is that he relies on shoddy research and intentionally edits disjointed and frankly unconnected soundbites to push home his transparent agenda. As you know Sanks, I despise the American obsession with guns and am utterly opposed to the idea of a “right” to bear them. But if you’re going to make a documentary about the innanity and insanity of gun life in America, you shoudln’t have to resort to editing two Charlton Heston speeches from different times together and then present them as happening days after Columbine. That’s propaganda of the Riefenstahl variety and, frankly, insulting to viewers. I know it adds to the “drama” and “intensity” of the piece but, at base, it’s a freakin’ lie. It’s film making designed to elicit a certain response in aid of a specific agenda (propaganda) but it’s not a documentary.
Here’s a link to a site deconstructing Columbine if you’re interested (you may have already read it of course):
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
So, an argument could be made that a film that we all know is going to be geared violently against Bush, and based on precedent will use deception and all other means necessary to smear the man but will be marketed as a fact-filled documentary that is certain to gob-smack the masses, would be irresponsible to release directly before an election. It seems to me that if Moore wants to vent his spleen, he can release the film after the election when Bush is most probably out of office anyway. I know Moore’s a great pontificator and loves to sway people to his curious world view, but to manipulate the voters with what in all likelihood will be a series of distortions should be left to the political parties in those great ads they always throw each other’s way.
Maybe that’s naive but I hate it when fucking Bruce Willis gets up and spouts about politics, I hate it when Martin Sheen does the same thing, and I hate it when some yahoo from Michigan whose body of work is a pile of exagerrations and manipulations hiding behind “documentary” thinks that he has the right to spin off another one right before an election that involves someone who he has made perfectly clear he hates to irrational levels. Of course, it would be all very different if I had any faith in humanity’s ability to see through bullshit, but I don’t so perhaps that’s my main concern with this whole thing.
Jerms, respectfully, do you believe what you’re saying? I don’t think there’s a chance in hell Disney reneged because Moore is ‘a third rate propagandist’, it’s Disney we’re talking about! And shouldn’t the idea be that Moore – who has a huge audience – can release his film whenever he wants to release his film? Limbaugh says all sorts of crazy BS, for instance, and he’s certainly influential, but I wouldn’t advocate putting him in a box until December. That’s the sort of thing we’re supposed to be fighting against, no?