Disney Forbidding Distribution of Film That Criticizes Bush

[Glocksman]

Maybe this is purely Eisner politically disagreeing with the film and deciding to silence it?

That I doubt as Eisner is a well known Democratic contributor who was particuarly cozy with Al Gore.

The comment from a year ago had nothing to do with the final decision which was made by Eisner within the last week. Aparently, the CEO of Miramax is pissed over Eisner throwing his weight around on this and never seriously expected Disney to get involved.

But that's not what the article says:

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

He was told a year ago that Disney wouldn't allow them to distribute the film. Eisner only reiterated what was previously decided.

Weinstein gambled that he could change Eisner's mind and lost.

Let's see what Moore says:

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

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 9/11." 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.

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

Notice this quote: 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.

Also notice that he doesn't state that the Times's 'source' for this information was his own agent.

Moore is incapable of being straightforwardly honest.

[Glocksman]

True, but the timing here is HIGHLY suspect. They are dumping the film right before it is set to premiere at Cannes, and Moore might have a hard time arranging to get it screened in so short a time with a different distributor. True, not being at Cannes won't kill the film, but it certainly is a slap in the face for Moore and his film.

Not having a distributor won't affect being at Cannes at all.

[Durandal]

He was told a year ago that Disney wouldn't allow them to distribute the film. Eisner only reiterated what was previously decided.

Which is completely irrelevant to the argument of Disney's motivations for refusing to distribute the film, which can't be anything but political. They could've had a stone tablet from 3000 years ago with "DISNEY WILL NOT DISTRIBUTE FAHRENHEIT 911" etched into it and the ten commandments following, and it wouldn't change a damn thing.

Hell, the fact that they said they wouldn't distribute it over a year ago (before the film was even finished) should be enough to tell anyone that they're throwing their weight around in the political arena. The film would have a huge profit potential, so they'd be stupid not to distribute it from a purely business standpoint. Disney has sat silently by while other films that were equally or more controversial (religiously and politically) were being distributed by its child companies; what makes this one different? It attacks Bush, and it happens to be an election year.

[BoredShirtless]

The film would have a huge profit potential, so they'd be stupid not to distribute it from a purely business standpoint.

I think I heard on CNN this morning [not sure, getting ready for work] that Disney is gunning for tax breaks from the government worth millions of dollars. So maybe they did consider this decision from a business POV.

[Durandal]

The film would have a huge profit potential, so they'd be stupid not to distribute it from a purely business standpoint.

I think I heard on CNN this morning [not sure, getting ready for work] that Disney is gunning for tax breaks from the government worth millions of dollars. So maybe they did consider this decision from a business POV.

Well I'm pretty sure they didn't do it out of fear of political retaliation. If there's a little incentive from the government in it for them, then that's certainly conceivable.

But when you're a multi-billion dollar company, you've got very little to fear, especially from the government.

[Glocksman]

Which is completely irrelevant to the argument of Disney's motivations for refusing to distribute the film, which can't be anything but political.

I agree the motivation is political, it's just that I don't think Eisner is being pro-Bush (indeed, as I already noted, he's very much a Democrat). Instead he's trying to keep the company's film divisions (ABC news is another matter) from becoming embroiled in any controversy over 9/11.

Eisner probably would refuse to distribute the film no matter who the President was at the time because the 9/11 wounds are still raw.

This is no more an act of censorship than it was when Mel Gibson had trouble finding both backing and a distributor for The Passion of the Christ.

Moore's claims of censorship are laughable.

[Glocksman]

Eisner defends dropping film

Walt Disney Co. Chief Executive Michael Eisner denied Wednesday that concerns about Florida tax breaks were behind the company's decision not to release Michael Moore's documentary Fahrenheit 9/11.

In the documentary, Moore turns his populist, seriocomic style on the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and the military campaign in Iraq. The subject matter has made Fahrenheit 9/11 a corporate hot potato since Miramax Films, a Disney subsidiary, agreed to finance it.

Eisner indicated in May 2003 that Miramax would not release the documentary, and Moore said he got the official word Monday that Disney had not changed its position.

Moore's Los Angeles-based agent, Ari Emanuel, told The New York Times that Eisner's fear was that the documentary's exploration of the Bush family's connections to the family of Osama bin Laden might jeopardize tax incentives for Disney's holdings in Florida, where President Bush's brother Jeb is governor.

The Disney CEO on Wednesday called that claim "ridiculous" in a meeting with reporters at Disneyland. In an interview on CNBC, Eisner said Disney simply did not want to get ensnared in a political debate by distributing the documentary in a presidential election year.

"We're such a nonpartisan company," he said, and people "do not look for us to take sides."

Eisner predicted Moore wouldn't have trouble finding a distributor.

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

A spokesman for the Florida Department of Revenue, citing public-records laws, declined to say how much Disney pays in state taxes each year.

Analysts said they weren't surprised by Disney's decision on Fahrenheit 9/11. They noted Disney's long-standing penchant for avoiding controversy. Disney once defused a public-relations fiasco about an Israeli government exhibit at Epcot by assuring critics that the company wasn't taking sides in thorny Middle East politics.

The company zealously safeguards its image as the purveyor of wholesome family entertainment that is apolitical. In fact, Disney takes great pains to work both sides of the political fence in Washington. Although Eisner is a Democrat, Disney contributes to Democratic and Republican candidates.

This isn't the first time Disney has blocked Miramax from distributing a film. It happened with the comedy Dogma, which lampooned the Roman Catholic Church, and with Kids, an NC-17 movie about teens in New York. In both cases, Miramax found alternate distribution.

When asked whether there was any risk of Jeb Bush retaliating against Disney if the documentary were released, the governor's spokeswoman, Alia Faraj, said, "Absolutely not."

"There are Florida statutes that outline the provisions for companies to be eligible for tax incentives," she said. "That's what we follow. The governor continues to encourage companies to move to the state of Florida. . . . Disney has been a good corporate partner."

Moore dismissed claims that he was using the situation to generate attention as Fahrenheit 9/11 is set to be screened at the Cannes Film Festival, which begins next week.

"I don't need publicity for people to go see my movies," Moore said. "I think that was proven by my last film."

That movie, Bowling for Columbine, with a budget of $4 million, won an Academy Award in 2003 for best documentary feature and took in $21 million in the United States.

Paul Brownfield and Elaine Dutka are reporters for the Los Angeles Times, a Tribune Publishing newspaper. John Kennedy, Richard Verrier and Sean Mussenden of the Sentinel staff contributed to this report.

Note that Disney has blocked Miramax from distributing films previously with Dogma and Kids. Also note the bolded comments from analysts about Disney's penchant for avoiding controversy. This isn't nothing new for Disney and Moore has had a year to seek alternate distribution.

Censorship, my ass.

Also note Moore's bullshit denials that this isn't about generating publicity.
If anyone believes him, I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale cheap. [/quote]

[Durandal]

I don't buy it, unless Disney likes to pick and choose which controversies to avoid, because they didn't have a problem with Bowling for Columbine, which 5 years later is still a touchy issue.

[Glocksman]

I don't buy it, unless Disney likes to pick and choose which controversies to avoid, because they didn't have a problem with Bowling for Columbine, which 5 years later is still a touchy issue.

United Artists distributed Bowling, according to the IMDB.

Source

[Glocksman]

I don't buy it, unless Disney likes to pick and choose which controversies to avoid, because they didn't have a problem with Bowling for Columbine, which 5 years later is still a touchy issue.

United Artists distributed Bowling, according to the IMDB.

Source

Correction:

UA and MGM distrlbuted the movie.


Neither is a Disney company, IIRC.

[The Kernel]

Note that Disney has blocked Miramax from distributing films previously with Dogma and Kids. Also note the bolded comments from analysts about Disney's penchant for avoiding controversy. This isn't nothing new for Disney and Moore has had a year to seek alternate distribution.

Yet Miramax STILL distributed Dogma. As for Kids, it was slated to get an NC-17 rating (it was finally released unrated) and Disney doesn't publish NC-17 movies plain and simple.

Censorship, my ass.

Fuck censorship, I think this is just politically motivated bullshit and should be frowned upon accordingly. No one is going to fault Disney for publishing the movie of an Oscar winner.

Also note Moore's bullshit denials that this isn't about generating publicity.
If anyone believes him, I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale cheap.

I'm sure he would love to generate publicity for his latest flick and he really does enjoy playing the wounded liberal. Doesn't change the fact that he has a valid point, whatever his reasons for having it. To assume anything else is an appeal to motive.

[Glocksman]

Fuck censorship, I think this is just politically motivated bullshit and should be frowned upon accordingly. No one is going to fault Disney for publishing the movie of an Oscar winner.

You really think no one would be angry at Disney for distributing this movie??

The Bushes aside, it's bound to be controversial and might even lead to boycott calls on the part of outraged partisan groups.

Disney's motives are political to the extent that they wish to not be invovled in the shitstorm this movie will probably ignite.

Doesn't change the fact that he has a valid point, whatever his reasons for having it. To assume anything else is an appeal to motive.

He doesn't have a point. In his letter he claims this is one of 'the profound censorship obstacles I often seem to encounter'.

This is not censorship. Disney is merely exercising their right to refuse distribution. Miramax and Moore have been free for the last year to seek a different distributor. If Moore doesn't have alternate distribution lined up by now, it's not Michael Eisner's fault.

Why haven't they lined up UA or MGM distributing (Bowling's distributors) by now?

Disney isn't locking the film up in the vault and refusing to let people see it, they merely made a business decision to not distribute the movie and they were courteous enough to Moore to let him know this a year in advance.

[Durandal]

You really think no one would be angry at Disney for distributing this movie??

I doubt that most people know that Miramax is owned by Disney.

[tharkûn]

Meh I'm most inclined to beleive that it Disney does not want to risk pissing off the rightwing and endangering the dreaded boycott. Sure Moore's latest bit of drivel will make a tidy little sum of change; however it is absolutely peanuts compared to the potential economic impact for Disney if any of the major conservative blocs goes in for a boycott.

Garunteed millions vs. possible lost billions. It is basically gambling that the odds of massive consumer backlash are sufficiently low to make it a worthwhile bet. Given the sheer number of consumers garunteed to be pissed off, and the volume of lost revenue if they are pissed enough to act ... it had better be damn miniscule odds if you want to do it.

Is it not a distinct possibility that Disney beleives the best way to make money is not to touch something which has the potential to do nasty things to the balance sheet?

Another distributor may feel more comfortable with the odds, or have smaller consumer base among those who will be pissed about the movie and will then distribute it. In short we have capitalism at work.

If this were a compotent, underhanded attempt to silence Moore then Disney would not have dropped it, just done an unbeleivably crappy job at distribution. Controversy fuels interest and this is just about the best possible thing for Moore. If the goal was to silence Moore, everything thus far is simply counterproductive, you can't buy this type of coverage. Thus until I see some evidence that Disney had anything but the bottom line at heart, I'm going to remain extremely skeptical of ulterior motives.

[Master of Ossus]

Well, that explains it. Moore's a lying sack of shit, and he created this ploy in an effort to publicize the film. What a surprise.

[Joe]

You really think no one would be angry at Disney for distributing this movie??

I doubt that most people know that Miramax is owned by Disney.

Sure they do, the fundies bitch about it all the time.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

Maybe not most, but a lot do in my experiance.

[neoolong]

People that bitch and moan about Miramax's movies tend to know because they would be the ones most likely to inform themselves about it.