Disney Forbidding Distribution of Film That Criticizes Bush

cherrynegra

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
Disney Forbidding Distribution of Film That Criticizes Bush
By JIM RUTENBERG

Published: May 5, 2004


WASHINGTON, May 4 — The Walt Disney Company is blocking its Miramax division from distributing a new documentary by Michael Moore that harshly criticizes President Bush, executives at both Disney and Miramax said Tuesday.

The film, "Fahrenheit 911," links Mr. Bush and prominent Saudis — including the family of Osama bin Laden — and criticizes Mr. Bush's actions before and after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Disney, which bought Miramax more than a decade ago, has a contractual agreement with the Miramax principals, Bob and Harvey Weinstein, allowing it to prevent the company from distributing films under certain circumstances, like an excessive budget or an NC-17 rating.

Executives at Miramax, who became principal investors in Mr. Moore's project last spring, do not believe that this is one of those cases, people involved in the production of the film said. If a compromise is not reached, these people said, the matter could go to mediation, though neither side is said to want to travel that route.

In a statement, Matthew Hiltzik, a spokesman for Miramax, said: "We're discussing the issue with Disney. We're looking at all of our options and look forward to resolving this amicably."

But Disney executives indicated that they would not budge from their position forbidding Miramax to be the distributor of the film in North America. Overseas rights have been sold to a number of companies, executives said.

"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."

Disney came under heavy criticism from conservatives last May after the disclosure that Miramax had agreed to finance the film when Icon Productions, Mel Gibson's company, backed out.

Mr. Moore's agent, Ari Emanuel, said Michael D. Eisner, Disney's chief executive, asked him last spring to pull out of the deal with Miramax. Mr. Emanuel said Mr. Eisner expressed particular concern that it would endanger tax breaks Disney receives for its theme park, hotels and other ventures in Florida, where Mr. Bush's brother, Jeb, is governor.

"Michael Eisner asked me not to sell this movie to Harvey Weinstein; that doesn't mean I listened to him," Mr. Emanuel said. "He definitely indicated there were tax incentives he was getting for the Disney corporation and that's why he didn't want me to sell it to Miramax. He didn't want a Disney company involved."

Disney executives deny that accusation, though they said their displeasure over the deal was made clear to Miramax and Mr. Emanuel.

A senior Disney executive elaborated that the company had the right to quash Miramax's distribution of films if it deemed their distribution to be against the interests of the company. The executive said Mr. Moore's film is deemed to be against Disney's interests not because of the company's business dealings with the government but because Disney caters to families of all political stripes and believes Mr. Moore's film, which does not have a release date, could alienate many.

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

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

Mr. Moore, who will present the film at the Cannes film festival this month, criticized Disney's decision in an interview on Tuesday, saying, "At some point the question has to be asked, `Should this be happening in a free and open society where the monied interests essentially call the shots regarding the information that the public is allowed to see?' "

Mr. Moore's films, like "Roger and Me" and "Bowling for Columbine," are often a political lightning rod, as Mr. Moore sets out to skewer what he says are the misguided priorities of conservatives and big business. They have also often performed well at the box office. His most recent movie, "Bowling for Columbine," took in about $22 million in North America for United Artists. His books, like "Stupid White Men," a jeremiad against the Bush administration that has sold more than a million copies, have also been lucrative.

Mr. Moore does not disagree that "Fahrenheit 911" is highly charged, but he took issue with the description of it as partisan. "If this is partisan in any way it is partisan on the side of the poor and working people in this country who provide fodder for this war machine," he said.

Mr. Moore said the film describes financial connections between the Bush family and its associates and prominent Saudi Arabian families that go back three decades. He said it closely explores the government's role in the evacuation of relatives of Mr. bin Laden from the United States immediately after the 2001 attacks. The film includes comments from American soldiers on the ground in Iraq expressing disillusionment with the war, he said.

Mr. Moore once planned to produce the film with Mr. Gibson's company, but "the project wasn't right for Icon," said Alan Nierob, an Icon spokesman, adding that the decision had nothing to do with politics.

Miramax stepped in immediately. The company had distributed Mr. Moore's 1997 film, "The Big One." In return for providing most of the new film's $6 million budget, Miramax was positioned to distribute it.

While Disney's objections were made clear early on, one executive said the Miramax leadership hoped it would be able to prevail upon Disney to sign off on distribution, which would ideally happen this summer, before the election and when political interest is high.
 

ogryn

Well-Known Member
Does anyone actually care who distributes it? If for sure don't think about it when I go see a film. I would hold the Director responsible for the film, not its bankrollers.
 

wdwmaniac

Member
Many people look at the movie company that releases it. Why is Disney, Warner, and Universal such big names? If no cared about that then directors wouldn't care what studio got there film. But as for Disney dropping this movie I am proud of them for it. Disney should stay away from any political motivated films.
 

BRER STITCH

Well-Known Member
I'm confused....
A bloody political battle featuring Eisner and Weinstein???
Is this funny or sad?

:lookaroun :lol: :p


Hollywood trade paper Daily Variety said in its Wednesday edition that Walt Disney Co. has moved to prevent its Miramax Films unit from distributing Fahrenheit 911.

The Disney edict could herald the bloodiest political battle yet between Miramax's feisty co-chairman Harvey Weinstein and Disney CEO Michael Eisner, who oversaw the purchase of Miramax a decade ago, Daily Variety said.

Fahrenheit 911, Moore's follow-up to his Academy Award-winning film Bowling for Columbine, will still premiere in competition at the Cannes Film Festival in France later this month. Rumors had been circulating of a July release date in North America, but the film does not appear on Miramax's summer schedule, the paper said.

It quoted a Miramax spokesman as saying that the company was "looking forward to resolving this amicably."

Officials from Miramax and Disney were not immediately available for comment on the report.
 

MouseMadness

Well-Known Member
I'm not really sure, but can't the rights to the film be sold to somebody who wants it? Surely there is somebody out there somewhere who'd distribute it, if Disney doesn't want to. And what's with the `Should this be happening in a free and open society where the monied interests essentially call the shots regarding the information that the public is allowed to see?' garbage? It IS a free and open society, and Disney is free and open to distribute whatever damn film they choose to! Sheesh, "Free" doesn't mean they HAVE to allow it, he's FREE to find somebody who does give a flip about him and his movie, as well. :lookaroun

Sorry. :eek: Done.
 

Wilt Dasney

Well-Known Member
The same quote jumped out at me, Christy. That's just whining on his part because the studio he wants attached to it is pulling out, and he's either too lazy or too attached to the idea of doing this through Disney to find another studio or *gasp* raise enough money to distribute his own film himself.

It's a very cozy dynamic he's set up in his world: He gets major corporations (i.e., movie studios) to fund and distribute his anti-corporate material, and if they decide they'd rather not associate with him, he yells censorship.

It kinda brings to mind a picture of a baby s u c k ing on its mother's teat, while continually criticizing the mother and saying how evil she is...then crying when she pulls the teat away. Grow up, Moore...he's a talented filmmaker, but he takes his stuff way too seriously.
 

wdwmaniac

Member
Disney/Miramax can sell the movie rights and the movie to anyother studi they want just like Miramax did with Lord of the Rings. :(
 

Blair

New Member
Disney made the right decision here... that film was on very ethically shaky ground, and they shouldnt be trying to cash in on poorly conceived controversy like that.
 

prberk

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by MouseMadness
And what's with the `Should this be happening in a free and open society where the monied interests essentially call the shots regarding the information that the public is allowed to see?' garbage? It IS a free and open society, and Disney is free and open to distribute whatever damn film they choose to! Sheesh, "Free" doesn't mean they HAVE to allow it, he's FREE to find somebody who does give a flip about him and his movie, as well. :lookaroun

Sorry. :eek: Done.

I cannot agree more!!!!!

Mr. Moore is himself "monied" and more than capable of putting his own money and reputation behind something. It is not ANYONE else's responsibility to get HIS message out there on their dime, period.

And since he is a "monied" interest who obviously has the power to get a movie made, maybe I should feel like he has the obligation to get my own more conservative-oriented movie made. Oh, he doesn't agree with me? But I thought all monied interests and powers that be (as he is one, in Hollywood, more than I am) had the obligation to pay for the views of those of the rest of us to get out there.....

I am sorry: the "monied" interests that he feels owe him got there from their own decisions and risks. The very company that he derides, The Walt Disney Company, is itself in existence today entirely because its founder financed his OWN feature film, in part by a mortgage on his own home, when the bankers and early distributors did not believe in his dream ("Snow White").... and the same thing happened later (with an unheard-of television contract instead of a mortgage) when none of the big monied people believed in Disneyland!!!

So, if Michael Moore believes in his project so much, let him put up the risk to get it made and distributed. Especially since Disney apparently let him know early on that it would be a problem.
 

MouseRight

Active Member
Originally posted by MouseMadness
I'm not really sure, but can't the rights to the film be sold to somebody who wants it? Surely there is somebody out there somewhere who'd distribute it, if Disney doesn't want to. And what's with the `Should this be happening in a free and open society where the monied interests essentially call the shots regarding the information that the public is allowed to see?' garbage? It IS a free and open society, and Disney is free and open to distribute whatever damn film they choose to! Sheesh, "Free" doesn't mean they HAVE to allow it, he's FREE to find somebody who does give a flip about him and his movie, as well. :lookaroun

Sorry. :eek: Done.

Great analysis MouseMadness. I agree completely. There are 2 factors playing here.

1) With Hollywood leaning as left as it does, Moore and Weinstein are just using this issue to put more pressure on Eisner. By doing this it gets the elite Hollywood liberals to push harder to get Eisner out.

2) This is a publicity stunt - plain and simple. Any publicity is good publicity, especially when it is free (every news channel has mentioned this issue at least 50 times today). Eisner said no last year, but they wait until it is ready to be released to put it into the news pipeline.
 

MouseMadness

Well-Known Member
Ok, in my life I've now had *counts* 3 people agree with me on something! I need to go buy a lottery ticket I think, this must be my day. :lol: :wave:
 

GoofyFan1

Active Member
Originally posted by cherrynegra
Disney Forbidding Distribution of Film That Criticizes Bush
By JIM RUTENBERG

Mr. Moore, who will present the film at the Cannes film festival this month, criticized Disney's decision in an interview on Tuesday, saying, "At some point the question has to be asked, `Should this be happening in a free and open society where the monied interests essentially call the shots regarding the information that the public is allowed to see?' "

Maybe Mr. Moore can get the "free and open society" of France to distribute his film.

I would appreciate the "poor, common people" :hurl: of Hollywood to stop accusing everybody that doesn't want to subscribe to their cry of censorship as being anti-free society and pro-big corporation. These people live in a fantasy world. They make more money for one movie than I'll ever see as a teacher. THEY are the monied interests. If I made a film about the influnce of the Hollywood Elites and their influence on the thoughts of Americans, they would try to censor me or slander me to the point where I would be considered just another one of those vast right wing conspirorists not to be believed.

To Mr. Moore: You can make the film, but you can't force me to see it or Disney to release it. That is FREEDOM! If you don't like it, suck it up buttercup and get your Hollywood buddies to distribute your film, or use some of your own money to get your film distributed.


People want to escape from this type of conflict when they think of Disney or go to the parks. While I ranted for a while, I really feel that people have the right to choose, as does Disney. We should be able to voice our opinions and have safe refuge from these constant assaults. That being said I would like to thank Mr. Eisner for keeping Disney out of the politcal battles. There is a place for these problems......Disney and WDW is not the place.
 

celticdog

Well-Known Member
Originally posted by prberk
I cannot agree more!!!!!

Mr. Moore is himself "monied" and more than capable of putting his own money and reputation behind something. It is not ANYONE else's responsibility to get HIS message out there on their dime, period.

And since he is a "monied" interest who obviously has the power to get a movie made, maybe I should feel like he has the obligation to get my own more conservative-oriented movie made. Oh, he doesn't agree with me? But I thought all monied interests and powers that be (as he is one, in Hollywood, more than I am) had the obligation to pay for the views of those of the rest of us to get out there.....

I am sorry: the "monied" interests that he feels owe him got there from their own decisions and risks. The very company that he derides, The Walt Disney Company, is itself in existence today entirely because its founder financed his OWN feature film, in part by a mortgage on his own home, when the bankers and early distributors did not believe in his dream ("Snow White").... and the same thing happened later (with an unheard-of television contract instead of a mortgage) when none of the big monied people believed in Disneyland!!!

So, if Michael Moore believes in his project so much, let him put up the risk to get it made and distributed. Especially since Disney apparently let him know early on that it would be a problem.

I agree with you Paul 100%. Moore should fund his own propaganda. It's funny how he will insult and complain about society and big business, and then turn around and demand that the same big business fund his pet projects.

When I first heard about "Farenhiet 911" I was appalled and went to the effort of writing a protest letter to Miramax. I knew that no good could come from this movie.
 

jrashadb

Member
Oh, goodness no!
How dare he make a movie saying nasty things about the president!
Who does he think he is questioning the grand authority that is this administration?

(sigh)

:lol: :brick:
 

Wilt Dasney

Well-Known Member
I don't think anyone's making the argument that he shouldn't be able to make his movies (not on THIS thread, anyway), just that it's pathetic for him to whine because Disney chooses not to distribute it. It's not like they're keeping it from being released, they're just declining to put their name on it.

If he feels the film is so damned important, then he should stop whining because of one setback and keep knocking on doors until he finds someone to distribute it.

That's my feeling, anyway; whether I agree or disagree with his politics isn't relevant at all.
 

jrashadb

Member
He's not whining and he'll find someone else to distribute it... that's not the point.
The point is Disney scared and pulled out because the attitude in this country is that if you';re against Bush, you're anti-american... which is ridiculous.
I don't know if I'd call it censorship, exactly. Disney can do whatever they want, and the movie will get out regardless.
It's not censorship... more like cowardice.
 

Blair

New Member
Originally posted by jrashadb
The point is Disney scared and pulled out because the attitude in this country is that if you';re against Bush, you're anti-american... which is ridiculous.
It would be unethical for Disney to profit off a film designed to pander and propagandize a poltical view, especially when it's on shaky grounds like Michael Moore.

His films are notorious for bending facts and manufacturing evidence in order to sell his brand of "the truth" and convince people of his political views.

Disney should remain a much more neutral company than that.

I would feel the same if they started distributing films by other firebrand political figures like Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom