I would sincerely recommend that everyone with any vague sense of right and wrong to read Michael Moore's new book, "Dude, Where's my Country?"

For those of you in the States, do me a favour and take it seriously - he has his finger on the pulse. Go do something about it!

Here Here !!!

It's a good book, but I was under the impression the states version is different to the one in Europe???

It's interesting to hear that his latest film has been blocked by the studio for slagging off Bush!

Cheers

Cris.

It's interesting to hear that his latest film has been blocked by the studio for slagging off Bush!

What the hell did they expect??

It's interesting to hear that his latest film has been blocked by the studio for slagging off Bush!

Yeah, it was Disney, who was affraid that Dubya's kid brother Jebb (governor of Florida) would get upset and axe their tax breaks...

Do you guys really think Jebb is so vindictive that he'd punish a film studio for the content of one of its movies, or that he holds some power over their first ammendment rights through "tax breaks"? I suppose I'm just naive, but that sounds pretty far out there to me. I'd say it's more likely that Disney just doesn't want to be associated with Moore's message.

And my understanding is that Disney said a year ago they wouldn't distribute the movie and Moore decided to go ahead with it anyway.

Well the cool thing is that they have found a distributor for it here in the UK

I hope it gets more coverage than Bowling for Columbine did, I had to wait for that on DVD.

Cheers

Cris.

I'm sure the intrigue here is really just between the Weinsteins and Eisner and his cronies (assuming there are any left) and doesn't have much to do with either the State of Florida or Moore himself.

Do you guys really think Jebb is so vindictive

Woah there, try not to include everyone when responding like that. Only one person said it

Point taken . . . Sorry

I read this about Jeb and taxes in one of countless articles on the topic linked from Google news as Moore's spin, but mostly confirmed in Disney's rebuttal. Anyway, I don't find it that implausible (though it probably is just a construction by Moore - he does not seem to be entirely above resorting to some, ah, creative interpretations, sadly).

I just wonder if something like this isn't just a rumor that grew out of something like a random sarcastic remark.

Of course, I repeat, what kind of movie did Disney think that Michael Moore would make?

Of course, I repeat, what kind of movie did Disney think that Michael Moore would make?

I read in an article (don't remember where) thant Disney told Moore's people a year ago they wouldn't distribute it and he decided to make it anway. Of course (and Eisner even said so in the article I read) it's almost certain that someone else will pick up the movie and distribute it, so I don't think Moore has much to worry about. In fact, all this is doing is generating publicity for him, and in Moore's case negative publicity is probably even better than positive publicity.

Ah, but they were signed on to distribute a Moore movie at first? I still find that odd, though I guess their cancellation might have been just at or around the time of the infamous Oscar speech.

in Moore's case negative publicity is probably even better

Heh, yeah, probably

Disney owns celebrated indie film distributor Miramax, which is the company that was to dictribute the film. They bought it a few years back. The same situation existed with the film Kids and Miramax somehow created a one-off distribution company to distribute it. I never understood how that worked, but maybe it was owned by the Weinsteins outside the realm of Miramax or Disney.

Bowling for Columbine

After seeing this,and keeping in mind he called it a documentary, I think I'll skip his other works. While the movie did start some interesting thinking in my mind, it unfortunatly started too much based off false facts.

I wish he would have spent less time in that movie going after gun nuts, and spent more time going after the real issue. I'm no fan of the NRA, but to grossly mis-quote them, and to also paint them in a racist light was just a wrong thing to do. He basicially touched on the question "Why is America more violent then other countries" but never really gave much to feed the viewer.

I'm not sure he had an answer. I think he did a good job of attempting to prove that we were more violent, though, and I think he succeeded.

Maybe I went into the movie expecting to take it with a grain of salt, so I wasn't as let down as you were.

I think he did a good job of attempting to prove that we were more violent, though, and I think he succeeded.

I'm not so sure he really did. Sure, he posted cold numbers of gun deaths in the US compaired to other countries, but those numbers seem to be under serious scrutiny. A more apporiate number would have been one calculating violence, since last I checked, a gun wasn't the only weapon out there to commit violence with, and violence does not mean death in all cases. If indeed his focal point of the movie was violence, I want to see numbers on number of assault cases, and the odds of it affecting a citizen of that country. I have a hard time seeing that movie for anything but an anti gun/ anti NRA movie. I didn't watch it for that, as I already have my own opponions in that area and wasn't looking to supplement them.

I would find myself hard pressed to take any of his otther works seriously. With a documentary, I at least expect the figurative book cover to be a good source of identifying what would be contained inside.

This is only peripherally related to the topic here, but I have to mention a John Stewart quote from The Daily Show a few days ago. A reporter was questioning Kerry about his record on having minorities in his "inner circle" of campaign people, and he was defending himself using his usual cold, stodgy demeanor. Stewart commented "You know, it's amazing how John Kerry sounds more dickish when he's telling the truth than Bush does when he's lying."

Then there's this site which pretty much summarizes my view on this year's election.

Ah, but they were signed on to distribute a Moore movie at first? I still find that odd, though I guess their cancellation might have been just at or around the time of the infamous Oscar speech.

in Moore's case negative publicity is probably even better

Heh, yeah, probably

Moore covers all of those points in this statement posted yesterday. I know it's just his side of the story, but it sounds plausible to me.

I think this statement is a bit much:

We despise censors, and the worst censors are those who would dare to limit thoughts and ideas and silence dissent. THAT is un-American.

It is NOT censorship for Disney to not release a movie. It's saying that they don't want to be responsible for distributing the message. Not to say that Moore doesn't have some good points with regards to some of the Mirimax flicks like Kill Bill vol. 2, but he should have stopped short of calling it censorship. Censorhip is when you persecute someone for something they say, not failing to desceminate someone's thoughts and ideas. To force Disney to do something they didn't want would be unamercian. Unless of course they are breaking a contract. If they did they are not holding up their end of a bargin and some accountability is required, but it's still not censorship.

Censorhip is when you persecute someone for something they say, not failing to desceminate someone's thoughts and ideas.

According to Encarta:

1. suppression of published or broadcast material: the suppression of all or part of a publication, play, or film considered offensive or a threat to security
2. any suppression: the suppression or attempted suppression of something regarded as objectionable

Fits definition nicely, IMO. Censorship is 'merely' suppression; no persecution needed. Now, of course, we could split hairs on difference between 'suppression' and 'failure to disseminate', but, AFAIR, whenever some movie got 'not disseminated' in ex-communist countries before they became 'ex-', Western media and governments called that 'censorship', I think appropriately.

whenever some movie got 'not disseminated' in ex-communist countries before they became 'ex-', Western media and governments called that 'censorship', I think appropriately.

The difference being that in the communist countries it was the government suppressing movies as a means of controlling thoughts and ideas, not a company trying to make a good business decision. Now if Jebb really abused his powers to coerce Disney's decision then I'd agree that this is censorship, however Disney should be allowed to distribute whatever it does or does not want to. And Moore's movie is not being suppressed by Disney anyway. He's free to take it somewhere else and find someone who will distribute it. If it were true suppression then Disney would be actively making sure no one else promotes it either.

Now I'm not a big fan of Eisner, so I really don't know what the truth is behind his motives and actions. Some of the actions taken seem inconsistent to me, so I'm not really trying to defend him here. However, when Disney puts out a movie that offends people, that reflects on the company. For the most part it is not in the best interested of the company to offend people, especially when so much of their content is aimed at a conservative base. So it does make a great deal of business sense that Eisner wouldn't want Disney's name attached to Moore's project. Once again, I don't think that's suppression, it's making a business decision- a business decision that Eisner is free to make because he lives and does business in a country where people are free to make their own choices.

But see, there are other movie companies that don't have the same issues as Disney. They might be very pleased to disseminate Moore's movie because they aren't as worried about alienating their customers- in fact Moore’s movies are probably well received by some significant consumer segments out there, and for those business that have those types of customers this movie would probably be a great asset. It's all about free-trade, business decisions, and consumer expectations: choices Americans are free to make because the law protects our right to choose.

So once again I think the use of the word "Censorship" is out of line for what is merely a free business decision, conspiracy theories notwithstanding. As far as the allegations Moore makes of Disney’s inconsistent behavior, I wouldn't put it past Eisner to have behaved badly, but that's a different issue than censorship.

All that being said, I can empathize with Moore in that I’d hate to be told something I worked hard to produce isn’t going to be distributed. Even if he can find another company, it still must sting to have Disney back out.

Movies were not suppressed by government edict (at least in some communist countries), the way those coffin photos were. (I dare you to invent an argument that that was not censorship, either! ) Decision not to distribute was also 'business decision': after a phone call from 'high places' the boss of production company would decide it was not such a sound business idea to distribute the film that displeased the guy on other end of the line (who would, of course, explain that the audience would be offended by the film); if he did, the company would not get subvention next year, and the boss' chances to be elected in Central Comitee would be greatly diminished. Of course, these consequences were implied, never explicated. I fail to see any fundamental difference. If Disney really thought the profile of Moore's work does not fit expectation of their audience, they would not finance it in the first place.

As for Moore's feelings about Disney's decision, I will join cynics in claiming this plays into Moore's hand (is that an appropriate idiom?).

It is NOT censorship for Disney to not release a movie.

I understand that your argument lies somewhere in the area of "it's a business decision" as opposed to "they're out to prevent this message from reaching the public", and I think that you're half right, but ....

I find a lot of people using that argument in general, and one thing that I've noticed is that they want to claim that just because it's not backed by law it's not censorship, which is an invalid conclusion. It's "illegal" for the government to sponsor censorship. (Although there always have been areas where they claim the right to do so, and those areas are increasing, especially as of late.) Companies can also censor, and it's not illegal, but that doesn't make it not censorship.

It's certainly a legitmate political stance to believe that no one should engage in censorship, though, and I think that's what Moore is saying. You can disagree with either that stance, the idea that it's censorship to begin with, or both. But that doesn't inherently make his point invalid.

Even if he can find another company, it still must sting to have Disney back out.

It will sting Eisner more if the movie makes a bunch of dough: dough dat Disney desperately desires, dude. <==[unauthorized alliteration]

Definitely.

The reality in America is that crying censorship always increases the profitablity of anything. Books, movies, whatever... things that have been censored or rumored to be censored make more than they would have if everyone had just shut up and released them. The Last Temptation of Christ is a good example.

Before following the link I knew what you'd linked to...

Sure, but it has to be released but censorship claims will help it... I'm waiting so I can do my part

You make a good point, and I'd considered the "just because it's legal doesn't mean it’s not censorship" idea as I'd written my post.

Moore may believe that what Disney has done is censorship (as others clearly do), so I must concede that his point must be considered. However, he's using the strongest possible terms to denounce this act when he calls it un-American, and yet the idea that this is censorship is highly debatable at the least. I suppose that is Moore and the way he communicates, but I find it to be the kind of highly charged language that many people (on all sides of the political spectrum) use that really turns me off.
As far as my half-right view (and I can live with being half right in this case) of this not being censorship: there are lots of business that don't carry a product because of its content. Is it censorship that some video stores don't carry x-rated videos? Is it censorship that Christian book stores don't carry Muslim books? Or how about non-religious book stores that carry very little Christian literature? Or more to the point, I hear that Mel Gibson had several companies turn him down for "The Passion of the Christ", which I can only assume is due to the content. Clearly many people were afraid of being involved with a movie that might be branded anti-Semitic, and yet that doesn't seem to me to be censorship. I don’t even find it morally reproachful. I’m glad Gibson got his movie made, but I don’t see any reason to fault the companies who thought it too high a risk to be involved with.

It is interesting where the line is drawn between what is censorship and what is not. This discussion has caused me to think through it a bit more than I have in the past, but to me there still must be a proactive element for something to truly be censorship. If I fail to pass along information presented to me by a Muslim then I am not censoring that person (though if he has paid me to and I've accepted the task I'm certainly behaving immorally). However, if I attack that person for stating their beliefs (and by "attack" I mean in any fashion: physically, verbally, boycotting, politically, etc.) then I'm engaging in censorship.

Whether or not there is such thing as "moral" censorship or if all censorship is inherently immoral is yet another interesting discussion, but I'm too tired to engage in that one!

It will sting Eisner more if the movie makes a bunch of dough

I doubt it. I'll bet this was a very calculated move on Eisner's part, and while he might miss a lot of money because of it, there's probably a business case that says he'll still to better in the long run. Disney is very branded by their image, so something contraversial like Moore's movie has huge damage potential. My impression of Eisner (which is really limited so take this with a grain of salt) is that he probably doesn't care about the message at all and is merely doing what he thinks is best for the bottom line.

I'll bet this was a very calculated move on Eisner's part, and while he might miss a lot of money because of it, there's probably a business case that says he'll still to better in the long run. Disney is very branded by their image, so something contraversial like Moore's movie has huge damage potential.

Nah. It would be distributed by Miramax, which typically release films diametrically opposed to the typical Disney image of wholesome family films, though it's owned by Disney. Besides, Miramax has already distributed partisan political films, despite what Eisner says. I think this is less a calculated move on Eisner's part, and just one more in a string of stupid decisions by a CEO (is he still CEO?) that very, very few people in the company actually think should still be running the company.

All good points. I'm not saying Moore is correct in this case. I was just really responding to the potentially percieved notion that censorship is always illegal or can only be performed by governments.

Personally, I'd call it censorship if Disney told other distributors not to touch it. I think it requires either monopoly or (at least attempted) collusion. I don't think that's the case, though. It's just advertising.