Disney Forbidding Distribution of Film That Criticizes Bush Pt II

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Grojlach: Perhaps, but Michael Moore gets quite riled up himself over the use of the term "un-American", especially in regard to The Patriot Act and disagreeing with the government. You'd expect him to be conscious enough about its use to handle it carefully. Of course we don't know the manner in which he used the term (sarcasm often gets lost in fine print), but I personally feel this particular case is too lightweight to justify an angry "un-American" and meaning it, too; my money is on "using the enemy's favourite label and backfiring it on them" (which is substantially different from, say, offensive French jokes), especially regarding the hilarious remark that he's willing to sing "God Bless America" on stage with Linda Ronstadt and provide the casino with a free viewing of F9/11. If he did say it and actually meant it however, I'll agree with you and Cerek that its use is inappropriate and that Moore loses face over this remark.

I do think he meant it, Grojlach. That is based on the overall tone of his comments from the rest of the article. However, I will agree that he probably also enjoyed using it as an opportunity to "throw it back in the face" of those who had used it against him.

As a striking contrast to this episode, I was searching through Snopes today looking for an un-related 9/11 urban legend and came across an account of Charlie Daniels pulling out of a performance on a CMT (Country Music Telivision) Benefit Show to raise funds for survivors of 9/11 because the organizers of the show told him they did not want him to perform his new, post-9/11 song - "This Ain't a Rag, It's a Flag". In his explanation, Daniels says that the organizers DID ask him to not perform the song. He said that he chose to not perform at all because (a) he disagreed with the stance of the organizers, and (b) the show had enough country stars lined up that his absence would not affect the overall success of the show.

The BIG difference is that Charlie Daniels also said that the organizers had every right to request he not sing the song. Even though he disagreed with their stance, he agreed they had a right to that stance and he bowed out quietly instead of raising a big stink over the issue. He DID post an explanation of why he pulled out of the event on his website, but that was because he felt he owed the explanation to the fans that had expected to see him perform.

It's nice to see a celebrity actually acknowledging that - while they have a right to voice their opinions - organizers and managers of venues have an equal right to say "We don't want you voicing that opinion on our show or in our concert hall."

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Grojlach: If he did say it and actually meant it however, I'll agree with you and Cerek that its use is inappropriate and that Moore loses face over this remark.

That's fair enough, but I still believe people are a bit too willing to forgive Moore's foibles because of their agreement with his message.

On the positive side, now most of what Rush Limbaugh and the rabid right says can be deemed unoffensive, because we aren't really sure of the context of their statements.

In addition, we'll have to admit that their future cries of 'un-American' could just be made to point out MM's use of the phrase. [img]graemlins/moon.gif[/img]

P.S. I'm only giving you a bit of a hard time because I think your heart is in the right place. [img]graemlins/cheers.gif[/img]

[ 07-21-2004, 05:22 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[Chewbacca]

According to this article the future owners of the Aladdin casino have plans to immediately invite Ronstadt back:

Link- Reuters

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Who says what happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas?

Singer Linda Ronstadt's eviction from a hotel in Las Vegas, America's "sin city," for praising filmmaker Michael Moore during a stage show mushroomed on Wednesday into the latest celebrity free speech controversy to dog the highly-charged 2004 presidential campaign.

The New York Times ran an editorial condemning the move, Moore demanded she receive an apology and promised to appear on stage with her singing "America the Beautiful" if she did and a USA Today headline said the incident was proof that "Celebrities declare own war -- on Bush."

The Aladdin Hotel stood by its decision to remove her to a waiting tour bus on Saturday night. But Planet Hollywood International which, with others has agreed to buy the casino and is seeking a state gaming license, said that when it took over one of the first things it would do was invite Ronstadt back to sing.

"We respect artists' creativity and support their rights to express themselves," Planet Hollywood chief Robert Earl said.

But a spokeswoman for the current Aladdin ownership, Tyri Squyres, said Ronstadt "was there to entertain not make a politically charged comment."

Squyres added that when Ronstadt praised Moore as a "great patriot" for making the anti-Iraq war film "Fahrenheit 9/11," about half the audience of 4500 people booed and left and about 100 demanded their money back even though Ronstadt was singing an encore. Some people said the crowd was "liquored up" and Squyres said one reason Ronstadt was asked to go was "to defuse the situation."

ANTI-BUSH TIDE?

For some, the incident was the latest example of a rising tide of anti-Bush remarks from prominent entertainers that has become a side-show to the battle for the White House.

But for others, it was sign that the 2004 election is going to be one of the most passionate and divisive campaigns since the height of the Vietnam War.

But virtually all agree that Ronstadt's dedication of a encore song to Moore was mild in comparison to comedian Whoopi Goldberg's obscene comments about the president at a John Kerry fund-raiser or Ozzy Osbourne projecting of Bush's image onto that of Adolf Hitler's during a rock concert.
And of course, it was extremely mild compared to the criticisms leveled at Bush by Moore in his hit film.
Las Vegas Review-Journal columnist Norm Clarke says that Ronstadt criticized the hotel during her show for advertising it as a "Greatest Hits" concert, which it wasn't and that was a cause of the problem, not just politics.

"They (the Aladdin) paid big bucks for her to come in and perform and then she bad mouthed the property. They were able to use the Michael Moore quotes as the main excuse but they were rankled by her remarks earlier in the show," Clarke said.

The Las Vegas Sun, the city's other daily paper, said that that the Aladdin "overreacted" and "Las Vegas should be embarrassed at her treatment here."

"The intermingling of politics and entertainment has a long history, one that surely predates all of our lifetimes. Marlon Brando, Lenny Bruce, Bono, John Lennon ... the Dixie Chicks ...-- the list of entertainers who have used their time in the limelight to express political opinions is inexhaustible," the paper said.

It added, "Ronstadt has been touring the country since May and has been praising Moore at each stop. Las Vegas should be embarrassed at her treatment here. Nowhere else but in the Entertainment Capital of the World has she been treated so inappropriately."

And of course, the publicity accompanying the incident certainly contradicts the latest Las Vegas tourism slogan: "What happens here, stays here."

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Grojlach: If he did say it and actually meant it however, I'll agree with you and Cerek that its use is inappropriate and that Moore loses face over this remark.

Why?

It is one thing to call someone Un-American for expressing a political view- thats clearly inappropriate in most cases it is used in my opinion.

It is another thing entirely to call someone Un-American for censoring or punishing someone for a political veiw. I think that sort of behavior is part of a dictionary definition of what 'un-American' is. Not to mention the "dose of thier own medicine" effect considering some of the people who would love nothing more than discrediting or censoring Moore and his supporters throw the un-American rhetoric around with seemingly casual glee.

[Grojlach]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: quote: Originally posted by Grojlach: If he did say it and actually meant it however, I'll agree with you and Cerek that its use is inappropriate and that Moore loses face over this remark.

Why?

It is one thing to call someone Un-American for expressing a political view- thats clearly inappropriate in most cases it is used in my opinion.

It is another thing entirely to call someone Un-American for censoring or punishing someone for a political veiw. I think that sort of behavior is part of a dictionary definition of what 'un-American' is. Not to mention the "dose of thier own medicine" effect considering some of the people who would love nothing more than discrediting or censoring Moore and his supporters throw the un-American rhetoric around with seemingly casual glee. [/QUOTE]I used the latter motivation in my post as well, I do however think that the decision of the casino to remove Ronstadt from the stage and not invite her back is wholly their decision. Okay, their reasoning and methods stink, and if they just shut up about it and simply made an internal decision about not inviting Ronstadt back, no one would have cried wolf right now - but it's still ultimately their decision whether to book her a second time. I sometimes find myself in the booking business of bands (only voluntarily for smaller festivals, mind you), and often it comes to small details to decide which band will be booked and which one won't (especially if things like the level of exposure, amount of fee, etc are similar), as the pool of artists to select from is practically limitless (even with a very modest budget). And especially after the bad publicity Ronstadt has gotten, it's not difficult to prefer another artist of similar fame over her.
Last year we had quite a few problems on the student-organised (so called) Virus Cultural Festival with the well-known European band Moloko. They had managed to blow up the sound system up to four times (!) during their performance, and eventually had to quit when the sound system couldn't be fixed a fourth time. Mind you, they were our festival headliner; and while it got us a lot of bad publicity (up to a point that the major Dutch booking agency Mojo Concerts silently decided to boycott us for this year's edition), and even though most of the blame was with the band itself (and not with the sound system), there's simply no use making bold claims about never inviting back a certain artist. It doesn't only hurt your credibility and reputation in the music business (q.e.d., see remark about Mojo a few lines back), but also towards the public, who often take the side of the artist regardless of who was really to blame for this fiasco. How difficult it may be, we agreed on not voicing any criticism towards the press because of its unprofessional and damaging character (and simply decided to suck up to Mojo Concerts by giving their representative a VIP-treatment at this year's edition ). It could take up to ten years to achieve a good reputation, but only one badly orchestrated incident could tear it down in one, single day.

While the casino was in its right about not inviting her back, I don't think the way they've handled the situation was very smart; ultimately doing more damage to themselves with their statements than to Ronstadt in the process. I wouldn't be surprised if there are other artists who will think twice about performing at the Aladdin now, or if there are customers now who will simply decide to visit a different casino instead, because of the political stigma that has inevitably struck the Aladdin now.
That Planet Hollywood International has made clear that they will invite her back once they've taken over the place, is mostly an attempt to salvage some of the damage done by Bill Timmins with his statements - because he definitely hurt his casino's reputation more than he has hurt Ronstadt's, trust me on that.

[ 07-22-2004, 05:12 AM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

[Morgeruat]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: quote: Originally posted by Grojlach: If he did say it and actually meant it however, I'll agree with you and Cerek that its use is inappropriate and that Moore loses face over this remark.

Why?

It is one thing to call someone Un-American for expressing a political view- thats clearly inappropriate in most cases it is used in my opinion.

It is another thing entirely to call someone Un-American for censoring or punishing someone for a political veiw. I think that sort of behavior is part of a dictionary definition of what 'un-American' is. Not to mention the "dose of thier own medicine" effect considering some of the people who would love nothing more than discrediting or censoring Moore and his supporters throw the un-American rhetoric around with seemingly casual glee. [/QUOTE]As a business owner he was entirely within his rights to escort her off the property after she caused a minor riot, especially if, as the articles said, she had been irritating them in an attempt to not get invited back.

You protest the reaction the Dixie Chicks got for their empty headed statement about Bush, the truth, they had no real idea of the politics involved, they just made a statemnt that would be popular with the eurotwits they were performing for. All the merchandise that was destroyed was legally purchased by fans who could no longer relate to the band. I didn't destroy my CD's and I have fond memories of seeing them open for Mark Chestnut while I was in Basic Training, but you can bet I won't be buying another of their albums, and they cost themselves untold amounts of revenue from former fans who feel alienated. It's the same here, except that this time the fans broke the law.

Also said before was that yes she made the remarks during every show of her tour, but she also got outraged reactions from fans at every stop, the somewhat more enclosed environment of a Vegas showroom the fans were able to cause more damage to the area.

This isn't about silencing a political dissident, it's a business decision not to have your casino torn to the ground by a mob of angry former fans.

Besides, as a silencing tactic it obviously failed, giving her a much larger forum to voice her opinions for the 15 seconds that people will care about this before they forget and move onto the next big scandal.

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Morgeruat: As a business owner he was entirely within his rights to escort her off the property after she caused a minor riot, especially if, as the articles said, she had been irritating them in an attempt to not get invited back.

As a business owner he should have had the lawbreakers arrested for vandalism and disturbing the peace, desruction of property, ect. Pointing the blame on Ronstandt by saying she "caused it" is simply ridiculous. She didn't use words that would incite a riot. The police should have been called, the rabid Bush-lovers/Moore-haters should have been arrested and any desicion not to have her perform again should have been handled in at least a minimally professional manner.

You protest the reaction the Dixie Chicks got for their empty headed statement about Bush, the truth, they had no real idea of the politics involved, they just made a statemnt that would be popular with the eurotwits they were performing for. All the merchandise that was destroyed was legally purchased by fans who could no longer relate to the band. I didn't destroy my CD's and I have fond memories of seeing them open for Mark Chestnut while I was in Basic Training, but you can bet I won't be buying another of their albums, and they cost themselves untold amounts of revenue from former fans who feel alienated. It's the same here, except that this time the fans broke the law.

Actually the Dixie Chicks went on to sell out most of their remaining concerts that year and their album went right back up the charts. They got an eye-worthy front page on Entertainment Weekly. The real losers are the people who can't stand thier political stance and disagree with where they first chose to speak out so much they decide to make those points a condition of their fandom.

Anyway I dont see the comparison between the Dixie Chicks situation and Ronstadts. It is like there is an ocean and a riot between the two.

Also said before was that yes she made the remarks during every show of her tour, but she also got outraged reactions from fans at every stop, the somewhat more enclosed environment of a Vegas showroom the fans were able to cause more damage to the area. This isn't about silencing a political dissident, it's a business decision not to have your casino torn to the ground by a mob of angry former fans.

Again the blame for the criminal actions seems to be pointed at Ronstadt. So what that the venue was a Vegas showroom. Thats no excuse for the criminal behavior.

Besides, as a silencing tactic it obviously failed, giving her a much larger forum to voice her opinions for the 15 seconds that people will care about this before they forget and move onto the next big scandal.

Oh yeah it has failed and back-fired. We get to see some of the low quality type of folk who hate Moore and/or Love Bush so much that would destroy property and riot in response to a mere song dedication.

[ 07-23-2004, 01:49 AM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

[Chewbacca]

Originally posted by Grojlach: I used the latter motivation in my post as well, I do however think that the decision of the casino to remove Ronstadt from the stage and not invite her back is wholly their decision. Okay, their reasoning and methods stink, and if they just shut up about it and simply made an internal decision about not inviting Ronstadt back, no one would have cried wolf right now - but it's still ultimately their decision whether to book her a second time. I sometimes find myself in the booking business of bands (only voluntarily for smaller festivals, mind you), and often it comes to small details to decide which band will be booked and which one won't (especially if things like the level of exposure, amount of fee, etc are similar), as the pool of artists to select from is practically limitless (even with a very modest budget). And especially after the bad publicity Ronstadt has gotten, it's not difficult to prefer another artist of similar fame over her. Last year we had quite a few problems on the student-organised (so called) Virus Cultural Festival with the well-known European band Moloko. They had managed to blow up the sound system up to four times (!) during their performance, and eventually had to quit when the sound system couldn't be fixed a fourth time. Mind you, they were our festival headliner; and while it got us a lot of bad publicity (up to a point that the major Dutch booking agency Mojo Concerts silently decided to boycott us for this year's edition), and even though most of the blame was with the band itself (and not with the sound system), there's simply no use making bold claims about never inviting back a certain artist. It doesn't only hurt your credibility and reputation in the music business (q.e.d., see remark about Mojo a few lines back), but also towards the public, who often take the side of the artist regardless of who was really to blame for this fiasco. How difficult it may be, we agreed on not voicing any criticism towards the press because of its unprofessional and damaging character (and simply decided to suck up to Mojo Concerts by giving their representative a VIP-treatment at this year's edition ). It could take up to ten years to achieve a good reputation, but only one badly orchestrated incident could tear it down in one, single day. While the casino was in its right about not inviting her back, I don't think the way they've handled the situation was very smart; ultimately doing more damage to themselves with their statements than to Ronstadt in the process. I wouldn't be surprised if there are other artists who will think twice about performing at the Aladdin now, or if there are customers now who will simply decide to visit a different casino instead, because of the political stigma that has inevitably struck the Aladdin now. That Planet Hollywood International has made clear that they will invite her back once they've taken over the place, is mostly an attempt to salvage some of the damage done by Bill Timmins with his statements - because he definitely hurt his casino's reputation more than he has hurt Ronstadt's, trust me on that.

I dont disagree that the business has a right to decide whetehr or not to have her back for what ever reason and I agree that the Casino could have handled the situation in a far more professional if not discrete manner.

By stating the reason they wouldn't have her back because of a outspoken political stance (in the form of a song dedication and a film recomendation) they opened themselves to the "un-American" critism. This is why I dont think Moore loses face for making the statement that he did.

For too long the "Right" in America have made it an outspoken mission to define what is and isn't "American". It is about time the "Center" and "Left" spoke out with prominent voices providing alternative perspectives to the issue. I do concede I find it a bit shameful and embarressing it has to come down to this. I would much rather see a common ground reached in an agreeable spirit of what certainly is "American" as defined by the charters of the Nation rather slang "anti-American" accusations back and forth. *sigh*

[ 07-23-2004, 01:48 AM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

[Oblivion437]

Most certainly, the liberals I talk to, who cower in fear at big business and all that, seem to have no trouble telling me how I should think, or for that matter, how strong or weak my moral character is...

Appealing to emotion seems to be the game of politicians, and both hard-line Liberals and Conservatives are guilty of it...

[Morgeruat]

Originally posted by Chewbacca: Actually the Dixie Chicks went on to sell out most of their remaining concerts that year and their album went right back up the charts. They got an eye-worthy front page on Entertainment Weekly. The real losers are the people who can't stand thier political stance and disagree with where they first chose to speak out so much they decide to make those points a condition of their fandom.

Actually most of the shows were already sold out and the Chicks wouldn't refund any of the shows, and it was months before any of their songs were on the radio again, and certainly not "travelling soldier" which was the one they had on the charts at the time, in fact since they made the statemnet the only time I heard it on the radio was during a recap of songs from the past year, as it had been fairly big until that point.