Disney Forbidding Distribution of Film That Criticizes Bush Pt II

[Ronn_Bman]

Ziroc said it was time to start a new thread because the old one was getting too long. Here is the original thread.

[Ronn_Bman]

I think what bothers me most about the discussions of Moore's work on this forum, is the opinion of those who would 'poo poo' any article posted from an obviously right leaning group or publication. Somehow it is ok to dismiss those immediately because of the source. So much so, in fact, that for many here they are nothing more than the punch line of a joke(Fox News or The Christian Science Monitor anyone?), while Moore is somehow something... more than someone with an agenda.

[ 06-18-2004, 08:07 AM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[Davros]

Not really Ron. I can watch / listen to Moore and I take what points I think were well made and relevent and sift out what I think is weak and a bridge too far. I can watch and isten to Fox News, then I usually have to perform a self inflicted frontal lobotomy to expunge the twaddle that my head has just been filled up with.

[Ronn_Bman]

Originally posted by Davros: I can watch and isten to Fox News, then I usually have to perform a self inflicted frontal lobotomy to expunge the twaddle that my head has just been filled up with.

Thanks for making my point. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[Chewbacca]

Couple of links before I hafta run.....I'll be around later for further discussion.

http://www.iht.com/articles/525560.html

And one more with a cut-n-paste:

Link
**********************

'9/11': Just the facts?

June 18, 2004

BY ROGER EBERT FILM CRITIC



A reader writes:

"In your articles discussing Michael Moore's film 'Fahrenheit 9/11,' you call it a documentary. I always thought of documentaries as presenting facts objectively without editorializing. While I have enjoyed many of Mr. Moore's films, I don't think they fit the definition of a documentary."

That's where you're wrong. Most documentaries, especially the best ones, have an opinion and argue for it. Even those that pretend to be objective reflect the filmmaker's point of view. Moviegoers should observe the bias, take it into account and decide if the film supports it or not.

Michael Moore is a liberal activist. He is the first to say so. He is alarmed by the prospect of a second term for George W. Bush, and made "Fahrenheit 9/11" for the purpose of persuading people to vote against him.

That is all perfectly clear, and yet in the days before the film opens June 25, there'll be bountiful reports by commentators who are shocked! shocked! that Moore's film is partisan. "He doesn't tell both sides," we'll hear, especially on Fox News, which is so famous for telling both sides.

The wise French director Godard once said, "The way to criticize a film is to make another film." That there is not a pro-Bush documentary available right now I am powerless to explain. Surely, however, the Republican National Convention will open with such a documentary, which will position Bush comfortably between Ronald Reagan and God. The Democratic convention will have a wondrous film about John Kerry. Anyone who thinks one of these documentaries is "presenting facts objectively without editorializing" should look at the other one.

The pitfall for Moore is not subjectivity, but accuracy. We expect him to hold an opinion and argue it, but we also require his facts to be correct. I was an admirer of his previous doc, the Oscar-winning "Bowling for Columbine," until I discovered that some of his "facts" were wrong, false or fudged.

In some cases, he was guilty of making a good story better, but in other cases (such as his ambush of Charlton Heston) he was unfair, and in still others (such as the wording on the plaque under the bomber at the Air Force Academy) he was just plain wrong, as anyone can see by going to look at the plaque.

Because I agree with Moore's politics, his inaccuracies pained me, and I wrote about them in my Answer Man column. Moore wrote me that he didn't expect such attacks "from you, of all people." But I cannot ignore flaws simply because I agree with the filmmaker. In hurting his cause, he wounds mine.

Now comes "Fahrenheit 9/11," floating on an enormous wave of advance publicity. It inspired a battle of the titans between Disney's Michael Eisner and Miramax's Harvey Weinstein. It won the Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival. It has been rated R by the MPAA, and former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo has signed up as Moore's lawyer, to challenge the rating. The conservative group Move America Forward, which successfully bounced the mildly critical biopic "The Reagans" off CBS and onto cable, has launched a campaign to discourage theaters from showing "Fahrenheit 9/11."

The campaign will amount to nothing and disgraces Move America Forward by showing it trying to suppress disagreement instead of engaging it. The R rating may stand; there is a real beheading in the film, and only fictional beheadings get the PG-13. Disney and Miramax will survive.

Moore's real test will come on the issue of accuracy. He can say whatever he likes about Bush, as long as his facts are straight. Having seen the film twice, I saw nothing that raised a flag for me, and I haven't heard of any major inaccuracies. When Moore was questioned about his claim that Bush unwisely lingered for six or seven minutes in that Florida classroom after learning of the World Trade Center attacks, Moore was able to reply with a video of Bush doing exactly that.

I agree with Moore that the presidency of George W. Bush has been a disaster for America. In writing that, I expect to get the usual complaints that movie critics should keep their political opinions to themselves. But opinions are my stock in trade, and is it not more honest to declare my politics than to conceal them? I agree with Moore, and because I do, I hope "Fahrenheit 9/11" proves to be as accurate as it seems.

[Ronn_Bman]

He may hope that that this film "proves to be as accurate as it seems," but the best indicator of future behavior is past behavior(thanks Dr. Phil), and where Mr. Ebert "discovered that some of his 'facts' were wrong, false or fudged" previously in Moore's work, he will find it so again, as these things are already being pointed out.

The question is, if Mr. Moore has such a good case to make why does he, at any time under any circumstance, find it necessary to present facts which are 'wrong, false or fudged'. Mr. Ebert believe those things diminish his point of view, the point of view which Moore claims to be voicing, and Ebert is right; those things ARE an issue. In fact he strengthens his point of view by admitting the intellectual dishonesty instead of ignoring it or explaining it away because he agrees with the rest of it.

Mr. Ebert is laying it on the line even-handedly, which is much more than can be said for Mr. Moore.

[ 06-18-2004, 02:46 PM: Message edited by: Ronn_Bman ]

[promethius9594]

why does he, at any time under any circumstance, find it necessary to present facts which are 'wrong, false or fudged'.(sic)

well, you see, a truth well told is noble, but a lie well told never dies...

Point of Order please....Disney did not forbid any such thing. What they did was to say..."WE are not going to write that check!" Let someone else do it. And that is in fact what has happened. Disney decided they didn't want to pay for Moores....product So he was forced to seek other backers...wich he has found...and the film will be opening in roughly 417 theaters...Not I might add, the over 1000 as originally claimed by Mr. Moore.

Unfortunately I had to see portions of this crap as previews to the Stepford Wives.

[ 06-19-2004, 06:38 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

Past performance does not gaurentee future returns....but in Moore's case, I am sure that just as he has done with Columbine and in his earlier HBO (or showtime, cant remember wich it was) he will prove to be rude, obnoxious and to deserve the disdain of his chosen targets. He will also find that politicians much like hollywood actors do not like paparazi like ambush tactics by scruffy looking rude people. We will also see that he lies, cheats and generally fudges the truth to prove his points....Dogs rarely change their spots

[Davros]

I am looking forward to it, and wondering when it is going to reach our shores [img]smile.gif[/img]