This is topic Disney Blocking Distribution of Film Documentary in forum Ground Level at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=001136

---

Posted by Gerard S. Cohen (Member # 994) on 05-05-2004, 07:41 AM:
 
Disney is blocking Miramax's distribution of a new documentary by the maker of "Bowling for Columbine", that was first offered but rejected by Gibson's Icon production group.
The film, "Fahrenheit 911," is scheduled to be shown at the Cannes Festival.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May 5, 2004
Disney Forbidding Distribution of Film That Criticizes Bush
By JIM RUTENBERG

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.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search | Corrections | Help | Back to Top

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Read it here
 

---

Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 05-05-2004, 08:17 AM:
 
I met Mr. Moore right after his "Roger and Me" film came out - he seemed like a nice guy. While I do not agree with his views 100% -his films do make good documentaries and valid points about whatever subject they are covering. I feel that his tirade at the Oscars should have been cut from the broadcast. Anyways - let the man release his film. All this controversy will just bring it more money.. Plus if they don't want it released - there has to be some truth to it...
 

---

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 05-05-2004, 08:19 AM:
 
If F911 grosses similar to Columbine, 22 million is chump change to Disney and they think it's not worth the heat they'll get in being associated with it. After expenses, that 22 mil. is what, 5 or 6 mil at best? A regular Disney release can generate that in the first 30 minutes of an opening day.

Moore needs a smaller distributor where these amounts will be important.
 

---

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 05-05-2004, 12:31 PM:
 
Bite your tongue, Bill! Let's not forget The Alamo.
Or for that matter, Teenage Drama Queen and Teacher's Pet.

I really hope this gets released. Just for the fact that I'm curious as to what "evidence" Mr. Moore claims he has about the whole ordeal. It will probably be like his other movies: "The world is fucked up. Thank you and goodnight." Although I really enjoyed his TV shows, the short time they were on before the networks couldn't handle the controversy.

Maybe once it builds up more controversy -- and Jim Cavizel gets thrown in there somewhere -- NewMarket will reconsider.

=TMP=
 

---

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 05-05-2004, 01:14 PM:
 
I ran "Fahrenheit 911" last week for Mr. Moore and friends. It was a very good documentary on the subject in the style of "Bowling for Columbine" and "Roger and Me". When Mr. Moore was shopping "Bowling.." to the studios, we did a screening for Harvey. He passed on the film and it went over to UA.

Maybe Mr. Moore should make his next film "Eisner and Me".
 

---

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 05-05-2004, 01:24 PM:
 
This is all rather silly. Just distribute the film and let people see it. Why should Disney dictate what we see? Let the people make up their own mind.

AJG
 

---

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 05-05-2004, 01:40 PM:
 
If Disney releases the film, it is afraid that it may loss some very nice tax breaks it gets from the state of Florida. It not only talks about 911 but the Florida election (Gov. Jeb Bush). If it was any other state it would be no problem, but its Florida (Disney World).

Eisner is just trying to do damage control.
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 05-05-2004, 03:37 PM:
 

quote: Aaron Garman

---

Why should Disney dictate what we see?

---

quote: Bruce Hansen

---

I wonder if comrade Eisner will be burning books next?

---

Good one Bruce! For anyone who hasn't seen the film whose name is being played with, Fahrenheit 451, I feel sorry for you.
Fantastic film, go rent the dvd!!

danny
 

---

Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 05-06-2004, 07:20 AM:
 
Mark wrote:

quote: Mark J. Marshall

---

Why should you dictate what Disney will and will not be associated with?? Disney isn't saying you can't see it. Just that they don't want to be associated with it.

---

quote: Mark J. Marshall

---

It's a smart move for Disney IMO. They have enough controversy on their plate at the moment. Don't worry, some other Hollywood lib will pick it up I'm sure.

---

On this point I disagree. It's not just a question of what Disney is doing, but of how this is *perceived* in the country. The story is not 'Disney declines to distribute film', but rather 'Disney refuses to let Miramax distribute film'. Disney may own Miramax, but would most people even know that? I agree that what has happened is not censorship, but could well be perceived in that way. If this happens, then it is not going to do Disney any good, and could do them serious harm.

Equally, if it is perceived, rightly or wrongly, that politicians are putting pressure on a company to ristrict distribution of a film, then this could have serious consequnces for the politicians. people tend not to like politicians doing that sort of thing.

Whatever the real facts are, this is unlikely to affect the distribution of the film; if Miramax don't release it, then somebody else will. This may not be so easy for a less well known film maker. Whatever the facts are, I doubt that this business will do Disney, ar anyone else, any good.
 

---

Posted by Pete Apruzzese (Member # 1446) on 05-06-2004, 08:27 AM:
 
It's a very well-timed publicity stunt designed to gain a new distribution deal in America, there is no spectre of censorship anywhere.

Disney told Miramax *one year ago* that they did not want to distribute the film - Harvey and the gang went ahead anyway, so any cries of foul on their part are unjustified. Moore, in his usual way, has timed this "news" to coincide with the Cannes screenings, which will now be even more of an "event". He is using the world press to get a new deal, it's a smart tactic from a very shrewd operator.
 

---

Posted by Emma Tomiak (Member # 1862) on 05-07-2004, 02:32 AM:
 
Fahrenheit 451 was made into a film? It's always been one of my favourite books (along with many other dystopic novels). When was the film made?
 

---

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 05-07-2004, 05:01 AM:
 
it's from 1966. made by truffaut, no less. i saw it maybe 10 years ago and thought it was pretty bad, but i might like to see it again.

carl
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 05-07-2004, 12:58 PM:
 
451 was an excellent film I still enjoy watching it
 

---

Posted by Gerard S. Cohen (Member # 994) on 05-07-2004, 09:25 PM:
 
I heard on a talk show today (May 7th) that Fahrenheit 911 has been shown at Sundance and at least one other venue, and will open in New York at the Angelica Theatre on June 3rd or June 11th
and soon after receive wider distribution. It is also headed for Cannes.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-07-2004, 11:33 PM:
 
451 also has one of Bernard Herrmanns best scores ever!!
Great film!!
Mark
 

---

Posted by Emma Tomiak (Member # 1862) on 05-08-2004, 01:57 AM:
 
Awesome, I'll need to rent it soon. Thanks!
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 05-10-2004, 09:23 AM:
 
The New York Times link here.

The story below...

May 10, 2004
Disney and Michael Moore
By MICHAEL D. EISNER

To the Editor:

You accuse the Walt Disney Company of cowardice and censorship because of its decision a year ago not to distribute Michael Moore's film "Fahrenheit 9/11" (editorial, May 6). In fact, the cowardly thing would have been to be intimidated into distributing the film. We did not block its distribution. There are many avenues for Mr. Moore to pursue to get his film distributed.

Your accusations of stifling free expression are misplaced. The First Amendment does not say that The New York Times must print every article presented to it or that the Walt Disney Company must distribute every movie. If a government entity had blocked Mr. Moore's film from being released, that would have violated the First Amendment, and we would have quickly signed up to join any protest.

In the case of "Fahrenheit 9/11," we chose a path that was right for the company and its stakeholders.

The creation of intellectual product rises and falls on similar judgments by creative people and executives across America. We would hope that The Times would recognize that the Walt Disney Company has the same right of freedom of expression that it is advocating for Mr. Moore.

MICHAEL D. EISNER
Chief Exec., Walt Disney Company
Burbank, Calif., May 7, 2004
 

---

Posted by Kamakshipalya Dhananjay (Member # 1391) on 05-11-2004, 02:15 AM:
 
Well, a hastened response to the article and subsequent EDITORIAL in Times. The Times article never said anything about First Amendment or the Freedom of Expression and the Editorial that followed departed from the fact of the matter and said these irrelevant things and now we have the company rightly attacking that Editorial. Guess, Times made is somewhat easier for Disney to respond by putting up that ill-thought out editorial.

The issue here is never about anybody's rights or invasion of their choices. It is about the actual exercise of social responsibility by a corporation that has the most market share.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-11-2004, 11:31 AM:
 
No, the issue here is a poorly worded headline. The headline said, "Disney Forbidding Distribution." Eisner's point was they are NOT forbidding anything -- they are just declining to distribute it themselves, which is perfectly within their rights.

I'm not much of an Eisner fan but I'm with him on this one.
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 05-11-2004, 03:02 PM:
 

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

I'm not much of an Eisner fan but I'm with him on this one.

---

Ditto.
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 05-11-2004, 05:05 PM:
 
Michael Moore is as shrewd a capitalist as anyone at Disney. If Disney isn't comfortable distributing the film, why hold it against them? Someone else will pick it up. Michael Moore is just fanning the flames -- all publicity is good publicity.
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 05-11-2004, 05:24 PM:
 
Plus, all this hubbub is the equivalent to tons of advertising dollars that he doesn't have to spend now. And it will likely be billed as "the movie they didn't want you to see... blah blah blah."

I still say he should spend his own money distributing it. It's obviously going to be a major hit. In fact, I think he should release it in IMAX if he really wants to make an impact.
 

---

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 05-17-2004, 01:03 PM:
 
FAHRENHEIT 9-11 Receives Longest Standing Ovation in Cannes History

from the Drudge Report
20 mins standing ovation for FAHRENHEIT 9-11, yelling, screaming, cheering... 'This is the longest stading ovation in the history of the festival! Unbelievable!' declared Cannes stalwart Thierry Fremaux. Moore, raising fist, unable to speak over crowd, vows to fight... Controversial scene in film shows wounded American GI in Iraq talking about how Democrats must win election... Movie shows video of U.S. soldiers laughing as they place hoods over Iraqi detainees, with one of them grabbing a prisoner's genitals through a blanket...

-----

Looks like this very well will become a controversy-fueled box-office take ala Passion! Shouldn't be hard finding a distributor now.

=TMP=
 

---

Posted by Gerard S. Cohen (Member # 994) on 05-17-2004, 01:32 PM:
 
Thomas:
Please correct the spelling in your link. It should read
www.drudgereport.com Otherwise the link does not work because of the typo.
The review is well worth reading, as is the BBC review Leo posted.

Gerard

[ 05-17-2004, 11:31 PM: Message edited by: Gerard S. Cohen ]
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 05-17-2004, 04:46 PM:
 
Review from Cannes posted in the 'Movie Reviews' forum...
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 05-17-2004, 05:21 PM:
 

quote:

---

Looks like this very well will become a controversy-fueled box-office take ala Passion!

---

quote:

---

Friday, May 7th, 2004
When You Wish Upon A Star… by Michael Moore

Dear Friends,

Thank you for all the incredible letters of support as my film crew and I once again slog our way through the corporate media madhouse. Does it ever end? Are we ever going to get control of our "free press" again? Can you wish upon a star?

The Disney spin machine has been working overtime dealing with this censorship debacle of theirs. I don't think they thought they would ever be outed. After all, they know that all of us are supposed to adhere to the unwritten Hollywood Code: Never tell the public how business is done here, never let them have a peek at the man behind the curtain.

Disney has been hoping for nearly a year that they could keep this thing quiet. As I promised on Wednesday, here are the details behind my sordid adventure with the Magic Kingdom:

In April of 2003, I signed a deal with Miramax, a division of the Walt Disney Co., to finance and distribute my next movie, Fahrenheit 9/11. (The original financier had backed out; I will tell that story at a later date.) In my contract it is stated that Miramax will distribute my film in the U.S. through Disney's distribution arm, Buena Vista Distribution. It also gives Miramax the rights to distribute and sell the movie around the world.

A month later, after shooting started, Michael Eisner insisted on meeting with my agent, Ari Emanuel. Eisner was furious that Miramax signed this deal with me. According to Mr. Emanuel, Eisner said he would never let my film be distributed through Disney even though Mr. Eisner had not seen any footage or even read the outline of the film. Eisner told my agent that he did not want to anger Jeb Bush, the governor of Florida. The movie, he believed, would complicate an already complicated situation with current and future Disney projects in Florida, and that many millions of dollars of tax breaks and incentives were at stake.

But Michael Eisner did not call Miramax and tell them to stop my film. Not only that, for the next year, SIX MILLION dollars of DISNEY money continued to flow into the production of making my movie. Miramax assured me that there were no distribution problems with my film.

But then, a few weeks ago when Fahrenheit 9/11 was selected to be in the Cannes Film Festival, Disney sent a low-level production executive to New York to watch the film (to this day, Michael Eisner has not seen the film). This exec was enthusiastic throughout the viewing. He laughed, he cried and at the end he thanked us. "This film is explosive," he exclaimed, and we took that as a positive sign. But “explosive” for these guys is only a good word when it comes to blowing up things in movies. OUR kind of “explosive” is what they want to run from as fast as they can.

Miramax did their best to convince Disney to go ahead as planned with our film. Disney contractually can only stop Miramax from releasing a film if it has received an NC-17 rating (ours will be rated PG-13 or R).

According to yesterday's New York Times, the issue of whether to release Fahrenheit 9/11 was discussed at Disney's board meeting last week. It was decided that Disney should not distribute our movie.

---

quote: Rob Butler

---

Are we ever going to get control of our "free press" again?

---

quote: Rob Butler

---

The Disney spin machine has been working overtime dealing with this censorship debacle of theirs.

---

quote: Tim Lockridge

---

Moore, however, suggests that Eisner is making a decision to block the film (or "censor" it) without ever seeing it.

---

quote: Bill Gabel

---

I've been screening it for the last four days here in NYC.

---

So that's why the 9/11 Commission is meeting in NYC this week.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/05/18/911.commission/index.html

quote:

---

NEW YORK (CNN) -- The 9/11 commission convened the first of two days of public hearings Tuesday in New York...

---

Maybe they SHOULD be invited to see it.
 

---

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 05-18-2004, 01:49 PM:
 

quote: Kamakshipalya Dhananjay

---

What is the duration of this documentary?

---

quote: Kamakshipalya Dhananjay

---

And whats the cost of making it?

---

It cost 6 Million dollars.
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 05-18-2004, 06:16 PM:
 
Michael Moore is a self-serving but entertaining buffoon. I wouldn't believe anything he says, but he's fun to listen to sometimes.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 05-18-2004, 07:20 PM:
 
I'll probably wait for the DVD rental disc. Moore videotapes much of his stuff these days, and videotape is far more suited to TV than a big movie screen.

But, I still do want to see the show. I'm just willing to wait a few months longer than anyone else interested in it. And realistically, I think that number of "interested viewers" is likely a small, niche audience. Most of the general public usually runs the other way when it comes to political discussion.
 

---

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 05-18-2004, 08:19 PM:
 
now without arguing the merits of anything, it's clear that this doc is most relevant in the coming months before the election. if i were one of those voting people, i think it would be worth seeing it beforehand rather than later.

and whether or not this situation amounts to censorship (i'm not privy to anything but it appears it doesn't), it's a damn shame if the very relevance of the film prevents people from seeing it.

this phenomenon isn't restricted to political films. it seems the more provincial a community is, the less likely it is that its people will have access to films that might challenge their values. i suppose it's a no-brainer, commercially speaking, but it's still sad. it's more important not to offend than to take a chance. safety over potency.

carl
 

---

Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 05-19-2004, 08:55 AM:
 
Poor Michael Moore. He hates himself so much that he won't be satisfied until all other white, American men are filled with the same self-loathing. He must hate himself even more this year because of things like... his strong endorsement of Howard Dean (and the fact that Moore's enthusiasm just didn't light a fire under anyone else). It goes well beyond political discussion and straight to Moore's personal foundation. Now he's promising to tell all about what's wrong with Disney (as if any of us will find an anti-Disney piece to be bold and original). I'm looking forward to how he'll prove that Disney's evil ways have somehow ruined the city of Flint.

And this man thinks that other average white men are paranoid.
 

---

Posted by Gerard S. Cohen (Member # 994) on 05-22-2004, 06:13 PM:
 
The judges at the Cannes Film Festival have awarded the Palme d'Or to Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 911"
The nine judges consisted of four Americans, one British, and one each from Belgium, Finland, Hong Kong and France.





The Golden Palm's prestige for the best film screened at the Festival should assure Moore of increased interest from film distributors.

[ 05-23-2004, 08:29 AM: Message edited by: Gerard S. Cohen ]
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-22-2004, 06:56 PM:
 
Hey Gerard,
Why don't you pick it up and distribute it? Its right down your alley!

Mark
 

---

Posted by Gerard S. Cohen (Member # 994) on 05-22-2004, 08:18 PM:
 
My interest in films is limited to education, archaeology of cinema, film production, projection and viewing.

I have no personal interest in distribution, management or any other aspects of the business. Right now I am employed in the medical field (pediatrics.)
 

---

Posted by Fabrice Dubourg (Member # 1635) on 05-23-2004, 01:25 PM:
 
Question: What happened to the "Political Arena" ?
this subject should be there, no ?

So, with "la palme d'or" it will be very difficult not to see this film in US this year...
 

---

Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 05-24-2004, 02:05 PM:
 
It looks like he's holding a length of plastic drainpipe in that picture!
 

---

Posted by Jeff Stuckey (Member # 1718) on 05-24-2004, 03:31 PM:
 
Did anyone else watch the ceremonies on IFC this weekend? It was quite funny because there was a frenchman that accepted an award a few before Michael's. He went on and on about how Cannes should go back to being a "film festival" instead of a business festival. Of course in the next breath he said that he hoped that Michael's film wins the Palm D'Or, and that people in America should not vote Bush. So...we don't want it to be a business anymore...just a film festival, right?!
 

---

Posted by Gordon McLeod (Member # 33) on 05-24-2004, 06:51 PM:
 
"So...we don't want it to be a business anymore...just a film festival, right?! "Political statements are different from business and why should the cannes festival awards ceremony be any different from the oscars for political grandstanding
 

---

Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 05-25-2004, 05:44 PM:
 

quote:

---

Why don't you pick it up and distribute it? Its right down your alley!

---