This is topic Fridley Theaters Ban Fahrenheit 9/11 in forum Film-Yak 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=8;t=003325
Posted by Steve Scott (Member # 630) on 07-03-2004, 07:13 PM:
 
NOT a political post... moreover, a post on theatre policy.

From the Wichita Eagle, 7/3/04

Midwest Theaters Ban 'Fahrenheit 9/11'

Associated Press

DECORAH, Iowa - The president of a company that owns movie theaters in Iowa and Nebraska is refusing to show director Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11."

R.L. Fridley, owner of Des Moines-based Fridley Theatres, says the controversial documentary incites terrorism.

Fridley said in an e-mail message to company managers that the company does not "play political propaganda films from either the right or the left."

"Our country is in a war against an enemy who would destroy our way of life, our culture and kill our people," Fridley wrote. "These barbarians have shown through (the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001) and the recent beheadings that they will stop at nothing. I believe this film emboldens them and divides our country even more."

"Fahrenheit 9/11" won best picture at the 2004 Cannes Film Festival and has grossed millions of dollars at the box office. Moore won an Academy Award for an earlier work, "Bowling for Columbine."

Critics accuse the film of being an unfair and inaccurate portrayal about President Bush's policies before and after Sept. 11, 2001.
 
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 07-03-2004, 07:20 PM:
 
[thumbsup] A businessman with principles.
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 07-03-2004, 07:23 PM:
 
It's still a semi-free country and he can do as he pleases with his theatres. But his logic is rather silly. It would be more honest to simply come out and say he is a Bush supporter and doesn't want to undermine his guy. I would respect that more than some tripe about encouraging terrorism.

The plus side is that he's going to be looking awfully foolish to his customers who then go to see the film at his competitor's theatres.
 
Posted by Richard Greco (Member # 2032) on 07-03-2004, 08:06 PM:
 
This is a good thing [Smile] People are getting smart!!!
 
Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 07-03-2004, 10:02 PM:
 
Smart how? Seems to me that the smart thing to do is book films that people are willing to buy tickets to see, presuming the distributor's terms are not onerous. Maybe I'd avoid something that might incite gang violence or other mayhem but that's about it.
 
Posted by Dennis Benjamin (Member # 1137) on 07-03-2004, 11:35 PM:
 
From what I can see:

He is losing money. It has nothing to do with principles. If you want to get principles involved - I wouldn't show half the movies we play - do to the fact that I have a principle not to play stupid and lame movies.

When you get down to it - it is just a movie, plain and simple. That translates to enjoyment for the masses and $$ for us.....
 
Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 07-04-2004, 12:22 AM:
 
A theatre's role in the business world is purely a conveyor of product. An exhibitor. A theatre chain makes its money by selling concessions to people who want to see movies. A theatre willing to make money will book films most likely to draw a concession-buying crowd. This, I believe, is the underlying reality, with the rare few exceptions.

If, for whatever principles, a theatre decides not to book a film, the more power to ya! Sure, they might lose potential profits, but that's a business decision. Many business decisions are not primarily highest-dollar-amount ones, and I can respect that. It's the doing of ANYTHING just to make the most money that I have a disrespect for. There should be a balance, though.

However flawed or perfectly reasonable a logic is for not showing this film, I respect that the decision was made, possibly foreseeing a potential loss, in the name of honest principles.

But then, bringing into account all the crappy product being released (in our opinions, the jaded projection empire), it comes down to ... well, the most money can be made from showing what people come to see. Oh well.
 
Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 07-04-2004, 12:44 AM:
 
I think F-911 is going to sneak up and bite someone in the butt. I see F-911 as a possible boxoffice sleeper. That movie might have legs. Today I ran F-911 and Spiderman as well.

Spiderman outsold F-911 by only 73 tickets in a total of 4 runs..That's almost peanuts as far as numbers are concerned. Both movies are doing very well for us.
 
Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 07-04-2004, 12:52 AM:
 
Yeah the owner was smart. About as smart as Mikey Eisner for passing on a #1 movie. Wait, he didn't pass on it. He had it in his hands and flung it like a frisbee!!

I don't necissarily agree with the theater owner's decision, but I agree with the fact that he made it. Nothing dictates you MUST show this film or that film -- unless you sign a contract with NCN, but that's another thread -- it's his theater, he can show or not show what he wants.

Many record stores back in the 60s refused to sell Beatles records because they were no-good hoodlum British punks who would pollute the minds of our wholesome American youth with their "Rock and Roll" -- but after a few consecutive #1 hits, they quietly stocked a few dozen records on the back racks. [Smile]

=TMP=
 
Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 07-04-2004, 04:50 AM:
 
How does the movie incite terrorism?
 
Posted by David Favel (Member # 1125) on 07-04-2004, 05:27 AM:
 
What a dickhead.
 
Posted by Warren Smyth (Member # 1838) on 07-04-2004, 08:56 AM:
 
Exhibitors have the right to decline showing films for any reason they wish. They have that authority. Unfortunately, authority carries baggage - responcibility. Such an exhibitor just may find that potential business is thrown away, not only from loss of takings on F9/11 but possible boycotts in the future, from patrons who fail to recognise the exhibitor's rights.

F911 opens here this month initially as part of a film festival. Moore's earlier ducumentary Bowling for Columbine plays next Sunday on network television.
 
Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 07-04-2004, 09:58 AM:
 
While I applaud any exibitor for refusing to show whatever movie they wish, a strong choice that sends messages to producers, I disapprove of the owners releasing of a statement denouncing the film.

It is one thing to not book it, it is an entirely different matter to publicly deride the author of that work. Then it does get into politics and that makes patrons nervous.

Things like this can influence future business, some good and some bad. However it does tend to make people squemish if the owner of thier favorite theater starts spewing thier own version of hate.

I would rather go to a nice theater where they just book films and let the audience decide, by way of buying tickets, if they want to go or not.

I went to see spiderman 2 for the second time on saturday, and the show was once again sold out. As I was going through the line to get in, the usher told me I can put my ticket down, they weren't checking tickets. I asked why, since the show was sold out, and people tend to buy tickets to other movies and then cut into sold out shows, he only responded with, "I just work here".

That had nothing to do with this thread, just thought it was interesting.

Ciao

Dave
 
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 07-04-2004, 02:09 PM:
 
Didn't The Day After Tomorrow have some political message? I guess they didn't play that one either, then.
 
Posted by Thomas Procyk (Member # 1170) on 07-04-2004, 02:22 PM:
 
Post deleted because the person I was quoting changed their post and what I was quoting was gone. Oh well.

=TMP=
 
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 07-04-2004, 02:23 PM:
 
I was recomposing my post because I mis-remembered something in the article that I went off on. [Smile]
 
Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 07-04-2004, 03:16 PM:
 
Principle shminciple. That would be like me if I were a cable carrier and I refused FOX news a spot on my lineup because of its propaganda. There is almost no difference. I am not saying that he SHOULD carry it, but to say "absolutely no way" is depriving people in his area a valid choice. If there are a lot of theaters, then all this guy does is hurt his bottomline. On the other hand, if there aren't many theaters, then he is hindering the community's access to a movie.
 
Posted by Brian Michael Weidemann (Member # 2243) on 07-04-2004, 03:55 PM:
 
So it's a theatre's responsibility to provide a public service to its community, showing films the local area demands?

Maybe a good-hearted, small town, mom- & pop-owned theatre has this in mind, but I hardly think chains are considering the well-being of the public and offering them fair choices of diversely themed subject matter films.
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-04-2004, 06:19 PM:
 
Terrorists have attacked every theater showing this movie so far. Of course such a comment makes me a moron, but it falls in line with the logic that particular theater owner is using.[av=d]
 
Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 07-04-2004, 11:55 PM:
 
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So it's a theatre's responsibility to provide a public service to its community, showing films the local area demands?
No, but that looks like what the owner is suggesting he is doing - providing a public service by not showing the movie.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe a good-hearted, small town, mom- & pop-owned theatre has this in mind, but I hardly think chains are considering the well-being of the public and offering them fair choices of diversely themed subject matter films.
No, but chains do consider money. F911 brings in money. Once again, I didn't say, he MUST show it. But depending on the market size, it's possible he could be acting as the defacto censor for the town's movietheater going public.
 
Posted by William Hooper (Member # 71) on 07-05-2004, 12:13 AM:
 
Interestingly, titles getting shut out of theatres & restraint of trade was the basis for the FTC suit against the major studios which ultimately (decades later) broke up the vertical integration of the studios & theatres with the Paramount Consent Decrees. It's also interesting that during the decades of appeal & being ordered to stop, the studio-exhibition chains just kept right on until the appeals plainly were at an end.

http://www.cinemaweb.com/silentfilm/bookshelf/#June1997

http://www.homevideo.net/FIRM/antitrst.htm
 
Posted by R. Andrew Diercks (Member # 1725) on 07-08-2004, 10:22 AM:
 
As a manager of a Fridley Theatre, I feel I have a duty to respond to this.
First off, the quote about inciting terrorism was not from Bob Fridley, but rather a critic that he quoted. Second, that was an "inner office e-mail" and IMHO the manager that leaked it should be fired. Had he/she kept this to it's purpose, nobody would be talking about it. Thirdly:
quote: Steve Kraus
But his logic is rather silly. It would be more honest to simply come out and say he is a Bush supporter and doesn't want to undermine his guy. I would respect that more than some tripe about encouraging terrorism.
It has nothing to do with supporting Bush. We won't support or target any canditate. Just as we would not allow a candidate to campaign in our lobbys. We also will not sell ad space to political candidates. Please read the "official press release" at www.fridleytheatres.com

I find it very interesting that since we won't play a liberal propoganda film, we are automatically Bush supporters and censors. We would not play a film supporting Bush either, just as we do not play pornography, but I guess that's censorship too [Confused] .

Keep in mind my comments are not those of my company. The only "official" comment from our company is on the website.
 
Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 07-08-2004, 10:43 AM:
 
quote: William Hooper
Interestingly, titles getting shut out of theatres & restraint of trade was the basis for the FTC suit against the major studios which ultimately (decades later) broke up the vertical integration of the studios & theatres with the Paramount Consent Decrees.
There does not appear to be any anti-trust issues here. At no point does the the anti-trust laws require a company to carry all available product. The Fridley theatres is not in competion with any film distributors, they can play (or not) whatever they want.
 
Posted by Bob Brown (Member # 1205) on 07-15-2004, 05:04 PM:
 
Here is a different view from a theatre owner:

http://www.woodtv.com/global/story.asp?s=2045763

Lewisburg, Pennsylvania-AP -- A theater operator is offering Republicans the chance to see the movie, "Fahrenheit 9/11" for free.

Eric Faden of Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, says he found that few of his conservative friends were watching the movie because they didn't want to support the film's director financially.

So on Saturday he's offering to buy tickets for any card-carrying Republicans who want to see it at a special showing.

Faden says he's not trying to convince anyone that director Michael Moore is right. He says the film is "fantastic" but also "fantastically flawed."

A local Republican leader is praising Faden for trying to open up the debate about the film.

However, Faden may not be able to fill his theater, even for free.

A C-N-N - U-S-A Today - Gallup poll finds that 63 percent of Republicans who were surveyed have no plans to see the movie.
 




Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2