Michael Moore and Disney (Part II)

by Liberty and Power

Apparently, Moore's complaint about Disney's interference with his film was only a stunt on his part.

More Comments:

Charles Johnson - 5/8/2004

I must make an emendation of my own. When I said above:

'That language is the emendation of Andrew Gumbel, and unless the transcript of the interview (which I can't at the moment find) says something very different from what Moore has said elsewhere, it's hard to regard the claim that Moore "admitted" that his actions were a "stunt" as a plain lie on Gumbel's part.'

What I meant to say:

'That language is the emendation of Andrew Gumbel, and unless the transcript of the interview (which I can't at the moment find) says something very different from what Moore has said elsewhere, it's hard to regard the claim that Moore "admitted" that his actions were a "stunt" as ANYTHING OTHER THAN a plain lie on Gumbel's part.'

Mea maxima culpa.

For my part, I think Michael Moore is a very funny guy who is divided between genuinely thoughtful work, and an all-too-distinct streak of carelessness and show-business hucksterism. There are plenty of issues to take him to task over; no-one is served by inventing new ones.

Charles Johnson - 5/8/2004

Whatever one thinks of Michael Moore, the article linked here is a brutal distortion of what Moore has actually said concerning his past communications with Disney. Moore, as far as I know, never characterized his actions as a "stunt." That language is the emendation of Andrew Gumbel, and unless the transcript of the interview (which I can't at the moment find) says something very different from what Moore has said elsewhere, it's hard to regard the claim that Moore "admitted" that his actions were a "stunt" as a plain lie on Gumbel's part. And here's what Moore actually says in http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php">his follow-up letter on the controversy:

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.

Earlier this week we got the final, official call: Disney will not put out Fahrenheit 9/11. When the story broke in the New York Times, Disney, instead of telling the truth, turned into Pinocchio.

Here are my favorite nuggets that have come out of the mouths of their spinmeisters (roughly quoted):

"Michael Moore has known for a year that we will not distribute this movie, so this is not news." Yes, that is what I thought, too, except Disney kept sending us all that money to make the movie. Miramax said there was no problem. I got the idea that everything was fine. (usw.)

Steven Horwitz - 5/8/2004

Why would a smart guy like you EVER believe most of what Michael Moore says, David?