[Article]Disney 'blocks' Moore documentary

BaZmO*

Originally posted by Spacedog
MM is funny and informative.

If he's simply a crackpot spouting fibbulious lies through verb trickery and rude editing of that patron saint of the bangstick, Heston (wow, he can talk!). then why is Eisner browning his clavins that it might be seen before human rights activist Boy George Bush runs for re-electarooneyhoo?

I don't think that anybody is saying that he is "crackpot spouting fibbulious lies". People are just saying that you can't take everyhting that he is saying as gospel, cos afterall he does have his own agenda, albeit a slightly more righteous one than Dubya!


And I'd imagine that the reason why Eisner is "browning his calvins" as you so eloquently put it is because the movie will reveal a lot of unpalatable truths regarding the relationship between the Bush and Bin Laden families which will not do Dubya any favours in getting re-elected!

bonkey

Originally posted by earwicker
I took it as read that those older sources you cite would be already familiar to interested parties.

How can a response to Moore's article be older than the article itself?

And I find it amusing that you took it as read that the critique Moore was chiefly responding to, and the ensuing response to Moore's article didn't merit a mention because they would be known, but Moore's response itself was not well known enough and was worth linking.

Indeed, it is interesting that you took it as read that people would be familiar with these two articles which hafve far more criticisms than were answered, and which clearly point out that Moore is dodging many issues and refusing to even acknowledge others.

Why is it interesting? Because even being aware of these facts, you still presented Moore's comments as a fait accompli which debunk the criticism levelled at the movie.

Isn't that type of misdirection exactly what Moore is also being criticised for?

It seems odd to me that IF Moore has so grossly mistated the facts, then why hasn't he been sued?

Which is dealt with in the links I posted to.

Moore himself makes the same point.

The critic in question points out that if one were to apply the same logic that Moore uses to the people Moore himself says are doing exactly the same thing, one can only conclude that because they haven't been sued either, Moore must be wrong.

Then again...you are familiar with these articles, so you already knew that the answer to your point was in there.....right?

jc

ReefBreak

The Times (of London) has a column about this issue today:

Michael Moore: the world's first recyclable martyr

oscarBravo

Originally posted by Cork
Whats wrong with having 2 a 2 party state

Let me answer that by extrapolation: the problem with a one-party system is that there's not much point voting. Whether you vote for that one party or not, that one party will be elected.

The problem with a two-party system is in the second part of what I said: when there's little to choose between the parties. In this case, there's still not a lot of point voting, because whichever way you vote, you vote for a (broadly) corporate-oriented right-wing conservative party.

The attitude I criticised is, in essence, that a vote for a left-wing party simply means that the "wrong" right-wing party might get in.

Mind you, a bigger problem might be the electoral system. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the US have a similar FPTP setup to the UK? As in, you only get to vote for one candidate in any given poll? If so, there's really relatively little hope of a third political force emerging.

It is far better than unstable coalition governments depending on the support of independants.

Better for whom? In what way?

vorbis

we're effectively the same oscarbravo.
Theres never been a government in this country dominated by either FF of FG. Enlgand, labour or tories, germany dem socialist or the other crowd

Spacedog

Originally posted by BaZmO*
...People are just saying that you can't take everyhting that he is saying as gospel...

I certainly hope not, don't get me started on the gospel!!!!!! Moore is more credible than that dusty manuscript. If Jesus were here he'd want Eisner to distribute the movie. therefore Michael Eisner is the devil! QED!

earwicker

Originally posted by bonkey
How can a response to Moore's article be older than the article itself?

And I find it amusing that you took it as read that the critique Moore was chiefly responding to, and the ensuing response to Moore's article didn't merit a mention because they would be known, but Moore's response itself was not well known enough and was worth linking.

My post was a throwaway to address the fact that your initial response branded Moore as a liar and didn't provide any links. You seemed to have clearly made up your mind against Moore's "truthfulness," and the link I posted simply pointed to Moore's first reply to the Hardy site's allegations, which so many people are familiar with. I thought it might be good for those not familiar with his take on things to read it. That's all. No conspiracy. No wish on my part to cover up anything. But I did go on to say that those who read the allegations and responses will make of them what they will. I made no statements about anything having or lacking merit. You seem to be more annoyed about my dismissal of your links as old news. I misread the links in your second post.

Originally posted by bonkey
Indeed, it is interesting that you took it as read that people would be familiar with these two articles which hafve far more criticisms than were answered, and which clearly point out that Moore is dodging many issues and refusing to even acknowledge others.

Why is it interesting? Because even being aware of these facts, you still presented Moore's comments as a fait accompli which debunk the criticism levelled at the movie.

Isn't that type of misdirection exactly what Moore is also being criticised for?

Once again, I said make of the criticisms what you will: that's hardly treating them as a fait accompli. I also said that regardless of where one might stand on them, they do not detract from the main argument Moore makes. I also said that such editing is employed by all documentary film makers who are in the business of crafting narratives, and that "facts" are ambiguous and open to interpretation/ dialogue.

The author of the critique's nit-picking does not seem to be simply motivated by the search for the "truth" about Columbine, but rather presses the value of truth in the service of an opposing point of view. What is that? Why? By contrast, Moore's agenda is pretty obvious.

You accuse me of "misdirection," by which I take you to mean that I was wilfully misleading readers of this thread by not posting a link to the response to Moore. Fair enough. I made no claim to the truth. I have been debating the whole notion of truth by saying that Moore does what most documentary film makers do: manipulate material to craft a narrative. I never said he was above criticism, but I don't think arguing about the truth of his manipulations is the point. If most documentary film makers are at it, then surely the real issue lies in how a loaded term ("truth") that a great deal of people still (uncritically, in my view) believe in is being bandied about. I was suggesting that the debate is perhaps most constructively viewed as a look at what "truth" means, and is not about "the truth."

That's why I'm not outraged by the cobbling together of Heston's words (for example) from different speeches. This is just how such film making works and most of the debate seems to be due to the surprise of those not familiar with film making not knowing this. Even the author of the criticisms pulls Moore's response apart, all the while editorializing and recontextualizing. It happens all the time: we quote someone else, and ride a certain point. I had fun watching it in the smoking debate that just concluded. The advocacy system works on the same principle.

For me, this debate is an interesting one because it brings us back to the bones of rhetoric and its power to shape perception. I'm certainly not arguing for pure objectivity, even if I am a little nostalgic for it (sometimes). I'm more interested in the question of how to navigate a cultural terrain that cannot be saturated by objectivity. It seems to come down to pick a side that you can live with. I can live with Moore's overall argument more easily.

Interesting stuff.

bonkey

Originally posted by earwicker
The author of the critique's nit-picking does not seem to be simply motivated by the search for the "truth" about Columbine, but rather presses the value of truth in the service of an opposing point of view. What is that? Why? By contrast, Moore's agenda is pretty obvious.

Agreed, the critic is not searching for the truth about Columbine. I think he's more interested in trying to highlight what he perceives - rightly or wrongly - as Moore's hypocracy, of engaging in many of the tactics that he is lashing out at others for using. I also feel there is a conscious effort on his part to act as a counter-weight to - or to dispel the myth of (if you prefer) - Moore's being some sort of "shoot-from-the-hip, tell-it-like-it-really-is" man of the utmost integrity.

You accuse me of "misdirection," by which I take you to mean that I was wilfully misleading readers of this thread by not posting a link to the response to Moore. Fair enough. I made no claim to the truth. I have been debating the whole notion of truth by saying that Moore does what most documentary film makers do: manipulate material to craft a narrative.

My apologies. I misread your stance somewhat.

I never said he was above criticism, but I don't think arguing about the truth of his manipulations is the point.

Agreed, but I simply felt that offering the response to criticisms unseen to "make of what you will" was not a terribly balanced approach, which I was somewhat more incensed by when you seemed to dismiss the criticisms and the ensuing reply to Moore's response as old hat - it gave the appearance that you were trying to somehow protect Moore's credibility. Like I said - i misread your stance somewhat.

If most documentary film makers are at it,

But are they? I'm not convinced they are to as significant an extent as Moore is. And more importantly, I feel that those who are considered to be that prone to "slant" are generally considered to be pushing some sort of agenda, or vision (i.e. something may be considered very pro-Bush, or very anti-big-corporations), whereas Moore seems to engage in as much misdirection as any and is considered to be some sort of modern-day truth-sayer.

That's why I'm not outraged by the cobbling together of Heston's words (for example) from different speeches.

But hold on. You have a message effectively saying "this man is horrid. You know why he's so horrid...just look at the things he's done and said.... (cue edited melange). Now, maybe its just me, but if Heston really is that horrid a man, why couldn't they get some unedited footage showing him saying something genuinely loathsome, rather than having to cleverly manage the editing to cast some relatively benign statements into a far darker, more condemning collage?

Even if you want to argue about the relvance of truth, surely there is something morally dishonest about insisting someone is so bad, but only being able to produce evidence through misdirection?

Don't get me wrong. A lot of Moore's stuff is really well put together, and the message is pretty straight. But the problem is that there is enough misdirection lying around that, ultimately, I consider none of it to be trustworthy. Its a good springboard to find stuff thats worth reading more about....but thats all. And I guess it irks me that so many people seem instead to treat Moore as the definitive on how an issue really is.

For me, this debate is an interesting one because it brings us back to the bones of rhetoric and its power to shape perception.

Indeed. But I think there's a secondary issue which is the standards (which I would say are dropping) at which people are prepared to accept rhetoric rather than seeing it for what it is.

It seems to come down to pick a side that you can live with. I can live with Moore's overall argument more easily.

Likewise....but not because Moore made it, or because of how he made it, or even because he made it. Many of his arguments strike chords with me, but I still dislike the way in which he has made many of them.

Interesting stuff.

Indeed, but I suppose we should get back on-topic. If you're interested in continuing this, let me know and I'll split the thread in two.

jc

Typedef

Actually.

I'm quite glad Disney has decided not to distrobute this film.

Quite simply Michael Moore is an embaressment to Liberals, not to mention being a tad hypocritical with his "Down with the man and his money making schemes... buy my book... heal!" message. Maybe he means well, but, he can sure milk it, in selling and I emphasise 'selling' his prole feed to people.
Frankly I have no time for it, you can't be against the machine and make millions out of it's mechisma. You can be a good person, but, wether you are theoreticall aligned or misaligned from the machine, you still serve a purpose for it, just like Michael Moore. Except in Michael Moore's case, while he's against the Imperialist American State, he's getting pretty fat off of miliking it! I'm pretty sure Michael Moore believes in his message, but, it is very convienent that he can make millions out of selling his anti-establishment message, using entities like the 'established' (no pun) Disney to do so.

If anything fringe psychotics like Michael Moore drive people towards the sort of quasi-religous dogma Bush spews and so, in the interests of ridding Bush from power and getting a Democrat back into office in the US, so we can all get on with the business of making *real* money, it's just as well Michael Moore is silenced until after the election.

Real world, nobody in the Western world would care a damn, if George Bush was running a better economy then Clinton did, real world. Everybody knows a Republican Administrations in the US, means War, Deficit and money towards more 'traditional' facets of the economy.

Politicains are the 'same' everywhere, they simply sell a different message. That's fine, if George Bush fixes the American economy, he can stay in power for 20 years as far as I'm concerned, either way, Israel will rule the Palestinians, either way, the US will cause wars. All we pay for with a new regieme is a different shade of the same old grey!

That's the real reason people hate Bush, he's bad for prosperity, if, from the moment he'd got into power, US economic growth had gone from 4% to 6.5% pa, instead of 4% to 0.1% pa, nobody would have a bad word to say about the man.

So, being honest, we all want Bush out, because we want to get rich. That's fine, let's not disguise our desire to be rich in some sort of self righteous belief that morality has any relevance in Western Society.

Michael Moore or another like him, was an enivatibility, since there is such a market for his prole feed, people who convice themselves that it's Bush's social, as opposed to economic polices that they hate. Thus I maintain, if Bush had doubled American economic growth, books, like Stupid White Men would have 'flopped' ignominiously.

bonkey

Apparently the latest on this is that Disney have pointed out that they informed Moore a year ago that his film would not be distributed.

After some bluster and denials, Moore has apparently come out with a new explanation of how it is true that he was told this, but that he's still not just trying to sensationalise and attract publicity by making a fuss over it being a big shock a year later.

The more Moore gets press-coverage, the more it becomes apparent that he is little different to those he seeks to denigrate.

jc

ixoy

Well I can't be surprised that he knew - I asked earlier on why did he go to Disney-backed studio, knowing their stance on such political fodder. I mean you or I could surely have seen it coming - why not a man who knows damn well how to use the media?
As much as I find Moore a welcome tonic from the right-wing rantings (a yin to their yang), this smacks of a publicity stunt too far.

BaZmO*

Originally posted by bonkey
Apparently the latest on this is that Disney have pointed out that they informed Moore a year ago that his film would not be distributed.

Here's his explanation.


B.

TuathaDeDanaan

Moore is a lier and self promoting america hating propogandist, from the money he has made from his books and his films he could finance the film itself. How he constantly gets away with his fabrications is a mystery. Implying he is being censored is the latest stunt. I dont see how you can be censored by a corporation that follows the free market.

More about Moores lies..
http://www.revoketheoscar.com/:rolleyes:

ixoy

Originally posted by TuathaDeDanaan
I dont see how you can be censored by a corporation that follows the free market.

You don't? The fact that they're a corporation means they have to look after their corporate interests. If it's not in their fiscal interest to support or release something, then they won't do it (generally). Just because there's a "free market" doesn't mean a corporation is always free to act on it (they are answerable to shareholders after all).

Sand

You don't? The fact that they're a corporation means they have to look after their corporate interests. If it's not in their fiscal interest to support or release something, then they won't do it (generally). Just because there's a "free market" doesn't mean a corporation is always free to act on it (they are answerable to shareholders after all).

So dont sell the rights to them then? Sell them instead to a company that will distribute it? Or better yet release the filim free for download. Dont give in to these corporate capitalist republican bastards after all - unless theyre paying for our manhattan appartments and chartered jet flights. Mike Moore, fighting for the little man.

More about Moores lies..

Thats a hilarious site, not so much for the content as for the bile with which the guy tears into M.Moore.

"Who are you trying to fool, you lying ****! You've done nothing but piss and moan about the 2000 election since it took place, despite the fact that every recount showed Bush the winner. And on top of that you predicted that the 2002 election was going to be "Payback Tuesday", but instead it turned into "Bleeding from the Rectum Tuesday" for you and your left-wing buddies. So rather than simply admit your error you removed the letter from your site and hid under a rock like a ****ing coward."

Keee-Rist, his medical bills must be huge with blood pressure like that:)

sleepwalker

But Moore is no different. He produced a mix of fact and fiction which he bills as a documentary, not a mockumentary. When challenged on some of the issues, he denied that they were falsified. When it was proven that they were falsified, he basically shrugged his shoulders and used the "I'm an entertainer" argument...that it wasn't incumbent on him to be honest.

are you referring to "Bowling for Columbine" here or another documentary he made ? because I reme.ber on his website he wrote an article about how all of his facts were legitimate. when or where did he admit to making things up ??

vorbis

are you referring to "Bowling for Columbine" here or another documentary he made ? because I reme.ber on his website he wrote an article about how all of his facts were legitimate. when or where did he admit to making things up ??

This has already been mentioned. He basically dodged most of the issues raised regarding the movie. Theres plenty of sites with info on it. I'd have to agree that Moore was merely looking for free publicity with this stunt.

bonkey

Originally posted by sleepwalker
are you referring to "Bowling for Columbine" here or another documentary he made ?

Bowling.

because I reme.ber on his website he wrote an article about how all of his facts were legitimate.

And I can say that every fact in a Stephen King novel is also legitimate.

Does it mean that every single item in the novel is fact, or that said facts are not deliberately presented in a manner to be misleading?

Nope. It doesn't. Isn't english great

when or where did he admit to making things up ??

Yup. But Moore presenting an inconsistent story isn't entirely news, now is it?

When the initial criticisms came out, he shrugged some of them off with the "entertainment" excuse for his spin. When it grew more acrimonious, he fell back on answering a small handful of points, some of which bore some relevance to the actual criticism, and presented his response as a fait accompli debunking of all of the criticism which had been levelled at him.

jc

I see the Film/documentry faranheit is being shown at the Cannes Film festival which starts this week.

lee_baby_simms

I found 'bowling' more enjoyable than the poor tabloid books he writes, but the fact is that Moore is very handy in the editing room and 'bowling' is unfortunately scattered with false claims and misleading facts.

Moore has a knack for using footage out of context and also just bald faced lying at times. This is a shame as i generally agree with his political persuasions. Now before u ask, im not a heston fan, its just he gets really shafted by moore.

For example, Heston's "cold dead hands" speech, which leads off Moore's depiction of the Denver meeting, was not given at Denver after Columbine. It was given a year later in Charlotte, North Carolina and was in no school shooting context.


Moore doesnt claim that heston is racist but doesnt give the viewer much choice in thinkin otherwise. Heres an excerpt from an internet article regarding hestons mixed ethnicity remark:


The remarks stem from Heston's answer (after Moore keeps pressing for why the US has more violence than other countries) that it might be due to the US "having a more mixed ethnicity" than other nations, and "We had enough problems with civil rights in the beginning." A viewer who accepts Moore's theme that gun ownership is driven by racial fears might conclude that Heston is blaming blacks and the civil rights movement.

But if you look at some history missing from Bowling, you get exactly the opposite picture. Heston is talking, not about race, but about racism. In the early 1960s, the civil rights movement was fighting for acceptance. Civil rights workers were being murdered. The Kennedy Administration, trying to hold together a Democratic coalition that ranged from liberals to fire-eater segregationists such as George Wallace and Lester Maddox, found the issue too hot to touch, and offered little support.
Heston got involved. He picketed discriminating restaurants. He worked with Martin Luther King, and helped King break Hollywood's color barrier (yes, there was one.). He led the actors' component of King's 1963 march in Washington, which set the stage for the key civil rights legislation in 1964.


But Moore doesnt mention any of this.

These are just two examples of many. For more columbine truths: http://www.hardylaw.net/critiques.html

Now dont get me wrong, im not pro right or against what Michael Moore believes in.
I just think hes not the 'salt of the earth, common joe' he wants us to believe. He distorts, hides and bends truths to bring the audience round to his thinking.

That said im looking forward to his new movie. Bound to be entertaining. Has to taken with a pinch of salt though.:p

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

I find Disney's reasoning incredibly ironic, mainly because rightwing Republican talk-radio host Sean Hannity owes his distribution to Disney's radio arm. Don't want to get controversial/political in an election year? Then why on earth produce and distribute one of the biggest firespitting political shock-jock while declining Moore's film?

Granted, a fair part of the film will be black helicopter fantasy. Yet a part of me concedes that conspiracy theorists *do* have a political role to play (for the slightly more credible brand of theory). I'll illustrate it this way jc- if I had walked up to you in the 80s and told you that Manuel Noriega the *President* of another country was a CIA agent, you or most other people would have laughed it off as a conspiracy theory. The same is likely true about the Gulf of Tonkin incident, or the invasion of Granada. Heck, if I'd told anyone that someone in the Pentagon during the 80s was selling weapons to Iran (they were our numero uno enemy in them days)- to finance Contra rebels- I'd have been laughed out of shop.

Part of political conspiracy theory speculation (the type that doesn't involve hooded men in a dark room trying to rule the world)- is that there is the off-chance that part of it is true. Granted, there might not be evidence of this yet- but there is often good reason for suspicion with Moore's theories. Another analogy- there is no hard "evidence" persay that the Iraqi prisoner abuse was anything more than 6-7 wacky soldier perverts.

Yet every instinct in my body tells me that this was planned at brigade level at the very least. Hoods, electrical wires, human pyramids, packing naked ppl in ice, rape etc- the variety and complexity of these actions suggest significant pressure either from G2 intel, contractors (not covered by the UCMJ) or possibly civilian intel.

Now am I a crazy pudgy nut from Flint, Michigan because I say that I *suspect* the above is true? No I'm not- the reason Moore arguably deserves that title from time to time is that he states assertions as fact far too often. Personally, I don't have a huge problem with this. I mean let's face it- will anyone in power actually act on suggestions if he makes them with equanimity? It's not terribly difficult to just sit back and enjoy the ride in a Michael Moore film- in fact, if you simply ignore anything that sounds way out there, there will likely be one or two gems of film-making/investigative reporting.

If one is looking for a Bob Woodward style exposee, Moore isn't the one to provide it- but he is part of the balance for Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh (who described the Iraqi prisoner abuse as "a need to blow off some steam"). In a free society these things will happen- and the reason I prefer Moore to the other crowd is that a) he's vastly outnumbered, and part of me likes an underdog, and b) his work to me seems rooted in humanity more than the exploitative programming of the others.

bonkey

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus Another analogy- there is no hard "evidence" persay that the Iraqi prisoner abuse was anything more than 6-7 wacky soldier perverts.

Before the inevitable hordes descend talking about Amnesty and Red Cross reports, please bear in mind that this was an analagy, and such a discussion would be entirely off topic.

Take it elsewhere.

Thanks.

Rush Limbaugh (who described the Iraqi prisoner abuse as "a need to blow off some steam").

As off-topic as you can get (from me)...but how on earth did me make such a comment publically and not have ppl screaming for his resignation?

I mean....FFS.

In a free society these things will happen- and the reason I prefer Moore to the other crowd is that a) he's vastly outnumbered, and part of me likes an underdog, and b) his work to me seems rooted in humanity more than the exploitative programming of the others.

Hey, don't get me wrong, Occy. I like most of the guy's work. I find it immensely entertaining and - as I've said before - a good "jump in point" for angles to look at.

Its his nigh-deification by many of his supporters that I cannot stand. The man is no prophet, oracle, truth-sayer, or anything like that, and there is nothing that makes me cringe more (well, there is, but this is a public forum) than people saying absolute rubbish like if you want to educate yourself on whats really happening, read WMCJ, or DWMC, or other Moore books.

jc

Magnolia_Fan

Micheal Moore does not use very many facts in his "documenatrys" , he just likes to stir the shh!t to get him some attention which leads to $$$, Even Liberals don't trust the man...he's a far left radical. Why would Disney risk their @sses on him, he's not worth the millions of theme park go'ers, movie go'ers and merchandise buyer money Disney get not to mention the grants giving to Disneys Theme Parks by the goverment and Jeb Bush in Florida...Like it or not Americans have power and they aren't afraid to use it, they don't like what Disney is doing they have other choices and can go elsewhere...Look at France for an example

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Originally posted by bonkey
Before the inevitable hordes descend talking about Amnesty and Red Cross reports, please bear in mind that this was an analagy, and such a discussion would be entirely off topic.

Totally agree- I just used it as an analogy of extrapolating a likelihood from strong clues. In both halves of the analogy a not unreasonable leap of logic is made.

As off-topic as you can get (from me)...but how on earth did me make such a comment publically and not have ppl screaming for his resignation?

jc- It's important to realize that EVERY day there are thousands of people screaming for him to be fired- but if a drug scandal and openly describing several Middle Eastern government heads as oil-snorting crackheads, describing Nelson Mandela as a sanctimonious opportunist- if all that doesn't get rid of the pos, then I doubt a comment like that would. Perils of unrestricted free speech one might say.

I mean....FFS.

Hell man, I agree with you 150%- but if Howard Stern and Michael Moore exist to entertain the angry left, then these douchebags exist for the other side. Although they do seem a bit more likely to burst a vessel.

Hey, don't get me wrong, Occy. I like most of the guy's work. I find it immensely entertaining and - as I've said before - a good "jump in point" for angles to look at.

You've hit the nail squarely on the head there- it's a starting point, and even he has admitted that numerous times- his purpose is to just get people interested in these things and to think about it. Most Americans are suprisingly unbothered by most of the issues he raises if he were to raise it in an organized argumentative fashion- the success of Limbaugh & co. shows that sensational oversimplification sells. I think it's a conscious decision he has made recently- his earlier works like Roger & Me are a lot less confrontational.

Its his nigh-deification by many of his supporters that I cannot stand.

Couldn't agree with you more. Sadly, the truth of modern entertainment politics if such a thing exists is that the loudest douche always gets the ratings. That doesn't make the deification of scumbags like Limbaugh or specious half-truth tellers like Moore justified in any way, but it's more likely to happen in that climate