Latest from Michael Moore

I really liked that. I've been a big fan of michael moore for the past few years. I found that I agree with his viewpoint more often than not. Sorry DMC. I like the way he can put across a serious issue, with enough wit to keep people intereted in the subject. This E-mail is another example of how astute he can be. Bravo!

 

So much frustration, anger, spite, despair - and all of it masked with sarcasm. I know how Mr. Moore feels.
If things get too absurd and tragic, all one can do is laugh about it and ridicule.

Thanks for that, dmc.

 

Seems that even Disney (a big supporter of the Democratic Party) has decided that its subsidiary Miramax will not be distributing the film that MM mentions in his message that DMC was so kind to provide to us.

I guess even Disney has a limit as to how much extreme left-wing propaganda it will support.
Disney Forbidding Distribution of Film That Criticizes Bush

Don't worry though, someone else will pick up the film and distribute it, it just means less money into MM and the DNC's pocket.

 

Disney? Left Winged? Yeah right, they provide more right-winged propaganda than the Swedish goverment, and that's a LOT.

 

Whether you agree with Michael Moore or his politics, I think it is a real shame when a company decides to censor someone. It shows that Disney is afraid that people are unable to make their own minds up. I believe that people should have the right to judge it for themselves. If you agree with it, or disagree.

Political censorship is a breach of freedom of speach and shouldn't be allowed, especially in a country that espouses liberty above all else. I dont think anything Mr.Moore says will change the opinions of either side. It will just allow those whoe enjoy his work, to see another example.

 

How did you conceive of the notion that a socialdemocratic party is propagating right-wing views?

 

Supporting the megacorps, don't caring about the small man, and generally being a right-wing party.

 

I find the presumtion that censorship needs a state actor interesting, especially in the age of outsourcing.

When propaganda gets outsourced to the private sector to standard media - a private smear campaign on dissenters or intimidation of dissenters on private media (FOX anyone?) does pretty much the same as censorship. And a partisan medium doesn't need any censoring anyhow.

Add a public climate, like in the pre-war frenzy, of "when you're anti-war you're a terrorist yourself" and you end up having just that, only without a state actor.

Take Bush-happy private radio talk hosts calling to bulldoze dixie chicks CDs because of them scoffing Bush - they don't don't do censorship? Yes, no direct state involvement in sight. But what do they do then?
They incite against, and intimidate (and succeeded, the chicks caved in) dissenters, turning them to shut up or change their tune. What is that except outsourced censorship?

Political and economic pressure on media bosses to project the same pressure on journalists or moviemakers isn't exactly censorship but close enough to smell silly.

Insofar it is hard to say if a corporate decision like Disney's was an act of censorship or not. But in any case Disney must have feared repercussions to drop the film.

Then it would not really be censorship but intimidation. What a comforting difference.

[ May 05, 2004, 22:54: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Actually, disney is breaking its contract. It was only legally allowed to prehibit miramax from doing the film if it went way over budget or got a NC-17 rating. Disney knew what kind of movie he was making and decided to back out at the last minute because of tax break concerns. The fact that Disney was concerned enough that they belived Jeb would punish Disney is censorship, though of a decidedly more subtle kind, but it is censorship nonetheless. Now the launch of the movie in major theaters will be delayed, very possibly past the election, where it cannot have any major effect. The important question really is Disney just being paranoid, or did a certain someone call Eisner? If its the former, the sitiuation is unfortnate but tolerable. If it is the latter, it is reprehensible. Make no mistake, the Bushies fear Michael Moore - his last movie is by far the highest grossing documentary of all time (of which the previous record holder was yet another Michael Moore film). He also has a monopoly on film. He has no right wing filmmaker equivilant to counter him unlike in television and print. That is why he is considered dangerous. I honestly dont care as long his film gets released before the election, otherwise I will be severly peeved at Disney (although now that Pixar is leaving, nothing much about Disney that I care about anyway) because they would have effectively censored the film because it would not be relevant after the election (unlike his previous film which dealt with gun violence primarily and so would not matter who was president).

 

If anyone called Eisner, his or her initials would be WC or HC.

Eisner was a big supporter of the Clintons run for office in '96. I seriously doubt that any pressure from the Bush administration would sway him.

Think about it, Hillary wants to be the first female President, but she doesn't want to take on an incumbent President. That means that if the Democrats win the Presidency, she would either have to be the VP (something I seriously doubt Kerry will offer or Hillary would accept if it was offered) in order to run in 8 years, or most likely, it would be 12 years before she could run, as in most cases the VP is a shoe in for the parties nomination in the next election. If memory serves, Hillary was born in 1947. By the time she could run in the 2016 elections, she would be 69 years old when she takes office. That would put her second behind on the oldest presidents list, only a few months behind Reagan who was almost 70 when he took office. Even in 8 years she would be the 4th oldest president, pushing Bush 41 down to 5th. If whoever is Kerry's running mate should end up serving 2 terms as President Hillary will be completely shut out of ever becoming President by being too old at 73 year of age.

Hillary is convinced that she is destined to be President, and will not leave her chances in someone elses control. Shooting John Kerry down so that she can run in four years without having to face an incumbent (Cheney has no interest in being President, and couldn't beat Dukakis in an election) would not be beneath her. (What legal records, I have no idea where they are, ohhhh, you mean the ones I have been hiding, errr, I mean were unnoticed in my office in the White House, the ones with my fingerprints on them? Those records? I don't know how those got there!).

I made a witty and didn't even realize it. "Shooting John Kerry down". He has three purple hearts and when he actually finally gets "shot" by the enemy, it will most likely be by someone in his own party!

 

Cannes is not the same as a nationwide release. Word of mouth means nothing without anyone seeing it. As for the rest, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

 

In the long run, it won't make any difference whether it comes out tomorrow in after the election. Think about it - this film has propoganda written all over it. People supporting Kerry will flock to the theaters to see it, but they weren't voting for Bush anyway. Bush supporters either won't see it or will write it off as propoganda and untrue. So it won't have nearly as big an impact as many people think it will - you can't change someone's mind if it's already made up.

 

The thing that bothers me about Moore is that I liked "Roger and me". I thought that was a first class documentary. Now he seems more interested in politics than anything else. I thought his Columbine movie was undeserving of being called a documentary and I'm curious what the academy will do with this one.

I know I will not pay theatre prices to see it, but it will eventually make its way to HBO and I will give it a shot then.

 

I've seen BfC, and it was interresting, but also a bit twisted. Why would anyone demonize his own society, his own country ? What's he trying to prove to the rest of the world ? That Americans are all idiots, a bunch of ignorant gunslinging idiots ? If i didn't know any better, i'd ALMOST believe him.

Michael Moore is an idealist, and idealists have a very peculiar way of putting things in perspective. If i am to take that man serious, i'd have to check under my bed before i go to sleep. Therefore, i HEAR him, but i don't LISTEN to him.

 

He wasn't demonizing America. I have never understood the mentality of critisizing = unpatriotic, unsupportive, or Americabashing. It is criticism, nothing more. We are a gun happy culture. Trust me, I've been accosted by gun-nuts before. I used to work 3rd shift at WallyWorld. We stopped selling ammo after 11:00 pm. This was due I believe to a shooting in California, where a guy went to Wal-Mart late at night, bought ammo and killed his wife or something similiar. Anyway, this guy wants to buy shotgun shells around midnight. I told him we don't sell ammo after 11:00. He cussed me out, showing me his NRA checkbook, which proudly boasted his rights. I of course told him that the ammo was Wal-Mart property and we could sell it however and whenever we wanted. He stomped off pissed and cussing. This was not an isolated incident. I have many friends who are practicaly gunnuts, having dozens of guns and seriously talk about the UN wanting to take over. Why is it in America sex is so feared and reviled, but violence is perfectly ok. Flash a boob and everyone freaks out, but show live violence and thats great entertainment. Yes, Michael Moore is politcally active. You cannot be a social activist and not be so. But those who think he is a great lover of the democrats are totally wrong. He bashes them as weak kneed pansies as much as Rush does. But he is also a realist and knows (to him) that Bush is wrong for the country and will support Kerry and not Nader (who he supported until near the end of the 2000 election, he actually asked Naders people to drop out of Florida so Bush could not win it) because to him it is better to remove Bush than to support a man who is truly closer to his ideals. Yes, he exaggerates some, but so does most everyone else (Al Franken being about the only really honest, if baised (as in only pointing out Republican flaws) political book writer out there that I know of - Just get his book to see how crazy Ann Coulter is) and it is more to make a point than to be totally accurate. Everyone does this unfortuantly. At least he has a sense of humor about it. And the movie isn't as much for Kerry supporters as the small but undecided voter group. As we saw in 2000, if he even sways a few voters, that could change everything.