Disney Blocks Michael Moore's Latest Release
Certainly, this is why Miramax was purchased in the first place: to give an outlet for projects Disney thought too "adult" or too "risky" for their corporate banner. However, in the 11 years since Miramax was bought by Disney, this is the second reported time that Disney has told Miramax not to release a movie. The other time was the very controversial "Dogma", which brought protest from the Catholic church. Fortunately that film was released by Lion's Gate Films with marketing done by Miramax. One can only hope that Disney allows a similar deal to be struck over this film, because after winning an Academy Award for his last movie (and the subsequent comments made in his speech), Michael Moore is a name that people will now recognize. Love him or hate him, agree with him or disagree with him, his movies are now more marketable.
7 Comments
Strange contract to have signed if Moore had to shop Disney first for anything, of all companies. But even stranger is Moore's comment in the above story:
" `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?' "
Two points:
1. It is a typical conclusion of conspiracy theorists to blame society for a specific problem that they themselves happen to be having at the moment. The minutae of Mr. Moore's financial arrangements and negotiations involving himself, his studio, and his talent and legal representation do not necessarily have anything to do with the nature of a free society, money systems, or anything else.
2. Mr. Moore, for better and worse, may now refer to himself as one of the "monied interests". He, with his many interests, projects and completed works to date, is now a going concern, and has been for some years.
(I have yet to review "Columbine"; stay tuned.)
Personally, I'm appalled that Moore, as a "monied interest" would prevent me from seeing this movie. Why not have him release it online for free? Oh wait ... that would require that his values be in line with his practices, wouldn't it?
Maybe it's publicity. As to the second point, how could we ask for our money back?
Damn, Ralphie: your two points above are so incredibly lucid, accurate, and right-on-the-money that I suspect you're off your meds.
Get this man a bottle of scotch stat so he can get back to reviewing Kandi Alexander projects.
That's spelled KHANDI; I'm researching Audree Jaymes at the moment...
Seen this?
Great, Zweibel, but I was REALLY in the mood for something like...