Disneykonzern versucht Bushkritik zu verhindern!!! - 500 Beiträge pro Seite

[Bodenseemann]

!

Dieser Beitrag wurde vom System automatisch gesperrt. Bei Fragen wenden Sie sich bitte an [e-mail]

[Bodenseemann]

Moore vermutet Steuer-Deal mit Jeb Bush

Moore mutmaßte heute in einer Stellungnahme, dass Disney im Vorfeld der US-Wahl auf Druck des Präsidentenbruders Jeb Bush gehandelt habe. Bekanntlich spare der Micky-Maus-Konzern in seinen Vergnügungsparks und Studios im Bundesstaat Florida, dessen Gouverneur Jeb Bush ist, Millionen von Steuerdollars. Diese seien offenbar "gefährdet" gewesen.

Ein hochrangiger Vertreter des Disney-Konzerns, der namentlich nicht genannt wurde, wies gegenüber der "New York Times" diese Vorwürfe zurück. Die Entscheidung gegen "Fahrenheit 911" sei gefallen, weil die Zielgruppe des Konzerns Familien sämtlicher politischer Richtungen und Überzeugungen seien.

[Fuller81]

Unter Göbbels wäre so ein Film ja auch nicht erschienen.

[Bodenseemann]

Kennt Ihr die Anti-Nazi Propaganda von Disney???

War damals zur Nazizeit ein Zeichentrickfilm. Recht gut gemacht ca. 10 min.!

"Education for Death"

könnt Ihr euch auf ifilm anschauen:

http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2408800

Damals waren sie noch nicht darüber besorgt sich politisch einzumischen.

[Erika007]

#3

fuller,

polstere deinen hintersten am besten mit zeitungspapier: dann tut es nicht so weh.

[Bodenseemann]

Und das sagt Moore selber auf seiner Homepage dazu:

Wednesday, May 5th, 2004
Disney Has Blocked the Distribution of My New Film... by Michael Moore


Friends,

I would have hoped by now that I would be able to put my work out to the public without having to experience the profound censorship obstacles I often seem to encounter.

Yesterday I was told that Disney, the studio that owns Miramax, has officially decided to prohibit our producer, Miramax, from distributing my new film, "Fahrenheit 9/11." The reason? According to today`s (May 5) New York Times, it might "endanger" millions of dollars of tax breaks Disney receives from the state of Florida because the film will "anger" the Governor of Florida, Jeb Bush. The story is on page one of the Times and you can read it here (Disney Forbidding Distribution of Film That Criticizes Bush).

The whole story behind this (and other attempts) to kill our movie will be told in more detail as the days and weeks go on. For nearly a year, this struggle has been a lesson in just how difficult it is in this country to create a piece of art that might upset those in charge (well, OK, sorry -- it WILL upset them...big time. Did I mention it`s a comedy?). All I can say is, thank God for Harvey Weinstein and Miramax who have stood by me during the entire production of this movie.

There is much more to tell, but right now I am in the lab working on the print to take to the Cannes Film Festival next week (we have been chosen as one of the 18 films in competition). I will tell you this: Some people may be afraid of this movie because of what it will show. But there`s nothing they can do about it now because it`s done, it`s awesome, and if I have anything to say about it, you`ll see it this summer -- because, after all, it is a free country.

Yours,

Michael Moore
[e-mail]
www.michaelmoore.com

[Fuller81]

@ Erika

Wer will mir denn den Popo versohlen? Oder ist das hier ein SM-Forum?

[Erika007]

#8

fuller,

bei mir geht es wenigstens ohne dresche ab:

ich will es dir auch in ruhe erklären.

schon rexroth hat bereits vor über 20 jahren gesagt: "wirtschaft findet in der wirtschaft statt!"

so, nun denke daran: auch bei disney geht es um wirtschaft.

und wenn wahrheit nicht wirtschaftlich ist oder zu sein scheint, dann ist eben nichts mit der gewinnmaximierung - also nix göbbels!

nachdem ich es dir nun im guten erklärt habe, wirst du wohl um die dresche herumkommen - dein tread wird aber gerade deshalb nicht über #10 hinauskommen.

[Bodenseemann]

@ Erika #8

"und wenn wahrheit nicht wirtschaftlich ist oder zu sein scheint, dann ist eben nichts mit der gewinnmaximierung

Und genau das ist eines der zentralen Probleme.
Hier sind wir in einem sehr sensiblen Bereich.
Die Frage ist, wie sollte sich ein wirtschaftendes Unternehmen verhalten

Gewinnmaximierung ...

- egal mit welchen Mitteln?
- unter Berücksichtigung ethischer Grundsätze?
- unter Berücksichtigung moralische Grundsätze?
- unter Berücksichtigung einer speziellen Verantwortung des Unternehmens. (In Medienbranche z.B. Information)

Disney scheint eine Gewinnmaximierung egal mit welchen Mitteln zu wollen. Da scheinen in einer Dokumentation vernichtende Informationen über eine Regierung vorzuliegen. Medien stellen eine Säule der Demokratie dar. Möglicherweise sogar die wichtigste. Denn die Medien steuern die Meinungen.

Und hier kommt auch schon die nächste Problematik:

Wie kann es sein, das ein Regierungsclan einen Medienkonzern so sehr einschüchtert. Wie kann es soweit kommen, das ein Medium Angst haben muss Gewinneinbusen zu haben, weil Sie die Wahrheit sagt?
Da die Wahrheit offensichtlich eine Sensation ist, wird dieses Medium sogar daran verdienen.
Wenn nicht Represalien von den Regierenden zu erwarten sind.

!!! Und hier sind wir am Ende der Demokratie !!!

Und das hat Fuller warscheinlich gemeint mit seinem unglücklichen Göbbelsvergleich.
Disney traut sich wegen Jef Bush nix zu sagen. Weil es Geld kosten könnte.
Naja, und da kann man dann schon paralellen sehen. "Weil ich Probleme bekommen könnte, halt ich einfach das Maul."

Mit dieser Meldung hat der Disney-Konzern bewiesen, das er nicht als Informationsquelle sondern höchstens als Propagandamaschine dient.

BM

[QCOM]

Ich finde es immer wieder amüsant, in welchem Ausmaß der seichte Quatsch von Mr.Moore hierzulande für bare Münze genommen wird. Vielleicht hat der ja auch seine Geschäftsinteressen, wenn er mal eben ins Basement bei Disney reinpinkelt?

Aber nein, in Deutschland ist er eine unanfechtbare moralische Instanz ohne jede niederen Beweggründe, wird also als Gutmensch gehandelt.

Bodenseemann, frage Dich doch mal, warum den in den Staaten kein Mensch ernst nimmt (alle korrupt, blöd oder manipuliert können sie doch auch nicht sein, oder?).

[QCOM]

An seiner Stelle hätte ich es vielleicht mal bei der Filmförderung des BMI oder in NRW (Oberhausen, yeah!) versucht - aber darauf ist er halt nicht gekommen, Euer Mr. Moore. Zu seicht eben ...

[Bodenseemann]

"Bodenseemann, frage Dich doch mal, warum den in den Staaten kein Mensch ernst nimmt (alle korrupt, blöd oder manipuliert können sie doch auch nicht sein, oder?)."

Wo hast du denn das her? Du weisst schon, dass z.B. Bowling for Columbine auch in den USA der erfolgreichste Dokumentarfilm aller Zeiten war und das Moore dafür auch den Oscar für den besten Dokumentarfilm bekommen hat?
Oder sind das alles keine Menschen?

Wenn niemand in den USA den Kerl ernst nimmt, warum versucht Disney dann diesen Film zu verhindern? Dann würden die sich doch lediglich über den Umsatz freuen.

Nee! Der wird da drüben sehr wohl ernst genommen. Vieleicht kennst du eben nur diejenigen, die "korrupt, blöd oder manipuliert" sind?


Übrigens, seit wann kann die Filmförderung in den USA Verleiher zwingen einen Film zu verleihen?
Die geben Gelder für Verleihförderung in Deutschland. Aber auch in Deutschland hat die Filmförderung keinen eigenen Verleih. Der Deutsche Verleiher wird aber bestimmt einen Förderantrag stellen, dazu braucht er dich nicht.

BM

P.S. Vieleicht informierst du dich nächstes mal, bevor du postest.

[Erika007]

bodensee,

warum antwortest du denn dem com-spin nicht korrekt:

trotz wesentlich höherer spin-dichte, wissen alle gebildeten in usraeli noch besser als moore selbst, das er recht hat!

[Joerver]

_____________________[/url]

[Joerver]

Ein Leitartikel der heutigen NYTimes. Das auch zum Bekanntheitsgrad von Moore.

May 6, 2004
Disney`s Craven Behavior

Give the Walt Disney Company a gold medal for cowardice for blocking its Miramax division from distributing a film that criticizes President Bush and his family. A company that ought to be championing free expression has instead chosen to censor a documentary that clearly falls within the bounds of acceptable political commentary.

The documentary was prepared by Michael Moore, a controversial filmmaker who likes to skewer the rich and powerful. As described by Jim Rutenberg yesterday in The Times, the film, "Fahrenheit 9/11," links the Bush family with prominent Saudis, including the family of Osama bin Laden. It describes financial ties that go back three decades and explores the role of the government in evacuating relatives of Mr. bin Laden from the United States shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. The film was financed by Miramax and was expected to be released this summer.

Mr. Moore`s agent said that Michael Eisner, Disney`s chief executive, had expressed concern that the film might jeopardize tax breaks granted to Disney for its theme park, hotels and other ventures in Florida, where Jeb Bush is governor. If that is the reason for Disney`s move, it would underscore the dangers of allowing huge conglomerates to gobble up diverse media companies.

On the other hand, a senior Disney executive says the real reason is that Disney caters to families of all political stripes and that many of them might be alienated by the film. Those families, of course, would not have to watch the documentary.

It is hard to say which rationale for blocking distribution is more depressing. But it is clear that Disney loves its bottom line more than the freedom of political discourse.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[farniente]

Damit nähern wir uns eigentlich nur Zuständen die nicht allzu neu sind. Probe gefällig ?

Im Jahre 193 nach Christus, die gesamte bekannte Welt lag im Machtbereich Roms, wurde diese schöne Welt versteigert, gekauft, korrumpiert, vernichtet, man kann es nennen wie man will.
Kaiser Pertinax war gerade von seiner Leibgarde ermordet worden, also beschloß man die Krone, incl. aller "zivilisatorischen Fortschritte", ganz profan zu versteigern.

Nun, PC und ebay waren noch nicht bekannt, aber der Rest kommt uns doch allen sehr bekannt vor. Nehmt Familien- oder Relgionsdynastien, Skrupellosigkeit oder Parteiendiktatur, Medienabhängigkeiten und Macht des Geldes oder meinetwegen Al Qaida.
Die Geschichte geht weiter, und die könnte aus dem Jahre 2004 stammen:

Gegeneinander boten: Sulpicianus, der Schwiegervater des getöteten Kaisers, und der Senator Didius Julianus.

Der Senator konnte dann sagen: 3...2...1... meins.
Für 300 Millionen Sesterzen.

Ich denke Disney oder andere Medienimperien machen dies zwar heute etwas geschickter in der Methode, das Ergebnis ist dasselbe.

[Joerver]

Eins darf man auch nicht vergessen, Moore ist ein guter PR-Stratege.
Und wenn Miramax den Film nicht rausbringt, dann ein anderer Vertrieb.
Mr. Weinstein von Miramax, ein Moore Unterstützer, hat dann weniger Einnahmen, aber der Film hat nun einen Bekanntheitsgrad, den er vorher nicht hatte, und das gleicht es wieder aus.
Alle US-Zeitungen haben über die Geschichte berichtet, gerade rechtzeitig zum Start im Juni.
Ein Schelm der Böses dabei denkt.

[Bodenseemann]

@ Joerever

Ich bin mir sicher, dass dieser Film in den USA seinen Vertrieb findet. Lt. Artikel versucht Miramax ja noch Disney zu überzeugen. Ansonsten wird ein anderer Verleih herrangezogen.

Und wie du sagts, für den Film (und möglicherweise für dessen Auswirkungen auf die Wahl) ist diese Medienschandgeschichte die beste Werbung.

BM

[Joerver]

@BM
Das ist auch ein Kommentar von `All Hat No Cattle` http://www.allhatnocattle.net/5-5-04_mickey_mouse_censor.htm

I guess Bush really believes the world is a safer place without Saddam and now, Michael Moore.

But, on the bright side, Michael Moore could not buy this much publicity about his new documentary.

[QCOM]

#18
Siehste, Bodenseemann, nichts Anderes habe ich im ersten Satz von #10 auch schon gesagt ... . Aber in der Provinz hat man eben manchmal eine etwas längere Leitung

[Denali]

Was der Moore abliefert ist doch Banane, ein kleiner Köter der ein bißchen kläfft.

Die tatsächliche Bösartigkeit der Bush-Regierung, bzw. der totalitären Weltanschauung der er anhängt, und die von den rechtsradikalen fundamentalistischen Predigern in den USA beläßt er schön im Dunkeln.

Das gefährliche an der Rechts-Bewegung der USA ist, daß sie versuchen, die US-Bürger im Sozialisationsprozeß an ihre Ideologie zu ketten, um über diese Identifikation ein Heer von Mitläufern verfügbar zu haben.

Voraussetzung hierzu ist ein entsprechend eingeengtes Weltbild, das als "gottgegeben" mit absolutem Wahrheitsanspruch verkauft wird, dem blind gefolgt werden soll, und konkurrierende Weltbilder diskreditiert werden.

Am folgenden Beispiel aus dem Spiegel sieht man, wie man die Evolutionslehre versucht auszuhebeln. Zugleich darf über Unlogik im biblischen Schöpfungsmythos, der erwiesenen Unwahrheit der Bibel, nicht informiert werden.

Dieser Umstand zeigt, wie gefährlich Bush und die Rechte der USA wirklich sind.



Von den Anti-Evolutions-Gesetzen zum Intelligent Design

Der Streit zwischen biblischen Fundamentalisten und Darwinisten hat in den USA eine lange Tradition. 1928 wurde im Staat Arkansas ein Anti-Evolutions-Gesetz erlassen, das es verbot, den Darwinismus in der Schule zu erwähnen. Erst mit einer Entscheidung des Supreme Court von 1968 wurde dieses Gesetz aufgehoben. Anfang der Achtziger Jahre wurden dann in Louisiana und Arkansas neue Gesetze erlassen, mit denen öffentliche Schulen zur ausgewogenen Behandlung von Kreationismus und Evolutionslehre verpflichtet wurden.



Zu dieser Zeit hatte auch Ronald Reagan im Wahlkampf erklärt: "Wenn die Evolutionstheorie in Schulen gelehrt wird, dann sollte auch die biblische Theorie der Schöpfung unterrichtet werden." 1987 war es dann wieder das oberste amerikanische Gericht, das den "Creationism Act" des Staates Louisiana von 1980 für verfassungswidrig erklärte. Die Kreationisten hatten versucht, ihre Lehre zur Wissenschaft zu erklären. Doch der Supreme Court urteilte, "Creation science" diene religiösen, nicht wissenschaftlichen Zwecken.

In letzter Zeit entstand die so genannte "Intelligent Design" Bewegung. Mit dieser Bezeichnung des göttlichen Schöpfungsplans versucht man, die alten Ideen unter neuem Etikett zu verbreiten. Ein erster Erfolg ist ein Gesetzesentwurf in Missouri, der vorsieht, ab 2006 Lehrer zu feuern, die Evolution und "Intelligent Design" im Unterricht nicht gleichwertig behandeln. Auch George W. Bush tritt dafür ein, dass Kinder verschiedene Theorien über den Ursprung der Welt lernen. Die "Talibanisierung des Biologie- und Wissenschaftsunterrichts", wie die "Neue Zürcher Zeitung" das Phänomen bezeichnete, spiegelt sich auch in den Ansichten der Bevölkerung wider: Nach einer Gallup-Umfrage glauben 57 Prozent der Amerikaner an den Kreationismus und nur ein Drittel an die Evolutionstheorie.


sind die Leute erstmal auf die Bibel eingeschworen, braucht man sich nur noch auf dieses Buch berufen, und kann mit Rückendeckung der Bevölkerung auch in der Alltagspolitik rechnen.

"So help me God", ist folglich ein Standardspruch am Ende von Bush´s Reden.
Wer so fromm ist, der kann einfach nicht falsch liegen. Große Teile der US-Bevölkerung haben die Botschaft gefressen, wie man an der Zustimmung zu seiner Amtsführung trotz erwiesener Unfähigkeit und vieler Skandal klar sieht.

[Bodenseemann]

@ Denali

Naja, ich finde Vorwürfe, das die Bushjunta selbst den Terrorismus gefördert hat nicht gerade "unbösartig". Und sowas soll ja im Film vorkommen.

Ich würde mir vor einem solchen Posting erst einmal den Film anschauen.

BM

[Joerver]

Disney neigt zu etwas subtileren Bush-Kritik.
_______________

[Bodenseemann]

Hihi!

Der it gut Joerver!!!



BM

[Joerver]

May 10, 2004
Disney and Michael Moore
By MICHAEL D. EISNER

To the Editor:

You accuse the Walt Disney Company of cowardice and censorship because of its decision a year ago not to distribute Michael Moore`s film "Fahrenheit 9/11" (editorial, May 6). In fact, the cowardly thing would have been to be intimidated into distributing the film. We did not block its distribution. There are many avenues for Mr. Moore to pursue to get his film distributed.

Your accusations of stifling free expression are misplaced. The First Amendment does not say that The New York Times must print every article presented to it or that the Walt Disney Company must distribute every movie. If a government entity had blocked Mr. Moore`s film from being released, that would have violated the First Amendment, and we would have quickly signed up to join any protest.

In the case of "Fahrenheit 9/11," we chose a path that was right for the company and its stakeholders.

The creation of intellectual product rises and falls on similar judgments by creative people and executives across America. We would hope that The Times would recognize that the Walt Disney Company has the same right of freedom of expression that it is advocating for Mr. Moore.

MICHAEL D. EISNER
Chief Exec., Walt Disney Company
Burbank, Calif., May 7, 2004

[Joerver]

May 12, 2004
Weinsteins and Disney Reach Deal on `Fahrenheit 911`
By REUTERS

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Miramax Films said on Wednesday it has reached a deal with Miramax`s owners, the Walt Disney Co., allowing it to find a new distributor for director Michael Moore`s controversial documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11," which Disney refused to distribute.

"We are very happy that Disney has agreed to sell `Fahrenheit 911` to Bob and Harvey," Miramax spokesman Matthew Hiltzik said in a statement, referring to Miramax co-chiefs Harvey and Bob Weinstein.

Under the agreement, the Weinstein brothers would acquire the rights to the film that chronicles America`s response to the Sept. 11 attacks and looks at links between the family of President Bush and prominent Saudis, including the family of Osama bin Laden.

Hiltzik said the Weinsteins are providing a "term sheet" to Disney based on a similar deal for a previous, controversial Miramax film "Dogma," and that the brothers "look forward to promptly completing this transaction."

The Weinsteins would then be free to find a new distributor to release the documentary into theaters, possibly as soon as July.

Disney, Miramax`s corporate parent, had previously refused to distribute the movie that Miramax had funded.

Disney`s decision, which it said it had made as long as one year ago, spurred headlines last week when Moore, the filmmaker behind 2002`s Oscar-winning "Bowling for Columbine," went public with it.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Joerver]

Controversial 9/11 documentary will open in theaters June 25
- Ruthe Stein, Chronicle Senior Movie Writer
Wednesday, June 2, 2004

Michael Moore`s controversial documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11`` will open in theaters June 25. The film, a stinging indictment of President Bush and his response to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, is being rushed into release to capitalize on its notoriety.

In a deal ironed out Tuesday, "Fahrenheit 9/11`` will be handled by three distributors: Lions Gate, IFC and the Fellowship Adventure Group, the latter a new company created by Harvey and Bob Weinstein. Last Friday, the brothers bought all rights to "Fahrenheit 9/11`` for a reported $6 million from the Walt Disney Co., which had forbidden them from distributing the documentary through their Miramax Films division, a Disney subsidiary.

Moore appeared ecstatic by the bevy of distributors for his film, which won the top prize at the Cannes Film Festival last month.

"Not only am I in good hands, I am grateful to them now that everyone who wants to see it will now have to chance to do so,`` he said in a statement Tuesday. "On behalf of my stellar cast -- GW, Dick, Rummy, Condi and Wolfie -- we thank this incredible coalition for bringing `Fahrenheit 9/11` to the people.``

Page A - 2
URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/06/02/M…

[bares@nobles]

Eine inhaltliche Frage des Moore Films sorgt zur Zeit für Aufregung bei seinen Kritikern.

Im Film wird anscheinend von Moore die Frage wieder aufgeworfen, wer in der Bush-Regierung die schnelle Ausreise der Bin Laden Familienmitglieder aus der USA kurz nach 9/11 veranlasst bzw. genehmigt hat.
Die Bande zwischen dem Bush Clan und dem Bin Laden Clan waren ja schon immer Ziel diverser Spekulationen.

Nun steht aber plötzlich eine Aussage von Clarke, dem vormaligen Anti-Terrorchef in der Bush-Regierung im Raum, dass er damals die Ausreise genehmigt hätte und Bush nicht involviert gewesen wäre.
Andererseits hat aber Clarke bei seiner Aussage vor der 9/11 Kommission ein paar Wochen vorher in dieser Frage keine klaren Angaben gemacht.
Alles in allem also noch immer eine Frage, die nicht vollends geklärt zu sein scheint, obwohl Bush, so wie es jetzt ausschaut, anscheinend nicht involviert war.

Die Moore Gegner, also das konservative Amerika, fordern nun den Film, der ja angeblich dokumentarisch sein soll, abzusetzen, weil diese Aussage nicht den Fakten entspricht. Oder der Film soll mit einem Vorspann versehen werden, der darauf hinweist, dass die Aussagen des Films nicht dokumentarisch oder was auch immer seien.
Schaun mer mal, was dabei rauskommt.

[ospower]

viel rauch um nichts,

wäre wohl der passendere titel für das machwerk.

taz:

Der Hauptpreis der Filmfestspiele geht an Michael Moore - für eine Mischung aus Propaganda, Verschwörungstheorie und Dokumentarfilm

... Jean-Luc Godard übernahm in Cannes die Rolle desjenigen, der darauf hinwies. Moore, so Godard während der Pressekonferenz zu seinem eigenen Film "Notre Musique", helfe Bush, anstatt ihm zu schaden. Die Methoden des Agitprop reichen eben nicht aus, um eine filmische Reflexion zu entfachen, erst recht nicht, wenn sie Agitpop werden. Einen Denkprozess regt dieses linke Infotainment nicht an. ... "

http://www.taz.de/pt/2004/05/24/a0185.nf/text

im übrigen hat er auch schon ein paar nette "fan"-seiten bekommen:



http://www.mooreexposed.com/

auch mal einen blick wert:

... What`s been lost on many people, along with the major media, (including The New York Times) during the "dialog" over the Disney/F911 flap are a couple of key facts:

Disney told Moore over a year ago- in early May 2003- that they would *not* distribute his film in the U.S..
Initially, Moore published one of his infamous "Mike`s Messages" to his website, in which he claimed Disney was attempting to censor him. He suggested they just recently told him that they wouldn`t be distributing the movie. In a mea culpa just a few days latter, he half-heartedly admitted that he didn`t tell the whole truth, but then lamely claimed that he thought Disney would never really follow through on their decision to not release his film because "they kept giving [him] money."
Despite Disney`s decision- which is not all that unordinary, considering they have the right to deny distribution to self-financed films they deem controversial, not to mention their recent shareholder troubles- the film currently has a worldwide distribution, along with a nearly completed deal for U.S. distribution thanks to Mirimax`s Weinstein brothers.
If you still believe a corporation should be forcibly punished for exercising its right not to distribute a freely produced piece of art, by all means sign the petition over at Democrats.com. But you may also want to consider boycotting the hundreds of other American film production and distribution studios who have not immediately chimed in or offered to distribute Fahrenheight 9/11.

Or, if you really believe that Moore`s work should be broadcast to as wide an audience as possible, urge him to Release the Movie.

http://www.moorelies.com/

und

http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com/

[Joerver]

ublished on Monday, June 14, 2004 by the Agence France Presse
US Film Board Rules `Fahrenheit 9/11` Unsuitable for Teens, Sparks Protest


NEW YORK - The United States film ratings board ruled that Michael Moore`s controversial "Fahrenheit 9/11" film cannot be viewed by people under 17 unless they are accompanied by an adult, sparking an immediate appeal from the distributors.

The explosive documentary, set to open in US cinemas on June 25, won the top prize at this year`s Cannes Film Festival, denounces the White House`s handling of its "war on terror" and the war on Iraq.

The Motion Picture Association of America said it had given the movie an "R" adult rating because it contained "violent and disturbing images" and strong language.

The film`s distributor, Lions Gate Films, responded late Sunday by filing an emergency appeal to have the rating reviewed.

Lions Gate chairman Tom Ortenberg said in a statement the ratings board`s decision was "completely unjustified".

"We are adamant about overturning this decision in an expeditious manner to ensure that as many people as possible ... are able to see one of the most important and thought-provoking films of our time," he said.

Moore, the director, noted in the statement that it was "very possible" that many teenagers who were now 15 and 16 would be "recruited to serve in Iraq in the next couple of years".

"If they are old enough to be recruited and capable of being in combat and risking their lives, they certainly deserve the right to see what is going on in Iraq," he said in the statement.

"Fahrenheit 9/11" alleges financial connections between the family of President George W. Bush, its associates and prominent Saudi families, including that of Osama bin Laden, who is blamed for the September 11 attacks.

It also explores the Bush administration`s role in evacuating bin Laden relatives from the US after the September 11 attacks.

In May Walt Disney Co., which had held the rights to "Fahrenheit 9/11", created a furore by banning its Miramax Films subsidiary from distributing the movie before the November 2 US presidential elections. Disney justified its decision by saying it was "a nonpartisan company".

Disney then ceded the rights to two of its studio executives, Bob and Harvey Weinstein, who have associated with Lions Gate Films and IFC Entertainment to distribute the film.

© Copyright 2004 Agence France Presse

[Joerver]

Was will Moore mehr als jeden Tag kostenlose Werbung von seinen Gegnern. Bin gespannt wie der Film laufen wird.
Das große Problem bei Moore ist, dass bei ihm schwer zu unterscheiden ist zwischen Satire und Fakten.
Ist hier im Board auch schon passiert mit Moores Artikel über die Juden und Deutschen in Florida.

Conservatives launch pre-emptive strike against documentary critical of Bush
`Fahrenheit 9/11` called propaganda
- Carla Marinucci, Chronicle Political Writer
Wednesday, June 16, 2004

Michael Moore`s controversial documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" is creating a political firestorm even before its official opening next week -- with a conservative grassroots organization announcing Tuesday the start of a campaign urging movie theaters to reject the film.

The California-based organization, called Move America Forward, is headed by former GOP Assemblyman Howard Kaloogian and aided by Melanie Morgan, a talk show host on KSFO 560 AM, both of whom had high-profile roles in support of last year`s recall election of former Democratic Gov. Gray Davis.

"It`s political propaganda," Kaloogian said Tuesday of the film, which he labeled anti-American.

Kaloogian said Moore has a right to his views, but "we also have a right to tell movie theater owners and the industry that this is not the fare that passes as entertainment -- let alone documentary.``

Moore`s film criticizes President Bush for his response to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

The announcement by Kaloogian`s group prompted a quick response from Lion`s Gate, one of the film`s distributors.

"It is unfortunate that people who don`t want to see this film are trying to interfere with the rights of people who may want to decide for themselves. Regardless of a person`s political perspective, we hope that everybody can agree that censorship is antithetical to the American way," Lion`s Gate said in a statement.

The movie is scheduled for nationwide release June 25.

Moore has hired Democratic strategists Chris Lehane and Mark Fabiani -- both former spokesmen in President Bill Clinton`s administration and based in California -- to handle what he anticipates will be attacks on the movie from Bush supporters.

Kaloogian`s group has hired veteran Republican political strategist Sal Russo to help its effort. Another conservative group, Citizens United, headed by David Bossie, also is reportedly planning to protest Moore`s film with a television commercial.

E-mail Carla Marinucci at [e-mail].

Page A - 2
URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/06/16/M…

[Joerver]

"Fahrenheit 9/11," und Micheal Moore und kein Ende. Jeden Tag große Artikel und auch Kommentare in den Tageszeitungen. Besonders nachdem eine rechte Gruppierung `Move America Forward` zum Boykott des Films aufgerufen haben und Kinos und deren Besitzer mit Drohanrufen und Mordaufrufen überzogen werden.
Hier ein Bericht aus der heutigen NYTimes.

June 20, 2004
Michael Moore Is Ready for His Close-Up
By PHILIP SHENON

HOLLYWOOD, Calif.

MICHAEL MOORE is not coy about his hopes for "Fahrenheit 9/11," his blistering documentary attack on President Bush and the war in Iraq. He wants it to be remembered as the first big-audience, election-year film that helped unseat a president.

"And it`s not just a hope," the Oscar-winning filmmaker said in a phone interview last week, describing focus groups in Michigan in April at which, after seeing the movie, previously undecided voters expressed eagerness to defeat Mr. Bush. "We found that if you entered the theater on the fence, you fell off it somewhere during those two hours," he said. "It ignites a fire in people who had given up."

The movie`s indictment of the president is nothing if not sprawling. Mr. Moore suggests that Mr. Bush and his administration jeopardized national security in an effort to placate Bush family cronies in Saudi Arabia, that the White House helped members of Mr. bin Laden`s family to flee the United States after Sept. 11 and that the administration manipulated terrorism alert levels in order to scare Americans into supporting the invasion of Iraq.

Mr. Moore`s previous films generated a cottage industry of conservative commentators eager to prove sloppiness and exaggeration in his films; a handful of mainstream critics have also found flaws. But if "Fahrenheit 9/11" attracts the audience Mr. Moore and his distributors are predicting, Mr. Moore may face an onslaught of fact-checking unlike anything he — or any other documentary filmmaker — has ever experienced. After all, White House officials and the Bush family began impugning the film even before any of them had seen it.

"Outrageously false," said Dan Bartlett, the White House communications director, last month when told about the film`s assertion of a sinister connection between Mr. Bush and the family of Osama bin Laden. The former president George H. W. Bush was quoted in The New York Daily News calling Mr. Moore a "slime ball" and describing the documentary as "a vicious personal attack on our son."

So how will Mr. Moore`s movie stand up under close examination? Is the film`s depiction of Mr. Bush as a lazy and duplicitous leader, blinded by his family`s financial ties to Arab moneymen and the Saudi Arabian royal family, true to fact?

Mr. Moore and his distributors have refused to circulate copies of the film and its script before the film`s release this Friday; his production team said that as of last Wednesday, there was no final script because the film was still undergoing minor editing — for clarity, they said, not accuracy.

After a year spent covering the federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, I was recently allowed to attend a Hollywood screening. Based on that single viewing, and after separating out what is clearly presented as Mr. Moore`s opinion from what is stated as fact, it seems safe to say that central assertions of fact in "Fahrenheit 9/11" are supported by the public record (indeed, many of them will be familiar to those who have closely followed Mr. Bush`s political career).

Mr. Moore is on firm ground in arguing that the Bushes, like many prominent Texas families with oil interests, have profited handsomely from their relationships with prominent Saudis, including members of the royal family and of the large and fabulously wealthy bin Laden clan, which has insisted it long ago disowned Osama. Mr. Moore spends several minutes in the film documenting ties between the president and James R. Bath, a financial advisor to a prominent member of the bin Laden family who was an original investor in Mr. Bush`s Arbusto energy company and who served with the future president in the Air National Guard in the early 1970`s. The Bath friendship, which indirectly links Mr. Bush to the family of the world`s most notorious terrorist, has received less attention from national news organization than it has from reporters in Texas, but it has been well documented.

Mr. Moore charges that President Bush and his aides paid too little attention to warnings in the summer of 2001 that Al Qaeda was about to attack, including a detailed Aug. 6, 2001, C.I.A. briefing that warned of terrorism within the country`s borders. In its final report next month, the Sept. 11 commission can be expected to offer support to this assertion. Mr. Moore says that instead of focusing on Al Qaeda, the president spent 42 percent of his first eight months in office on vacation; the figure came not from a conspiracy-hungry Web site but from a calculation by The Washington Post.

The most valid criticisms of the film are likely to involve the artful way that Mr. Moore connects the facts, and whether he has left out others that might undermine his scalding attack. A great many statistics fly by in the movie — such as assertions that 6 percent to 7 percent of the United States is owned by Saudi Arabians, and that Saudi companies have paid more than $1.4 billion to Bush family interests. But Mr. Moore doesn`t explain how he arrived at them, or what these vague interests comprise. Mr. Moore and his team say they have news reports and other evidence to back up the numbers and that it will be posted on his Web site (www.michaelmoore.com) after the film`s release.

Mr. Moore may also be criticized for the way he portrays the evacuation of the extended bin Laden family from the United States after Sept. 11. As the Sept. 11 commission has found, the Saudi government was able to pull strings at senior levels of the Bush administration to help the bin Ladens leave the United States. But while the film clearly suggests that the flights occurred at a time when all air traffic was grounded immediately after the attacks ("Even Ricky Martin couldn`t fly," Mr. Moore says over video of the singer wandering in an airport lobby), the Sept. 11 commission said in a report this April that there was "no credible evidence that any chartered flights of Saudi Arabian nationals departed the United States before the reopening of national airspace" and that the F.B.I. had concluded that no one aboard the flights was involved in Sept. 11.

In conversation, Mr. Moore defended the scene, saying his goal was to show how the White House was eager to bend and break the rules for Saudi friends — in this case, the extended family of the terrorist who had just brought down the twin towers and attacked the Pentagon. And as reporters have found, the White House still refuses to document fully how the flights were arranged.

"I don`t want to get lost in the forest because of a single tree," Mr. Moore said. "The main point I want people to go away with is that these people got special treatment because they were bin Ladens or Saudi royals, and you and I would never have been given that treatment."

Mr. Moore may also have to defend his portrayal of Mr. Bush`s presidency as sinking prior to Sept. 11, citing an inability to win support for his legislation. But he fails to mention that in May, Congress agreed to Mr. Bush`s $1.35 trillion tax cut, the centerpiece of his legislative agenda. Mr. Moore said that his review of news coverage before Sept. 11 shows that, with or without the tax cut, the Bush presidency was floundering before the terrorist attacks. Mr. Moore said, "I`ve read what other people wrote and said at the time, and he was definitely on the ropes."

MR. MOORE usually revels in his role as the target of conservative attacks, and his delight in playing the mischievous, little-guy bomb-thrower has brought him fame, wealth and the devotion of fans more interested in rhetorical force than precision. But with "Fahrenheit" he has taken on his biggest and best-defended target yet, and his production staff says that on his orders they have taken no chances in checking and double-checking the film, knowing Bush supporters would pounce on factual mistakes.

Mr. Moore is readying for a conservative counterattack, saying he has created a political-style "war room" to offer an instant response to any assault on the film`s credibility. He has retained Chris Lehane, a Democratic Party strategist known as a master of the black art of "oppo," or opposition research, used to discredit detractors. He also hired outside fact-checkers, led by a former general counsel of The New Yorker and a veteran member of that magazine`s legendary fact-checking team, to vet the film. And he is threatening to go one step further, saying he has consulted with lawyers who can bring defamation suits against anyone who maligns the film or damages his reputation.

"We want the word out," says Mr. Moore, who says he should have responded more quickly to allegations of inaccuracy in his Oscar-winning 2002 anti-gun documentary, "Bowling for Columbine." "Any attempts to libel me will be met by force," he said, not an ounce of humor in his familiar voice. "The most important thing we have is truth on our side. If they persist in telling lies, knowingly telling a lie with malice, then I`ll take them to court."

As proof of its scrupulousness, the Moore team cites adjustments it made to the film`s portrayal of Attorney General John Ashcroft. The film is brutal to Mr. Ashcroft, depicting him as a glassy-eyed architect of efforts to shred the Constitution, who became Attorney General only after he proved himself so unpopular in his home state of Missouri that he lost a Senate race to a former Democratic governor who died in a plane crash a month before election day. "Voters preferred the dead guy," Mr. Moore deadpans in the film, a line that drew belly laughs at recent preview screenings. (In reality, voters knew they were in effect casting ballots for the governor`s widow).

An earlier version of the film, however, included a reference to a widely circulated charge, broadcast by CBS News in July 2001, that Mr. Ashcroft had received warning of threats and stopped flying on commercial airlines. Tia Lessin, supervising producer of "Fahrenheit 9/11," said the reference to the CBS report was cut after Mr. Moore`s fact-checking team found evidence that Mr. Ashcroft had flown commercially at least twice that summer.

"We have gone through every single word of this film — literally every word — and verified its accuracy," said Joanne Doroshow, a public interest lawyer and filmmaker who shared in a 1993 Oscar for documentaries and who joined the fact-checking effort last month. Ms. Doroshow is responsible for preparing what she calls a "fact-checking bible," with material ranging from newspaper and magazine articles to copies of the Federal Register, that will allow the film`s lawyers and publicists to provide backup for its allegations.

That said, Mr. Moore`s fact-checkers does not view the film as straight reportage. "This is an Op-Ed piece, it`s not a news report," said Dev Chatillon, the former general counsel for The New Yorker. "This is not The New York Times, it`s not a network news report. The facts have to be right, yes, but this is an individual`s view of current events. And I`m a very firm believer that it is within everybody`s right to examine the actions of their government."

Besides, it may turn out that the most talked-about moments in the film are the least impeachable. Mr. Moore makes extensive use of obscure footage from White House and network-news video archives, including long scenes that capture President Bush at his least articulate. For the White House, the most devastating segment of "Fahrenheit 9/11" may be the video of a befuddled-looking President Bush staying put for nearly seven minutes at a Florida elementary school on the morning of Sept. 11, continuing to read a copy of "My Pet Goat" to schoolchildren even after an aide has told him that a second plane has struck the twin towers. Mr. Bush`s slow, hesitant reaction to the disastrous news has never been a secret. But seeing the actual footage, with the minutes ticking by, may prove more damaging to the White House than all the statistics in the world.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[Albatossa]

Auch Michael Moore geht es hier nur um schnöder Mammon!

[Joerver]

Ein sehr geldgieriger Typ scheint Moore nicht zu sein, wenn er das Interview mit Berg nicht verkauft hat oder in seinen Film eingearbeitet.
So viel ich gelesen habe, geht auch der Überschuß aus Fahrenheit 9/11 an einen guten Zweck.

Berg interviewed for Michael Moore film

http://us.cnn.com/2004/US/Northeast/05/29/moore.berg.ap

David Berg said Moore handled the situation with "dignity, respect and discipline."

"Michael Moore has really been a total class act with this whole thing," David Berg said. "He could have sold this to the media or stuck it in his movie."

Sara Berg said she saw the video footage as a "gift."

[Joerver]

[Table align=left]

[/TABLE]
Michael Moore terrorizes the Bushies!
The right wing is going all out to stop "Fahrenheit 9/11" -- but it`s not working.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By John Gorenfeld

June 23, 2004 | They`re back! OK, the "vast right-wing conspiracy" Hillary Clinton warned about never really went away. But they`ve found new purpose in the campaign to stop the distribution of "Fahrenheit 9/11," Michael Moore`s latest documentary. And just as the energetic conservative elves succeeded in making Bill Clinton ever more popular with the American public, so do they seem to be driving up public interest in Moore`s film, which is expected to have the biggest opening for a documentary film ever, in a scheduled 888 theaters.

The convergence between the anti-Clinton and anti-Moore movements is personified by the tireless David Bossie, whose Citizens United made headlines savaging the president in the late 1990s. It`s been a big week for Bossie and Citizens United. First they were busy producing anti-Clinton ads to run during the former president`s star turn Sunday night on "60 Minutes," while Bossie was scurrying to cable studios to denounce the memoir "My Life" and promote his new book, "Intelligence Failure: How Clinton`s National Security Policy Set the Stage for 9/11." Then Bossie scheduled a Wednesday press event in front of the Federal Election Commission, where he will demand that the commission take some sort of unspecified action to regulate the screening of "Fahrenheit 9/11" -- presumably because of the anti-Bush documentary`s power to influence the coming presidential election. "Documents will be hand delivered to several government agencies immediately following the media briefing," the group`s press release soberly states.

Anyone still wondering whether "Fahrenheit 9/11" has the far right squirming about the documentary`s possible effect on the November presidential election?

Over the past week, attacks on the film reached fever pitch. They involved right-wing-conspiracy veterans like Bossie, but also some relative newcomers. So far the campaign doesn`t seem to have hurt Moore. The real question is whether "Fahrenheit 911" can be anywhere as entertaining as the sometimes surreal campaign to derail it.

The Moore bashers include former California assemblyman Howard Kaloogian, whose Move America Forward launched a letter-writing campaign last week against a select number of theaters that planned to show "Fahrenheit." Kaloogian was part of a cabal that takes credit for recalling Gov. Gray Davis. Now they`ve set their sights on Moore.

"We`ve sent out probably well over 200,000 e-mails," says Melanie Morgan, a talk radio host, of the MAF campaign. With no small dose of glee, Morgan says of the cinemas targeted by MAF`s letter-writing campaign: "We`ve been causing them an enormous amount of aggravation."

Such aggravation is hard to measure. No theaters have canceled showings of "Fahrenheit" at this point. And the MAF group doesn`t seem to have had the most useful intelligence in its campaign. A lowly theater payroll employee inexplicably listed on MAF`s e-mail list of "leading movie executives" is confused about how he became a central front in the War on Moore (he did not wish to be identified). As he sat in his office Friday, messages pinged into his in box. Dryly, he read aloud his favorites: "`I will never see a movie again` ... `I will not support a business that aids a piece of crap sub-human like Moore in spreading his anti-american bullshit ...`"

More important, though, after the grass-roots political group MoveOn launched a counteroffensive, letters of support for the film`s release began outpacing negative letters (according to an unscientific survey of five theater owners) at roughly 3-to-1. Jennifer Caleshu of the Little Theatre, in Rochester, N.Y., says she`s received on the order of 3,000 e-mails. For every letter accusing her of soothing terrorists by showing the film, she says, seven are encouraging. Caleshu says that to every negative e-mail she`s received she replies by quoting the First Amendment. "I`ve gotten some real personal hate mail back about that," she says.

MAF vice-chair Morgan blames the deep pockets and international tentacles of financier George Soros for backing MoveOn to support the movie. (The group says it has secured pledges from 109,000 people to see the movie when it opens.) But MAF itself has been dogged by reporting on its ties to conservative power brokers. An investigation by the Web site Whatreallyhappened.com, which snooped around MAF`s domain registration info, revealed that it is no ordinary citizen`s movement.

The webmasters were careless enough to leave the contact information for the Sacramento public relations firm Russo, Marsh and Rogers. That gave away the fact that the supposedly grass-roots Web site was the creation of one Douglas Lorenz. A Russo employee, Lorenz was the information-technology guy for Bill Simon, the candidate too conservative to beat ultra-unpopular then-Gov. Gray Davis in 2000. He`s listed on the DefendReagan.org Web site (which rallied the fight against CBS`s Reagan movie last year) as the "grassroots coordinator," apparently foreshadowing his role in creating the faux-grass-roots Move America Forward Web site. "Doug has been very active in developing volunteer political organizations," his bio says, "and utilizing advanced technologies to extend their reach." (Lorenz did not reply to Salon`s request for an interview.) The P.R. firm`s namesake, Sal Russo, was chief strategist of the Recall Gray Davis committee, and the firm itself has Republican ties that run far and deep.

For Kaloogian (who did not return calls from Salon for this story) the failure of Move America Forward represents a reversal. Seven months ago, Kaloogian spearheaded a nationwide campaign to have CBS`s movie "The Reagans" yanked, calling for advertiser and audience boycotts. The movie was eventually ghettoized on the network`s sister channel, Showtime (though CBS executives insisted, unconvincingly, they were unaffected by boycott threats). But other Kaloogian stunts have fizzled. His threatened recall of California`s moderate attorney general over gay marriage went nowhere, and an accusation that Asian-American state assemblymen were violating their oaths of office for supporting Wen Ho Lee, the Los Alamos scientist falsely accused of being a spy, was widely dismissed. ("He`s a mosquito on an elephant`s back," says longtime California Democratic Party strategist Bob Mulholland of Kaloogian.)

It now seems that MAF is doing little more than providing free publicity for "Fahrenheit 9/11," whose tag line now smirks, "Controversy? What controversy?" But there have been a few bad breaks this week for "Fahrenheit." Moore wanted a PG-13 rating for the movie; the Motion Picture Association of America claims that certain "bad words" require it receive an R-rating. For one thing the word "motherfucker" is used more than once in the film, in the context of troops quoting the Bloodhound Gang radio single "The Roof Is on Fire." On Monday, writing on behalf of backers IFC Films and Bob and Harvey Weinstein`s Fellowship Adventure Group, former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo released a letter questioning the MPAA`s reasoning. Asked Cuomo: "[Why] should the film not be rated a PG-13 as was `The Lord of the Rings,` a film that is saturated with slaughter, butchery and corpses -- human and extraterrestrial?" On Tuesday, the MPAA denied the appeal.

Then this week Newsweek published a report by reporter Michael Isikoff that accuses Moore, and author Craig Unger (author of "House of Bush, House of Saud," which was excerpted in Salon), of something close to "fanaticism" in a portion of the movie discussing how Osama bin Laden`s family members were mysteriously spirited out of the country in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. Unger, writes Isikoff, "appears, claiming that bin Laden family members were never interviewed by the FBI. Not true, according to a recent report from the 9/11 panel," and the Newsweek author points out that the FBI found "[n]one had any links to terrorism."

But Unger says the article missed the point. "As I made clear to Isikoff on the phone, and should be clear in the movie, and is clear in my book," Unger says, "what did not take place was a serious criminal investigation into the murder of 3,000 people ... if you have a criminal investigation, you talk to innocent people." And there`s no evidence, he says, that the FBI checked its own terror watch list before letting the bin Ladens depart.

Still, the film`s opponents haven`t given up. Most recently the MAF is promoting a report reprinted in the Guardian that the Lebanon-based militant group Hezbollah has endorsed "Fahrenheit." Gianluca Chacra, the managing director of Front Row Entertainment, the movie`s distributor in the United Arab Emirates, confirms that Lebanese student members of Hezbollah "have asked us if there`s any way they could support the film." While Hezbollah is considered a legitimate political party in many parts of the world, the U.S. State Department classifies the group as a terrorist organization. Chacra was unfazed, even excited, about their offer. "Having the support of such an entity in Lebanon is quite significant for that market and not at all controversial. I think it`s quite natural." (Lion`s Gate did not return calls asking for comment.) Adam Rubin, a spokesman for MoveOn, calls it "an utterly ridiculous distraction from the actual substance of the film."

Of course, you can always find an unpopular leader in the Middle East to fuel buzz about a movie someone doesn`t want you to see. After all, Yasser Arafat loved Mel Gibson`s "The Passion of the Christ," which was so popular with right-wing Arafat haters and so unpopular among many Jews (Arafat`s blurb-ready review of Gibson`s movie: "Moving"). In the end, Moore`s movie will be judged by how many Americans turn out to see his film. And after the attacks and counterattacks of the last week, that number only grew.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

About the writer
John Gorenfeld is a freelance writer in San Francisco

[spicault]

Michael Moore Admits Disney `Ban` Was A Stunt
by News Wire (May 7, 2004)

[CapMag.com]

From the New Zealand Herald:
Less than 24 hours after accusing the Walt Disney Company of pulling the plug on his latest documentary in a blatant attempt at political censorship, the rabble-rousing film-maker Michael Moore has admitted he knew a year ago that Disney had no intention of distributing it. The admission, during an interview with CNN, undermined Moore`s claim that Disney was trying to sabotage the US release of Fahrenheit 911...and lent credence to a growing suspicion that Moore was manufacturing a controversy to help publicize the film, a full-bore attack on the Bush administration...

In an indignant letter to his supporters, Moore said he had learnt only on Monday that Disney had put the kibosh on distributing the film, which has been financed by the semi-independent Disney subsidiary Miramax.

But in the CNN interview he said: "Almost a year ago, after we`d started making the film, the chairman of Disney, Michael Eisner, told my agent he was upset Miramax had made the film and he will not distribute it."

Did they recently pull the plug---one year ago? Perhaps Kerry is Moore`s script writer.

...A front-page news piece in The New York Times was followed yesterday by an editorial denouncing Disney for censorship and denial of Moore`s right to free expression.

Moore told CNN that Disney had "signed a contract to distribute this [film]" but got cold feet. But Disney executives insists there was never any contract. And a source close to Miramax said that the only deal there was for financing, not for distribution.

You have a contract Mr. Moore? Well show us the contract.




Cartoon by Cox and Forkum

Legally, only the government can censor someone in the anti-freedom sense of the term. Censorship is when someone initiates force to physically prevent you from expressing your views, such as when Moore`s hero Fidel Castro imprisons and tortures pro-democracy protestors in Cuba, or when the U.S. government`s fines Howard Stern for making comments they do not like, or when a "peace protestor" in Berkeley shouts down a pro-Bush speaker to prevent him from expressing his views.

Disney`s refusal to promote the Time`s pet monkey is not censorship--it is their inalienable right--just as it is the right of the New York Times--the so-called "champions of free expression" (if you expressing the views of the Far Left) --to refuse to publish my comments. (In their latest round of published letters all of the letters were pro-Moore.)

Disney actions are not a sign of "cowardice" but a sign of courage by standing up to the Far Left who seeks to destroy the difference between true censorship--committed by the government, violent student rebels, and the Mafia--and the right of a company to decide how it spends its own money. The only one guilty of "craven behavior" is the New York Times for perpetuating and encouraging Moore`s farce.

[spicault]

Michael Moore, Smear Specialist
by L. Brent Bozell III
May 6, 2004

It was awarded the status of top news, the front page of the New York Times. Disney was telling its Miramax subsidiary that it could not distribute radical, Bush-loathing Michael Moore’s new "mockumentary," titled "Fahrenheit 9-11." This report, like virtually all the news accounts surrounding Moore’s upcoming film, seem to glide right around Moore’s very obvious hatred of conservatives and his very checkered history of cinematic fact-mangling.


The first act of fact-mangling on this film may be this story of Disney censorship. In paragraph six of the Times story, we were given a Disney spokesman declaring they "advised both the agent and Miramax in May of 2003 that the film would not be distributed by Miramax."


Stop right there. May of 2003? This was not news to Michael Moore. This was not a story for page one...or page 30. It’s simply not "news," period. How to make it news? It appears the scoop was that Moore flack Ari Emanuel claimed he had a conversation with Disney chairman Michael Eisner, who said he feared all the Bush-bashing might endanger the company’s tax breaks in Florida, since the state is led by Gov. Jed Bush.


Big news, right? Except Disney denies Eisner said this. Gov. Bush’s office proclaimed the conspiracy theory "ludicrous." And Moore has a history of nutty accusations. So why on Earth is the Times tooting Moore’s horn?


The timing and theme of this story reek of Cheap Promotionalism. Why does this publicity debut match the eve of the film’s debut at the Cannes Film Festival, where the European pseudo-sophisticates will no doubt laud all the butchered Bush-bashing? The title of Moore’s film invites immediate comparison to "Fahrenheit 451," the 1953 Ray Bradbury science-fiction tale of firemen who don’t fight fires, but start fires, burning books. The endlessly self-impressed Moore is no doubt suggesting that courageous leftist men of ideas are being censored by the ignorant and malignant post-9/11 trauma-exploiting Dubya Dynasty. Moore needs this movie to be censored somehow, or else his tale of American oppression is empty. Some concocted conspiracy of censorship is now part of its marketing plan.


Is this Moore mudbath really in danger of not hitting theaters? Think again. In 1995, Miramax prepared to distribute Larry Clark’s unrated, unpretty teen sex film "Kids," but Disney would not release an unrated film. So the Miramax brass released it through a separate company, Shining Excalibur Films. There’s nothing stopping them from doing it again, and they will.


The other obvious fact-mangling involves the allegation that somehow, the Bush Dynasty secretly loves the Saudi Dynasty, which spawned the 9-11 terrorists. Moore laid his conspiracy theory out on HBO to Bob Costas a year ago. In Moore’s fever swamp, the Bush team knows that Osama bin Laden is hiding out in Saudi Arabia, and they’re hiding him so they can exploit the terror trauma. "He’s back living with his sponsors, his benefactors...I think the United States, I think our government knows where he is and I don’t think we’re going to be capturing him or killing him any time soon." Cue the "Twilight Zone" music. We’re off to Cuckoo-land.


The film reportedly contains an interview with author Craig Unger, who has a new book out on the supposedly ironclad relationship between the "House of Bush" and the House of Saud. But Unger’s history of anti-Bush bunk goes back to the first Bush presidency, when he wrote a long "investigative" piece for Esquire magazine claiming that only an idiot couldn’t see the "October Surprise" conspiracy.


Remember that fairy tale, about how the treasonous Reagan-Bush campaign in 1980 nefariously plotted to delay the release of the American hostages in Iran so that Ronald Reagan could be elected president? Even the liberal Columbia Journalism Review blasted Unger’s politicized sloppiness, suggesting they would give his work a C-minus for slim evidence. But that only makes him a perfect foil for Michael Moore, the master of fictional "nonfiction" documentaries.


Politically, the worst thing about this is that the media elite can’t seem to call Michael Moore even a "liberal," let alone a radical nutcase. (Here’s a guy fired from Mother Jones magazine for being too far left! In addition to being personally unbearable, he refused to run an article that criticized the Sandinista communists then oppressing Nicaragua.) But reporters have actually allowed Moore to claim that his upcoming film, designed for a fall release, is not partisan. Moore is so full of beans that he even claimed "This is not an anti-Bush diatribe."


If you buy that, buy a ticket to the film. And remember: Bush is hiding Osama. Pass it on.

[spicault]

Unfairenheit 9/11
The lies of Michael Moore.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, June 21, 2004, at 12:26 PM PT

One of the many problems with the American left, and indeed of the American left, has been its image and self-image as something rather too solemn, mirthless, herbivorous, dull, monochrome, righteous, and boring. How many times, in my old days at The Nation magazine, did I hear wistful and semienvious ruminations? Where was the radical Firing Line show? Who will be our Rush Limbaugh? I used privately to hope that the emphasis, if the comrades ever got around to it, would be on the first of those and not the second. But the meetings themselves were so mind-numbing and lugubrious that I thought the danger of success on either front was infinitely slight.

Nonetheless, it seems that an answer to this long-felt need is finally beginning to emerge. I exempt Al Franken’s unintentionally funny Air America network, to which I gave a couple of interviews in its early days. There, one could hear the reassuring noise of collapsing scenery and tripped-over wires and be reminded once again that correct politics and smooth media presentation are not even distant cousins. With Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11, however, an entirely new note has been struck. Here we glimpse a possible fusion between the turgid routines of MoveOn.org and the filmic standards, if not exactly the filmic skills, of Sergei Eisenstein or Leni Riefenstahl.

To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of “dissenting” bravery.

In late 2002, almost a year after the al-Qaida assault on American society, I had an onstage debate with Michael Moore at the Telluride Film Festival. In the course of this exchange, he stated his view that Osama Bin Laden should be considered innocent until proven guilty. This was, he said, the American way. The intervention in Afghanistan, he maintained, had been at least to that extent unjustified. Something—I cannot guess what, since we knew as much then as we do now—has since apparently persuaded Moore that Osama Bin Laden is as guilty as hell. Indeed, Osama is suddenly so guilty and so all-powerful that any other discussion of any other topic is a dangerous “distraction” from the fight against him. I believe that I understand the convenience of this late conversion.

Fahrenheit 9/11 makes the following points about Bin Laden and about Afghanistan, and makes them in this order:

1) The Bin Laden family (if not exactly Osama himself) had a close if convoluted business relationship with the Bush family, through the Carlyle Group.

2) Saudi capital in general is a very large element of foreign investment in the United States.

3) The Unocal company in Texas had been willing to discuss a gas pipeline across Afghanistan with the Taliban, as had other vested interests.

4) The Bush administration sent far too few ground troops to Afghanistan and thus allowed far too many Taliban and al-Qaida members to escape.

5) The Afghan government, in supporting the coalition in Iraq, was purely risible in that its non-army was purely American.

6) The American lives lost in Afghanistan have been wasted. (This I divine from the fact that this supposedly “antiwar” film is dedicated ruefully to all those killed there, as well as in Iraq.)

It must be evident to anyone, despite the rapid-fire way in which Moore’s direction eases the audience hastily past the contradictions, that these discrepant scatter shots do not cohere at any point. Either the Saudis run U.S. policy (through family ties or overwhelming economic interest), or they do not. As allies and patrons of the Taliban regime, they either opposed Bush’s removal of it, or they did not. (They opposed the removal, all right: They wouldn’t even let Tony Blair land his own plane on their soil at the time of the operation.) Either we sent too many troops, or were wrong to send any at all—the latter was Moore’s view as late as 2002—or we sent too few. If we were going to make sure no Taliban or al-Qaida forces survived or escaped, we would have had to be more ruthless than I suspect that Mr. Moore is really recommending. And these are simply observations on what is “in” the film. If we turn to the facts that are deliberately left out, we discover that there is an emerging Afghan army, that the country is now a joint NATO responsibility and thus under the protection of the broadest military alliance in history, that it has a new constitution and is preparing against hellish odds to hold a general election, and that at least a million and a half of its former refugees have opted to return. I don’t think a pipeline is being constructed yet, not that Afghanistan couldn’t do with a pipeline. But a highway from Kabul to Kandahar—an insurance against warlordism and a condition of nation-building—is nearing completion with infinite labor and risk. We also discover that the parties of the Afghan secular left—like the parties of the Iraqi secular left—are strongly in favor of the regime change. But this is not the sort of irony in which Moore chooses to deal.

He prefers leaden sarcasm to irony and, indeed, may not appreciate the distinction. In a long and paranoid (and tedious) section at the opening of the film, he makes heavy innuendoes about the flights that took members of the Bin Laden family out of the country after Sept. 11. I banged on about this myself at the time and wrote a Nation column drawing attention to the groveling Larry King interview with the insufferable Prince Bandar, which Moore excerpts. However, recent developments have not been kind to our Mike. In the interval between Moore’s triumph at Cannes and the release of the film in the United States, the 9/11 commission has found nothing to complain of in the timing or arrangement of the flights. And Richard Clarke, Bush’s former chief of counterterrorism, has come forward to say that he, and he alone, took the responsibility for authorizing those Saudi departures. This might not matter so much to the ethos of Fahrenheit 9/11, except that—as you might expect—Clarke is presented throughout as the brow-furrowed ethical hero of the entire post-9/11 moment. And it does not seem very likely that, in his open admission about the Bin Laden family evacuation, Clarke is taking a fall, or a spear in the chest, for the Bush administration. So, that’s another bust for this windy and bloated cinematic “key to all mythologies.”

A film that bases itself on a big lie and a big misrepresentation can only sustain itself by a dizzying succession of smaller falsehoods, beefed up by wilder and (if possible) yet more-contradictory claims. President Bush is accused of taking too many lazy vacations. (What is that about, by the way? Isn’t he supposed to be an unceasing planner for future aggressive wars?) But the shot of him “relaxing at Camp David” shows him side by side with Tony Blair. I say “shows,” even though this photograph is on-screen so briefly that if you sneeze or blink, you won’t recognize the other figure. A meeting with the prime minister of the United Kingdom, or at least with this prime minister, is not a goof-off.

The president is also captured in a well-worn TV news clip, on a golf course, making a boilerplate response to a question on terrorism and then asking the reporters to watch his drive. Well, that’s what you get if you catch the president on a golf course. If Eisenhower had done this, as he often did, it would have been presented as calm statesmanship. If Clinton had done it, as he often did, it would have shown his charm. More interesting is the moment where Bush is shown frozen on his chair at the infant school in Florida, looking stunned and useless for seven whole minutes after the news of the second plane on 9/11. Many are those who say that he should have leaped from his stool, adopted a Russell Crowe stance, and gone to work. I could even wish that myself. But if he had done any such thing then (as he did with his “Let’s roll” and “dead or alive” remarks a month later), half the Michael Moore community would now be calling him a man who went to war on a hectic, crazed impulse. The other half would be saying what they already say—that he knew the attack was coming, was using it to cement himself in power, and couldn’t wait to get on with his coup. This is the line taken by Gore Vidal and by a scandalous recent book that also revives the charge of FDR’s collusion over Pearl Harbor. At least Moore’s film should put the shameful purveyors of that last theory back in their paranoid box.

But it won’t because it encourages their half-baked fantasies in so many other ways. We are introduced to Iraq, “a sovereign nation.” (In fact, Iraq’s “sovereignty” was heavily qualified by international sanctions, however questionable, which reflected its noncompliance with important U.N. resolutions.) In this peaceable kingdom, according to Moore’s flabbergasting choice of film shots, children are flying little kites, shoppers are smiling in the sunshine, and the gentle rhythms of life are undisturbed. Then—wham! From the night sky come the terror weapons of American imperialism. Watching the clips Moore uses, and recalling them well, I can recognize various Saddam palaces and military and police centers getting the treatment. But these sites are not identified as such. In fact, I don’t think Al Jazeera would, on a bad day, have transmitted anything so utterly propagandistic. You would also be led to think that the term “civilian casualty” had not even been in the Iraqi vocabulary until March 2003. I remember asking Moore at Telluride if he was or was not a pacifist. He would not give a straight answer then, and he doesn’t now, either. I’ll just say that the “insurgent” side is presented in this film as justifiably outraged, whereas the 30-year record of Baathist war crimes and repression and aggression is not mentioned once. (Actually, that’s not quite right. It is briefly mentioned but only, and smarmily, because of the bad period when Washington preferred Saddam to the likewise unmentioned Ayatollah Khomeini.)

That this—his pro-American moment—was the worst Moore could possibly say of Saddam’s depravity is further suggested by some astonishing falsifications. Moore asserts that Iraq under Saddam had never attacked or killed or even threatened (his words) any American. I never quite know whether Moore is as ignorant as he looks, or even if that would be humanly possible. Baghdad was for years the official, undisguised home address of Abu Nidal, then the most-wanted gangster in the world, who had been sentenced to death even by the PLO and had blown up airports in Munich and Rome. Baghdad was the safe house for the man whose “operation” murdered Leon Klinghoffer. Saddam boasted publicly of his financial sponsorship of suicide bombers in Israel. (Quite a few Americans of all denominations walk the streets of Jerusalem.) In 1991, a large number of Western hostages were taken by the hideous Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and held in terrible conditions for a long time. After that same invasion was repelled—Saddam having killed quite a few Americans and Egyptians and Syrians and Brits in the meantime and having threatened to kill many more—the Iraqi secret police were caught trying to murder former President Bush during his visit to Kuwait. Never mind whether his son should take that personally. (Though why should he not?) Should you and I not resent any foreign dictatorship that attempts to kill one of our retired chief executives? (President Clinton certainly took it that way: He ordered the destruction by cruise missiles of the Baathist “security” headquarters.) Iraqi forces fired, every day, for 10 years, on the aircraft that patrolled the no-fly zones and staved off further genocide in the north and south of the country. In 1993, a certain Mr. Yasin helped mix the chemicals for the bomb at the World Trade Center and then skipped to Iraq, where he remained a guest of the state until the overthrow of Saddam. In 2001, Saddam’s regime was the only one in the region that openly celebrated the attacks on New York and Washington and described them as just the beginning of a larger revenge. Its official media regularly spewed out a stream of anti-Semitic incitement. I think one might describe that as “threatening,” even if one was narrow enough to think that anti-Semitism only menaces Jews. And it was after, and not before, the 9/11 attacks that Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi moved from Afghanistan to Baghdad and began to plan his now very open and lethal design for a holy and ethnic civil war. On Dec. 1, 2003, the New York Times reported—and the David Kay report had established—that Saddam had been secretly negotiating with the “Dear Leader” Kim Jong-il in a series of secret meetings in Syria, as late as the spring of 2003, to buy a North Korean missile system, and missile-production system, right off the shelf. (This attempt was not uncovered until after the fall of Baghdad, the coalition’s presence having meanwhile put an end to the negotiations.)

Thus, in spite of the film’s loaded bias against the work of the mind, you can grasp even while watching it that Michael Moore has just said, in so many words, the one thing that no reflective or informed person can possibly believe: that Saddam Hussein was no problem. No problem at all. Now look again at the facts I have cited above. If these things had been allowed to happen under any other administration, you can be sure that Moore and others would now glibly be accusing the president of ignoring, or of having ignored, some fairly unmistakable “warnings.”

The same “let’s have it both ways” opportunism infects his treatment of another very serious subject, namely domestic counterterrorist policy. From being accused of overlooking too many warnings—not exactly an original point—the administration is now lavishly taunted for issuing too many. (Would there not have been “fear” if the harbingers of 9/11 had been taken seriously?) We are shown some American civilians who have had absurd encounters with idiotic “security” staff. (Have you ever met anyone who can’t tell such a story?) Then we are immediately shown underfunded police departments that don’t have the means or the manpower to do any stop-and-search: a power suddenly demanded by Moore on their behalf that we know by definition would at least lead to some ridiculous interrogations. Finally, Moore complains that there isn’t enough intrusion and confiscation at airports and says that it is appalling that every air traveler is not forcibly relieved of all matches and lighters. (Cue mood music for sinister influence of Big Tobacco.) So—he wants even more pocket-rummaging by airport officials? Uh, no, not exactly. But by this stage, who’s counting? Moore is having it three ways and asserting everything and nothing. Again—simply not serious.

Circling back to where we began, why did Moore’s evil Saudis not join “the Coalition of the Willing”? Why instead did they force the United States to switch its regional military headquarters to Qatar? If the Bush family and the al-Saud dynasty live in each other’s pockets, as is alleged in a sort of vulgar sub-Brechtian scene with Arab headdresses replacing top hats, then how come the most reactionary regime in the region has been powerless to stop Bush from demolishing its clone in Kabul and its buffer regime in Baghdad? The Saudis hate, as they did in 1991, the idea that Iraq’s recuperated oil industry might challenge their near-monopoly. They fear the liberation of the Shiite Muslims they so despise. To make these elementary points is to collapse the whole pathetic edifice of the film’s “theory.” Perhaps Moore prefers the pro-Saudi Kissinger/Scowcroft plan for the Middle East, where stability trumps every other consideration and where one dare not upset the local house of cards, or killing-field of Kurds? This would be a strange position for a purported radical. Then again, perhaps he does not take this conservative line because his real pitch is not to any audience member with a serious interest in foreign policy. It is to the provincial isolationist.

I have already said that Moore’s film has the staunch courage to mock Bush for his verbal infelicity. Yet it’s much, much braver than that. From Fahrenheit 9/11 you can glean even more astounding and hidden disclosures, such as the capitalist nature of American society, the existence of Eisenhower’s “military-industrial complex,” and the use of “spin” in the presentation of our politicians. It’s high time someone had the nerve to point this out. There’s more. Poor people often volunteer to join the army, and some of them are duskier than others. Betcha didn’t know that. Back in Flint, Mich., Moore feels on safe ground. There are no martyred rabbits this time. Instead, it’s the poor and black who shoulder the packs and rifles and march away. I won’t dwell on the fact that black Americans have fought for almost a century and a half, from insisting on their right to join the U.S. Army and fight in the Civil War to the right to have a desegregated Army that set the pace for post-1945 civil rights. I’ll merely ask this: In the film, Moore says loudly and repeatedly that not enough troops were sent to garrison Afghanistan and Iraq. (This is now a favorite cleverness of those who were, in the first place, against sending any soldiers at all.) Well, where does he think those needful heroes and heroines would have come from? Does he favor a draft—the most statist and oppressive solution? Does he think that only hapless and gullible proles sign up for the Marines? Does he think—as he seems to suggest—that parents can “send” their children, as he stupidly asks elected members of Congress to do? Would he have abandoned Gettysburg because the Union allowed civilians to pay proxies to serve in their place? Would he have supported the antidraft (and very antiblack) riots against Lincoln in New York? After a point, one realizes that it’s a waste of time asking him questions of this sort. It would be too much like taking him seriously. He’ll just try anything once and see if it floats or flies or gets a cheer.

Indeed, Moore’s affected and ostentatious concern for black America is one of the most suspect ingredients of his pitch package. In a recent interview, he yelled that if the hijacked civilians of 9/11 had been black, they would have fought back, unlike the stupid and presumably cowardly white men and women (and children). Never mind for now how many black passengers were on those planes—we happen to know what Moore does not care to mention: that Todd Beamer and a few of his co-passengers, shouting “Let’s roll,” rammed the hijackers with a trolley, fought them tooth and nail, and helped bring down a United Airlines plane, in Pennsylvania, that was speeding toward either the White House or the Capitol. There are no words for real, impromptu bravery like that, which helped save our republic from worse than actually befell. The Pennsylvania drama also reminds one of the self-evident fact that this war is not fought only “overseas” or in uniform, but is being brought to our cities. Yet Moore is a silly and shady man who does not recognize courage of any sort even when he sees it because he cannot summon it in himself. To him, easy applause, in front of credulous audiences, is everything.

Moore has announced that he won’t even appear on TV shows where he might face hostile questioning. I notice from the New York Times of June 20 that he has pompously established a rapid response team, and a fact-checking staff, and some tough lawyers, to bulwark himself against attack. He’ll sue, Moore says, if anyone insults him or his pet. Some right-wing hack groups, I gather, are planning to bring pressure on their local movie theaters to drop the film. How dumb or thuggish do you have to be in order to counter one form of stupidity and cowardice with another? By all means go and see this terrible film, and take your friends, and if the fools in the audience strike up one cry, in favor of surrender or defeat, feel free to join in the conversation.

However, I think we can agree that the film is so flat-out phony that “fact-checking” is beside the point. And as for the scary lawyers—get a life, or maybe see me in court. But I offer this, to Moore and to his rapid response rabble. Any time, Michael my boy. Let’s redo Telluride. Any show. Any place. Any platform. Let’s see what you’re made of.

Some people soothingly say that one should relax about all this. It’s only a movie. No biggie. It’s no worse than the tomfoolery of Oliver Stone. It’s kick-ass entertainment. It might even help get out “the youth vote.” Yeah, well, I have myself written and presented about a dozen low-budget made-for-TV documentaries, on subjects as various as Mother Teresa and Bill Clinton and the Cyprus crisis, and I also helped produce a slightly more polished one on Henry Kissinger that was shown in movie theaters. So I know, thanks, before you tell me, that a documentary must have a “POV” or point of view and that it must also impose a narrative line. But if you leave out absolutely everything that might give your “narrative” a problem and throw in any old rubbish that might support it, and you don’t even care that one bit of that rubbish flatly contradicts the next bit, and you give no chance to those who might differ, then you have betrayed your craft. If you flatter and fawn upon your potential audience, I might add, you are patronizing them and insulting them. By the same token, if I write an article and I quote somebody and for space reasons put in an ellipsis like this (… ), I swear on my children that I am not leaving out anything that, if quoted in full, would alter the original meaning or its significance. Those who violate this pact with readers or viewers are to be despised. At no point does Michael Moore make the smallest effort to be objective. At no moment does he pass up the chance of a cheap sneer or a jeer. He pitilessly focuses his camera, for minutes after he should have turned it off, on a distraught and bereaved mother whose grief we have already shared. (But then, this is the guy who thought it so clever and amusing to catch Charlton Heston, in Bowling for Columbine, at the onset of his senile dementia.) Such courage.

Perhaps vaguely aware that his movie so completely lacks gravitas, Moore concludes with a sonorous reading of some words from George Orwell. The words are taken from 1984 and consist of a third-person analysis of a hypothetical, endless, and contrived war between three superpowers. The clear intention, as clumsily excerpted like this (...) is to suggest that there is no moral distinction between the United States, the Taliban, and the Baath Party and that the war against jihad is about nothing. If Moore had studied a bit more, or at all, he could have read Orwell really saying, and in his own voice, the following:

The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to taking life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists, whose real though unacknowledged motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration for totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writing of the younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States …

And that’s just from Orwell’s Notes on Nationalism in May 1945. A short word of advice: In general, it’s highly unwise to quote Orwell if you are already way out of your depth on the question of moral equivalence. It’s also incautious to remind people of Orwell if you are engaged in a sophomoric celluloid rewriting of recent history.

If Michael Moore had had his way, Slobodan Milosevic would still be the big man in a starved and tyrannical Serbia. Bosnia and Kosovo would have been cleansed and annexed. If Michael Moore had been listened to, Afghanistan would still be under Taliban rule, and Kuwait would have remained part of Iraq. And Iraq itself would still be the personal property of a psychopathic crime family, bargaining covertly with the slave state of North Korea for WMD. You might hope that a retrospective awareness of this kind would induce a little modesty. To the contrary, it is employed to pump air into one of the great sagging blimps of our sorry, mediocre, celeb-rotten culture. Rock the vote, indeed.

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]

[spicault]

Michael At the Bank
Moore ridicules a bank for giving customers a free gun


Gunowners.org (a pro-gun source obviously) summarizes this scene accurately and eloquently saying "After the April 20 lead-in, Bowling begins an examination of middle-American gun culture, and indulges the bicoastal elite`s snobbery toward American gun owners."

It`s an accurate depiction of the intent of the scene. The scene, dubbed “Michael at the Bank” is a good example of what can be brushed off and casually justified as what has been called `artistic lying.` The scene opens in a branch of the North Country Bank, with Moore supposedly receiving a free gun in exchange for opening an account. North County Bank — like several other banks in the United States — allows people who buy a Certificate of Deposit to receive their interest in the form of a rifle or shotgun. The depositor thereby receives the full value of the interest immediately, rather than over a term of years. The scene has Moore discovering an ad in a local Michigan paper touting that if you open an account at North Country Bank & Trust, the bank (“more bang for your buck!” ) will give you a gun.

Moore goes to the bank, is greeted by a customer service representative and moves on to an unnamed teller who goes through the necessary paperwork (which looks ridiculously simple) for Moore to open an account. Moore goes through the process of buying the CD and answering questions for the federal Form 4473 registration sheet. Although a bank employee makes a brief reference to a "background check," the only thing we see is Moore filling out a form where he says he is not crazy, or a criminal - and of course, that he`s white; although he stumbles on spelling the word `Caucasian` (which I actually had to just fix on spell checker) to further paint the process as unofficial and unsafe while feeding his `Stupid White Men` theme in the same punch.

The audience never sees the process whereby the bank requires Moore to produce photo identification, then contacts the FBI for a criminal records check on Moore, before he is allowed to take possession of the rifle. Moments later, Moore is handed his new rifle in the North Country Bank & Trust lobby, at which point he asks another unnamed bank employee, “Do you think it’s a little dangerous handing out guns in a bank?”

Before the employee can respond, Moore turns his inquiry into a punchline by immediately cueing Teenage Fanclub’s rendition of the song “Take the Skinheads Bowling,” the tune to which he marches out of the bank, to be followed by the opening credits featuring black and white footage of silly white folks bowling.

It is a dazzling opening, full of energy, irony and Strangelovian absurdity. Only one problem plagues it`s cleverness: It was staged.



Staged scene

Indeed, there`s more, a lot more, to this story. In an interview, Jan Jacobson, the woman at this bank shown in the movie, says they were filmed for about an hour-and-a-half during which she explained everything to Moore in detail. But, the way things were presented in the film, Jacobson says, it looks like "a wham-bam thing." She says she resents the way she was portrayed as some kind of "backwoods idiot" mindlessly handing out guns. She says Moore deceived her into being interviewed by saying of their long-gun-give-away program: "This is so great. I`m a hunter, a sportsman, grew up in Michigan, am an NRA member." She says: "He went on and on and on saying this was the most unique program he`d ever heard of." This is the first example of how Moore completely deceives and manipulates his subjects to be made to look stupid in his film. Unfortunately, it is not the last and more unfortunately, an ignorant audience plays patsy to Moore`s dishonest depiction.

Jacobson says the movie is misleading because it leaves the impression that a person can come in, sign up and walk out with a gun. But, this is not done because no guns are kept at her bank, although one would think so. She says that ordinarily a person entitled to one of the long-guns must go to a gun-dealer where the gun is shipped.

In fact, despite what BFC wants us to believe, Jacobson says there are no long-guns at her bank. The 500 guns mentioned in the movie are in a vault four hours away. But wait a second... Didn`t I see some long guns sitting right there on the rack above her shoulder? Yes - you`re not going crazy - those guns you saw (as shown in the picture up the page) are models.

She says that Moore`s signing papers in the film was just for show. His immediately walking out of the bank with a long-gun was allowed because "this whole thing was set up two months prior to the filming of the movie" when he had already complied with all the rules, including a background check.

Jacobson says the bank`s so-called "Weatherby Program" has "absolutely" been a smashing success. She says their corporate office was braced for some possible criticism because of BFC. But, they got only two calls -- and these were from people wanting to know the details of the "Weatherby Program" so they, too, could get their long-guns!



A non-issue point in the first place

So the audience is left with a smug sense of the pro-gun bank`s careless craziness. Yet, aside to the falshoods the audience isn`t aware of, just a moment`s reflection on the given information shows that there is not the slightest danger. Aside from the thorough legal background check and paperwork we didn`t see, there are fundamental common sense flaws to the scene. The process of getting a `free gun` isn`t quite as easy as Moore wants you to believe, and it`s not dangerous unless the person tries to use the gun as a club and wants to be quickly caught by the police.

To take possession of the gun, the depositor must:

Produce photo identification; making it inescapably certain that the robber would be identified and caught.

Give the bank at least a thousand dollars -- (an unlikely way to start a robbery) (1).

Spend at least a half hour at the bank, thereby allowing many people to see and identify him, and undergo an FBI background check, which would reveal criminal convictions disqualifying most of the people inclined to bank robbery.
The label of this process being ridiculous is in fact ridiculous itself. A would-be robber could far more easily buy a handgun for a few hundred bucks on the black market, with no identification required, and would want to zip in and out of the bank as quick as possible.

Also - the bank is a licensed firearms dealer - not shooting range. They don`t hand bullets to you. Moore had to buy them later, as seen in the barbershop scene. If Moore brought his own bullets and tried to load them into the long-gun right there in the bank, it would be obvious and he`d be immediately stopped.

The `artistic lying` illustrates the genius of Bowling for Columbine, in that the movie does not explicitly make these obvious points about the safety of the North County Bank`s program. Rather, the audience is simply encouraged to laugh along with Moore`s apparent mockery of the bank, without realizing that the joke is on them for seeing danger where none exists.

This theme is developed throughout the film. Don`t be fooled.



YOU MISSED THE POINT! - The point of the scene

Many have e-mailed me saying I`ve missed the point of the scene, telling me that it`s purpose is not the ease of which the bank gives you the gun - but the very fact that they are giving out guns! I ask these people to review the scene and actually watch it again if they can, and see if they don`t think differently. I can`t read the mind of Michael Moore, so I can`t say for sure what his point was, however I can say positively that the way the scene was cut (asking for the account with the free gun, going directly to some cheesy questions going directly to holding the firearm and pointing it around to close with "don`t you think it`s a little dangerous handing out guns at a bank") certainly conveys an issue of ridiculousness on how easy

However - lets take a look at it under the alternate thesis. You come to basically the same conclusion: Moore is a lying hypocrite.

Moore mentions many times in Bowling For Columbine that gun use and gun culture is not what causes gun death. He illustrates this in his own childhood enthusiasm with guns and his endless praise for Canada, which he calls not only a "nation of hunters" but "one gun loving, gun toting country." So if Moore is making a farcical point out of American gun culture, then he is an exposed hypocrite when he advocates rifle use later in the film.

But like I said - I didn`t get the impression that this was an attack on rifle users, nor the one I believe most get. But depending on what you think the exact point of the scene is - either Michael Moore deceived you with fictitious representation, or he lied to you to effectively play both sides of an issue. You pick.



Wrong on Killer toasters...

While on Oprah promoting Bowling For Columbine - Michael Moore talks about this scene and North Country Banks gun program. (2) Moore says: "What happened to giving out toasters, you know? I`d never heard of anybody killed by a toaster, you know?"

But, thanks to information that Larry Pratt from Gunowners.org delightfully uncovered - surprise! once again, Moore is fighting against himself:

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch (8/30/02) reports a woman who used a rolled-up newspaper and toaster to light a cigarette started a fire that killed her mentally ill adult daughter. The Irish Times (2/28/02) reports that in Cork, in 1997, one homeless man murdered another homeless man by hitting him in the head with a toaster. And the Philippine Daily Inquirer (8/28/01) tells of a young woman who saw her toaster on fire, threw water on it and was electrocuted instantly. A Global News Wire story (8/3/01) says a pop-up toaster is the likely cause of a fire killing a mother and son in Timaru, New Zealand. A Canadian Press report (7/28/2000) says that in Quebec a house fire started by a toaster killed an autistic young man. And the Richmond Times-Dispatch (5/10/99) says a Yorkshire, Virginia, couple filed a $4.7 million lawsuit against a Delaware business alleging that their toaster was faulty and caused a fire killing their mentally disabled son and his grandmother.

Larry says he found several more stories like this from around the world involving killer-toasters - but I think we all get the point. "Perhaps Michael Moore`s next movie will deal with the obvious need for tougher toaster-control laws" he says. -Not likely. Michael Moore knows not the world of consistency.

Why did I say he`s fighting against himself? Well, he may never have heard of anybody killed by a toaster, but that doesn`t mean it doesn`t happen. And isn`t that a main thesis in Bowling For Columbine? That the media isn`t an accurate gage of current dangers in America? Furthermore, doesn`t the media`s lack of sensationalism over toaster deaths go strictly against his argument of media scaremongering? After all, toasters are a lot more common place than guns. Why not target THEM for demonization to scare the public? Obviously these media (non liberal leaning at all whatsoever of course) reports on guns put firearms in an unfavorable light - which I would think Moore would like.

Michael Moore makes less and less sense under the revelation of key facts to his arguments - and this is only 6 minutes into the movie!


-----------------------------
(1) In order to qualify for the gun, customers must open a 3-year CD with at least $5,000
(2) the Oprah Winfrey show - 11/1

[Joerver]

June 23, 2004
Democrats Screen `Fahrenheit 9 / 11` in D.C.
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 10:43 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Cheered by supporters, Michael Moore previewed his Bush-bashing documentary, ``Fahrenheit 9/11,`` before a mostly Democratic audience in the nation`s capital Wednesday night.

Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe said he thought the film would play an important role in this election year.

``This movie raises a lot of the issues that Americans are talking about, that George Bush has been asleep at the switch since he`s been president,`` McAuliffe said as he walked the red carpet into the premiere.

Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa implored all Americans to see the film: ``It`s important for the American people to understand what has gone on before, what led us to this point, and to see it sort of in this unvarnished presentation by Michael Moore.``

The two-hour film depicts President Bush as lazy and oblivious to warnings in the summer of 2001 that al-Qaida was poised to strike. It also accuses the administration of manipulating the Sept. 11 attacks and fanning terrorism fears to win support for the Iraq war.

Dozens of fans greeted Moore outside the theater with applause and shouts of ``Go Michael!``

Moore, a fervent Bush critic, said he hopes the movie will get people to the ballot box in November.

``If this movie can inspire a few of that 50 percent that did not vote in this country to get back involved, to re-engage, then the movie will have accomplished something important,`` he said.

Opening in limited release in New York on Wednesday, the film drew mixed reaction.

``This movie is slanted -- it`s a backlash at the president, taking the view that U.S. leadership is incompetent,`` said Miguel Brown, 22, a production assistant who did not work on the movie. ``Moore makes it look like U.S. soldiers in Iraq were thrown into battle straight off the streets. The American army is better than that.`` Brown is the son of a military officer.

``Fahrenheit 9/11`` won the top honor at last month`s Cannes Film Festival.

The movie, which carries an R rating, opens on more than 800 screens nationwide Friday. Moore and his distributors lost their appeal Tuesday to lower the rating to PG-13.

It grossed $49,000 at the Loews Village 7 theater in New York and more than $30,000 at the Lincoln Plaza, breaking the single-day records for both theaters, said Tom Ortenberg, president of Lions Gate Films Releasing.

^------

Associated Press writer Verena Dobnik in New York contributed to this report.

Copyright 2004 The Associated Press

[spicault]

[spicault]

[Joerver]

[Table align=center]

[/TABLE]
[Table align=center]
Michael Moore, left, and his wife, Kathleen Glynn, center, are greeted by Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe at the Uptown Theatre for the U.S. premiere of "Fahrenheit 9/11." At right is Lila Lipscomb, the mother of a U.S. soldier killed in Iraq.
[/TABLE]

washingtonpost.com

`Fahrenheit 9/11` Is a Red-Hot Ticket
At the Film`s U.S. Premiere, the White House Takes the Heat

By Hanna Rosin and Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, June 24, 2004; Page A01

The White House preemptively gave the movie two thumbs down: "Outrageously false," said communications director Dan Bartlett, when he was asked about some of its allegations.

Sizzling! countered Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.), who plans a teach-in at a Seattle theater to tap into the "anger brewing against this administration."

The director, Michael Moore, predicted that those on the fence regarding his new documentary will be off it and on his side when the last credits roll.

A group called Move America Forward has begun a letter-writing campaign asking theaters not to show "Michael Moore`s horrible anti-American movie."

All this before "Fahrenheit 9/11" has even officially opened.

"I can`t think of any precedent for it in a presidential campaign," says Frances Lee, a political science professor at Case Western Reserve University. "As a marketing phenomenon it seems to echo `The Passion [of the Christ]`: intense enthusiasm, organized groups buying tickets with proselytizing zeal, the sense that one is getting something that corporate America wanted to stifle."

The last time a cultural moment injected itself into the race for president was in 1992, with then-candidate Bill Clinton`s scolding of rapper Sister Souljah. But when "Fahrenheit 9/11" opens tomorrow in nearly 900 theaters nationwide -- a record for a documentary film release -- it will be received like a two-hour campaign commercial aimed at President Bush and his war on terrorism.

"I did not set out to make a political film," Moore has said in several TV interviews. "The art of this, the cinema, comes before the politics."

"It`s not a personal attack on the Bush family?" asked NBC`s Matt Lauer last week.

"Oh yeah, it`s that. If you`d have asked the question that way," replied Moore.

Moore, whose previous films took on General Motors and corporate America and the firearms industry, has borrowed all the techniques of modern political campaigns to promote this one. He hired master political operative Chris Lehane, a former adviser to Al Gore and Wesley Clark, to do publicity for the movie. He`s lined up the equivalent of endorsements, from former New York governor Mario Cuomo, who says he`ll do "anything possible to get this picture advanced," to labor activists, who "are anticipating the release of this movie as eagerly as evangelicals were anticipating the release of Mel Gibson`s movie," says a spokesman for the California Labor Federation.

Last night`s U.S. premiere at the Uptown Theatre in Cleveland Park brought Moore and his wife, Kathleen Glynn, Harvey Weinstein of Miramax, the movie`s distributor, and the city`s liberal establishment, including a dozen senators and a large contingent from the Congressional Black Caucus.

So strong is the appearance of a campaign that David Bossie, president of Citizens United, accuses Moore of violating federal elections laws. A movie? Violating election laws? "Moore has publicly indicated his goal is to impact this election," Bossie said.

Since Bartlett made his comments about the movie in an interview with the New York Times last month, the White House and Bush campaign spokesmen have said little about the film, conscious in hindsight that they gave former counterterrorism official Richard A. Clarke publicity a publisher couldn`t buy when they attacked his book, "Against All Enemies," this spring.

"The American people can tell the difference between fact and fiction," says campaign spokesman Terry Holt. "This election is about serious issues, and I don`t think most American voters consider Michael Moore a serious analyst of American politics."

Privately, however, some White House officials say they are in a bind about how to respond. Americans have always formed impressions of public figures from the movies; think Oliver Stone`s "JFK," Spike Lee`s "Malcolm X," Charlton Heston`s portrayal of Moses. This time is different because the subject is living, unfolding history, four months before an election.

The documentary includes endless shots of Bush golfing, taking vacations and shaking hands with Saudi oil tycoons at fancy hotels. Moore revives the old pre-Iraq war stereotype of Bush as a hapless, inarticulate bungler but with a twist; Bush is portrayed as lazy, a failure of will and not genes.

"It`s so easy to say that Bush is an idiot," Moore said in an interview yesterday. "But I don`t say it. You just let his own words and his own pictures do it."

In one already infamous scene, the president is shown on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just after an aide whispers to him that a second plane has hit the World Trade Center. He`s sitting before an elementary school class, reading "My Pet Goat." He continues to sit with the children as seven minutes tick by, his expression tense but inscrutable.

"Was he wondering if maybe he should have showed up to work more often?" Moore`s voice-over asks.

This may be a cheap shot, exaggerated, distorted, taken out of context, as the president`s defenders argue. But even so, an image like this can stick. For just those reasons, one faction within the Bush camp argued for the Richard Clarke treatment -- blitzing the airwaves with administration officials to offer repetitive, factual-sounding point-by-point rebuttals.

But that faction lost. If a reporter asks President Bush about the movie, he plans to respond jokingly, one of his strategists said. "To take it on would give it too much credibility," the strategist said. "He`s not going to get into a debate himself with this little filmmaker guy."

Moore doesn`t think the strategy will work. "There`s nothing the White House can do about it now," he said. "They`re not going to be able to ignore it, because there`s going to be too much conversation about it."

For their part, neither Sen. John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, nor anyone in his campaign has said anything about the movie out of concern that "we will get stuck with all that Michael Moore baggage," said one senior adviser.

At any rate, Moore hardly spares mainstream Democrats. He calls the party "weak-kneed and wimpy," and the movie shows Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), who was at the Uptown last night, and former presidential candidate Richard Gephardt sitting on stools voicing their approval for the war.

"The movie poses a conundrum for John Kerry," Moore said. "You can`t watch the last hour of this movie and leave the theater and not at least pose the question to him: How could you have voted for this war?"

In this latest movie Moore has been praised for having matured as a filmmaker, but his worldview hasn`t changed much since "Roger and Me" -- history can be explained by tracing connections between rich people and their friends.

Much of the factual squabbling so far between Bush and Moore supporters involve the movie`s portrayal of business relationships between the Bush and bin Laden families. Issues include whether Bush approved planes to carry Saudis, including bin Ladens, out of the country right after Sept. 11, 2001, before they could be interviewed by the FBI and whether Salem bin Laden invested in Bush`s Texas oil company. With his rapid editing, racing from fact to fact, Moore leaves the impression that Bush and his cronies stood to benefit not just from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but from Sept. 11.

But both Clarke and the 9/11 Commission have said officials did nothing wrong by chartering those flights. And as for the oil investment: "Even if it happened, its significance is nothing," says Peter Bergen, author of "Holy War, Inc.: Inside the Secret World of Osama bin Laden." "Salem couldn`t be more different than Osama bin Laden. He loved the U.S. He spent a lot of time in Houston. He played guitar. He is the mirror image of Osama."

Another controversy arose over the portrayal of Rep. Mark Kennedy (R-Minn.) in the trailer, and later in the movie. In a throwback to his "Roger and Me" days, Moore went to Capitol Hill and stuck a microphone in the face of various congressmen to ask them whether they would help sign up their children to fight in Iraq. Most knew to duck Moore, but Kennedy was polite enough to stop.

The movie shows Kennedy looking trapped and afraid. But in reality, he explained to Moore that he has a nephew serving in Afghanistan and he would like to help in the recruiting effort, particularly for those congressmen who supported the war.

When Kennedy complained about his portrayal, Moore responded with his trademark combination of literal-mindedness and aggression. On his Web site Moore prints the exchange between him and Kennedy but still says the film`s portrayal is factually accurate. He then badgers Kennedy for failing to live up to his promise and actually ask members of Congress to sign up their kin.

One touchy issue that hasn`t yet gotten much notice is over Moore`s portrayal of U.S. troops. In the movie they badger civilians, women and children included. They taunt prisoners. They listen to a rock song, "Fire Water Burn," as Iraq burns behind them.

Paul Rieckhoff fought in Iraq for a year and came back to start the Web site Operation Truth to tell Americans that war is not some video game. MoveOn touted him as a spokesman because he admires Moore and wanted to see the movie.

"It`s thought-provoking. Sensational. Will really energize conversation," he said after he saw it. "It`s obviously slanted in one way, so if you take it as your only source of information that would be pretty narrow. But some people will love it, some will hate it."

But, Rieckhoff added, "I`m ticked off at the way he portrays soldiers. It really makes them look stupid, like these testosterone-enraged mindless killers, like a bunch of barbarians. I`m going to tell him that."

To the young veterans of the Howard Dean campaign, graduates of Rock the Vote and an older generation of Bush haters who are well aware of his flaws, Moore still carries the hope of reaching out to a larger audience.

Moore is not a registered Democrat; he styles himself as more of a populist. Although he lives on New York`s Upper West Side now, his heart is in Flint, Mich., he always says, where he grew up as the son of an autoworker.

"Yes, he`s a celebrity of the left, but he can also reach up and appeal to a broad cross section of Americans," says Adam Ruben, field director for MoveOn PAC, which is organizing voter registration drives around theaters showing the movie. "That`s what makes this film more important."

But Moore says he doesn`t mind preaching to the choir.

"I`m very happy to speak to them because that choir has been asleep," he says. "Many of them have turned into cynics who have just decided to sit on the sidelines. If I can give them a song to sing as they leave the theater and become active once again, that`s a good thing."

At a party at an Adams Morgan restaurant after the premiere, Moore called the reception in Washington "unbelievable."

"It`s a great audience because they get all the inside, wonky stuff. . . . You don`t have to explain Arbusto or Harkin Energy or what the Securities and Exchange Commission does."

Moore spent the night in a back corner booth at the Left Bank, drinking wine and eating sushi with his wife and friends, gratified, he said, that people here "got it."

Staff writer Richard Leiby contributed to this report.

© 2004 The Washington Post Company

[spicault]

[spicault]

[Joerver]

Weekend Movies: `Fahrenheit 9/11` Turns Up Heat
Friday June 25 3:20 PM ET

A pack of diverse movies hits theaters on Friday, clearing the decks of new releases ahead of a widely anticipated "Spider-Man 2" opening that is expected to spin a web of magic over box offices next week.

Of the new films, the most heat comes from Michael Moore`s documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11," but it will be challenged to reach No. 1 in weekly ticket sales given its debut in only 868 theaters, which is huge for a documentary but small by Hollywood standards.

Comedy "White Chicks" will be in 2,726 theaters by Friday, romance "The Notebook" has booked 2,303 venues and family adventure "Two Brothers" screens in 2,171, according to box office tracker Exhibitor Relations Inc.

Still "Fahrenheit 9/11," which criticizes President Bush and looks at the reasons for going to war in Iraq , has created huge buzz, and several theaters will be playing midnight showings. It has already broken single-day records in New York, and early demand is strong.

At Fandango.com, "Fahrenheit" accounted for 57 percent of advance ticket sales, compared to 8 percent for "Spider-Man 2." Still, because there is no real comparison, it`s hard to determine exactly how it will fare in its debut weekend.

"It`s a unique film at a unique time, and it is uniquely positioned. Everybody is scratching their heads," said Fandango Chief Executive Art Levitt.

Meanwhile, the three other films unspooling this weekend aim at different audiences to tap their fair share of the box office receipts.

"The Notebook," targets mainly women with a tale of two young lovers who fail to overcome differences in social status before they are torn apart by the events of World War II.

PARALLEL LOVES

In the movie, based on Nicholas Sparks` best-selling novel of the same name, Ryan Gosling portrays Noah Calhoun, a working class kid from Seabrook, North Carolina, who falls for wealthy socialite Allie Hamilton, played by Rachel McAdams.

Running parallel to their story of lost innocence and love is the tale of an elderly couple -- portrayed by James Garner and Gena Rowlands -- whose bond of marriage is unbreakable.

The tale of Noah and Allie is told by Garner`s character to Rowlands` as they live out their lives in an elderly care facility. Through both stories, audiences see how love can overcome all obstacles.

"White Chicks" aims at younger audiences with a screwball tale of two black FBI agents -- actors Shawn and Marlon Wayans -- who masquerade as white sisters to catch a kidnapper.

The plot is fairly standard as the two try to fool members of upper crusty society in the Hamptons on Long Island only to eventually fail, sort of. Their transformation into sisters took five hours of makeup, wigs, prosthetics and body paint.

To put their costumes to a real test, Marlon would wear it into men`s public restrooms. "I would stand next to a dude at the urinal ... and totally blow his mind," he said.

Finally, "Two Brothers" tells of twin tiger cubs who are separated as youngsters and reunited after growing up when they are pitted against one another in a fight to the death.

The movie was directed by Jean-Jacques Annaud whose 1988 film "The Bear" earned rave reviews and changed the way audiences look at nature films. Overseas, "Two Brothers" has garnered some equally solid praise with France`s Le Figaro, which called it "spectacular and wonderful."

"Fahrenheit 9/11" is released by Lions Gate Films and IFC Films, which is co-owned by a unit of Viacom Inc. "The Notebook" is released by Time Warner`s New Line Cinema, "White Chicks" by a division of Sony Pictures and "Two Brothers" by a division of General Electric Co.`s NBC Universal.

Reuters/VNU

[Joerver]

Posted on Sat, Jun. 26, 2004

`Fahrenheit 9/11` tops $8 million in first day at theaters

DAVID GERMAIN

Associated Press

LOS ANGELES - "Fahrenheit 9/11," Michael Moore`s assault on President Bush, took in $8.2 million to $8.4 million in its first day, positioning it as the weekend`s No. 1 film, its distributors said Saturday.

Based on Friday`s numbers, "Fahrenheit 9/11" was on track for an opening weekend that would surpass the $21.6 million total gross of Moore`s "Bowling for Columbine," his 2002 film that earned him an Academy Award for best documentary.

"Bowling for Columbine" holds the record for highest domestic gross among documentaries, excluding concert films and movies made for huge-screen IMAX theaters.

Friday grosses for "Fahrenheit 9/11" ran about $1.5 million ahead of its closest competitor, the Wayans brothers` comedy "White Chicks." The performance of "Fahrenheit 9/11" was even more remarkable considering it played in just 868 theaters, fewer than a third the number for "White Chicks."

"Fahrenheit 9/11" benefited from a flurry of praise and condemnation. Supporters mobilized liberal-minded audiences to see it over opening weekend to counter efforts by some right-wing groups to discredit the film.

[Bodenseemann]

Wenn ich die Zahl noch richtig im Kopf habe, dann hat Fahrenheit am WE in USA über 40 Mio. USD eigespielt.

Quelle: Mitarbeiter aus der Filmverleihbranche.

Müsste aber auch schon im Netz zu finden sein.

[Joerver]

1 - Fahrenheit 9/11 ****** LIONS******* $21,800,000 ******* $21,958,000***** 1 868

http://movies.yahoo.com/boxoffice/latest/rank.html

Hatte ich aber schon gestern abend eingestellt.

[Joerver]

Die Zahlen für Montag.

http://movies.yahoo.com/boxoffice-daily/today/rank.html

Daily Box Office (U.S.)
Mon Jun 28, 2004

Rank**** Title***** Dist.****** Gross ***** Cumulative Gross
1 ***** Fahrenheit 9/11 ****** LIONS GATE ***** $4,416,000 ***** $28,495,000 ******
2 ***** Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story***** FOX ***** $2,830,000 ***** $70,288,000
3 ***** White Chicks***** SONY**** $2,481,000 ***** $29,661,000
4 ***** The Notebook ***** NEW LINE****** $2,193,000**** $15,658,000
5 ***** Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban***** WB ***** $1,576,000***** $213,114,000