Michael Moore? The Michael Moore? Admitting his posturing about censorship was a publicity stunt? Say it ain’t so!
Well, it isn’t, really. But it’s close.
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 just days before its world premiere at the Cannes film festival.
Instead, it lent credence to a growing suspicion that Moore was manufacturing a controversy to help publicise the film, a full-bore attack on the Bush administration and its handling of national security since the attacks of 11 September 2001.
Gee. Do you think the “controversy” will cause the Canne opening to fail, or pump it up still more? What do you think?
The film was produced by the Miramax label, which is owned by Disney. The official Moore screed on the subject (along with an accompanying NY Times editorial) decries the “profound censorship” by Disney. It certainly leaves the impression that this was all a last-second Disney cave to the Bush family, after veiled threats about Disney’s Florida (Gov. Jeb Bush) properties.
Yet Disney says it made it clear a year ago to both Miramax and to Moore’s agent that they would not distribute the film. And Moore basically admits that:
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.”
[…] Moore told CNN that Disney had “signed a contract to distribute this [film]” but got cold feet. But Disney executives insist there was never any contract. And a source close to Miramax said that the only deal there was for financing, not for distribution.
In a related NY Times article, we have:
Mr. Moore, who will present the film at the Cannes film festival this month, criticized Disney’s decision in an interview on Tuesday, saying, “At some point the question has to be asked, `Should this be happening in a free and open society where the monied interests essentially call the shots regarding the information that the public is allowed to see?’ ”
As a monied interest himself, Moore should be well aware that money is what it takes to make a film, and distribute it. But the implication is clear — the next time I want to make a movie, Moore wil be more than happy to just pony up some bucks toward the effort, in the interest of a “free and open society.”
Or — hey, maybe he’ll finance the publishing of my book! Or support me in become a full-time blogger (I figure that should pull down two, maybe three hundred thou a year)! I like this plan!
I know Mike won’t disappoint me. He is, after all, a champion of the little people, like me, and would never let the Man keep me down …
In the interest of “equal time,” Moore responds here. Essentially his points are:
I’m waiting for my novel-publishing check from Mr. Moore. to demonstrate that he’s not censoring me.
There would be a fair amount of irony should the Canne Film Festival be itself disrupted due to labor trouble.