I seems odd after his losing confrontation with Disney's board this spring that Eisner is now dumping what may become one of the most profitable films of the season. Does this guy still want his job?
Having worked in Hollywood, I can only laugh about all the money machinations that come about especially when it's involving artistic rights. Denying there's nothing about politics that prompted Disney to reject distributing the film is really transparant. If they fear no retribution or retaliation, why not distribute the film and add the profit to the corporate coffers? If Disney doesn't want to deal with independent films which might be controversial why don't the dummies sell MIRAMAX?
Incredible.
(I think they should give Eisner a one-way ticket to EuroDisney).
Acquiunk:
Michael Eisner, he is financially set for life.
There are plenty of reasons why Disney does not want to distribute this film. The #1 reason is Disney does not want of offend conservative patrons to their parks and movies. Also on the list is Disney pays taxes in Jeb Bush's state, Florida plus not offending shareholders is another.
To add fuel to the fire, Eisner and the Weinstein brothers are not getting along and this makes a poor climate for the film's USA distribution negotiations.
I suppose they believe they haven't offended anyone by their actions. This leads me to believe it is a calculated decision based a great deal on the tax deals in Florida. The more that is denied, the more it is suspicious.
Haven't these people learned that the perceived guilt is always going to be set off by, "I did not do that?" It would be best not to say anything. The White House should have kept their mouth shut about the film also. Ah, well -- fools will still rush in where mortals fear to tread.
From Variety:
Cannes pix stick
By Don Groves
Director Pedro Almodovar's "Bad Education" fetched a terrif $350,000 on just 44 screens in the U.K. and fell by a mild 22% in its second turn in France, tallying $3.6 million.
Walter Salles' "The Motorcycle Diaries" motored into Italy with a handy $677,000 on 210.
After its Cannes preem, "The Ladykillers" drew a solid $1 million on 208 in Spain, positioned as an upscale alternative to the popcorn fare. But the Tom Hanks starrer took a soft $701,000 on 140 in Japan, where the Coen brothers have never caught on.
"Kill Bill Vol. 2" climbed to $64.3 million in 34 territories, overtaking domestic, driven by France's $3.8 million in seven days. However Quentin Tarantino's pic grossed a tame $337,000 on 145 in Mex! ico, where the first edition didn't work and auds shy away from overtl y violent themes.
It's pocketed a nifty $15.4 million through its fourth chapter in Blighty, although tracking 25% below the predecessor.
Nearing the end of its pilgrimage, "The Passion of the Christ" levitated to $234.1 million, including Italy's $27.1 million, the U.K.'s $20.5 million and Japan's $9.7 million.
In Japan, local click "Crying Out for Love in the Center of the World" showed excellent stamina despite "Troy's" invasion, wooing $4.7 million in its third sojourn (off 8%), spurring its total to $24.7 million.
In Germany, spoof "Der Wixxer" was a hoot, grabbing $3.4 million on 426.
The left-handed compliment from FOX NEWS (who grudgingly gave the news a small paragraph in their Foxlight section):
Finally, congratulations to Michael Moore (search) on winning that big-shot French film award. Suddenly I bet it gets a distributor after Disney wimped out. But really, Michael, are you a fair and balanced documentary filmmaker? One new book coming out soon says no. It claims Moore plays fast and loose with facts. And the title they award him? 'Crockumentary' filmmaker.
(They do give a link where one can buy the books and DVD's -- how thoughtful).
I'd prefer to call his films Docucomedy.
Light, I'd be interested in your take on comparisons with Hearts and Minds; The Sorrow and the Pity
Well, have seen that film and others, some like "Schindler's List" are docudramas. I think they are trying to categorize Moore and they are failing miserably. They try to disguise their hatred with phony analysis as transparant as Saran Wrap.
Can't compare them yet as I haven't seen "Farenheit 911." I would say that Moore is more accessible because of the humorous take on his subjects.
His interview with Heston was hilarious -- baiting him may not now seem empethetic considering it wasn't long after that Heston revealed his Alzheimer's. If God is punishing gays with AIDS, why do you suppose he punishes those with Alzheimer's?
Weinsteins buy '9/11' from Miramax
(Hollywood Reporter) 5/28/04
By Chris Gardner
Miramax co-chairmen Bob and Harvey Weinstein have dipped into their own pockets to acquire from Miramax Films the rights to Michael Moore's Palme d'Or-winning documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11," the Walt Disney Co. announced Friday.
The duo secured the deal through the Fellowship Adventure Group, a new special-purpose company. As part of the deal, the Weinsteins paid Miramax for all costs of the film to date and will be responsible for all costs to finish the film and all marketing costs not paid by the film's distributors.
The Weinsteins are overseeing deals for worldwide distribution for the film in all windows, including theatrical and home entertainment. International sales are being handled directly by Paris-based sales agent Wild Bunch.
According to the announcement, the Weinsteins will secure distribution through third parties or may distribute the movie personally in certain markets. Any profits to be made for Miramax or its parent company, the Walt Disney Co., from the sale of the film will be donated to charity.
I was looking for news on that today as it had filtered through the Hollywood grapevine. Thanks, couzz.
Political parties aren't considered charities by any chance, are they?
Well, I suppose the Weinstein brothers could use the profits from "F911" to set up an educational fund for children who lost a parent in the 9/11 tragedy.
Any other suggestions that would be politically neutral?
Philanthropy and Michael Moore? I suppose he doesn't advertise who he gives to and that's a good suggestion, couzz.
"F911" reads like an airplane.
May 28th, 2004 11:11 am
Michael Moore's Movie Moment
The Capital Times
May 28, 2004
Now that Michael Moore's documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" has been awarded the Palme d'Or, the highest award of the Cannes film festival, the American film industry faces a critical test.
Controversial and of the moment, praised by most reviewers and now internationally acclaimed, "Fahrenheit 9/11" surely meets the critical standard for wide distribution in the United States. In addition, Moore's track record of producing commercially successful films and television programs, as well as best-selling books such as "Stupid White Men," provides all the economic argument that ought to be needed for getting "Fahrenheit 9/11" into the theaters.
Yet Moore has struggled with distribution issues. The Walt Disney Co., the mouse that does not have the courage to roar, refused to place the documentary in theaters because doing so might offend the Bush administration. Other major media corporations have apparently felt similarly intimidated, so questions remain about how thorough the distribution of "Fahrenheit 9/11" will be.
That the administration does not want this film to be seen by the American people is now blatantly obvious. There is talk that Republican operatives may file a complaint with the Federal Election Commission, apparently on the theory that artistic expression and free speech ought to be limited in election years.
In case there was any doubt as to the source of the anti-Moore pressures, White House communications director Dan Bartlett went to the unusual extreme of condemning "Fahrenheit 9/11" before he, or presumably anyone else on the Bush-Cheney team, had seen it.
"It's so outrageously false," grumbled Bartlett when asked about the documentary.
Bartlett knows a thing or two about outrageous falsehoods. After all, he has had to try to explain away all those discredited claims by George Bush, Dick Cheney and Colin Powell regarding Iraqi weapons, nuclear programs and terrorist connections that were peddled in order to lead America into an unwise and unnecessary war.
Regarding Moore's documentary, Bartlett is wrong. What makes the film so powerful, according to critics and the judges at Cannes, is its heavy reliance on archival footage of a disengaged and disingenuous President Bush.
Moore does not need to try to create false impressions. He indicts Bush by letting the president speak for himself, and by showing him golfing, boating, fishing and generally avoiding work and responsibility even after he had been warned that terrorists intended to attack the United States; failing to respond when he learned of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon; and then exploiting the fear and frustration that followed those attacks to promote an unwise and unnecessary war with Iraq.
Some viewers will love "Fahrenheit 9/11," others will hate it. And that's the point. Moore makes documentaries that are funny, frightening, provocative and likely to sell tickets. That should have the film industry salivating at the prospect of getting a piece of the action.
So what's wrong with Disney? In an era of big media, when consolidated corporations control more and more of our communications, supersize companies such as Disney don't like to offend powerful interests. They would rather use their powerful distribution network to peddle cheap titillation and sports.
Ultimately, "Fahrenheit 9/11" will be distributed. But the extent and quality of that distribution remain uncertain, not because there is any doubt about its potential appeal but because of the chilling of free expression in George W. Bush's America.
And that is where the test for the film industry comes: Now that "Fahrenheit 9/11" has been honored by the judges at Cannes with their top prize, if it does not receive the widest possible distribution then the chill is turning into a freeze on the freedoms that all Americans should seek to defend.
