Drumming Up Business for Moore

Photo by The Associated Press
You may remember that several months ago, in the heat of the Democratic primary, Micheal Moore called Bush a 'deserter' during a Wesley Clark campaign rally. His statement pretty much went under the radar, and probably, unless you were at the rally, you would have never heard anything about it. Then, in a subsequent debate, Peter Jennings drew attention to Moore's comment by asking Clark to condemn it. By asking the question about Moore and his 'deserter' comment, Jennings opened up the questions about Bush's National Guard service and it became a huge story for a couple weeks. You would think that the media would have learned not to bring large-scale public attention to Moore's comments. Well, no, they haven't.

This is the opening to a story that was on page one of today's New York Times:

"The Walt Disney Company is blocking its Miramax division from distributing a new documentary by Michael Moore that harshly criticizes President Bush, executives at both Disney and Miramax said Tuesday."

Moore's film is "Farenheit 9/11", which was just announced as an official selection of the Cannes Film Festival. (See my entry about this story here.)
Moore is certainly a politically charged figure, and his face, words, books, and movies almost always make news, precisely because of his devisiveness. So, this story will obviously drum up boffo box office for "Farenheit 9/11". That is why I am suspect about Disney's decision not to allow Miramax to distribute the film. It just seems too convenient from a marketing standpoint. This icould quickly become a perfect storm of media attention. You have Moore, who always seems to be a media story. You have Disney, which has recently become a hot media story by losing Pixar, the attempt by Comcast to take the company over, the vote of shareholders to demote Michael Eisner, and now this(You could also argue that this string of bad press would be a reason why they wouldn't attempt to pump up the box office by inciting a controversy, but...). Then you have the debate over free speech that has gone on in this country since the Janet Jackson incident, which has caused the FCC to put a strangle hold on the media. Lastly, and certainly not least, we are in the middle of one of the most hotly divided presidential elections in this country's history. So, as I said this story is right in the center of a possible media storm.
However, the reason I am suspect about Disney's decision is, would they not distribute a movie that was going to make money just because it was controversial? Or are they refusing to distribute it to get free attention for the movie? Because they certainly could always back down and decide to distribute the movie afterall. I think it is a legitimate question. (By the way ABC is owned by Disney, and Peter Jennings works for ABC. Remember, he was the reason the 'deserter' story caught so much attention.)
Anyway, the marketing question is just fodder for the paranoid. However, I do think that the media will find a way to run with this story, and the movie WILL be distributed by somebody. So, what will all this mean in the end? I think, the controversy will peak the public's interest enough to make "Farenheit 9/11" the most successful documentary since 'Bowling for Columbine.'

I will end with a short excerpt from a letter that Moore posted on his website today.

"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."

Posted by Paul Hina at May 5, 2004 10:48 AM