NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Oscar-winning filmmaker Michael Moore's documentary linking President Bush with powerful Saudi families, including that of Osama bin Laden, is sparking the latest fight within the Walt Disney corporation.
The film, set to debut at the Cannes film festival later this month, has yet to be released. The New York Times and Hollywood trade paper Daily Variety said in its Wednesday editions that Walt Disney Co. (DIS: Research, Estimates) has moved to prevent its Miramax Films unit from distributing "Fahrenheit 9/11."
The Disney edict could herald the bloodiest political battle yet between Miramax's feisty co-chairman, Harvey Weinstein, and Disney CEO Michael Eisner, who oversaw the purchase of Miramax a decade ago, Daily Variety said.
"Fahrenheit 9/11," is Moore's follow-up to his Academy Award-winning "Bowling for Columbine." Rumors had been circulating of a July release in North America, but the film does not appear on Miramax's summer schedule, the Variety said.
The Times quoted a Miramax spokesman as saying that the company was "discussing the issue with Disney. We're looking at all of our options and look forward to resolving this amicably."
But the paper said Disney isn't willing to budge on the issue.
"We advised both (Moore's) agent and Miramax in May of 2003 that the film would not be distributed by Miramax," said Zenia Mucha, a company spokeswoman.
Officials from Miramax and Disney were not immediately available for comment Wednesday morning.
Independent stock analyst Dennis McAlpine said that there has always been a tension between Miramax and Disney since the media conglomerate bought the independent studio in 1993.
"They've done their own thing for the most part. Disney has been content to leave them alone and give them money and pull in all the Academy Awards," said McAlpine.
He said that despite the shareholder criticism of Eisner, he doesn't think that this battle will necessarily cause the embattled executive more problems.
"If there is a fallout, it's that some of the creative types say, 'I'm not going to take my next pic to Disney,'" said McAlpine. "But Hollywood is a wonderful place for saying one thing and doing the opposite the next time."
McAlpine said that he could see Miramax releasing the film under a separate label, as it has done with some controversial films in the past. The controversy and attention the battle is getting will help draw viewers to the film, he said.
Moore's agent, Ari Emanuel, told the New York Times that Eisner asked him last spring to pull out of the deal with Miramax. Emanuel said Eisner expressed particular concern that it would endanger tax breaks Disney receives for its theme park, hotels and other ventures in Florida, where President Bush's brother, Jeb Bush, is governor.
The Times reported that Disney executives denied that allegation. One executive told the paper it did not want to be seen taking sides in the election and risk alienating customers of different political views.
"It's not in the interest of any major corporation to be dragged into a highly charged partisan political battle," said the executive, who was not identified by the paper.
But Moore said he believed the protection of tax cuts was the reason for the media conglomerate's position.
"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," Moore said in a statement Wednesday, referring to his agent's charge against Eisner. "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. All I can say is, thank God for Harvey Weinstein and Miramax, who have stood by me during the entire production of this movie."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Personally, I find this to be unquestionable censorship. I am a huge fan of Michael Moore's, and even if his new movie was an anti-Kerry film, I would be just as flabbergasted by this. Preventing someone from excersizing their freedom of speech because you're a multi-billion dollar company and you're afraid of losing a few 'tax breaks'? Give me a freaking break! Disney has dug it's own grave with this one (or at least Eisner has done it for them). No one would probably have made much of a connection between the film and Disney had Eisner not put his but foot in the door, but now that he has, the movie is going to get that much more publicity. The connections have already been made for the public by Eisner himself. I hope this comes back to kick Disney in the ass. Greed is a very ugly thing.
Mimi
The film, set to debut at the Cannes film festival later this month, has yet to be released. The New York Times and Hollywood trade paper Daily Variety said in its Wednesday editions that Walt Disney Co. (DIS: Research, Estimates) has moved to prevent its Miramax Films unit from distributing "Fahrenheit 9/11."
The Disney edict could herald the bloodiest political battle yet between Miramax's feisty co-chairman, Harvey Weinstein, and Disney CEO Michael Eisner, who oversaw the purchase of Miramax a decade ago, Daily Variety said.
"Fahrenheit 9/11," is Moore's follow-up to his Academy Award-winning "Bowling for Columbine." Rumors had been circulating of a July release in North America, but the film does not appear on Miramax's summer schedule, the Variety said.
The Times quoted a Miramax spokesman as saying that the company was "discussing the issue with Disney. We're looking at all of our options and look forward to resolving this amicably."
But the paper said Disney isn't willing to budge on the issue.
"We advised both (Moore's) agent and Miramax in May of 2003 that the film would not be distributed by Miramax," said Zenia Mucha, a company spokeswoman.
Officials from Miramax and Disney were not immediately available for comment Wednesday morning.
Independent stock analyst Dennis McAlpine said that there has always been a tension between Miramax and Disney since the media conglomerate bought the independent studio in 1993.
"They've done their own thing for the most part. Disney has been content to leave them alone and give them money and pull in all the Academy Awards," said McAlpine.
He said that despite the shareholder criticism of Eisner, he doesn't think that this battle will necessarily cause the embattled executive more problems.
"If there is a fallout, it's that some of the creative types say, 'I'm not going to take my next pic to Disney,'" said McAlpine. "But Hollywood is a wonderful place for saying one thing and doing the opposite the next time."
McAlpine said that he could see Miramax releasing the film under a separate label, as it has done with some controversial films in the past. The controversy and attention the battle is getting will help draw viewers to the film, he said.
Moore's agent, Ari Emanuel, told the New York Times that Eisner asked him last spring to pull out of the deal with Miramax. Emanuel said Eisner expressed particular concern that it would endanger tax breaks Disney receives for its theme park, hotels and other ventures in Florida, where President Bush's brother, Jeb Bush, is governor.
The Times reported that Disney executives denied that allegation. One executive told the paper it did not want to be seen taking sides in the election and risk alienating customers of different political views.
"It's not in the interest of any major corporation to be dragged into a highly charged partisan political battle," said the executive, who was not identified by the paper.
But Moore said he believed the protection of tax cuts was the reason for the media conglomerate's position.
"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," Moore said in a statement Wednesday, referring to his agent's charge against Eisner. "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. All I can say is, thank God for Harvey Weinstein and Miramax, who have stood by me during the entire production of this movie."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Personally, I find this to be unquestionable censorship. I am a huge fan of Michael Moore's, and even if his new movie was an anti-Kerry film, I would be just as flabbergasted by this. Preventing someone from excersizing their freedom of speech because you're a multi-billion dollar company and you're afraid of losing a few 'tax breaks'? Give me a freaking break! Disney has dug it's own grave with this one (or at least Eisner has done it for them). No one would probably have made much of a connection between the film and Disney had Eisner not put his but foot in the door, but now that he has, the movie is going to get that much more publicity. The connections have already been made for the public by Eisner himself. I hope this comes back to kick Disney in the ass. Greed is a very ugly thing.
Mimi
