May 24, 2004

To call Michael Moore a pathological liar is just too easy…

I have been as guilty as anyone of simplifying him, both in praise and scorn. I don't really care about the lies that littered Bowling for Columbine since I saw it as a true P.O.V. documentary that effectively presented an argument about America's culture of fear. To repeat "facts" from the film or from Moore's interview screeds would make a fool of me as a journalist. But ultimately that responsibility is mine (and ours), not his.

In my personal experience, back at the 2002 Toronto Film Festival, Moore was selling the idea that Bowling For Columbine would not play in significant portions of America because right-winger Phil Anchutz and the various exhibition outlets he owned would not play the film for political reasons. But he was pissed not only at Anchutz & Co., but the many journalists whom he had told the story to who failed to print the accusation.

As a journalist without a corporation to answer to, a fan of Moore's and the film's, and as a First Amendment absolutist, I was excited by the prospect of beating that drum and beating it hard. Unfortunately, it took just a few hours to get rather detailed denials of the story. A deal with Regal (Anchutz' primary exhibition chain) was in place and Bowling For Columbine would play in his theaters. Within 24 hours, I watched Moore burn his last bridge to the financier of Bowling, Alliance Atlantis, and start down that same road with UA, if not Bingham Ray, who I have not called to ask, but who would never diss a filmmaker publicly even if I did.

Still, I supported Bowling For Columbine as the great film experience it was and was pleased at its success and recognition. But two things happened as the film hit the awards circuit 18 months ago or so. America was in a hyperbolic whirlwind as the Bush Administration and the Congress prepared for war in Iraq and Michael Moore took the next step. He got himself a very specific target and he also took a deep, deep gulp of his own Kool-Aid.

Launching off of his very successful, Oscar-winning film, Moore decided to make a documentary in a lightening-fast eight months, with a documentary-large budget of $6 million, with the specific stated goal of assisting in the removal of George Bush from office.

The arrogance of the idea is a bit eye-popping. So be it. I didn't vote for Bush the first time. I won't vote for Bush the next time. (I didn't vote for dad either.) But I would have been equally supportive of any filmmaker who chose to make a film about their own beliefs, even if I heartily disagreed with those beliefs.

Where Mel Gibson and Michael Moore both lost me - and if you don't think their filmic crusades are analogous, you're wearing leftie-colored glasses - is in that blurry place that is about selling the films, not making them. And in both cases, the onus is on the journalists and the editors of the journalists who decide how to handle the spin being offered by the filmmaker, as well as the spin of those who are against him or her.

The problem is that journalists, like real people, are susceptible to spinning themselves. So, when Frank Rich goes on the attack against right-wing Christian Mel Gibson for making a manipulative movie that he considers dangerous, and just months later can't wait to spread Michael Moore's easily verifiable media manipulation - some of which Moore himself has spun both ways in the press - much less the factual question marks in the film itself, tells you a lot more about Frank Rich than Michael Moore. (Note that Moore showed the film to various liberal media outlets before Cannes in very much the same way and with the same purpose that Gibson showed his film to the O'Reillys of the world.)

I was horrified to hear Tammy Bruce on L.A. righty radio (Air America is not on the radio here, so I only listen to it on my computer) ripping into Moore for being fat, therefore being self-destructive, therefore wanting to take us all down with him. How this lesbian former Femi-Nazi (and Rush Limbaugh's abusive term fit her unlike most… she was an unyielding inflexible automaton) who would have spent hours screaming down anyone who judged anyone based on their physical attributes ended up in this place, I do not know. It also made me a little sick when another radio show host compared Moore's movie to Nazi propaganda.

But as a journalist, it isn't supposed to matter what side you are on personally. And when it does, as it must given our status as human beings, we must be doubly vigilant.

Whether it is intended or not, the methodology of propaganda is to repeat a lie enough times to make it into perceived truth. And as with all the best lies, the higher the percentage of truth you can get into the mix, the more successful the lie. Unfortunately, the newly added element (which has probably always been a part of the process, but with which I have never had so much clear and direct contact) is the clarion call to journalists who want to believe the lie and therefore fail to challenge it, even when the facts are right in front of them. "The coalition of the willing," when confronted with their failure to do their jobs, will offer up many reasons why the lies they have embraced are not as bad as other lies that have been told on the other side of the aisle. But while that is all well and good after a few beers at the pub, it is not journalism.

Before I list the key lies surrounding the selling of Fahrenheit 911, let me make clear once again, I am not attacking or questioning the personal or professional opinions about the film itself. I am an unflinching supporter of Moore's right to make whatever film with whatever beliefs and goals he so chooses. I support the right of film critics to embrace the film or as Todd McCarthy has, to reject the film.

The big problem is, the people who embrace the film have a strong tendency to write off anyone who rejects the film as a kook or being politically motivated… unlike their pure selves. When there is no room for dissent when discussing art, that is effective fascism, no matter the side of the political spectrum in which you live.

On the flip side of this issue, I would argue that the distinction between civil union and marriage for gay Americans is very much the same. If you claim you believe in gay rights, but have some indefinable belief that the word "marriage" is sacred and cannot take on a new line of definition in the dictionary, you are wiling to void someone else's right to something that will make them happy because it disconnects from your personal feelings… not your logic.

The challenge of freedom is not when you agree, but when you disagree. And in today's media universe, the trend is isolate anyone who dares to question the "right" point of view. It is also the challenge on the west side of Los Angeles in general.

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain political power deserve neither liberty nor power.

Moore himself told the Cannes audience, ""There was a great Republican president who said, 'If you give the American people the truth, the Republic will be safe.' "

Unfortunately, Moore is as loose with the truth as any president has been.

And now, the List Of Media Lies -

MOORE AND MIRAMAX THOUGHT THAT DISNEY WOULD CHANGE ITS MIND ABOUT DISTRIBUTING THE FILM AFTER SEEING IT COMPLETED

"Eisner said he would never let my film be distributed through Disney even though Mr. Eisner had not seen any footage or even read the outline of the film." Michael Moore, May 7

"Miramax said there was no problem. I got the idea that everything was fine." Michael Moore, May 7

"Last month, Walt Disney, the distributor of the movie through its Miramax division, had blocked the release of the documentary, citing its politically divisive content." Desson Thomson, Washington Post, May 23 (And a million other "journalists" in recent weeks)

When this all hit the fan, Moore's agent Ari Emmanuel acknowledged that his conversations with Disney in which they were trying to persuade him to look elsewhere for financing came before the deal with Miramax was signed. Moore has, in some interviews, acknowledged the same, albeit consistently pointing out that the film was already in production when he got the word from Disney. There has never been any indication that any signal came from Disney suggesting in any way that there was a change of heart forthcoming nor has there even been an indication of such from Moore, Miramax or any of their representatives.

The content of the film certainly was no less inflammatory than it was a year before. But Moore has pointed out that Eisner decided against distribution without any specific knowledge about the film at all. And indeed, as of the last time Moore publicly addressed the issue, Michael Eisner and the Disney board made this decision without making any specific judgment of the film itself.

THERE WAS A SCHEDULED JULY 2 RELEASE DATE.

"(Disney's decision not to distribute) left Fahrenheit 9/11 high and dry as it approached its scheduled July 2 opening date." Desson Thomson, Washington Post

There has never been a publicly announced release date for this film, from Miramax or anyone else. Michael Moore has said that he wanted the film released on July 4/July 2. But there has been nothing remotely official.

On a side note, Miramax has in the last week shifted Zatoichi to July 4 (which is, oddly for an opening, a Sunday), which seems far more likely to be an effort to hold space available for Fahrenheit 911 while exhibitors will still entertain the idea rather than waiting a few more weeks for a deal to be done only to find that there are no screens that haven't been obligated.

Of course, for those of us who love Hero, the next question will be whether Zatoichi moves into Hero's August slots, pushing Hero into fall or if Zatoichi moves into fall. Of course, it is always possible that Zatoichi actually opens on a symbolic American holiday that falls on a Sunday.

THE PALM D'OR GOING TO FAHRENHEIT 911 HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH POLITICS.

"We all agreed that Fahrenheit 9/11 was the best movie of the competition totally independent of all the politics crap." Quentin Tarantino, May 23, 2004

Unlike some, I would not accuse Quentin Tarantino of pushing his home studio's hot product into a Palm d'Or. But the notion that a deeply political movie being awarded is not a political statement is nothing but marketing bullshit. The telltale sign was the consistency and ferocity of this "it's not politics" message… starting with Saturday's win.

As Moore said himself, people will try to paint this as a "French thing." It is fair to say that it is not a French thing at all. Any anti-war movie that wins in the midst of that war and not as a film that is reflective of another war (see: M*A*S*H or Dr. Strangelove) must be seen as a political choice… and those two examples… them too.

The mere fact that Moore and Tarantino are selling this "it's not a political thing" bull is kind of horrifying really. But the urge to sell this political lie was so strong that Tarantino and his jury held an unprecedented post-awards press conference to explain their selection to the press. And that I will attribute to Harvey Weinstein and his zeal to sell this movie to an audience beyond the pre-sold anti-Bush-ites.

You can make the argument that Roger & Me and Bowling For Columbine are political, but are more sociological studies. Certainly, both films are against the callousness of American wealth. But neither film serves as a direct call to political action. (That is much like my argument earlier this year that although I believe The Passion of The Christ to be anti-Semetic, I do not see it as a call to rage against Jews in this era.)

When the filmmaker repeatedly states his artistic goal as the removal of a president and makes good on that promise in the film from all accounts, it is political. And I don't think anyone interested in the truth will argue that.

MOORE DID NOT INTEND THE FILM AS A POLITICAL ARGUMENT

"If I wanted to make a political speech, I'd run for office. I'm a filmmaker, and I wanted to make a movie for people to go see it." Michael Moore

When Moore told this to an AP reporter in a phone interview, how the journalist managed not to laugh out loud is beyond me. (Maybe the reporter did laugh at him.) Moreover, all you have to do is to go back in the clippings a few weeks, when Moore was still telling everyone that the film was intended exclusively to influence the election and the lie is crystal clear.

This is the new spin. And any outlet that prints it without referring back to Moore's comments in recent weeks, not one but dozens, is failing in their responsibility to their readers/viewers.

THE PALM D'OR WILL HAVE ONE IOTA OF AN EFFECT ON ANYONE IN THE U.S. SEEING FAHRENHEIT 911

"You will ensure that the American people will see this movie." Michael Moore

The hype leading up to this festival defined the film and generated as much public awareness as the film will ever have. There is zero indication that the Palm d'Or has more than a couple million dollar effect on the domestic box office success of its winners. In the decade since Pulp Fiction ("You know what they call a muthafuckin' Golden Palm in France?"), The Pianist is the only film to have any real box office success here at home after winning the award, less than 25% of which came before the film was nominated for Best Picture and 6 other Academy Awards.

Fahrenheit 911 needs to open as soon as possible, while the hype is still hot. The Palm d'Or will not sell a single ticket in the U.S. or help close an alternative distribution deal.

MOORE AND MIRAMAX ARE HAVING A HARD TIME FINDING AN ALTERNATE DISTRIBUTOR.

"I'd give it about one more day (if that) before we have someone brave enough (and smart enough) to show Americans what the world can already see." Michael Moore, On His Website

"I would be surprised within the next 24 hours if we don't have somebody. Miramax has been fielding calls all day." Michael Moore At A Press Conference

I am surprised that they haven't made a deal already. I had some good sourcing that said they were very close. But the idea that the phone rang even once (except with congratulations) because of the Palm d'Or is absurd.

Certainly, the same political issues that kept every single major studio from financing this film and some of their arthouse arms from wanting to as well are still in play. However, the primary thing keeping a deal from closing with a distributor now seems to be the terms that Moore and Miramax are demanding for their new "partner."

I cannot swear by the factuality of Jeff Wells' report of a distributor who told him that Miramax was looking for a better deal than Mel Gibson got for The Passion of the Christ. (I believe Wells was told this, but cannot confirm that he wasn't being played.) But it sounds right in principle and it jibes with the behavior of all the usual suspects.

Miramax has been, from early on, pushing the notion that they were trying to put together a group of studios to unite behind this film, much as they gathered together to fight the screener ban. Admirable. But not if you want total control, all the credit, all but a tiny slice of the financial pie and an enforced release date within six weeks of signing on the line that is dotted.

What is the upside for Lion's Gate or Newmarket, both of whom are trying to build their profile up to the level of the studio dependents and, of course, Miramax itself? What Dependent would submit to being bossed around by Harvey and Bob and Michael and receive all the political heat, from politicians and the American consumers who also lean to the right, without much financial upside or even much credit from the left-leaning supporters of the film.

Miramax will find another distributor as soon as they want to make a deal that someone can live with.

FINAL THOUGHTS

I was deeply disturbed by Moore's comment upon receiving the Palm d'Or that, "I want to make sure if I do nothing else for the rest of this year that those who died in Iraq have not died in vain."

What does that mean? If you believe the war was a horrible decision by the Bush Administration, then you must believe that every life that has been lost in the process has been in vain, no? Is there an upside to any of those deaths if you see no viable goal in having the war in the first place?

Now, the way I read the comment - and you will correct me if you disagree - is that somehow getting Bush out of office will mean that those who have died in Iraq have not died in vain… that somehow, if this film has that effect, there is a win.

Moore cannot, clearly, make that argument in public and will not. But I believe that it is what he means and he is a man who is willing to invoke the dead to give testimony, even if he is the puppeteer.

When Moore dedicates his award "to all the children in America and in Iraq, and throughout the world who suffer as a result of our actions," no one seems concerned that it is not a sincere dedication. Michael Moore clearly does not see himself as some sort of overriding American "us." That American "us" is also responsible for children in America and in Iraq and throughout the world who are better off as a result of "our" actions. But none of that counts, so long as there is a Republican in office. He has also been unable to call for an end to America's occupation of Iraq because John Kerry is out talking about increasing troop numbers… but Moore's not saying that we should get more troops over there to close this thing out. He wants us all focused on W choking on a pretzel, as mockery is much easier than answers.

None of this means that I am calling for anyone to support the war or to overlook the damage the United States is doing, has done and will do in the future. It just means that I wish that entertainment journalists - the least closely edited of all journos - would slap some cold water on their faces and seek truth instead of bandwagonning, repeating everything they are told by people they like or agree with in principle. It is a terrible failure of our responsibilities.

Everyone who has died in Iraq has died in vain. They have died in a failure of statesmanship… of leadership… and of humanity. The choice that we all must make for ourselves is where we draw the line between wasting human life in war and not doing so. Not everyone who is for the war is a moron or a dupe and not everyone who is against it has a realistic grip on the political reality of the world.

I have nothing against Michael Moore's position about Bush or the Iraq Occupation or the creation of a powerful film to illustrate the same. But the only lie in which honor lies - especially for someone who claims they are an absolute truth teller - is one of kindness. "Your ass doesn't look big in those jeans." Do I care whether Albania is really the only country on the planet besides the U.S. that does not have a distribution agreement for this film? No. But it is clearly hyperbole. And it should not be blindly repeated by the media, though it will be. But it is the big lies that scare me. I don't care which side the come from. Journalists, if no one else, must stay above them. Or we become nothing but another fucking marketing tool.

We must not forget that every nations' leaders thought they were doing the right thing when they did it. They may have been horribly wrong or manipulative in their route to what they thought was right. Fighting fire with fire only assures one thing… a lot of burning crap.

BREAKFAST - I suppose it was appropriate that I started writing this column at 911 Seward, which is where a restaurant called Grub stands. The place was created by two set caterers who finally settled into a storefront, doing great business at lunchtime. I haven't been here for lunch. I don't like overcrowded restaurants. But so far, the hip crowd hasn't descended on 50 seats of Grub for what is easily the best breakfast in Los Angeles. It ain't Nate & Al's. It is, simply, some great cooking with the subtle touches of real food passion. I am working through the menu, now here for the fourth time in two weeks. So, if you want to get off the beaten track, are in L.A., and promise not to tell anyone who is going to be obnoxious and wear too much make-up to Sunday breakfast (I loved you, Griddle Café, but you aren't worth the pain anymore) head off to Seward - 911 Seward - for some great Grub.

SHREK DEUX - Hollywood let out a great big sigh of relief when they saw the n numbers screaming across the Saturday night sky. "It can still be done!"

Horrifyingly, on Friday there were execs who were murmuring that if the film didn't end up with this kind of weekend that the whole thing was a bloody disaster. Nuts.

The stat of the day is that in the last three summers, the first and third weekends of May have failed to produce an $80 million 3-day only once. (Maybe they needed David Lee Roth to rejoin the band.)

The last time that an original film opened in this slot was in 2001, when the original Shrek opened to $42.3 million. That was back when The Mummy Returns opened the summer with $68 million and got everyone excited… seems like a long time ago, no?

Interestingly, Shrek 2 opened against nearly the same exact amount of competition from the weekend's 2-5 spot films ($44 million) as Shrek did. But things have changed. When Stars Wars: Episode II faced $80 million in 2-5 competition (led by Spidey), it delivered "just" $80 million to start. With only $48 million in competition last year, The Matrix Reloaded found $92 million. With the aforementioned $44 million this year, Shrek found an estimated slot-record-breaking $104 million.

Unfortunately for The Day After Tomorrow, it looks like slots 2-5 next weekend will, in 3-days, account for over $70 million. That pretty much puts a cap on Fox's 3-day at $80 million and more likely it tops out around $70 million. Amazingly enough, $70 million would be a Memorial Day weekend 3-day record, breaking Bruce Almighty's $68 million last year. (Bruce added almost $8 million more on Memorial Day Monday.)

And what changes projections beyond next weekend utterly is the June release schedule, which is loaded in a way that we haven't seen yet in the "massive opening" era (which is really just a few years old). Harry Potter 3, followed by Riddick, followed by The Terminal, followed two weeks later by Spider-Man 2.

So the big question for DreamWorks after this dream opening is "How will she hold?" Shrek 2 is already 36% of the way to a new record domestic gross for an animated movie and as animated movies and DreamWorks films in general go, they tend to hold better than average. So, things are looking good.

And looking all the way to Harry Potter and The Prisoner of Azkaban, the hold for Shrek 2 and Soul Plane could make Warner Bros. a little nervous about what should, by any logical survey, be no less than a $90 million for the best of the series. But for that to happen, Shrek will have to drop at least 30% in weekend three, The Day After Tomorrow will have to be in the 50s and Soul Plane will have to descend into single digits.

Look for a review of one of the big new movies on MCN around noon today.

E ME: How much Moore is there to say?