W-A-Y-Y OT (but IMO important) - Farenheit 911

On 27 Jun 2004 19:27:00 GMT, omcom
(dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers) wrote:

It is encouraging that “freedom of speech� in America has not yet been
so far suppressed that films like “Fahrenheit 911� cannot reach an
audience.

It almost was stopped apparently. The press reports over here from when the
film was shown at Cannes, was that indeed efforts had been made to stop its
release in the States - pressure had been put on to stop its distribution. When
it won the top award at Cannes, which meant it got world-wide coverage in the
news, it really meant it had to be given the opportunity to be shown.

Cheers, helen s

F911 was to be distributed by Miramax, which is owned by Disney. Then
Disney execs announced that they would not allow Miramax to distribute
such a "political" film. I don't remember if this announcement was
pre- or post-Cannes, but it was about that same time. The guys who run
Miramax (NOT Michael Moore) bought the film from Disney, made a
distribution deal with a different company (Lion's Gate), and here we
are.

Of course, the cynics say Disney's sudden decision to not distribute
F911 had less to do with the politics of the documentary and more to
do with the politics of business. Disney has an awful lot of business
interests in Florida, after all, and we all know who is Governor of
Florida and who his brother is.....

I'm quite looking forward to seeing this - I saw previews the other
day (when seeing "The Stepford Wives" - a mildly entertaining summer
comedy), and it looks VERY interesting.




Jeanne Hedge, as directed by Natasha

http://www.jhedge.com

On 27 Jun 2004 19:27:00 GMT, omcom
(dirtylitterboxofferingstospammers) wrote:

It is encouraging that “freedom of speech� in America has not yet been
so far suppressed that films like “Fahrenheit 911� cannot reach an
audience.

It almost was stopped apparently. The press reports over here from when the
film was shown at Cannes, was that indeed efforts had been made to stop its
release in the States - pressure had been put on to stop its distribution. When
it won the top award at Cannes, which meant it got world-wide coverage in the
news, it really meant it had to be given the opportunity to be shown.

Cheers, helen s

F911 was to be distributed by Miramax, which is owned by Disney. Then
Disney execs announced that they would not allow Miramax to distribute
such a "political" film. I don't remember if this announcement was
pre- or post-Cannes, but it was about that same time. The guys who run
Miramax (NOT Michael Moore) bought the film from Disney, made a
distribution deal with a different company (Lion's Gate), and here we
are.

Of course, the cynics say Disney's sudden decision to not distribute
F911 had less to do with the politics of the documentary and more to
do with the politics of business. Disney has an awful lot of business
interests in Florida, after all, and we all know who is Governor of
Florida and who his brother is.....

I'm quite looking forward to seeing this - I saw previews the other
day (when seeing "The Stepford Wives" - a mildly entertaining summer
comedy), and it looks VERY interesting.




Jeanne Hedge, as directed by Natasha

http://www.jhedge.com

Yowie wrote:

[1] Nothing wrong with bias, all political commentary is biased
one way or the other simply because its written by people, and
people have opinions. However, having a strong opinion doesn't
mean the facts presented in an opinion peice are *wrong*, just
hat they are being interpretted in a particular way, and as a
responsible reader or viewer you have to be aware of this and use
your own intellegence to distinguish between the cold hard facts
and the "spin" that surrounds them.

I agree! In fact, I think it's incredibly hard to get the "cold hard
facts". Even when two people experience the same event at the same
time, they might have two very different takes on what happened,
depending on their perspective. The spin starts immediately, and the
focus of the story often depends on who is reporting. But that doesn't
mean that people are deliberately falsifying the facts, necessarily.
Each person's account depends on what he or she saw or felt, so each
report of events, although differing from others, could be completely
sincere.

Also, it's much easier to see bias when it runs contrary to currently
accepted opinions. It stands out against the background, whereas bias
that matches the most prevalent opinions is harder to spot, since it
blends in more with what most people already think, and it sounds
more like "truth". So when someone presents material that espouses an
unpopular opinion, many people will dismiss it as "biased" because
the bias is so easy to see - it's so unfamiliar and different from
what they're used to. It's important to recognize that *every*
presentation of political ideas, and the facts as that person sees
them, is biased. Michael Moore is certainly biased, but he doesn't
corner the market on it. What we hear from the White House, or from
Fox News (US cable TV news station, very conservative) is equally biased
toward its own perspective.

Joyce

Yowie wrote:

[1] Nothing wrong with bias, all political commentary is biased
one way or the other simply because its written by people, and
people have opinions. However, having a strong opinion doesn't
mean the facts presented in an opinion peice are *wrong*, just
hat they are being interpretted in a particular way, and as a
responsible reader or viewer you have to be aware of this and use
your own intellegence to distinguish between the cold hard facts
and the "spin" that surrounds them.

I agree! In fact, I think it's incredibly hard to get the "cold hard
facts". Even when two people experience the same event at the same
time, they might have two very different takes on what happened,
depending on their perspective. The spin starts immediately, and the
focus of the story often depends on who is reporting. But that doesn't
mean that people are deliberately falsifying the facts, necessarily.
Each person's account depends on what he or she saw or felt, so each
report of events, although differing from others, could be completely
sincere.

Also, it's much easier to see bias when it runs contrary to currently
accepted opinions. It stands out against the background, whereas bias
that matches the most prevalent opinions is harder to spot, since it
blends in more with what most people already think, and it sounds
more like "truth". So when someone presents material that espouses an
unpopular opinion, many people will dismiss it as "biased" because
the bias is so easy to see - it's so unfamiliar and different from
what they're used to. It's important to recognize that *every*
presentation of political ideas, and the facts as that person sees
them, is biased. Michael Moore is certainly biased, but he doesn't
corner the market on it. What we hear from the White House, or from
Fox News (US cable TV news station, very conservative) is equally biased
toward its own perspective.

Joyce

Yowie wrote:

[1] Nothing wrong with bias, all political commentary is biased
one way or the other simply because its written by people, and
people have opinions. However, having a strong opinion doesn't
mean the facts presented in an opinion peice are *wrong*, just
hat they are being interpretted in a particular way, and as a
responsible reader or viewer you have to be aware of this and use
your own intellegence to distinguish between the cold hard facts
and the "spin" that surrounds them.

I agree! In fact, I think it's incredibly hard to get the "cold hard
facts". Even when two people experience the same event at the same
time, they might have two very different takes on what happened,
depending on their perspective. The spin starts immediately, and the
focus of the story often depends on who is reporting. But that doesn't
mean that people are deliberately falsifying the facts, necessarily.
Each person's account depends on what he or she saw or felt, so each
report of events, although differing from others, could be completely
sincere.

Also, it's much easier to see bias when it runs contrary to currently
accepted opinions. It stands out against the background, whereas bias
that matches the most prevalent opinions is harder to spot, since it
blends in more with what most people already think, and it sounds
more like "truth". So when someone presents material that espouses an
unpopular opinion, many people will dismiss it as "biased" because
the bias is so easy to see - it's so unfamiliar and different from
what they're used to. It's important to recognize that *every*
presentation of political ideas, and the facts as that person sees
them, is biased. Michael Moore is certainly biased, but he doesn't
corner the market on it. What we hear from the White House, or from
Fox News (US cable TV news station, very conservative) is equally biased
toward its own perspective.

Joyce

These two items are from the Movie and TV News section of Internet
Movie Database (www.imdb.com) on Tuesday. Please remember, Disney was
originally committed to distributing "Farenheit 9/11" through
subsidiary Miramax, and, according to reports, knew what the end
product was going to be when they agreed to the deal:


item #1:

Disney Screens New Movie for 'Fahrenheit' Foes


The Walt Disney Co. has screened its patriotic documentary "America's
Heart and Soul" in Sacramento for MoveAmericaForward.org, an
Internet-based organization that was set up earlier this month by a
politically conservative public relations firm to battle Michael
Moore's film, "Fahrenheit 9/11", which Disney rejected. Following the
screening, Howard Kaloogian, chairman of MoveAmericaForward.org,
called the film "inspirational." His colleague, Sal Russo, added: "At
this point in time, we ought to be focusing on movies that bring us
together rather than divide us." Moore questioned the timing of the
release and denounced the studio's decision to screen it for MAF.
"First, Disney tried to stop the movie from being released, and now it
is aligning itself with the very people who are trying to intimidate
the movie theaters from showing the movie," he said. Disney issued a
statement maintaining that the new movie, which it is releasing
nationwide on Friday, "had nothing to do with "Fahrenheit 9/11" and
there is no link at all between the two movies."


item #2:

'Fahrenheit' Hotter Than Expected


"Fahrenheit 9/11" turned out to be 9 percent hotter at the box office
than what the distributors had anticipated on Sunday. The film
actually grossed $23.9 million, some $2.6 million more than had been
projected, according to final figures released Monday by Exhibitor
Relations. It was the first documentary ever to open at No. 1 at the
box office and the first film since Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994)
to open at No. 1 despite playing in fewer than 900 theaters. The film
earned $7.3 million on Sunday, clearly benefiting from weekend
publicity for it. By contrast, "White Chicks", the No. 2 film on
Sunday, earned $5.4 million. The top ten films over the weekend,
according to final figures compiled by Exhibitor Relations (figures in
parentheses represent total gross to date):

1. Fahrenheit 9/11, Lions Gate, $23,920,637, 1 Wk. ($24,078,959 --
From Wednesday); 2. White Chicks, Sony, $19,676,748, (New); 3.
DodgeBall: A True Underdog Story, 20th Century Fox, $18,787,419, 2
Wks. ($67,458,145); 4. The Notebook, New Line, $13,464,745, (New); 5.
The Terminal, DreamWorks, $13,135,148, 2 Wks. ($41,040,124); 6. Harry
Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, Warner Bros., $11,247,412, 4 Wks.
($211,537,548); 7. Shrek 2, DreamWorks, $10,216,452, 6 Wks.
($396,782,535); 8. Garfield: The Movie, 20th Century Fox, $7,526,987,
3 Wks. ($56,297,265); 9. Two Brothers, Universal, $6,144,160, (New);
10. The Stepford Wives, Paramount, $5056343, 3 Wks. ($48,861,783).






Jeanne Hedge, as directed by Natasha

http://www.jhedge.com

These two items are from the Movie and TV News section of Internet
Movie Database (www.imdb.com) on Tuesday. Please remember, Disney was
originally committed to distributing "Farenheit 9/11" through
subsidiary Miramax, and, according to reports, knew what the end
product was going to be when they agreed to the deal:


item #1:

Disney Screens New Movie for 'Fahrenheit' Foes


The Walt Disney Co. has screened its patriotic documentary "America's
Heart and Soul" in Sacramento for MoveAmericaForward.org, an
Internet-based organization that was set up earlier this month by a
politically conservative public relations firm to battle Michael
Moore's film, "Fahrenheit 9/11", which Disney rejected. Following the
screening, Howard Kaloogian, chairman of MoveAmericaForward.org,
called the film "inspirational." His colleague, Sal Russo, added: "At
this point in time, we ought to be focusing on movies that bring us
together rather than divide us." Moore questioned the timing of the
release and denounced the studio's decision to screen it for MAF.
"First, Disney tried to stop the movie from being released, and now it
is aligning itself with the very people who are trying to intimidate
the movie theaters from showing the movie," he said. Disney issued a
statement maintaining that the new movie, which it is releasing
nationwide on Friday, "had nothing to do with "Fahrenheit 9/11" and
there is no link at all between the two movies."


item #2:

'Fahrenheit' Hotter Than Expected


"Fahrenheit 9/11" turned out to be 9 percent hotter at the box office
than what the distributors had anticipated on Sunday. The film
actually grossed $23.9 million, some $2.6 million more than had been
projected, according to final figures released Monday by Exhibitor
Relations. It was the first documentary ever to open at No. 1 at the
box office and the first film since Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994)
to open at No. 1 despite playing in fewer than 900 theaters. The film
earned $7.3 million on Sunday, clearly benefiting from weekend
publicity for it. By contrast, "White Chicks", the No. 2 film on
Sunday, earned $5.4 million. The top ten films over the weekend,
according to final figures compiled by Exhibitor Relations (figures in
parentheses represent total gross to date):

1. Fahrenheit 9/11, Lions Gate, $23,920,637, 1 Wk. ($24,078,959 --
From Wednesday); 2. White Chicks, Sony, $19,676,748, (New); 3.
DodgeBall: A True Underdog Story, 20th Century Fox, $18,787,419, 2
Wks. ($67,458,145); 4. The Notebook, New Line, $13,464,745, (New); 5.
The Terminal, DreamWorks, $13,135,148, 2 Wks. ($41,040,124); 6. Harry
Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, Warner Bros., $11,247,412, 4 Wks.
($211,537,548); 7. Shrek 2, DreamWorks, $10,216,452, 6 Wks.
($396,782,535); 8. Garfield: The Movie, 20th Century Fox, $7,526,987,
3 Wks. ($56,297,265); 9. Two Brothers, Universal, $6,144,160, (New);
10. The Stepford Wives, Paramount, $5056343, 3 Wks. ($48,861,783).






Jeanne Hedge, as directed by Natasha

http://www.jhedge.com