The New York Times is reporting that Disney has told Miramax not to distribute Michael Moore’s latest anti-Bush film.
I’m sure the usual crowd will call this a victory for Evil Corporations™, but I’ve a different take on this.
From what has been released of this film, it’s so odious that it would end up turning swing voters off in a major way. Moore wouldn’t know subtelty if it dropped a MOAB on his corpulent ass, and based on what’s been released at this point Fahrenheit 9/11 would not only be over-the-top in its attacks against Bush, but disgustingly so.
Of course, Moore will play the martyr nevertheless:
Mr. Moore does not disagree that “Fahrenheit 911” is highly charged, but he took issue with the description of it as partisan. “If this is partisan in any way it is partisan on the side of the poor and working people in this country who provide fodder for this war machine,” he said.
If by "poor and working people" he means arrogant limousine liberals, washed out peaceniks, and America-hating bombthrowers he’d be right. However, Moore really does think that his hateful brand of partisanship is some kind of secular crusade.
Moore’s arrogance truly knows no bounds.
UPDATE: Captain’s Quarters has an excellent piece giving more of the background to this decision.
GI’s just wanna have fun:
http://www.lefigaro.fr/perm/afp/med/040505074033.cfi0fcqw.html
who’s arrogant again?
Of course, by “poor and working people” he may mean “workers of the world” whom he wants to unite.
Someone should do a documentary on Moore and how he mistreats his workers. It’s well known that Moore is one of the worst to work with.
Someone should also expose Moore’s own high living lifestyle, and how this man of the people is really a classic limousine liberal.
And how is large consumption of food could go towards feeding those poor working people. Remember how everyone in this country waits in soup lines according to the libs.
First, what do you mean by “based on what’s been released at this point”? Secondly, it seems that much of what Moore’s movie covers has already been covered by writers like Kevin Phillips. Unless you know something that you did not post and that I did not read in the Times, most of the controversial stuff in the movie is sort of old hat for the movie’s probable audience.
“If by “poor and working people” he means arrogant limousine liberals, washed out peaceniks, and America-hating bombthrowers he’d be right.”
1)What is so washed out about being a peacenik? Does that mean that all peaceniks are old and a little crazy because they smoked too much of the wacky tobaccy in the 60s? What about this new, young generation of peaceniks who probably love Moore’s stuff. Are they washed up?
2)The children of limosene liberals are not dying in Iraq
3)America-hating bombthrowers. Moore’s “bomb” is his freedom to speak. Nonviolent protest, I guess, can sometimes upset more than violence.
It doesn’t matter if you don’t like Michael Moore. This IS a win for the corporate-controlled art and speech crowd. Yuck.
arrogant limousine liberals, washed out peaceniks, and America-hating bombthrowers
No ad hominem attacks, eh?