Amie Sugarman's editorial, "Disney's Partisan Kingdom," (The Dartmouth, May 10) strangely reminded me of some of Michael Moore's fatally flawed works. Both Sugarman and Moore started with good points but sensationalized them to a level where they started to chip away at their own legitimacy.
I was reminded specifically of Moore's "Bowling for Columbine." The film makes some insightful arguments about American society which cut to the quick of our consciences. For example, why was he able to walk down a block in a Canadian city and enter unlocked apartments when Americans seem to be arming themselves to the hilt for protection against some shadowy intruder (imagined or otherwise)? But Moore, later on, proceeds to leave a photograph of a little girl who was shot by her brother in a handgun accident on Charlton Heston's patio, as if to imply that Charlton Heston and some right wing, gun-toting, big-business conspiracy was directly to blame; by taking his film that extra step to a platform of unfounded, heavy-handed accusation, he undermines rather than supports his argument.
Likewise, by examining the elaborate way in which an elected administration is capable of muffling voices, Sugarman elucidates a noteworthy American problem. She too, however, falls prey to a giddy excitement at the chance of taking on George Bush, Iraq, civil liberties and big business all in one go.
Firstly, she does not make a cogent argument as to why Disney has a civic responsibility to present a number of viewpoints. Here in lies something for your consideration: by demanding that Disney distribute Moore's latest film, which has an arguably radical stance, is she not herself 'bending' those very civil liberties to which both individual and corporation are entitled? Disney was not nor claims to be anything but a business and as someone succinctly put it at this week's film society meeting, "Disney's only responsibility is to its shareholders." If they see an association with this film to be at all damaging (both publicly and financially) to Disney's image, then it is both understandable and justifiable that they would dissociate themselves from the film.
This leads me to my next bone of contention. I stress that I am no savant of the inner workings of Florida tax laws and am only using the information which Sugarman has provided. The 'financial illogic' which she points to cannot be supported when given closer scrutiny. Compare two rough numbers in your head: the net profit of a Michael Moore film ("Columbine" took in $40 million worldwide) vs. the combined income tax of all of Disney's Florida-based ventures. Even a shift of a few percent to the latter number would dwarf "Fahrenheit 9/11's" income.
Finally, Sugarman fails to consider an important possibility: that Moore, who has made a fortune with his films, knows exactly what he's doing. Disney did not destroy or suppress Moore's voice by choosing not to distribute the film. They have, in so doing, I would argue, doubled his profits. How much media attention has this controversy generated for the film (does the "Passion's" controversial prelude come to mind?) that would otherwise be catering to the five second American attention span through some other controversy? Mel Gibson's movie is a perfect example. If there hadn't been the three months of anti-Semitic accusations before the premiere, would the film's gross be up at $400 million where it proudly stands now?
Movies that are denied distribution on account of controversy are rare, but, time and again, films have proven that if there is enough marketable controversy, they will find backers. "Kids" (1995), for example, was dropped by its initial distributor. A quick search on IMDB.com will show that its worldwide gross (having been picked up by some other interested party) was $15 million.
I suggest to Sugarman that she weigh the possibility that Moore is just as economically savvy as Disney's chairman and that he too, is pandering, through his oft dramatized and sweeping accusations (think of the little girl's photo on Charlton's patio) to an economic factor, that his films cater to a specific sector of society that wants to hear about how George Bush and Disney and Charlton Heston are all in cahoots, causing infant deaths and silencing the radical left at every turn.
