I was just reading this Yahoo! News article and I began to wonder if what they were doing was right.
Simply put, the same group that helped to block CBS’s flick about Reagan is trying to convince theatre chains not to show Fahrenheit 9/11.
On the one hand, they have a right to express their opinion and object to that which they find objectionable, but at what point does their right to object to the objectionable supercede my right to see this film?
So that’s my question: Is it right for groups to lobby against airing a film that they find objectionable?
The devil’s in the details, and so is the debate. Protesting, placards, phone calls, letters, emails,boycotting are all legitimate routes, ASAIC. Strongarm tactics, threats of violence[personal or property] and other such coercive techniques are not justifiable. You/we only get to see the film if the theater owners feel it’s worth the hassle and publicity. It’s all up to them. They’re trying to do business, while the protesters are trying to curtail it, albeit inadvertantly. Do we really have an inherent right to view something, if nobody wants to present it? How many films, books, articles, etc never even make it to the rumor stage, because the author is afraid of what may happen when it’s released? Surely Moore, with his track record, had to have known his film just wouldn’t waltz into the theaters. He’s got guts, if nothing else.
It’s hard to gauge before actually seeing the film. Bowling for Columbine had a lot of false claims and dubious assertions, which Moore ducked by wearing his “satirist” hat some of the time and his “documentarian” hat the rest of the time. If he plans to try that again, he forfeits the right to use some of the heavy-handed imagery he’s reputed to be using.
Does anyone have a right to try to block it? Well, it is coming out right before an election. Short of demanding that he stick to a journalist’s standard of accuracy (which he’s not been good at doing in the past), his detractors have the same right to influence the public’s opinion as he does.
Haven’t these people realized that doing this sort of thing only helps the film? If anything they will be convincing people to put the movie in theaters because of all the free publicity. Controversy sells tickets.
As for the OP, all the protests do is make them feel a lil better about standing up for what they believe in, silly as it may be. They aren’t hurting anything.
It my gut feeling that this is exactly how Moore expects it to go. From what I’ve heard the movie is bittingly funny and apparently factual. He’s setting the conservative up to look like prejudicial fools.
Also, since I have my special predicting hat on, there is a phrase in that movie that’s going to enter our lexicon. Anyone remember “E.T. phone home?” Same thing. It’s going to be annoying.
Imagine for a moment that someone made a film like Fahrenheit 9/11…only Jesse Jackson and the current civil rights arena was the target. It would have the same standards of truth and objectivity of the Moore film.
It would be amusing to watch the intellectual gymnastics as both sides tried to switch sides of the dance floor while maintaining any shred of credibility.
You don’t even need a hypothetical, Evil One. I recall seeing Gloria Allred interviewed about The Passion of the Christ, where she defended the pressure tactics being used by Jewish anti-defamation groups to prevent the distribution of that film, in spite of not actually having seen it herself. How much do you wanna bet she’s on the other side of this one, and that she’s not alone in that regard?
I’d like to see a cite regarding supposed efforts to prevent distribution of that movie.
Any attempts to block Moore’s film from being shown are doomed to failure and will only help the movie gain attention and profits. The pro-movie advocates should be saying “Bring it on” (as somebody or other once said in another context).
Here’s Roger Ebert’s take, which includes the following quote: “The wise French director Godard once said, ‘The way to criticize a film is to make another film.’”
She has a case. For the most part, the Gospels say very little about Jesus of Nazareth’s execution. Most of what we think we know about the Passion comes from folk myths and embellishments, much like the notion that Mary Magdelene was a reformed harlot, or the centrality of Mary.
Gibson acknowledges that he intended to include the passage out of Matthew (?) wherein the Jews say “His blood be upon us, and our children”, but removed it under objection. This very passage, as I’m sure you know, has served as the canonical justification for hideous persecution of Jews for two millenia. If Gibson is such an innocent lamb as regards anti-Semitism, why would he seek to include the one Biblical passage that offers such justification?
I think Moore’s ploy is to force confrontation with the facts. If you have to go to the trouble of proving to yourself that some of the accusations he makes are pure bull-pucky, you will have to go to the trouble of educating yourself as to how much he says is true. Personally, I find such tactics distasteful, and Moore an embarassing buffoon. But if he makes you think, if he forces you to confront the questions he raises, then good.
Farenheit 9/11 just won the palm d’or (or is it palmes d’or?) at Cannes. Of course it’s going to be shown in the United States. All these Bushies are doing is making sure it gets shown in the cineplexes (e.g., Regal Cinemas) and not just in independent art-houses. Even in the “red states,” people are going to have a chance to see this movie.
Here’s a more interesting question: Will this film affect the election, as Moore clearly hopes and his opponents apparently fear?
Were you living in a cave for the better part of the last year? Anti-defamation groups and their political allies were using the same sort of tactics described in the OP. Here’s something I found with five seconds of Googling:
That only deals with the historical accuracy of the film, not the propriety of seeking to prevent its distribution.
That’s an interesting point that may show Mr. Gibson harbors anti-Semetic tendencies. It is also wholly irrelevant to the issue of seeking to prevent distribution of the film, given that, as you note, the line in question was removed.
Unless, of course, you belive it proper to try to prevent the distribution of films made by people who are distasteful for things unrelated to the content of their films. Shall I expect you to boycott the next Roman Polanski effort?
Of course, Mr. Gibson’s ploy is to force viewers to confront the enormity of Christ’s sacrifice and, in doing so, to have them rethink their spiritual lives. That’s a noble goal even if, like Moore, some of the content of Gibson’s film is questionable. Why applaud those seeking to prevent the distribution of the one but condemn those doing so for the other?
It’s pretty easy to answer that question. Just ask yourself what steps the government would have to take to prevent such lobbying, and whether you would approve of those steps.
Of course, I’m assuming you’re asking whether it’s legally right (as opposed to morally right) to lobby against airing the film.
C’mon. Don’t be silly. Read what I posted again. You’ll notice that I referred to no specific movie, but a movie—it’s generic.
Frank, of course, does have a “right” to see any movie he wishes. But only those that a theater chooses to show. If they make a business decision to not show Moore’s film, or any other, the public doesn’t have some ordained “right” to see it. Unless and until it is available in another medium or venue. So, who has a “right” to stop anyone from viewing the film? The people/corporations who control the resources showing that film requires—the theater guys and the dvd manufacturers.
And Thomas Jefferson said (approximately) about free speech - If he is wrong in his logic disprove him, if he is wrong in his facts refute them, but in any case let him be heard.