Speaking of Sinking in a Quagmire...

(news) Michael Moore recently retracted a claim that Disney was sabotaging the US release of his latest film in an attempt at political censorship. In a letter to his supporters, posted yesterday at his website (which I'm not linking to, thank yew very much), he claims that he learned only the day before that Disney was pulling the plug on U.S. Distribution of his Farenheit 911 film.
However, in a later interview with CNN, he said that Eisner told him almost a year ago that he was angry that Miramax had agreed to make the film, and that he will not distribute it.
Moore claims that there was a contract to distribute the film, and Disney is claiming that there was never a contract to distribute. (Does this sound like a law school final question yet?)
But the part that really ticks me off is the NYT editorial that accuses Disney of being more in love with their bottom line than with free expression.
Pardon my TLA, but WTH?
First, let's all sit down, take a deep breath, and remind ourselves that Disney is (prepare to be shocked) a CORPORATION. And if anything theyve done in the past few years is an indication (like lobbying for extending copyright terms, for example), then it should come as no surprise to anyone that they are concerned about the bottom line. A corporation's job is, after all, to earn money for its stockholders.
Next, let's take another look at their actions. Moore's past films have made money. Stopping distribution isn't necessarily a move to increase the bottom line. If anything, it will probably reduce it. Miramax ponied up the money to make Moore's latest documentary. How are they going to make that money back now? Fact is, there's a possibility that they aren't. So, if they're not interested in distributing this film, it stands to reason that there may be an interest other than financial here.
Maybe Eisner, for one glorious moment, realized that he doesn't want Disney associated with this total wackjob. I mean, comparing terrorist insurgents to American Minutemen? Who wants to be associated with that? Someone who wants us to suffer a military loss in Iraq? Yeah, right.
Or (and here's the cynical law student/wacko conspiracy theorist in me coming back up for air before diving back into Crim Pro review) maybe it's all a plot to drive a lot of controversy and hype the movie before someone has a sudden "change of heart" and decides to distribute anyway.
Moore has a right to say whatever he wants to. He managed to get someone to give him a lot of money so he could make a film that says what he wants it to. Now he's upset that those same people aren't interested in distributing his film for people to watch. Guess what, kids? That's their right. They're a company and they get to make decisions on what the company will or will not do.
Here's an idea. Michael Moore doesn't need Miramax or anyone else to distribute his film. If he thinks it's such a great political message, if he thinks it's so important, why not distribute it himself over the 'Net? Slap it on up there, Mr. Moore, and let's have a look at it. I mean, Miramax has already paid for it, right? Post that sucker in a couple places with BitTorrent or distribute it on Kazaa, if you're so interested in free speech.
Or is it just possible that Disney isn't the only one looking at the bottom line?