History repeats itself

Eisner won't distribute a film because it is "too political."

yet I would bet they would kiss the toes of the Bushler* if asked to make a glorious film.

Witness propaganda filmmaking at its best.


Triumph des Willens 1934

http://213.93.195.19:8080/ramgen/films/triumph.rm

It doesn't get any better than this, folks. Leni Riefenstahl. A queen among propagandists. Kind of reminds one of cute and cuddly Ann the Man.

watch and be amazed!

(I hope all this works)

at least, not films of the caliber of Riefenstahl's masterpiece. Look at the past few years: ShrubCo asked Hollywood to make films directed at the war effort, and, so far, it seems anything remotely connected with such a venture (The Alamo comes to mind) was a miserable failure -- much like Shrub! In fact, there have been more anti-Bush movies made recently than anything remotely pro-Bush: Fahrenheit 9/11 will be released soon, The Day After Tomorrow was released yesterday. So no, I don't see history repeating itself -- at least, not on that level.

and one can only hope that the information age lives up to expectations!

I see sinister actions, however, when one of THE major studios refuses to release a film because of its political content - content negative to the fearless leader. What's next!

It is Disney. And Michael Eisner's Disney. So it's not like it's too big a surprise. I mean that's kind of what you would expect them to do.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

the driving raison d'etre for every film distributor in America. This was an instance of corporate pusillanimity both shameless and incredibly disturbing, especially if the fear was of tax-law retribution by the State of Florida.

As near as I can tell, Disney's refusal to distribute the film was tied entirely to its fear of revenue loss -- not because of their disagreement with either the political content of the film or it's being inappropriate to be distributed. The political content was what Disney believed Florida Gov. John Bush would base his potentially vindictive assault on Disney's taxable revenue upon, but the potential loss of revenue and not the content of the film was what Disney based its decision upon.

Had Disney (as a corporate entity) sufficiently disagreed with the political content of the film, they would have shelved the project entirely, and refused Bob and Harvey Weinstein permission to purchase the film -- something they could have easily done, and then kept Moore fighting it in court until well after the election. However, as the film is now changing hands, and will in fact find a distributor, Disney can hardly be held to account for "censorship."

It does a disservice to ourselves to hold Disney responsible for their decision (when it is guilty of, at worst, corporate cowardice), while we permit the State-supported censors (John Bush and his cabal) to dodge the public limelight and not be held accountable for their acts of intimidation. For if there's truth to that rumor, it bespeaks of horrors far more frightening than censorship.

heil the Patriot Acts!!!!!

heil Patriot Day!!!!!

Where's that Reichstag again? I left it right over there next to the WTC.

This is a neverending war against an enemy that seems to be a chameleon. Look! It's Al Queda!!!!!
Look! It's Sadaam!!!!!
oh! look over there for a minute........go shopping.......
Hey! It's those zany people over in Syria!
whoops!
Look at what's happening in Saudi Arabia!
Gosh!
That could be the summer surprise, folks.
The Saudi's fall.

...I've been trying to find a copy of that film. It seems to work well, I'll watch it later.

nt

Didn't they sell the rights yesterday to those two brothers, who's names I can not remember? They are going to distribute the film and it will be in theaters in the us within weeks.