General Motors Bans Michael Moore From His Own Premiere
The blog, Think Progress, has put together a good post on a recent Detroit premiere of Michael Moore's new film "Capitalism: A Love Story," which details how Moore and the press were essentially banned from attending because the theatre was owned by the auto company.
Moore spoke explained the "ban" to a local news station in Detroit:
MOORE: General Motors said that I could not be on the premises doing any interviews or press. … I would get over it if I were them. … In the movie I actually try to attempt to see the new chairman to share my ideas about mass transit and other things that the General Motors factories could be building that would benefit about society. … We have 50 billion dollars of our money sitting over there. That is owned by us now. And the de facto CEO is President Barack Obama. I legally rented the four theaters to have my Detroit premiere, and yet somehow they’re able to ban me from my own premiere here? What country are we living in?
Moore did not stay away from the premiere. He appeared later but still obeyed the main request made by General Motors, which was that he not walk into the General Motors-owned facility with the press following him.
Tensions between General Motors and Moore stem from Moore's film Roger & Me, which celebrates its 20th anniversary this year. Roger & Me profiled the harm done to Flint, Michigan by GM CEO Roger Smith when he massively downsized General Motors.
Moore's new film, "Capitalism: A Love Story," which focuses on the fundamentally unjust elements of America's economic system and essentially condemns the evils of capitalism, opens on Oct. 2nd.
If you saw Moore on Jay Leno's Show recently, you may know that he has organized premieres that will be free screenings for poor and homeless Americans in the 10 hardest hit markets in America.
Visit MichaelMoore.com for more.
*I plan to post a review of the film after I attend a free Chicago screening on Friday, which Moore will be attending. Stay tuned for a review that will convince (if you haven't been convinced already) that this film is required viewing for all Americans.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Chicago Guy
Behind Blue Eyes
AmyFuji
Rob Kall
danbloom
Silkstone
Salon.com
Comments
Cheers. M
I find it funny that Hollywood the great wasteland of excess is critical of the very system that makes it rich. But, then again self loathing is a Hollywood tradition as well.
Why wait for the book? Won't the book cost more than a ticket to see this movie?
What drives Hollywood does not drive Michael Moore.
Give me a break.
Moore did not get rich and famous from capitalism. He got rich and famous from his love and passion for democracy and the working class.
His films and the way that he gives back to Americans and makes them feel part of something larger than themselves after they are finished are a testament to how genuine Michael Moore is as an individual.
You, sir, should stay at home and not purchase a ticket. This film would challenge certain illusions you need to hold on to in order to survive.
Pull yourself up by your bootstraps you have. So continue on.
Moore didn't get rich from capitalism? Who is out there making movies and making millions? I don't see him giving away all his money and living in a double wide some place, do you?
And if he has a love of democracy, maybe he should go find one someplace and live there. This country is anything but.
Moore is a millionaire from his films. That is OK, I have no problem with it. The reasons he makes millions is the free market system and capitalism. I have no idea what motivates him, and since you cannot read his mind Kevin neither do you.
I enjoy his films and even enjoyed his short lived TV show. It was interesting entertainment, sort of SNL with a message. Sorry it is not real journalism because he already has a point of view decided and fits the information of his foe documentaries to reflect that view point. Again that is OK, all film makers have a point of view. I would not expect Moore to be any different.
Hollywood which is the most capitalistic system in the world and is also the most self loathing. Maybe that is why a lot of people take what they have to say with a grain of very small salt.
And I do not totally disagree with Moore, our capitalist system, healthcare, and political system has some real problems. But, I see Moore in the function of court jester showing up to annoy the king not present balance journalism.
And please don't ell us that we don't know what's in Michael Moore's head!! Doofuses!! (Or would that be "Doofi?") What he is thinking is exactly what he puts into his movies. The guy is clear as a clean window. He tells us exactly what he's thinking. Not just what will serve his interests, as so many self-interested people do.
It doesn't matter what his motives are. He used the capitalistic system to get the message out he wanted out and to become a millionaire.
You write:
"I see Moore in the function of court jester showing up to annoy the king not present balance journalism."
He's not a journalist. He's a documentarian. And documentarians are not supposed to be objective.
Documentaries are not objective. They haven't ever been objective. They most always have a point of view.
Go all the way back to the earliest documentaries like Nanook of the North---even that had a point of view and was not objective.
Self-hating capitalist Michael Moore doesn't mind if his movies fall victim to file sharing on the Internet.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1904114401893858778#
I don't think many "capitalists" or "free marketers" would approach the issue of file sharing and copyright like Moore does.
Rupert Murdoch got "rich and famous." Moore made money because he was doing something that many Americans believe in.
There's a difference. You may not want to see it, catnlion. This capitalist system is always entering our lives somehow so it may be tough to imagine someone who has gone about their American life without profit being their top concern.
That does not mean they can't be entertaining. That is one of the functions of the court jester. In all Moore films you can expect two things. One him blind siding his victim to make them look evil or stupid, and two showing up unannounced at the office of some corporation to make some point and filming his removal. Maybe someone should show up at Moore's office with a film crew and see if his security throws them out that would make a nice U-Tube post.
The reason Moore does not stop file sharing is he knows the Internet is the biggest means of promoting his films. It is all good business sense.
Yeah, you're right. Moore typically isn't honest about his point of view.
When he made Roger & Me, he didn't really oppose the anti-worker policies of General Motors. He just wanted to exploit the workers who had fallen victim to the downsizing of GM.
When he made Bowling for Columbine, he didn't really care about the roots of gun violence in America. He intentionally used the stories of the students who shot up Columbine to reopen the wounds of all those who were victims of the Columbine shooting that day.
When he made Fahrenheit 9/11, he didn't really want to show Americans how the Bush Administration used 9/11 to push their agenda for wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Moore wanted to make money off liberals who could not admit Gore lost in 2000.
When he made Sicko, he didn't really do that because he cared deeply about the plight of underinsured Americans (and uninsured Americans) and wanted to gain support for radically reforming the for-profit health care system in America. He did it because he wanted to make another unreasonable demand on American society that could never be fulfilled.
And, with Capitalism: A Love Story, Moore really doesn't think the evils of capitalism have to be confronted and Americans need to have the power to influence decisions about things like bailouts, etc. No, Moore just wants to appeal to extremists in this nation who just don't get this free market system.
Yea, Moore's a regular Edward Bernays. Where will he take his bewildered herd next?
There isn't really any trouble with capitalism, in and of itself. The trouble lies in the corporate personhood doctrine, SAnta Clara Cty v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co. (1886) which essentially destroyed real capitalism and is always chip! chip! chipping away at our democracy. What we have today is the direct result of this. Supreme Ct. rulings have lain more than sufficient tracks towards ensuring that we are at the mercy of corporate dictators running corporate nations--each beholden only to themselves, completely insulated as they are in boardrooms and in constitutional protections. And somehow, no matter how many corporations rise and fall, no matter how many citizens rise and fall with them, some of us manage to convince ourselves, that corporate government will better serve us than a democratically elected one--a people and gov't guided by the constitution. Look around! if you can't see that we have become a corporate nation, that we are logo-ed to death, that we are lulled to sleep by savvy marketing campaigns financed by bazillions of our dollars then you are a lot like me. You too would rather not see where we are headed.
Moore is Hollywood, but I don't mean that in negative way, just stating the facts. Moore has convictions and he states them in his work. But, I find it funny that Hollywood seems to be the most self loathing group in the world and in a lot of ways the biggest hypocrites to boot. But, it takes all kinds to make the world go around.
Like I said I think Moore is witty and funny, and he plays the role of court jester well.
But, evey court needs a jester.
For me a documentary film should approach the subject matter with a blank slate (although impossible to do) and let the facts speak for themselves. Propaganda film starts with an objective and lines the facts up to match the already desired presupposition. Both have elements of truth, but human nature is rarely honest when the facts collide with our core beliefs and ideologies.
Moore's films are interesting, but not objective and therefor are not a reliable source when deciding an issue. Anymore than watching a Hollywood movie "based on a true story" both can become works of fiction.
That Michael Moore is not objective enough for you is not his problem but yours. You're not alone though.
Many Americans and news pundits think Moore is a biased filmmaker. Of course he is.
Moore has fact-checked and sourced information in his documentaries before. So, don't tell me his movies aren't reliable.
He makes an argument based on his opinions like all documentary filmmakers do. The audience decides. And, more often than not, the audience (and critics) has decided that his films are superb films that shine a light on very important issues.
Now, you are suggesting Moore is an opportunist and one only interested in the creation of agitprop material.
I think you are suggesting he just likes to plant seeds of insurrection in America simply because he is good at making Americans feel like rebelling.
Ludicrous.
Moore makes his living being controversial. That is OK he is an entrepreneur living in a free society. For example one of his signature sticks is to go to the offices of corporations to be thrown out. It plays well to his audience. But, in reality he has no right to go into a place of business and demand an audience with the CEO. In his recent film he went around in a armored car to collect the bail out money from banks on behalf of the American People. In reality who is he to demand anything. Was he elected or granted authority to accept any money from the bank. Actually if the bank did give him the money it would be a crime. But, it is street theater at its best and he gets paid well for it.