Baseball Crank
Covering the Front and Back Pages of the Newspaper
May 20, 2004
POLITICS: Moore-On

Annika imagines Michael Moore in boot camp. And the MooreWatch guys suggest that if Moore really thought getting his message out was more important than cashing in, he'd pre-release his latest crockumentary on the internet free of charge. Which ain't gonna happen.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 8:13 AM | Politics 2004 | Comments (9) | TrackBack (0)
Comments

I don't understand. Why can't he make money and get his message across? Even if he says that the message is more important than the money, are these guys (and you) saying that it's an either/or situation - that he must choose message or money? Clearly the opposite is true, as any pragmatic person should recognise: by generating additional controversy, he increases both his money and the reach of his message.

Or is there something wrong with capitalism when it's practised by lefties?

Posted by: reuben at May 20, 2004 3:50 PM

The problem is that Moore invariably assumes that the profit motive is exclusive of all other motives and considerations.

Posted by: The Crank at May 20, 2004 4:13 PM

Invariably? Are you sure about that statement? Just because he's a lefty who criticises capitalism at his most intense, ala Roger and Me, does this mean he "invariably assumes that the profit motive is exclusive of all other motives and considerations"?

I'm sure that you found Roger and Me to be overworught, as you do Moore, but it seems to me that you're making an assumption based on a)your dislike of him and b)a distrust of lefties. I'm happy to be proved wrong though, if you can find examples of him criticising all degrees of capitalism.

Posted by: reuben at May 20, 2004 4:30 PM

One thing that seems to me to be obvious is that one motive (cash or getting the message out) must be the primary motive. That said, all of Moore's post-Bowling For Columbine work seems to have profit as the primary motivator and getting the message out as secondary. This is of course, contradictory to Moore's claims that he's all about the cause.

While no one says he shouldn't make any money on it, one or the other must be the bigger motivator. Releasing his latest piece free of charge on the internet would have little impact on the box office gross of such work, just like downloading music has little impact on music sales (as reported by Damien Cave in Rolling Stone, April 9, 2004). In fact, releasing his piece on the internet would cement Moore as someone more concerned with social discourse and political change, rather than someone more concerned with making a quick buck from his legions of followers.

Posted by: Keith at May 20, 2004 7:28 PM

One thing that seems to me to be obvious is that one motive (cash or getting the message out) must be the primary motive. That said, all of Moore's post-Bowling For Columbine work seems to have profit as the primary motivator and getting the message out as secondary. This is of course, contradictory to Moore's claims that he's all about the cause.

While no one says he shouldn't make any money on it, one or the other must be the bigger motivator. Releasing his latest piece free of charge on the internet would have little impact on the box office gross of such work, just like downloading music has little impact on music sales (as reported by Damien Cave in Rolling Stone, April 9, 2004). In fact, releasing his piece on the internet would cement Moore as someone more concerned with social discourse and political change, rather than someone more concerned with making a quick buck from his legions of followers.

Posted by: Keith at May 20, 2004 7:29 PM

"The problem is that Moore invariably assumes that the profit motive is exclusive of all other motives and considerations."

That may be one of the most pretentious, things I've ever read.

Heck, and you consider Gore and Kerry opaque?

Posted by: C Giddy at May 20, 2004 10:24 PM

"The problem is that Moore invariably assumes that the profit motive is exclusive of all other motives and considerations." Uh... right.

Gosh, from my reading, I'd have assumed The Crank's biggest problem with Michael Moore's work was that the guy is fat.

Crank, its irresponsible of you to suggest Moore could just *presto* release his film at his whim. I imagine -- and I"m no lawyer-- that there may be some contractual language presenting such a barrier.

Posted by: Adrock at May 21, 2004 4:27 PM

I've generally tried to avoid making too much fun of Moore's weight; I thought Annika's item was funny more because of the mental image of Moore in boot camp.

Contractual language? Well, likely there is. Again, the point here is that Moore is a guy trying to make money and deal with the real-world consequences of that. Which I have no problem with, and it's not inconsistent with him also having a message (albeit one he consistently tries to advance through falsehoods). But it's all very inconsistent with his own approach towards other people's profit-making ventures.

Posted by: The Crank at May 21, 2004 4:35 PM

Miramax owns the distribution rights to it, Disney owns Miramax, Disney won't allow Miramax to release it.

I'd imagine Disney would have no problem with Mirimax selling it to someone else to distribute it in the States, but I'm gathering they wouldn't let it go for free.

Either way, it appears the decision is not Moore's.

Crank, would you agree with this?

Posted by: C Giddy at May 21, 2004 4:36 PM
Site Meter 250wde_2004WeblogAwards_BestSports.jpg