24 January 2005 >> The New York Sun profiles Evan Coyne Maloney. More >>

26 June 2004 >> Could it be that conservatives are finally trying to assert themselves in the film business? The Hollywood Reporter thinks so:

Just as his “Fahrenheit 9/11” opens nationwide, several filmmakers are readying documentaries aimed at debunking Michael Moore, and a new film festival is being planned that will feature such works as well as other movies well to the right of Moore’s films.

Scheduled Sept. 9-11 in Dallas, the American Film Renaissance, as the festival will be known, has just been announced by co-founder Jim Hubbard, who said it is bankrolled primarily by some “big-time conservative donors.”

In the article, Hubbard says that boycott movements—such as those that would try to prevent people from seeing Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11—”are for the weak.”

I agree. The way to win an argument isn’t to stop your opponent from being heard, it’s by formulating a better argument and articulating it. Filmmakers such as Michael Wilson have been trying to do just that. Although I think the title of his film (Michael Moore Hates America) is a poor choice, the trailer for the film looks interesting and makes me want to see more.

Jim Hubbard adds:

“We want everyone to see Michael Moore’s film,” he said. “We also want everyone to see ‘Michael Moore Hates America.’ Conservatives complain about institutional bias in Hollywood. They need to stop whining and get out there and produce.”

Absolutely. I’ve been saying that for a while, and have been doing my small part to contribute. It’s heartening to see that folks like Hubbard are out there doing the same thing. I wish him the best of luck.

17 June 2004 @ 11:43PM >> Michael Moore is getting positive feedback on his film Fahrenheit 9/11 from some unfortunate allies: friends of the Islamic terrorist group Hizbollah.

According to London’s The Guardian, one of the film’s distributors in the Middle East “has been contacted by organisations related to the Hezbollah in Lebanon with offers of help.”

I wonder what it says about Michael Moore’s agenda that a terrorist organization and self-proclaimed enemy of the United States wants his film Fahrenheit 9/11 reach a bigger audience.

If everybody who saw the film discovered this little fact after they left the theaters, the film would have virtually no political impact...which is why you’ll probably never hear anything about this from the network news reporters who—like Hizbollah—have been trying to help Moore promote his film.

21 May 2004 >> When the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill became law, unprecedented restrictions were placed on the free speech rights of private citizens. It is now illegal for a group of people to organize, pool their resources and purchase broadcast media ads supporting or opposing political candidates within 60 days of November’s election. The rationale was to eliminate the influence of advocacy groups that have become increasingly effective at bringing certain issues to the attention of voters. But the bill has one big gaping loophole. More >>

5 May 2004 >> Disney declines to distribute Fahrenheit 9/11, Michael Moore’s upcoming hit piece against President Bush. According to one Disney executive, “It’s not in the interest of any major corporation to be dragged into a highly charged partisan political battle.” For his part, Moore denies his film will be partisan. Is he being disingenuous? More >>

19 September 2003 >> The fact that liberals dominate the industry is even more significant given the recent changes in campaign finance laws. Michael Moore and his fellow filmmakers are free to embed their opinions in movies, but citizens who want to finance political ads will discover new limits to their freedom of speech. What would Mr. Moore have to say about this? To find out, I staked him out over the course of four days. Video >>

2 April 2003 >> A reader detects “subtle arrogance” on my part and that of Michael Moore. I object on the grounds that there’s nothing subtle about Michael Moore’s arrogance. More >>

25 March 2003 >> Noticing similarities between Michael Moore’s movies and his recent Academy Awards speech, Time Magazine’s James Poniewozik called the speech “a shrill harangue that would make a person ashamed even for agreeing with it.” Poniewozik also concurs with those of us who believe that the anti-liberation movement secured its own demise with its unintentional self-mockery.

James, thanks for writing that article. Saved me a lot of work!

And how’s this for balance: All of the documentary filmmakers who were nominated for Oscars stood behind Moore onstage in a show of political solidarity.