Ah, nothing like regretting your dependency and blaming it on censorship to get the old press machine rolling for Michael Moore (way enough press coverage from us already here) -- the news is interesting, and Michael has weighed in as well. Far be it from me to criticize a filmmaker for making the promotional best of controversy, but I fear that Michael has forgotten what it means to be independent (or how easy it is now to avoid being in a position where Disney can influence what you can and can't do with your film.) But Michael lost that option when he took $6M from Miramax.

Don't cast me as a Michael Moore basher -- I'm looking forward to the documentary, lean to the left, hope for "regime change" and admire Michael's promotional savvy in timing news about a year-long conflict for his Cannes debut. But filmbrain probably has it right when he writes, "as a corporation, Disney has the right to protect their interests." Mike Monello is also right that, "we as filmmakers must figure out new ways to distribute films and find our audiences."

But it seems to be a trend recently in the industry of independents to give up that very independence ... and then complain about that, in much the way the "screener ban" didn't really affect independents (instead, only those "independents" who had their films sold to Indiewood divisions.) In the New York Times, Michael tried to frame it with this quote, "At some point the question has to be asked, `Should this be happening in a free and open society where the monied interests essentially call the shots regarding the information that the public is allowed to see?' "

The independent in me thinks that Michael should take a closer look at what independents are doing to make sure that they don't put themselves in such a position (a choice that Michael sold for $6 million, not bad for a documentary.) The independent in me also thinks that if he hadn't taken that $6 million, he could just distribute it himself or make it available for download from the Web and decide for himself what "the public is allowed to see." Michael ... get Mel Gibson back on the phone and ask him to explain service deals again.

And then I remember that this is really just a savvy promotional stunt: all Harvey Weinstein has to do is let someone else distribute it in North America ... giving up part of the profits to distance his parent company from the controversy. Disney gets cleaner hands, Harvey gets to come out smelling like the hero, Michaels theatrical release (I predict: on time) gets armed with a healthy dose of "nearly censored film" pre-buzz.