A game of politics played on ‘9/11’

Busting Michael Eis- ner upside his head is so easy you almost feel guilty about taking another potshot at Disney’s longtime lord of the manor. Then again, why not? He’s the showbiz equivalent of Fidel Castro -- even after years of dictatorial excess, he’s been impossible to dislodge from power. In the past decade, Eis- ner has cavalierly forced out Jeffrey Katzenberg, Joe Roth and dozens of other gifted executives; hired and abruptly fired Michael Ovitz, paying him off with an obscenely rich settlement package; made a disastrous $5-billion purchase of News Corp.’s Family Channel; presided over the precipitous decline of ABC-TV and Disney’s fabled animation kingdom and -- oh, yes -- let personal pique push Steve Jobs’ wildly profitable Pixar franchise out the door. Next to certain members of the Bush administration, it’s hard to think of anyone who’s made more bad decisions and alienated more people without getting the boot.

As you’ve probably heard, Eisner’s latest blunder is his decision to block Disney-owned Miramax Films from distributing Michael Moore’s incendiary new documentary, “Fahrenheit 9/11,” which is slated to debut Monday at the Cannes Film Festival. Although Eisner didn’t bother to see the movie himself -- the only executive who viewed the film is Brad Epstein, a Disney production vice president -- he’s already implicitly labeled the film a one-sided political tract, telling reporters that Disney “is such a nonpartisan company,” people “do not look for us to take sides.” Eisner’s ill-conceived decision has managed to accomplish a rare feat in today’s poisonously partisan times: aggravate the left and the right simultaneously. Liberals are crying censorship while conservatives want to box Eis- ner’s mouse ears for giving Moore -- an obnoxious publicity hound and longtime thorn in the right’s side -- a tidal wave of sympathy and free publicity.

So far, the news coverage has gone Moore’s way, with the filmmaker portrayed as the latest artist under siege in a world dominated by huge media conglomerates. But I think the story line is more complicated than that, in terms of both showbiz politics and turbulent personal relationships. When Moore, Eisner and Miramax czar Harvey Weinstein are wrestling in the sumo ring together, there’s so much more going on than meets the eye that it would make your head spin.

Let’s be clear: This is a world-class publicity stunt. Even Moore has acknowledged that he knew a year ago Eisner was angry with Miramax for buying the film and would never distribute it. Moore and Weinstein have planned for ages to sell the film at Cannes but conveniently waited to leak the story till just before the festival began. That said, Eisner’s contention that Disney is too respectful of its family reputation to ever “take sides” is pretty laughable. Disney’s ABC radio network is steeped in politics, being a home in many cities for such right-wing commentators as Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, who just the other day compared U.S. troops’ torture of Iraqi prisoners to frat-house pranks. Disney-owned KSFO-AM in San Francisco happily aired thousands of hours of gay- and liberal-bashing vitriol from host Michael Savage before he left last June in a contract dispute.

Even if you don’t believe Moore’s contention that Eisner shied away from the film because it might jeopardize tax favors for its Orlando theme parks from Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Disney is hardly a virgin when it comes to currying political favors. It takes sides all the time, giving tons of money to politicians, including a $1,000 personal contribution from Eisner to George W. Bush’s 2000 presidential campaign. In Florida, Disney has so much clout that in a 2001 meeting with Jeb Bush and his executive staff, Eisner gave the governor fiscal advice, urging that he continue to use the tourist tax imposed in central Florida to promote tourism -- and Disney World -- rather than allow it to be diverted to finance a new basketball arena.

If you were Eisner, having endured a debilitating series of stockholder challenges to his leadership, would you want to alienate Jeb Bush, who as the governor of Florida serves as a trustee for the state employees’ pension fund, which owns roughly 7.3 million shares of Disney stock? (The fund was part of the 45% of shareholders who withheld approval of Eisner’s board reappointment in March.) You could imagine that Eisner, having no doubt seen how scrupulously the Bush administration rewards its friends and punishes its enemies, has good reason to avoid embarrassing the president. After all, when Bush urged the country to return to normality after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, he didn’t tell citizens to take the Universal City tour. He said “Go to Disney World in Florida. Take your families and enjoy life.”

Of course, Disney isn’t the only player with ulterior motives. It’s hard to imagine anyone relishing, and benefiting from, Eisner’s discomfort more than Weinstein. Unable to persuade Eisner to approve proposals that would pump fresh cash into the Miramax coffers, Weinstein has chafed under Eisner’s tightfisted rule for years. In his mind, transforming Eisner’s refusal to distribute “Fahrenheit 9/11” into a publicity bonanza is surely the equivalent of sweet revenge. I’m betting that somewhere in the Miramax marketing department there’s already a poster with the slogan: “The Movie Michael Eisner Didn’t Want You to See!”

Weinstein suffered horribly during the recent Oscar season because Eisner’s penny-pinching forced Miramax to walk away from “The Lord of the Rings,” which swept the awards. Whenever Weinstein has tried to expand his empire, either by investing in a Manhattan entertainment complex or buying the IFC and Bravo cable channels, Eisner has nipped plans in the bud. What really enrages Weinstein is Eisner’s dismissive style. When Weinstein wanted Disney to invest in “The Producers,” Eisner didn’t just say no, he told Weinstein that investing in Broadway shows was for small-town dentists. (Undeterred, Weinstein bought in with his own money and made a mint.) From Weinstein’s point of view, if the “Fahrenheit” controversy puts even one more small nail in Eisner’s coffin, it’s worth the effort -- anything that puts Eisner a step closer to the door puts Weinstein a step closer to getting his company back.

What really makes Eisner look bad here isn’t so much his refusal to distribute a Michael Moore movie. It’s the disquieting sense that, like our present political leadership, he’s so cut off from reality -- and so consumed with holding onto his job -- that he can’t successfully navigate a crisis. In Washington, the Bush administration is flailing in a quagmire because it’s unwilling to admit a mistake. In Hollywood, Disney is frittering away its legacy because its generalissimo has created a company that can’t get rid of him.

Eisner is right about one thing: “Fahrenheit 9/11” won’t go unseen. And Disney has every right to distance itself from art it finds racist, anti-Semitic or uncomfortably satiric. It’s unfair to lump Disney in with the Sinclair Broadcast Group, which refused to air ABC’s “Nightline,” having decided it was somehow seditious to honor our war dead by showing their pictures on the air. By preempting “Nightline,” Sinclair prevented its viewers from being able to judge the material for themselves.

Eisner’s most grievous error was refusing to judge “Fahrenheit 9/11” on its merits. It’s a depressing sign of our culture’s disrespect for artists that people now hysterically trash art sight unseen. This applies not only to Eisner but also to the multitude of critics who pilloried Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ” and Kevin Smith’s “Dogma” long before they saw the films. As it turns out, neither film led to a worldwide wave of anti-Semitism or the destruction of the Catholic Church.

By seeing “Fahrenheit 9/11,” Eisner could’ve found a graceful way to deprive Moore and Weinstein of their PR bonanza. Better still, he could’ve taken the opportunity to prove that freedom of speech still thrives, even in the lofty reaches of corporate America. It would be a thrill to hear a man so devoted to all-American values that he often poses wearing mouse ears saying: “I found myself disagreeing with nearly everything Michael Moore has to say. But that made it all the more important for a company that believes in open discourse and diversity to allow the American public to make up its own mind, especially at a time when our soldiers in Iraq are giving their lives to promote democratic ideals.”

No doubt, Hannity and Limbaugh would use the Disney airwaves to attack Eisner as cravenly unpatriotic while Moore would still complain Disney wasn’t spending enough money marketing the film. But that would offer a convincing argument that if there’s room in the Disney universe for a bunch of malcontents like Michael Moore, Rush Limbaugh and Harvey Weinstein, this must be a hell of a free country.

The Big Picture runs Tuesday in Calendar. If you have questions, ideas or criticism, e-mail them to patrick.goldstein@latimes

*

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX)

Willing to step in?

Who will distribute “Fahrenheit 9/11”? Most studio conglomerates are too squeamish about controversy to take on the movie. But expect a spirited bidding war next week among the independent companies and studio specialty divisions. Here’s a look at the leading contenders.

Lions Gate Films: An obvious front-runner because it has shown a willingness to court controversy and has close Miramax ties, having released “Dogma” and “O,” two films that were too hot for Miramax to handle.

Newmarket Films: Having distributed “The Passion of the Christ,” the company can handle controversy and is on a winning streak. However, it already has one political satire due this fall, John Sayles’ “Silver City.” Does it have room for another?

Sony Pictures Classics: With an enviable track record with difficult films, it’s an obvious candidate, especially after doing a great job with the Errol Morris documentary “The Fog of War.” However there’s a long history of bad blood with Miramax that could make negotiations difficult.

Focus Films: It’s hard to imagine parent company General Electric being wildly enthusiastic, but the Focus team is politically in sync with Moore, has close relations with Miramax and is on a roll after the success of “Lost in Translation.”

Warner Independent: With a politically liberal parent company and eager to make a splash as the new company on the block, it could be a surprise contender even though WI chief Mark Gill left Miramax under less-than-happy circumstances.

Fox Searchlight: Normally it would be a major bidder, but it’s hard to imagine Moore being comfortable having his film in the hands of a Rupert Murdoch-owned company.