As you know, my previous column dealt
with the apparent efforts by Michael Moore and Canadian and publicly
held company. Lions
Gate, the “Fahrenheit 9/11” distributor, to make it easier for
children to see the film without their parents influence. This effort
was made primarily in the form of an appeal to the MPAA’s got the
film’s R rating to be reduced to a PG-13. Mr. Tom Ortenberg, the president
of Lions Gate, personally argued the case himself, according to the
Associated Press.
Moore and Ortenberg made comments to the press after they lost that
appeal which either left the impression that they hoped children would
ignore their parents and see the film, or in Moore’s case, deliberately
encouraged children to circumvent their parents or guardians and sneak
in to see the film.
In my column, I encouraged many of you to share your thoughts about
parental responsibility with Mr. Ortenberg. Many of you did, and to
his credit he responded to some of you. I, too, had e-mailed him and
asked him to repudiate his comments, or clarify them, and did not
receive an answer. My guess is that after he heard from so many of
you he felt he needed to respond. Many of you shared your letters
with me as well. All respectful, powerful and clear.
Realizing he may have a new found willingness to answer my direct
questions, I e-mailed him again. To my surprise, he answered and in
a way which I think is worth sharing with you. Mr. Ortenberg has agreed
to allow this reprint of his letter to me, and I’m happy to do so.
I open with my second e-mail to him, his response follows, and my
answer to him is last. I make some further comments at the end, so
read on…
Mr. Ortenberg, I e-mailed you earlier regarding your comments as the
president of Lions Gate, which, while subtler than Michael Moore's,
seem to encourage children to ignore the R rating your film, "Fahrenheit
9/11," has been given. For a publicly held company, that seems
like a rather precarious position to take, to say the least.
I understand you have e-mailed some stating that there has been
a "misunderstanding here as I have not encouraged any youngster
to ignore a parental wish."
In case it has slipped your mind, here is what you said to an Associated
Press reporter after the MPAA upheld the R rating:
"We'll just have to hope the teenagers we're encouraging
to see this picture find their way in through parents or adult guardians."
Did you not say that? Here is what the AP reported Mr. Moore had
to say: "I encourage all teenagers to come see my movie, by
any means necessary. If you need me to sneak you in, let me know."
Is that a statement you repudiate? If there has been a "misunderstanding"
perhaps you do. If so, I'd love to know and so would my listeners
and readers.
I am a nationally syndicated radio talk show host, syndicated columnist
and New York Times best selling author. My radio program airs Saturdays
from 4-7pm PT. My flagship is KABC here in Los Angeles. I would
like to invite you to come on so you can perhaps clarify what you
meant and whether or not you support Mr. Moore's encouragement for
children to see the film and ignore their parents wishes. After
all, they wouldn't have to use Mr. Moore to get in if their parents
are willing to take them to see it now would they?
You're more than welcome to e-mail me with your answer or call
my producer, David Ruben at ------------, to make an arrangement
for Saturday. We can do this by telephone so you don't even need
to leave your home. You can choose the time that best suits you.
You can stay to answer people's questions or not. It's up to you.
The program is live and heard in 44 states, 132 stations.
I *will* be discussing this, and considering your answer to some
e-mails, it appears as though you *are* repudiating (or rejecting)
the impression made by your earlier statement. But I must say those
comments and what you're e-mailing to people do seem to be in direct
contradiction. I'd love to give you airtime to clarify things, and
perhaps remind children that they should respect their parents decision
regarding this film, not yours. Of course, you are also welcome
to defend your and Mr. Moore's position that children should see
this film despite what their parents say. You seemed rather comfortable
intimating that yesterday.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Tammy Bruce
Dear Tammy,
I can not speak for Michael Moore.
As for myself, when doing several interviews back to back, I sometimes
speak more eloquently than others. When I said "through their
parents(or guardians)," I did not mean to imply that children
should go "around"
their parents or "despite" any parental wishes, but rather
with their parents. Of course some parents will feel this film is
appropriate for their teenage children, and some will not. I personally
am not asking and in fact would discourage children from going to
any film, regardless of rating, that their parents do not approve
of.
I take my responsibility as a parent and film marketer very seriously.
There have been several recent films rated PG13, such as Lord
of the Rings, Hellboy and Van Helsing, that I refuse to let
my children see, and I respect the right of parents to make those
same choices for their children as it relates to Fahrenheit
9/11 or any other film, regardless of rating.
I have received no other complaints about my remarks from anyone
besides those associated with you. Regardless of whether we agree
on any other issue, on the issue of parental responsibility and
respect I believe we are in agreement.
Tom Ortenberg
Dear Tom,
Thanks for getting back to me so quickly. I had a feeling you would
be working late this evening, as perhaps you will for some time
to come.
I appreciate your thoughtful answer, and yet I think you can understand
how children should "find their way through" sends a bit
of a different message than "find their way with" their
parents. It's a difference, though, I would be happy to share with
my readers and listeners.
Do I have your permission to share your note to me with my audience?
I would be happy to do so.
As far as Michael Moore, I realize you don't speak for him, but
you are in business with him and his attitude and comments will
affect impressions of Lions Gate. You make choices about with whom
you will associate and you've clearly made one here. His encouragement
of children to ignore and go behind the backs of their parents cast
a further impression on your remarks.
At any rate, your comments are helpful and certainly clarifying.
And while you may have heard only from people 'associated' with
me, you do understand that many Americans do not realize the access
they have when it comes to issues like this, and with Hollywood
especially.
I am an organizer and like to remind people that they can, and
should, chime in on important social issues. I think you know that
even when you may not hear from people, they are out there and affected
by your work, and the decisions you make.
Thank you again, and if I receive your permission I will make sure
your thoughtful response to me is shared with the same outreach
as my complaint of your comments. The offer for the radio show remains
open by the way.
Sincerely
Tammy Bruce
In the last letter he sent he agreed to my sharing his letter with
you and indicated he would continue to consider coming onto Tammy
Radio to answer questions about this issue.
Considering Tom Ortenberg must have received a bit of a deluge of
e-mail, I think his response was indeed thoughtful, and at the same
time, rather careful. While I appreciated his clear response to the
issue of parental responsibility, you noticed how he did not feel
compelled to repudiate Mr. Moore’s comments. It would have been easy
to have done so, even diplomatically, but he did not. That was disappointing,
but not entirely surprising, You don’t need to “speak” for someone
to say you disagree with what they’ve said.
While he asserts in his letter that there are films, regardless of
rating, that he would not let his children see, he has made direct
comments that “Fahrenheit 9/11” should be seen by children,
and specifically, not with their parents.
As the Associated Press reported,
“Tom Ortenberg, president of Lions Gate Films, had argued to the appeals
board that 15- and 16-year-olds should be free to see the film on
their own [my emphasis] because they could end up in military
service in Iraq in the next few years.”
Ultimately, I appreciate, as should you, the fact that Mr. Ortenberg
and Lions Gate, have heard you. The least this accomplishes is reminding
film producers and distributors that they do not make decisions in
a vacuum, and you are awake and ready to respond.
On another note, I cannot stress the importance of thanking the people
at the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) for having an
initial panel of parents who knew to give F-9/11 an R, and then for
not caving under what must have been extreme pressure from Moore and
Lions Gate. Joan Graves (joan_graves@mpaa.org), the Chair of the MPAA
Rating Council, deserves to be thanked. They should be reminded that
we know their work is important, helps you as parents, and how our
newly vigorous involvement in our culture did not stop with Janet
Jackson, the Super Bowl and the FCC.