Yep Fahrenheit 9/11 is getting more exposure and a larger release than most documentaries ever get. The campaign against the movie isn't working to keep it out of theatres:
Director Moore Says Time to Wake Up the 'Choir' Quote:
Distributors Lions Gate Films and IFC Films have already placed "Fahrenheit 9/11" in over 750 theaters for Friday, said Lions Gate distribution chief Tom Ortenberg.
All major chains have agreed to play the movie and awareness among fans is growing rapidly, he said.
...
Because it will debut in far fewer theaters than a major motion picture, which can be released in over 3,000, "Fahrenheit 9/11" will likely not open as No. 1 on box-office charts despite the intense interest and controversy the film has generated.
Even so, the documentary stands likely to top the box-office success of Moore's Oscar-winning "Bowling for Columbine," the highest grossing documentary on record, which had a global haul of $58 million. That film debuted in only eight theaters in the U.S. and Canada when it opened in 2002.
750 theatres versus 8 is quite a step up for "Fahrenheit 9/11". And it's an increase of 250 from the numbers that Moore reported on his website.
ETA: Fahrenheit 9/11 is now booked into more than 800 theatres:
'Fahrenheit 9/11' Keeps R Rating, Widens Debut Quote:
Distributors Lions Gate Films and IFC Films said "Fahrenheit" has now been booked into 868 theaters for its nationwide debut on Friday, unprecedented for a political documentary.
ETA2: Fahrenheit 9/11 got an R which was expected given the violent imagery in it's Irag footage. Moore's appeal for a PG-13 rating was simply not realistic. The imagery in Fahrenheit 9/11 is simply not appropriate for people under 13 or 14. A PG-13 ratings lets anyone in and only acts as an advisory. This movie and Gibson's show that the system is broken IMHO.
I think the US ratings system needs to be overhauled. I propose using the R rating system to limit content by age. If a movie only has one scene of violence it should not get the same ratings as an intensely violent movie that is almost all violence and blood like Gibson's latest and it's second cousin, Dawn of the Dead. Since NC-17 is only applied to sexual content as a replacement ot the X rating, perhaps they should also create a new rating R-17 for intense violence. If a movie is predominantly violence and blood it should get the R-17 (no one under 17 admitted) ratings but if it only has a couple of scenes of violence, it should get an R-14 (no one under 14 admitted) for example.
The current ratings system simply doesn't work. Movies are rated more often in accordance with the desires of conservative groups who don't like any sexual content but tolerate a great deal of violence especially if the movie meets their poli-religious goals. Since folks like the Parent Teacher council complain vociferously about sexual content that content often gets rated disproportionately over violent content. The level of violence should be the indicator and not iit's gratuitousness which is often twisted to allow violence in movies that matching your political and/or religious agenda. People disagree on whether or not showing violence is necessary to the art and/or agenda of a film but do not disagree on what is violent. Europe and Canada have ratings systems that make much more sense and can limit content more by age:
Movie ratings US
# G - Movie suitable for all ages
# PG - Parental guidance suggested - Contains mature themes, may not be suitable for small children
# PG-13 - Parents strongly cautioned - Contains mature themes, may not be suitable for children under 13 years old
# R - Restricted - Contains mature themes (usually sex and/or violence). Children under 17 not admitted without an adult
# NC-17 - No children under 17 admitted.
France:
# valid for all audiences;
# with a prohibition for minors of 12;
# with a prohibition for minors of 16;
# with a prohibition for minors of 18.
In addition, the movie may be considered "pornographic or inciting to violence" (colloquially referred to as "X-rated).
Their ratings allow for dividing content allowed by age and distinguishes between pornagraphic (violent/sexual) and adult content. I see a disproportionate prohibition against sexual content as a way to censor gay themes in film. If a film has PG sexual content, it should not get a higher rating because the couple is gay. I think it's sad that misguided people think they should take 9 year old and even younger kids to see an intensely violent film regardless of it's agenda. I think violence is more of a problem that sexual content to young minds. I hope that parents will take their teens to see Fahrenheit 9/11 but would certainly not think it's appropriate for the under 13 crowd nor does Michael Moore. He wants his film seen by 15 and 16 year olds who may end up as fodder in future wars.
_____________________
I still see dead lesbian cliches
Edited by: sam7777
at: 6/23/04 1:27 pm