"Sicko" Is Completed and We're Off to Cannes!

[Shannon Jacobs]

"Sicko" Is Completed and We're Off to Cannes!

May 17, 2007

Friends,

It's a wrap! My new film, "Sicko," is all done and will have its world
premiere this Saturday night at the Cannes Film Festival. As with "Bowling
for Columbine" and "Fahrenheit 9/11," we are honored to have been chosen by
this prestigious festival to screen our work there.

My intention was to keep "Sicko" under wraps and show it to virtually no one
before its premiere in Cannes. That is what I have done and, as you may have
noticed if you are a recipient of my infrequent Internet letters, I have
been very silent about what I've been up to. In part, that's because I was
working very hard to complete the film. But my silence was also because I
knew that the health care industry -- an industry which makes up more than
15 percent of our GDP -- was not going to like much of what they were going
to see in this movie and I thought it best not to upset them any sooner than
need be.

Well, going quietly to Cannes, I guess, was not to be. For some strange
reason, on May 2nd the Bush administration initiated an action against me
over how I obtained some of the content they believe is in my film. As none
of them have actually seen the film (or so I hope!), they decided, unlike
with "Fahrenheit 9/11," not to wait until the film was out of the gate and
too far down the road to begin their attack.

Bush's Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson, launched an investigation of a
trip I took to Cuba to film scenes for the movie. These scenes involve a
group of 9/11 rescue workers who are suffering from illnesses obtained from
working down at Ground Zero. They have received little or no help with their
health care from the government. I do not want to give away what actually
happens in the movie because I don't want to spoil it for you (although I'm
sure you'll hear much about it after it unspools Saturday). Plus, our
lawyers have advised me to say little at this point, as the film goes
somewhere far scarier than "Cuba." Rest assured of one thing: no laws were
broken. All I've done is violate the modern-day rule of journalism that
says, "ask no questions of those in power or your luncheon privileges will
be revoked."

This preemptive action taken by the Bush administration on the eve of the
"Sicko" premiere in Cannes led our attorneys to fear for the safety of our
film, noting that Secretary Paulson may try to claim that the content of the
movie was obtained through a violation of the trade embargo that our country
has against Cuba and the travel laws that prohibit average citizens of our
free country from traveling to Cuba. (The law does not prohibit anyone from
exercising their first amendment right of a free press and documentaries are
protected works of journalism.)

I was floored when our lawyers told me this. "Are you saying they might
actually confiscate our movie?" "Yes," was the answer. "These days, anything
is possible. Even if there is just a 20 percent chance the government would
seize our movie before Cannes, does anyone want to take that risk?"

Certainly not. So there we were last week, spiriting a duplicate master
negative out of the country just so no one from the government would take it
from us. (Seriously, I can't believe I just typed those words! Did I mention
that I'm an American, and this is America and NO ONE should ever have to say
they had to do such a thing?)

I mean, folks, I have just about had it. Investigating ME because I'm trying
to help some 9/11 rescue workers our government has abandoned? Once again,
up is down and black is white. There are only two people in need of an
investigation and a trial, and the desire for this across America is so
widespread you don't even need to see the one's smirk or hear the other's
sneer to know who I am talking about.

But no, I'm the one who now has to hire lawyers and sneak my documentary out
of the country just so people can see a friggin' movie. I mean, it's just a
movie! What on earth could I have placed on celluloid that would require
such a nonsensical action against me?

Ok. Scratch that.

Well, I'm on my way to Cannes right now, a copy of the movie in my bag.
Don't feel too bad for me, I'll be in the south of France for a week! But
then it's back to the U.S. for a number of premieres and benefits and then,
finally, a chance for all of you to see this film that I have made. Circle
June 29th on your calendar because that's when it opens in theaters
everywhere across the country and Canada (for the rest of the world, it
opens in the fall).

I can't wait for you to see it.

Yours,

Michael Moore

P.S. I will write more about what happens from Cannes. Stay tuned on my
website, MichaelMoore.com.

--
The truth alone will not make you free. However, it is one of the
prerequisites. Unless you know the truths underlying your options, you
cannot choose in freedom, whether you're buying shaving cream or a war.
Busheviks are simply slaves to BushCo's lies.

[Figaro]

Post by Shannon Jacobs
"Sicko" Is Completed and We're Off to Cannes!
May 17, 2007
Friends,
It's a wrap! My new film, "Sicko," is all done and will have its world
premiere this Saturday night at the Cannes Film Festival. As with "Bowling
for Columbine" and "Fahrenheit 9/11," we are honored to have been chosen by
this prestigious festival to screen our work there.

Good luck, Mike, and thanks for giving the repugs another ulcer to eat out their
guts!

[Shannon Jacobs]

[As usual, from elsewhere:]

My belief is that these accusations of manipulation are being
manipulated. For example, to bolster claims that Michael Moore is 'too
manipulative', you should seek spokespeople who have the credibility
to make such accusations. The most credible examples that come to my
mind are accusations from some prominent makers of documentary films--
and I strongly suspect they are being manipulated into making those
accusations. There are lots of levers available to move any person.
Envy at Moore's success? Funding for a new movie? Those are basically
carrots, but there are also sticks that could be used. For example,
dropping a pending lawsuit, or even good, old-fashioned blackmail
(perhaps based on no-warrant searches).

In philosophic terms, it's fundamentally impossible to deal with
reality directly. Our only direct access is to mental models of
reality. Likewise, we cannot affect reality directly, but only act on
our mental models in ways that may result in changes to reality.
Michael Moore builds mental models that represent his perception of
reality, but the process of building a mental model is fundamentally a
process of manipulation of various mental components such as existing
mental models.

The same philosophy applies to communications, to the transmission of
those mental models. In this case, Michael Moore has built up his
mental model of how the American health care system is failing. His
objective is to communicate that model to us, but the process is
fundamentally one of trying to manipulate our mental models to
understand his models. For example, when you think of the phrase
"health insurance", certain ideas come to your mind, but they are not
identical with the ideas that I'm thinking about as I write this, nor
identical with Michael Moore's ideas about health insurance. His movie
will show certain evidence that must link to ideas you already know
about, but if he succeed in communicating, he must cause you to think
differently about those ideas. That's a tough job.

I think the reason Michael Moore has had such strong impact in the
past is because he is good at building relevant mental models of
reality and at transmitting those models to many people. However, I
also think he has had failures. For example, Fahrenheit 9/11 clearly
failed in its ultimate purpose of removing Dubya from Washington. He
was unable to convince enough people of Dubya's astounding
incompetence.

My theory (AKA mental model) there is that the process of
communication requires a linkage to the mental model of the person who
is receiving the communication--and Michael Moore was unable to model
the mental state of the truly devout Busheviks. It doesn't matter how
many miserable failures you link to Dubya Bush, their mental models
remain worshipful. However, I don't blame Michael Moore for being
unable to relate to their ideas. I've concluded they are basically
loony.

--
The truth alone will not make you free. However, it is one of the
prerequisites. Unless you know the truths underlying your options, you
cannot choose in freedom, whether you're buying shaving cream or a
war.
Busheviks are simply slaves to BushCo's lies.

[Shannon Jacobs]

[As usual, from elsewhere:]

Well, I saw "Bowling for Columbine", and I have to disagree. Based on
your description, it seems to be that what your friend actually means
is that *HIS* mental model of Lockheed-Martin did not agree with *HIS*
interpretation of Michael Moore's mental model of Lockheed-Martin.
We're already several steps removed from the reality of whatever it is
that Lockheed-Martin might actually be in the real world.

You may regard him as "one of us", but I have a sneaking hunch that he
didn't actually get around to telling you what Michael Moore actually
got wrong. Let me make it clear that I'm not talking about trivial
details. Not something like "Michael Moore referred to the wrong model
of missile in the scene where..." That wasn't the point of that part
of the film. Actually, I suppose we better start by clarifying what
*you* think the point was, which actually means *your* interpretation
of what you think Michael Moore's point was. Then we'd have to try to
figure out what your friend thought the point was, and I suppose we
should double check with Michael Moore what *he* thought the point
was. I admit that my recollection is rather fuzzy at this point, but
*I* thought the point was that American's are quite fond of appealing
to force, with nuclear missiles as the ultimate appeal.

I don't exactly regard that appeal as irrational. It's just that I
agree with what I believe to be another one of Michael Moore's beliefs
that was only implied in the movie. I think we can do better than the
beasts. Human beings don't have to reduce everything to brute force
and always let might decide what is right. We are capable of
additional considerations, and even capable of acting on them.

That's not what Dick Cheney thinks. Dick Cheney thinks justice is
being on the right end of the gun. Dubya is simply willing to tag
along for the ride.

--
The truth alone will not make you free. However, it is one of the
prerequisites. Unless you know the truths underlying your options, you
cannot choose in freedom, whether you're buying shaving cream or a
war. Busheviks are simply slaves to BushCo's lies.