Word is out that Ray Bradbury is torqued with Michael Moore over Moore’s titling his film “Fahrenheit 9/11.” Seems he doesn’t like the homage, if you will, to his classic tale of book burning and censorship.
I can see both sides of this one. On the one hand, Moore should’ve gotten Bradbury’s blessing. Then again,if he asked Bradbury’s permission, he’d have to be willing to toss the title if the response was negative, and Moore likely didn’t want to do it. On the other hand, I don’t exactly see where the author of “Something Wicked This Way Comes” gets to bìŧçh about riffing another author’s words. At least Moore changed his title rather than using a verbatim quote. And considering there’s going to be a new edition of “F451” coming up in a few weeks, what’s the harm in some free publicity?
I think Moore should stand firm with the title but offer to put a big ‘With thanks to Ray Bradbury” in the credits or, if that’s no longer possible, in the DVD release. Maybe even interview Bradbury for a DVD extra to get his take on what’s going on these days.
PAD
• 
Peter:
Personally, I always thought the whole situation over the title was a publicity stunt to begin with, especially now that you’ve said there is a new edition of F451 due out soon.
However, if I am proven wrong, I will apologize for my misconception.
Maybe Bradbury just doesn’t like being associated with a mentally unstable filmmaker who pieces together his films with more interest in his own rhetoric than the truth.
Thanks to Moore there’s four sides to every story, yours theirs, the truth and whatever psychotic conspiracy theory Micheal Moore has about the situation.
God I hate that supercilious jáçkášš.
The news reports on this give me flashacks to the B5 episode where the crew was interviewed and their comments distorted.
The quotes make it clear Bradbury’s annoyed to some degree, but it might be a small one or a large one.
Figuring writers occasionally have websites, I looked up http://www.raybradbury.com. There’s a lot of scuttling over this issue on the message board but nothing from Bradbury himself on it. I’d infer this issue with Moore’s movie is not something Bradbury is pushing as hard, say, as Ellison pushed the internet piracy isssue.
While I can see both sides as well, I have to side with Ray Bradbury on this one. Does Moore have a right to title his film the way he wants? Sure. But again, just because you CAN do something doesn’t always mean you SHOULD. I think he should have showed a little more respect to Bradbury.
Of course, it should be clear by now, especially after his Playboy interview this month and his “This Week” interview yesterday, that Moore doesn’t respect too many people.
I like your suggestion as a compromise, Peter — keep the title (especially since Bradbury has really had a very long time to object at this point), but send the on-screen thanks.
As for Moore’s “lack of respect” for people … while I doubt anyone considers Moore an especially polite and kind human being, I don’t think someone who idolizes Ann Coulter has a lot of moral high ground to claim on that particular judgment. I’ll leave it at that.
TWL
who plans to see F9/11 as soon as time permits
I tried to sit through Bowling For Columbine and failed when he started in with “Fun Facts About Canada.” It was, put simply, badly made–a wandering, pointless rant against whatever Moore disliked that day. It failed to hold my interest and certainly failed to make itself a memorable experience.
While I don’t particularly like Moore as a person, I have a more dámņìņg statement: I don’t like him as a filmmaker. So you’ll forgive me if I’m less than enthusiastic about Fahrehneit 9/11. Even if I agree with everything he says, as I did with a good deal of Bowling, I think it’ll be a bad movie.
That said, I’m with Peter and Tim–who coulda seen that coming?–that Moore should leave the title but thank Bradbury in the credits.
I tried to sit through Bowling For Columbine and failed when he started in with “Fun Facts About Canada.” It was, put simply, badly made–a wandering, pointless rant against whatever Moore disliked that day. It failed to hold my interest and certainly failed to make itself a memorable experience.
While I don’t particularly like Moore as a person, I have a more dámņìņg statement: I don’t like him as a filmmaker. So you’ll forgive me if I’m less than enthusiastic about Fahrehneit 9/11. Even if I agree with everything he says, as I did with a good deal of Bowling, I think it’ll be a bad movie.
That said, I’m with Peter and Tim–who coulda seen that coming?–that Moore should leave the title but thank Bradbury in the credits.
Will,
You may well be right about Moore as a filmmaker — I’ll admit I’ve yet to see BfC. This film, apparently, gives Moore himself only about 20-25% of the screen time he had in the previous one, and from all accounts this one is playing it a good deal straighter.
(Moore’s quote was something like “Bush had all the funny lines anyway, so I didn’t see a need to get in the way of that.”)
Did Bowling for Columbine win anything at Cannes? Joke as people will about France, Cannes generally does pick out fairly good films, so that bodes well…
I honestly don’t know whether the film will be good — but I’m hopeful.
TWL
Tim:
Less of Moore expositing would be good.
Did Bowling for Columbine win anything at Cannes?
Apparently, a special prize, the 55th Anniversary Prize. I chalk that up to Europeans being happy that somebody’s saying “Americans are all gun-obsessed nutjobs!” *grin* Kidding.
Tim:
Less of Moore expositing would be good.
Did Bowling for Columbine win anything at Cannes?
Apparently, a special prize, the 55th Anniversary Prize. I chalk that up to Europeans being happy that somebody’s saying “Americans are all gun-obsessed nutjobs!” *grin* Kidding.
Oh, come on now! Permission is not needed, as even Bradbury said. I can record a song, call it “Born to Run” if I want. There are numerous songs with the same name, movies with the same name, books with the same name (OK, only one called “Imzadi”)… so long as a trademark isn’t violated, using **the same** name isn’t a problem.
And then there’s satire. Does Weird Al Yankovic get permissions for all his song title variations?
Then there’s evocation. As another poster mentioned, “Something Wicked” is designed to draw from another work. Geez, that’s what art’s all about.
Much as I’m a fan of Bradbury, he really needs to get the starch out of his shorts here.
I once got to listen to a Bradbury speech and then interview him as a journalist and, I must say, he was an obnoxious, ultra-right-wing jáçkášš. Still love a handful of his stories, but he’s obviously the kind of guy who likes getting his panties in a bunch over ANYTHING. If Michael Moore has managed to tick him off–I say good for Michael Moore!
Troll. Or, wait, am I allowed to call “BOYCOTTPAD NOW” that? There’s a bad 1986 horror movie called “Troll”, and I might be breaking some arcane copyright law by using the word in this context. Because, apparently, even homage is no longer acceptable. Just off the top of my head, that means we lose Evelyn Waugh’s “A Handful of Dust”, Charlie Kaufman’s “Sunshine of the Spotless Mind,” Philip K. Ðìçk’s “A Scanner Darkly”, and, oh yeah, Ray Bradbury’s “Something Wicked this Way Comes.” I’m sure there are *countless* others I’m not thinking of here.
An acknowledgement in the credits of the film would be nice, but geez. I love Bradbury, but he comes across like a cranky old man on this one.
Who idolizes Ann Coulter?
I’m just wondering because I’m the only one who attacked Moore’s character, and I’d probably do the same if Coulter came up. They’re both political hachet women, just different sides of the same coin.
Yay, man, I love it when I get an opening to call Micheal Moore a woman…
Jam,
I wasn’t referring to you. You might just possibly want to look at the post directly above the one where I made the Coulter reference.
(As for enjoying “an opening to call Michael Moore a woman” … okay, if that’s what floats your boat…)
TWL
“Something Wicked This Way Comes” was quoted from a play whose copyright ran out somewhere around three hundred and fifty years ago.
Last I checked, “Fahrenheit 451” was still protected by copyright.
And yes, Weird Al does get permission from the relevant music publishing company (and, usually, the artist as well) before recording a parody. If he doesn’t get that permission, he might perform the song in concert (kind of skirting copyright law on that), but won’t put it on an album (cf “Pac-Man”, “It’s Still Billy Joel To Me”, “Pet Names For Genitalia”, et al).
Shortdawg,
I don’t know Bradbury’s politics per se, but I’ve certainly heard various interviews with him, and even gotten to meet him once (not as a journalist, though). Through all that, he’s never struck me as particularly obnoxious. Old and crotchety, perhaps, but the man’s old enough that I think he’s entitled to that.
I think Moore’s well within his rights here, but I’m not going to sit back and bash Bradbury just because of a difference of opinion.
TWL
Jonathan,
Yes, Weird Al gets permission — but I’m fairly certain that’s out of courtesy, not out of legal restrictions. There’s certainly no legal restraint on parodying a TITLE, whether it’s a song or a book — it gets dicier when you’re going after a song’s musical stylings as well, but the fact that F451 is still copyrighted doesn’t really strike me as an issue.
TWL
“And then there’s satire. Does Weird Al Yankovic get permissions for all his song title variations?”
Actually he does (with the exception of Amish Paradise which there is a dispute, but Weird Al honestly thought he had permission). He just doesn’t NEED to. Falls under Fair Use.
Joelfinkel,
Yes he does, at least the ones he puts out on albums. Even though Parody is protected by the First Amendment, Al takes pride in getting permission from the original artist first, which is why is still hasn’t released any Prince parodies and why he scrapped his video for “Couch Potato”, his parody of Eminem’s “Lose Yourself”. Em gave the okay to parody song, but then said no to the video. So rather than take advantage of the law, Al dropped the video.
As my friend Julia wrote, “The laws of physics are also speaking to an attorney.”
“And then there’s satire. Does Weird Al Yankovic get permissions for all his song title variations?”
He gets permission, but it’s not required for the satire itself. Doing satires of the words would fall under fair parody use (just as it does when Mad Magazine says “Sung to the tune of”). Where Al needs to clear rights is for playing the actual music. If he had written “Eat It” and the music had been in the style of Michael Jackson, but not the actual note-for-note music, he wouldn’t have needed permission for that either. Either way Al, wisely, chooses to get permission all the way ’round up front.
As for Shakespeare being public domain, technically, so is the phrase “Fahrenheit 451” since it’s more or less a scientific expression of temperature.
PAD
I like your suggestion as a compromise, Peter — keep the title (especially since Bradbury has really had a very long time to object at this point), but send the on-screen thanks.
This is assuming that Ray would want such thanks.
Personally, if I were Ray, and Moore put in some sort of thanks to me, I’d see it as Moore giving the finger.
But that’s just me. I think Michael Moore is a psychotic SOB too.
“Troll. Or, wait, am I allowed to call [NAME SHROUDED]that? There’s a bad 1986 horror movie called “Troll”, and I might be breaking some arcane copyright law by using the word in this context.”
Around these parts, we tend to ignore the particular name-switching troll you were asking about through a process called “Shrouding.” He/she/it is dead to me and pretty much everyone else here and is, currently, over on Usenet pulling the same crap he/she/it tries to pull here (and not particularly succeeding.)
If you care to participate in shrouding this individual by simply ignoring him/her/it, feel free.
PAD
It’s a shame (but I guess it’s the reality of the internet) that whenever a subject like this one, the (homage?satire?) of an existing title, comes up that we can’t get through a couple posts before the inane childish name calling begins.
I thought this statement:
just because you CAN do something doesn’t always mean you SHOULD. I think he should have showed a little more respect to Bradbury.
was perfect,
but you had to ruin it with the pot shot at Moore….
PAD, I do believe Weird Al does pay something to the musicians he satires. This was referenced in the VH1 “Behind the Music” special. One of Yankovic’s attorneys mentioned that while Coolio was against the “Amish Paradise” parody, he still cashed the checks.
By the way, if you ever have the chance to see Weird Al live, do so. It’s a fun time.
I’m looking forward to giving Moore my cash and enjoying this film when it opens next week. On a related note, one can only hope that Weird Al goes forward with his plans to produce his own documentary on the Bush Administration.
1) as has been noted, titles can’t be copyrighted.
2) Bradbury should be honored that his book has become so well-known that his title has become synonymous with censorship
3) Moore could have done what Tevye’s daughter Hodel did. Not ask for permission, but ask for a blessing. But he had no legal requirement to do so.
4) Alluding to a famous work is not theft, it’s an allusion. When Cuaron, the director of the latest Harry Potter, had a wizard at a bar reading A Brief History of Time, he didn’t need to get permission to do that.
5) Science fiction writers don’t have to get permission from Asimov’s estate to use the word “Positronic” even though Asimov did coin the word, and his works are still copyrighted.
6) I doubt Terry Brooks got permission from Tolkein’s estate when he wrote Sword of Shannara, and I remember doing a paper in high school comparing the plot to Lord of the Rings. Was he wrong not to do so? No. He was paying tribute/homage to a classic work of fantasy (even though that work was – and still is – under copyright)
I do think Ray Bradbury is close to deism in the writing business, and I understand his frustration. But he has zero leg to stand on. If he did, Celine Dion would have to pay Huey Lewis, or Air Supply or Charley Pride or any other of a dozen artists for “The Power of Love.”
Titles cannot be copyrighted.
That’s why I’m promoting my next Tornado thriller:
“Gone With The Wind.”
Travis
(and of course, with #6, I should have added … and did PAD get permission for his parody of Lord of the Rings in the Apropos novel? Of course, its irrelevant whether he did or not. It wasn’t necessary.)
And by the way, for those quick to dismiss “Something Wicked” as being fair game since the source is hundreds of years old…
“I Sing the Body Electric.” Walt Whitman. Published in the year 1900 in “Leaves of Grass.” Appropriated by Ray Bradbury in 1969. I could be wrong, but I don’t think “Leaves of Grass” fell into public domain after 69 years.
PAD
I think that there are two points people are missing here:
1) It’s not just the title. On at least the cover of my edition, and I know on the title pages of most editions, Bradbury subtitles it “The temperature at which paper catches fire and burns.” Michael Moore subtitles his “The temperature at which freedom burns,” which ONLY makes sense in context with the Bradbury work. It’s not a reference, it’s pretty deliberate that Moore is trying to make a connection. Which would be fine if it WAS a satire or parody, but it’s not.
2) Can this adversely affect Bradbury’s ability to capitalize on his novel? They’re trying to make another movie adaptation…does this harm those chances? I think it’s conceivable, given the absolute hatred some people have toward anything Michael Moore puts his stamp on. People may erroneously make the connection. Of course, that says a lot about the people, but it’s true nonetheless…
I am disturbed that Michael Moore didn’t even feel the need to get any type of blessing, but I’m also concerned lately that he had people taking names down of those who didn’t applaud his win at Cannes, and that he’s set up a staff to deal with people who say disparaging things about his movie. It’s stuff like that that gives people ammunition. Trust me, this Bradbury thing is like manna from heaven for some on the right, and all that does is cloud any real issue to be gained from the movie. Or for that matter, the book.
And anyone who slams Bradbury for being ultra-right and gives Moore a pass for being ultra-left isn’t helping either.
To the extent that there’s a legal case here — and it would probably be murky law — it would have to be treated as a matter of trademark rather than one of copyright. As has been noted, titles per se can’t be copyrighted, but titles of films and multimedia properties often are (not that that will surprise anyone in this gallery).
Accounts have varied as to Bradbury’s degree of civility or obnoxiousness — one online article made him sound pretty polite, while another had him using profanity in discussing the matter with Swedish radio interviewers (one wonders what time it was in California when they called him, though).
As for me, I come down more on Bradbury’s side in the specific case. If Moore were actually satirizing Bradbury’s story, or even using the novel (play, film) as a basis for contrast or comparison to the subject of his film, it would clearly be “in bounds” as a matter of artistic or scholarly privilege (irrespective of what one might think of Moore’s artistic or critical faculties).
But that’s not what’s happening here; nobody (including Moore) seems to be claiming that there’s anything about Fahrenheit 9/11 except the title and marketing slogan to connect it to Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451.
That being the case — given that Moore’s subject matter is (a) entirely unrelated to Bradbury’s work, and (b) politically controversial — it seems to me that the courteous and ethical thing for Moore to do would have been to run his proposed title past Bradbury beforehand, so that he could run in the credits either a line “with thanks to Ray Bradbury” (if blessing had been given) or a disclaimer acknowledging that the borrowing was done without permission and explicitly affirms that Bradbury didn’t have anything to do with the project.
Under the circumstances, I’d say the latter rather than the former is what ought to be added to the DVD credits….
“I Sing the Body Electric.” Walt Whitman. Published in the year 1900 in “Leaves of Grass.” Appropriated by Ray Bradbury in 1969. I could be wrong, but I don’t think “Leaves of Grass” fell into public domain after 69 years.
If I read the authority correctly, it might very well have been in public domain by that time; see this table for a look at the parameters. In 1900, you’d have been dealing with an initial copyright term of 28 years, renewable for a second term in 1928 — the variable, assuming that copyright was renewed in the first place, would be the length of the second term.
As a point of comparison, The Wizard of Oz was also published in 1900 — and the number of different editions of that book I saw when I was growing up suggests to me that Baum’s novel (though not the movie, of course) could well have been in public domain by that time.
posted over on Sci-Fi.com
http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/art-main.html?2004-06/21/09.00.books
exerpt:
Legendary SF author Ray Bradbury told the Associated Press that filmmaker Michael Moore called him to say he was “embarrassed” after Bradbury complained that Moore’s upcoming political documentary Fahrenheit 9/11 improperly co-opted the title of Bradbury’s classic SF novel Fahrenheit 451. Bradbury is demanding an apology from Moore and wants the new documentary to be renamed……
Bradbury said he would rather avoid litigation and is “hoping to settle this as two gentlemen, if he’ll shake hands with me and give me back my book and title.”
So does Bradbury pay any money to the estates of Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy for using them in a couple of stories?
Bradbury said he would rather avoid litigation and is “hoping to settle this as two gentlemen, if he’ll shake hands with me and give me back my book and title.”
Well, if Moore laughs in Bradbury’s face, Ray has on himself to pity, because I too think he has no leg to stand on.
I don’t think Moore should be laughing in Bradbury’s face (for a host of different reasons), but I just think it’s way, way too late to say “I’d like the title back” four days before the film hits theaters. Bradbury’s got enough experience in film and television that he must know how impossible that request really is.
TWL
RJM,
What childish name-calling? If you would reread my post, I simply stated that I feel it is quite obvious Michael Moore doesn’t have respect for too many people.
How is that name-calling? Or a potshot? I simply feel the second atatement backs up, and may even be a reason for the first.
It’s one thing if you take issue with something I actually say. But to jab me over something I explicitly didn’t do, well that doesn’t exactly add to the discourse.
Charles,
I am disturbed that Michael Moore didn’t even feel the need to get any type of blessing, but I’m also concerned lately that he had people taking names down of those who didn’t applaud his win at Cannes, and that he’s set up a staff to deal with people who say disparaging things about his movie.
I’d agree that taking down names is a real problem, but setting up a rapid-response staff just strikes me as a reasonable act of self-preservation anyway. If you know you’re going to come under some of the most withering fire the Bush administration can create (which is saying a lot) regardless of how accurate you are, setting up a group that will make quick corrections (and counter-charges if necessary) actually seems like a really good idea from where I sit.
TWL
Super-Shrouding.
Let’s say that I read a post and decide that reading further posts by the person at that IP address only further damages and diminishes my health. I click a little “Ignore” link next to the poster’s name and *poof*, no posts made at that IP address pop up on my screen when I click the Comments link.
Doable?
Let me begin by saying that I have nothing but respect for Ray Bradbury and, over the years, his work has brought much joy and enrichment to my life. I also think well of Roger Moore, although his mouth does often run faster than his brain. Even so, he’s funny, talented, and I believe well meaning. The whole issue smacks of being a tempest in a teapot to me. If Mr. Moore was stealing material from Mr. Bradbury and presenting it as his own, then there’d be a case for outrage. With a title as entrenched in 20th century culture as F451, no one could possibly be led to believe that Mr. Moore made that up all by himself. So he’s not stealing anything. All Mr. Moore seems to be doing (and I can’t say for sure, as I don’t really know his mind – and neither do any of the rest of us) is using a well known pop culture reference as a sort of a play on words. No harm, no foul as far as I can see. Public Domain or not, for what amounts to a goofy joke, Mr. Moore should not have to ask anyone’s permission and has nothing for which to apologize. Still, in these troubled, stressful times — much of that trouble and stress brought to us by the very Bush administration being skewered in the film — good people seem to take offense at the drop of a hat.
I suspect that if the film hadn’t garnered so much controversy, this would never have hit the media’s radar in the first place.
SR-B in St. Louis
I think somebody ought to write a book or article called “The Ecology of Popular Culture.” Or maybe it would be better called “Think Up Your Own Ðámņ Title.”
I had read Macbeth, but I guess I had forgotten that Bradbury took the title for his book from it. When I saw the poster for ‘Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban,’ I assumed they were quoting Bradbury and wondered at the time if he had given the filmmakers permission for it.
As for Moore, whether you love him or hate him, the man knows exactly where his boundaries are. I don’t think there’s anything Bradbury can do about the implied use of his book title.
I also think well of Roger Moore, although his mouth does often run faster than his brain. Even so, he’s funny, talented, and I believe well meaning.
Would that be Roger Moore the actor, or Roger Moore the D&D game designer/writer/editor?
Sean,
While I agree with the substance of your post, I can only assume you mean Michael Moore and not Roger Moore.
Not that the latter making a film about 9/11 doesn’t call to mind its own images, mind …
TWL
“Not that the latter making a film about 9/11 doesn’t call to mind its own images, mind …”
Except that in Roger Moore’s film, 9/11 never would have happened, because he’d use the sonic generator concealed in the watch Q gave him to stun the hijackers, then pilot the plane to safety himself… 😉
Incidentally, as regards this “super-shrouding” concept…
Every so often, as I’m reading the comments on this blog, there’s a scattering of unintelligible noise on the screen. I just scroll past it and start reading with the next comprehensible post.
Works for me…
Jonathon:
>Except that in Roger Moore’s film, 9/11 never would have happened, because he’d use the sonic generator concealed in the watch Q gave him to stun the hijackers, then pilot the plane to safety himself… 😉
…. only after defeating that ol’ metal-tooth chompin’ devil, Jaws. 🙂
Charles K. wrote: “I am disturbed that Michael Moore didn’t even feel the need to get any type of blessing, but I’m also concerned lately that he had people taking names down of those who didn’t applaud his win at Cannes, and that he’s set up a staff to deal with people who say disparaging things about his movie. It’s stuff like that that gives people ammunition.”
I hadn’t read that. Sounds like a CREEP tactic from the Nixon era. Is it any wounder I refuse to be blindly parisan?