Okrent thinks the Tony coverage is fawning.

"Ombudsman" is more than just a fun word to say: What it means is the member of a newspaper staff who functions as an in-house complaints department—a journalist whose job is to critique the other journalists. Ombudsmen (and ombudswomen) typically are edited only for grammar, and never for content. They are the conscience of the paper, discussing issues such as whether a daily paper should have run the disturbing photos of torture in Abu Ghraib, or whether (to cite a recent Michael Getler piece in the Post) it was responsible and appropriate for their gossip column to report that "Eason Jordan, a CNN news exec who was deeply involved in the network's coverage of the kidnapping and murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Danny Pearl, is now romantically involved with Pearl's widow, Mariane." (Getler's conclusion, surprisingly, is yeah: it was OK.)

It's fairly unusual for ombudsmen to take on their paper's arts section. Arts coverage is typically more lively but less controversial than the national and international news. But there was Daniel Okrent, recently appointed ombudsman at the New York Times (technically called the "public editor," Okrent came on board after the Jayson Blair scandal), offering a scathing critique of his paper's yearly coverage of the Tony Awards. Writing on May 9—the night before the announcement of the nominees—Okrent dismisses the excellence-in-theatre awards as a "scam" because they only cover Broadway theatre (forsaking the rest of New York, let alone the rest of America), and then derides the Times for its annual "panting orgy of Tony worship...a special takeout produced by the editors of the Arts & Leisure section." He says the Tonys are controlled by a greedy cartel of theatre producers (The Shuberts, the Nederlanders, and Jujamcyn) and don't really recognize excellence in theatre. He then indicts the Times for going along with the fraud.

Jed Bernstein, head of the League of American Theatres and Producers, shrugged off Okrent's complaints to every journalist that asked him, and there were many. "'The Tonys have never tried to be anything but what they are, which is awards for the Broadway theatre,'" was the widely quoted quote. "Any assertion that the Tonys are somehow a creature of the theatre owners is ridiculous."

By all accounts, however, Bernstein and many others involved in the Tonys were seething. A piece in the Toronto Globe and Mail on May 15 suggested that "Okrent's column on the Tonys pricked some sensitive egos in the offices that keep Broadway humming, and had many people in the theatre community carping that he'd strayed from his proper beat of press criticism...At the Hudson Theatre on Monday morning, it was as if someone had pissed in the silver coffee urns." (Now, there's a simile that you won't be seeing in the New York Times!)

In the event, Wicked, with music and lyrics by Stephen "Pippin" Schwartz, won the most Tony nominations, with 10. But perhaps Tony voters won't give it the Best Musical prize just to spite Okrent, who, citing the award's history of favoring the shows that will do best on tour, vowed to eat his "black satin jacket from the road company of Jekyll and Hyde" if anything else takes the top prize.

MICKEY MUFFLES MOORE? MOORE MOCKS MOUSE?

Moore (right) in a scene from Fahrenheit 9/11.

So did Michael Moore really get censored by the Disney corporation when it came time to distribute his new film, Fahrenheit 9/11? Or did the heavyweight satirist and filmmaker invent the controversy to create an advance buzz? Well...can't both things be true?

The spate of stories began on May 5, all reporting that "The Walt Disney Company is blocking its Miramax Films division from distributing Michael Moore's documentary Fahrenheit 9/11, which criticizes President Bush, according to a statement on Moore's Web site." (That's from the Associated Press.) But surely something is suspicious if the only source for the story is "Moore's Web site." I could put up a Web site saying I was being censored by the Skippy Peanut Butter Corporation, but that wouldn't necessarily make it so.

Sure enough, Disney fired back; CEO Michael Eisner told everybody that Moore's complaint was "a PR stunt," noting that a) they had every right under their contract with him not to distribute the flick, and b) they had told him of the change in plans in May of last year, a point Moore conceded.

Long story short, the owners of Miramax bought the distribution rights outright, Moore picked up a few days worth of press, and Fahrenheit 9/11 will arrive with the kind of pre-opening controversy that can mean box office gold—just ask Mel Gibson.

Ed Bradley (a different one than the one on "60 Minutes") writes for the Michigan Flint Journal in Moore's hometown. He makes some good points about how Disney played right into the filmmaker's trap. "Eisner's reluctance to put out the film (reportedly without screening it) is the overly cautious decision of a man trying to play it safe over a shaky future at Disney..." Bradley is referring to Eisner's recent trouble with his own shareholders; he was nearly ousted as CEO earlier in the year. Meanwhile, "concern over the public perception that Disney would be taking sides in a presidential election year seems questionable...[r]elatively few moviegoers associate Miramax with Disney; when Miramax's abortion-themed The Cider House Rules received [protests] a few years ago, Disney received little flak."

And what about the film itself? Early reviews from the film's debut in Cannes suggest it may well deserve the hype. The "incendiary Fahrenheit 9/11 riled and discomposed audiences Monday" said the Associated Press (I don't know what discomposed means, but it sounds serious). One report from Cannes, in the Australian paper the Sydney Morning Herald, notes that Moore is unapologetic about his goals for the film—to help unseat the President.

"Moore was enthusiastic about doing everything in his power to help defeat President George Bush in the election in November.... 'We cannot leave this to the Democrats this time to f—k it up and lose'. He wanted to 'inspire people to get up and vote in November'."

Now if he can just find a movie that will discompose Ralph Nader.

Home

ArtsLine Archives