4 ms·

I'm not sure I believe the claims that companies were afraid of this documentary for its content. For example you can rent or buy this movie on Amazon[1] or Ap

by slg 6y ago

I'm not sure I believe the claims that companies were afraid of this documentary for its content. For example you can rent or buy this movie on Amazon[1] or Apple[2]. If those companies were afraid of the content, that wouldn't have happened. The more likely excuse is that it is a niche documentary that didn't have enough financial upside to merit purchasing exclusive distribution rights and "Here is a documentary they don't want you to see" is great for marketing. [1] - https://www.amazon.com/Dissident-Jamal-Kashoggi/dp/B08QTQFNT5 https://www.amazon.com/Dissident-Jamal-Kashoggi/dp/B08QTQFNT... [2] - https://itunes.apple.com/us/movie/the-dissident/id1544151386 https://itunes.apple.com/us/movie/the-dissident/id1544151386

Ericson2314 6y ago
I'm pretty sure allowing it be rented for extra money, but not bundling it with the rest, is also consistent with effective censorship + plausibile deniability. See https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/13/business/media/apple-gawker-tim-cook.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/13/business/media/apple-gawk..., they are quite open about censoring things.
- slg 6y ago
  It is annoying to see the cheapening of the word "censorship" recently. It isn't censorship when a private company makes internal decisions about the content it wants to produce. It certainly isn't censorship when a company will share content on its platform but refuses to buy exclusive rights to the project. Apple and Amazon are facilitating people watching this movie. If MBS was going to retaliate for it, I don't think "it is only up for rental" is going to be a convincing excuse. Also since you bring up the extra fee that this costs, I want to highlight the price. The distributors set the price at $20 for a rental. That is their decision not Apple's or Amazons. If they wanted this movie to seen by as many people as possible, lowering that price is going to do a lot more good than complaining to Variety. That $20 price makes me think the reason this is for rent on Amazon and not free with Prime is because the price tag would have been too high to justify purchasing exclusivity.
  - Ericson2314 6y ago
    Who said Censorshsip must be about the government? People do misuse "first amendment violation" but that unlike the concept of censorship, that is a very specific thing. Don't confuse the two.
    - slg 6y ago
      Apple TV isn't censoring this movie. It is still available on their platform. They simply aren't buying exclusive distribution rights to this movie. That isn't censorship anymore than them turning down purchasing a movie I just filmed in my basement is censorship.
    - lazide 6y ago
      The most common issues and concerns around censorship are specifically government mandated or enforced censorship for many reasons, as it helps hide abuses, can explicitly support abusive regimes, and generally doesn't allow 'the people to think for themselves' - enforced by jail time or other traumatic penalties (getting shot, in some places) The underlying issue around using it as a term for things like platforms choosing what they do or do not want to publish, or private companies or actors choosing what they want to publish in their name (and taking the economic consequences for that) - is that a mandate that they CAN'T do that is it's own form of censorship, as it will by it's very nature have to proscribe what is and is not allowed to be said, and will restrict that entities ability to choose their own options.
  - kbelder 6y ago
    I think it's like the term 'prejudiced'. There's all sorts of prejudice, and some of it's not illegal, or even bad. But in normal usage, it's understood to be referring to unsavory prejudices against sex, race, etc. Every publisher censors, and it's fine. That's part of their job. Censorship by the government, without or without the backing of law, is abhorrent (and I think that's what the term is normally understood to mean). The muddied part are these huge enterprises that aren't part of the government, and yet whose actions against the public _feel_ like government dictates to the common man. Not decisions made between two people, like a publisher and an author... but a rule enforced by a faceless entity of overwhelming power. I'm torn on the matter. I despise Twitter to the degree that I think negatively of anybody defending their behavior. However, I also don't want the government making laws controlling what Twitter is forced to host on their own servers. Pox on both their houses.
chishaku 6y ago
> a niche documentary niche like Russian doping? From the article: > The documentary about the murder of Jamal Khashoggi... was one of the hottest films at last year’s Sundance. It had glowing reviews, a ripped from the headlines subject, and a big-name director in Fogel, fresh off the Oscar-winning “Icarus,” a penetrating look at Russian doping that got the country banned from the Olympics. > And yet, Netflix, which had previously released “Icarus,” and other streaming services such as Apple and Amazon steered clear of “The Dissident.” Wikipedia has a separate article for reactions to Jamal Kashoggi's killing from around the world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Jamal_Khashoggi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Jamal_Khashog... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_the_assassination_of_Jamal_Khashoggi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_the_assassination... Not sure you could call this a niche topic. Heck we're talking about it on HN.
- slg 6y ago
  The financial viability of a documentary isn't necessarily tied to the importance of the underlying story. This one is about a bigger story than Russian doping, but it doesn't appear to be nearly as good of a documentary as the director's previous work. Icarus won an Oscar while The Dissident isn't among to top 10 or so favorites in its category. When purchasing a documentary, a network would either want something that could potentially become a big hit or potential add prestige by competing in awards. It doesn't appear likely that this documentary would have done either.
  - chishaku 6y ago
    Did you read the article? The film debuted at Sundance to broad critical appeal, with the Netflix CEO in attendance, and with tons of media coverage. Netflix is already on the record pulling content at the specific request of Saudi Arabia. They explained their decision by saying they aren't in the 'truth to power business.' https://www.theverge.com/2019/11/7/20953210/netflix-reed-hastings-patriot-act-hasan-minhaj-saudi-arabia-episode-remove https://www.theverge.com/2019/11/7/20953210/netflix-reed-has... Thinking this is a niche film and thinking this decision is based on a simple profitability analysis is incredibly naive.
vadansky 6y ago
I keep seeing this sentiment, but the fact is his other documentary Icarus was HUGE on Netflix, and if The Dissident pops up on millions of people's feed saying "From the creator of Icarus!!", millions of people would watch it. Them not being interested is suspiciously leaving a huge pile of money on the table.
PoignardAzur 6y ago
Wait, it is available on Amazon? That's not what I understood from the article at all.
- slg 6y ago
  Exactly. They are spinning the story to the point of being misleading. They wanted an up front payment to purchase exclusive streaming rights. No one jumped at that. However these companies are still willing to host this movie on a revenue share model that comes with digital rentals/purchases. That is a big indicator the motivating factor was cost and not the danger of the content itself.

by slg 6y ago

Ericson2314 6y ago

I'm pretty sure allowing it be rented for extra money, but not bundling it with the rest, is also consistent with effective censorship + plausibile deniability. See https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/13/business/media/apple-gawker-tim-cook.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/13/business/media/apple-gawk..., they are quite open about censoring things.

slg 6y ago
It is annoying to see the cheapening of the word "censorship" recently. It isn't censorship when a private company makes internal decisions about the content it wants to produce. It certainly isn't censorship when a company will share content on its platform but refuses to buy exclusive rights to the project. Apple and Amazon are facilitating people watching this movie. If MBS was going to retaliate for it, I don't think "it is only up for rental" is going to be a convincing excuse. Also since you bring up the extra fee that this costs, I want to highlight the price. The distributors set the price at $20 for a rental. That is their decision not Apple's or Amazons. If they wanted this movie to seen by as many people as possible, lowering that price is going to do a lot more good than complaining to Variety. That $20 price makes me think the reason this is for rent on Amazon and not free with Prime is because the price tag would have been too high to justify purchasing exclusivity.
- Ericson2314 6y ago
  Who said Censorshsip must be about the government? People do misuse "first amendment violation" but that unlike the concept of censorship, that is a very specific thing. Don't confuse the two.
  - slg 6y ago
    Apple TV isn't censoring this movie. It is still available on their platform. They simply aren't buying exclusive distribution rights to this movie. That isn't censorship anymore than them turning down purchasing a movie I just filmed in my basement is censorship.
  - lazide 6y ago
    The most common issues and concerns around censorship are specifically government mandated or enforced censorship for many reasons, as it helps hide abuses, can explicitly support abusive regimes, and generally doesn't allow 'the people to think for themselves' - enforced by jail time or other traumatic penalties (getting shot, in some places) The underlying issue around using it as a term for things like platforms choosing what they do or do not want to publish, or private companies or actors choosing what they want to publish in their name (and taking the economic consequences for that) - is that a mandate that they CAN'T do that is it's own form of censorship, as it will by it's very nature have to proscribe what is and is not allowed to be said, and will restrict that entities ability to choose their own options.
- kbelder 6y ago
  I think it's like the term 'prejudiced'. There's all sorts of prejudice, and some of it's not illegal, or even bad. But in normal usage, it's understood to be referring to unsavory prejudices against sex, race, etc. Every publisher censors, and it's fine. That's part of their job. Censorship by the government, without or without the backing of law, is abhorrent (and I think that's what the term is normally understood to mean). The muddied part are these huge enterprises that aren't part of the government, and yet whose actions against the public _feel_ like government dictates to the common man. Not decisions made between two people, like a publisher and an author... but a rule enforced by a faceless entity of overwhelming power. I'm torn on the matter. I despise Twitter to the degree that I think negatively of anybody defending their behavior. However, I also don't want the government making laws controlling what Twitter is forced to host on their own servers. Pox on both their houses.

chishaku 6y ago

> a niche documentary niche like Russian doping? From the article: > The documentary about the murder of Jamal Khashoggi... was one of the hottest films at last year’s Sundance. It had glowing reviews, a ripped from the headlines subject, and a big-name director in Fogel, fresh off the Oscar-winning “Icarus,” a penetrating look at Russian doping that got the country banned from the Olympics. > And yet, Netflix, which had previously released “Icarus,” and other streaming services such as Apple and Amazon steered clear of “The Dissident.” Wikipedia has a separate article for reactions to Jamal Kashoggi's killing from around the world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Jamal_Khashoggi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Jamal_Khashog... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_the_assassination_of_Jamal_Khashoggi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_the_assassination... Not sure you could call this a niche topic. Heck we're talking about it on HN.

slg 6y ago
The financial viability of a documentary isn't necessarily tied to the importance of the underlying story. This one is about a bigger story than Russian doping, but it doesn't appear to be nearly as good of a documentary as the director's previous work. Icarus won an Oscar while The Dissident isn't among to top 10 or so favorites in its category. When purchasing a documentary, a network would either want something that could potentially become a big hit or potential add prestige by competing in awards. It doesn't appear likely that this documentary would have done either.
- chishaku 6y ago
  Did you read the article? The film debuted at Sundance to broad critical appeal, with the Netflix CEO in attendance, and with tons of media coverage. Netflix is already on the record pulling content at the specific request of Saudi Arabia. They explained their decision by saying they aren't in the 'truth to power business.' https://www.theverge.com/2019/11/7/20953210/netflix-reed-hastings-patriot-act-hasan-minhaj-saudi-arabia-episode-remove https://www.theverge.com/2019/11/7/20953210/netflix-reed-has... Thinking this is a niche film and thinking this decision is based on a simple profitability analysis is incredibly naive.

vadansky 6y ago

I keep seeing this sentiment, but the fact is his other documentary Icarus was HUGE on Netflix, and if The Dissident pops up on millions of people's feed saying "From the creator of Icarus!!", millions of people would watch it. Them not being interested is suspiciously leaving a huge pile of money on the table.

PoignardAzur 6y ago

Wait, it is available on Amazon? That's not what I understood from the article at all.

slg 6y ago
Exactly. They are spinning the story to the point of being misleading. They wanted an up front payment to purchase exclusive streaming rights. No one jumped at that. However these companies are still willing to host this movie on a revenue share model that comes with digital rentals/purchases. That is a big indicator the motivating factor was cost and not the danger of the content itself.