Tuesday, 30 June 2015

Film: 'Going Clear - Scientology and the Prison of Belief'.

A most welcome documentary which attempts to lift the lid on the 'Church of Scientology' movement - and, boy, they do not like it! This so-called 'Church' (I personally prefer the word 'cult' - it riles them so) has already managed to prevent the publication in the U.K. (as well as Canada and certain other countries) of the same-named book by Lawrence Wright on which this film is based. However, the cult has been unsuccessful so far in getting this film banned here, although they are even now still trying their darnedest.

Writer and director Alex Gibney recently did, among others, exposes on Enron and the covering-up of child abuse in the Roman Catholic Church, both of which I saw. (The Vatican used all its considerable muscle, and failed, to try to get this latter film - 'Mea Maxima Culpa' - pulled as well. Funny that, isn't it?).

'Going Clear' is two hours long but riveting throughout - as well as being, by turns, scary and disturbing. It concentrates less on the cult's beliefs as one might have expected, such as that of an universal overlord, Xenu, and alien, hostile spirit forms or 'thetans' invading our bodies, thereby causing all our problems. Some of the dogma will be familiar to many people and it surely beggars belief that so many individuals who, one assumes, would otherwise be classed as 'intelligent', can fall for such crackpot notions without even asking for evidence, just because one megalomaniac, the cult founder L.Ron Hubbard, said so.
The bulk of the film consists of interviews, not just with the author of the book, Lawrence Wright, but also with former cult members, some who reached high seniority status, who talk of the cult's tactics at holding its members in thrall to it, its money-making activities (including its successful campaign to be recognised by the I.R.S. as a 'religion', thereby enjoying tax-exempt status in the U.S.A.), its public information campaigns (as squeaky-clean as a baby's newly washed and powdered bottom) and its harrassing of members who leave (including physical violence meted out to those who are suspected of just thinking of leaving, or who disobey their leader's orders or do not perform their tasks satisfactorily), separating them forever from their families with no contact at all permitted, and its attempt to destroy the ex-members' careers, or even lives (which would be preferable and neater for them).

If their gatherings didn't remind one so much of those of the Third Reich Nazi Party rallies it might have been comical, but it's truly disturbing to see such infectious mob-mentality among the attendees. It's not a place where even one individual would be brave enough to utter one syllable of dissent. And seeing Tom Cruise, their most prized possession, salute a large hanging photo of Hubbard just about took the biscuit! His fawning, submissive and effusive praise for current leader and Hubbard successor, David Miscavige (apparently, a professional bully who's not averse to using his fists and feet to get his own way, just like a spoilt child) is just another part of the horror story.

Their are excerpts of an oldish interview with John Travolta who seems to be just mouthing excerpts from Hubbard's basic Dianetics book, with not much conviction behind it. Travolta is not now considered to be such a pull for getting new members as he previously was, now that his superstar status has faded. In fact there's a hint that he would rather 'out' completely but, because they've got such a grip on him by having his confessional material (as they have for all members - clearly quite useful when it comes to blackmail), that he dare not  make any move, or even suggest that he's thinking about it.
Tom Cruise has been for some years now, their prize catch of course - their public, friendly face and magnet. Of course, they have all their octopoidal tentacles holding him fast too, and its working for exactly the same reason as for Travolta. However, at least Cruise seems enthusiastic, though one knows that this is precisely the image they want us to see. His relationship and marriage to Nicole Kidman is discussed, she who, having a psychologist as a father, was under suspicion from the start, as he was being regarded as 'enemy'. Apparently when Cruise and Kidman were making Stanley Kubrick's final film, 'Eyes Wide Shut', Cruise's interest in Scientology was at its lowest. However, as soon as it was over the cult pulled out all the stops to claw him back in - and succeeded - not only with threats if he didn't comply but giving him absolutely anything material that he wanted. So he's still there now as its engaging face..
At the end of this film there are showings of Cruise being interviewed on the subject by various people when he occasionally breaks out into what can only be described as manic laughter, particularly when something 'false' about the cult is suggested to him. I think the motive in showing this in the film is to make one doubt his sanity. (Sometimes his toothy smile and crazed laughing is slowed down for our further delectation)
Actually I did quite like both Kidman and Cruise anyway before seeing this film. Now my liking for the former has increased while that of the latter has sunk way down deep. He sounds like the sort of person from whom one would be well-advised to keep some distance.

Some eight years ago, the BBC did a half-hour programme on the cult. Unfortunately all the attention was hijacked by the BBC interviewer, John Sweeney, not getting answers and completely losing it when trying to talk to some of the cult's senior members, he starting to yell uncontrollably at them. (He was described at going 'tomato-faced', which was apt). That moment was exactly what the cult members were wishing for, detracting all the attention away from them by letting the investigator make a fool of himself while they looked on impassively, smiling behind their stern facades. I heard nothing at all said about a couple of other interviews also in that programme - Juliette Lewis cringing uncomfortably when questioned about her beliefs, denying that she knew anything about Xenu, the bodies stored in volcanoes for 35 million years, etc (not at all convincing) - but even more than her, Anne Archer being interviewed and (I think because Sweeney had used the word 'cult') getting all schoolma'am-ish and, with all the dignity of a headmistress sternly telling off a pupil who'd farted loudly at morning assembly - "How dare you! How DARE you!"  It was a moment to savour, though unfortunately eclipsed by Sweeney's hysterical episode later in that same programme.
Incidentally, one of the cult members whom Sweeney was ranting at in his out-of-control moment, shortly afterwards actually left the cult. For him it was a watershed moment, as he then began seriously to ask himself just how long he had to go on telling blatant lies about the organisation to the outside world. He was one of the 'talking heads' being interviewed here.

I didn't know that the membership of the cult is dwindling (now down to 50,000), but its riches through investments, dicey(?) or above-board, are rocketing. That alone is alarming enough to continue our great concern. We all know that money equals power, and this cult is absolutely rabidly drunk on it!

I learned a fair bit through this film, but there weren't any too outlandish shocks. It just put it all together in an agreeable way and will be useful for future reference. 
The 'Church' has, of course, completely rejected all of the critical remarks made about it, saying that the  interviewees were only pursuing their own agenda. (I wonder if any of them will 'accidentally' come to some grief.) Oh, and by the way, they declined all requests to be interviewed themselves. Now, there's a surprise!

As this isn't in the nature of a 'normal' feature film I'll not be giving it a rating.
Oh, to hell with it................................7.5.


16 comments:

  1. It aired on HBO here a couple of months ago. It's amazing that this cult, based on the words on a drug addicted loon, could become so big.
    Scary.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, and I thought I'd be one of the very first to see it! Oh well. Hope that others will come along and maybe dispute some of the things I've said.

      Btw: I notice no mention was made of Hubbard's reputedly gay son who was bullied by his father and who committed suicide - and who's been airbrushed out of the 'official' version of the founder's life story. I wonder just how much is known about this distressing aspect of this crazed monster, even by the cult's members...

      Delete
  2. On the surface, 'Going Clear' is very engaging. At its core, it is extremely disturbing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree, Blobby. It's tempting to write the movement off with a laugh and a shrug while thinking we're immune from its effects. But it's very far from being the relatively harmless organisation we'd like to think it. However, the thought that its numbers are diminishing gives me a bit of comfort.
      Btw: Thanks very much for your visit here. Much appreciated.

      Delete
  3. Fascinating Ray, and rather disturbing. I've always thought of a parallel to Nazism too. It also is a complete mystery to me how people like Cruise and Travolta can be involved with it? Does the CoS hold some incriminating information on them?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is indeed what this film more than implies, Craig - in fact it practically states it. Not necessarily criminal activities on their (Cruise & Travolta) parts but stuff which they'd rather not the public and their close relatives know about. In fact ALL new members need to have themselves declared 'clear' (as registered on a mechanism invented by Hubbard) before they can go on - and that is almost certainly when they have divulged sufficient info re their past 'faults' to the cult, which enables the latter to have leverage on their actions. It really does defy belief (in the true meaning of the phrase) that so many could fall for it.

      Delete
  4. "there's a sucker born every minute" - p.t. barnum

    the followers of any organized "religion" are suckers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You said it right, A.M. Why does a God, any ''God' at all, require one to suspend one's intelligence in order to believe in his/her/its existence and 'goodness' ?

      Delete
  5. I do not see any movies in which Mr. Cruise is the star.
    He says mean things about me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I recall you saying something similar in the past, Dr Spo. and with this film I'm getting to be even more on your side - though I was rather looking forward to his new and upcoming 'Mission Impossible'.

      Delete
  6. I thoroughly enjoyed your input, Ray. Scientology is definitely a cult and this film needed to be made. Fortunately, the intense power of Scientology is dwindling - especially in Southern California, where it had snared so many of the rich and powerful. I suppose it's only a coincidence that two in-the-closet gays (Cruise and Travolta) are involved )I've heard that Cruise is gay from a reliable source).

    Thanks for your recent comments on my blog. I agree with you - - Carmen is definitely one of my very favorite operas, and it's a tragedy that Bizet didn't live to see how successful it eventually became. It's a masterpiece - not only in musical and dramatic structure - but also in sheer beauty. It is beautiful from start to finish - - Bizet didn't waste any time (as some other operatic composers have).

    One of my other favorite operas is Turandot, but my only deep regret is that Puccini didn't live to complete it. The opera definitely loses potency in the final act, which sorely lacks Puccini's magical touch.

    I rambled enough - - thanks for listening.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jon, it's heartening that the numbers of Scientology disciples is reducing. Even before I knew of it I was wondering why I'm never pestered out on the street nowadays by young people asking if I wanted to take a personality test. About 20 years ago it used to be about monthly, at least - now never. One time I was asked what I wish most out of life. My unimaginative answer was 'Enlightenment'. If it happened again I'd say "To stop being pestered by Scientologists!" but now looks like I'll never get that chance (thankfully).
      Now if only your IRS can be brave and rescind their religious status for tax purposes < facing up to the threats and bullying that they caved into last time, that ought to cripple them financially - and from then on the only way would be down!

      Glad we see eye-to-eye on Carmen. It's pretty well unparalleled in being relentlessly tuneful - and B's ear in orchestration is a marvel too-little mentioned - and there aren't any 'longueurs' at all.
      I grew up accepting the notion that Puccini was too 'light' to be taken seriously by genuine classical music lovers. I should have questioned the notion but went along with it. It's only in about the last 20 years that I've seen how wrong that idea was.
      I too am fond of Turandot and it's indeed a great shame he didn't live to complete it. If I had to choose one of his operas though, it would have to be Tosca. It's got it all - searing drama and soaring tunes. Music to wallow in, and what's wrong with that? Pity that it's overplayed, I suppose - a bit of Carmen's fate too.

      'See' you on your blogs.

      Delete
    2. I haven't been bothered by a Scientologist since I lived in Los Angeles long ago. I initially thought they were just a passing annoyance. It wasn't until more recently that I saw how dangerous and destructive they really are.

      You hit the proverbial nail on the head when you said that Carmen is "relentlessly tuneful" - and the orchestration is superb.
      I've always loved Puccini's operas and the beauty of his music never fails to induce tears. It's nearly impossible for me to choose a favorite opera. Besides Turandot, it would probably be Butterfly and Tosca.

      Delete
    3. Jon, I've heard it said that the greatest orchestrators of all time were Mozart and Berlioz. I'll accept Berlioz, but in addition to Bizet, another one I think who is overlooked for that particular talent is Tchaikovsky, who sometimes leaves me breathless with admiration for his orchestration imagination.

      With regard to Puccini It's sometimes said that 'Butterfly' isn't one of his best - and I've let that opinion influence mine. In view of what you say perhaps I ought to discard that thought and next time just listen to what it is without preconceptions..

      Delete
  7. The better half www this a couple months back on HBO. I missed it along the way. He found it quite interesting, well done and disturbing. He reccomends it as well. I'll keep an eye out for when I can catch it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You won't regret spending time watching this, F.B.. Full of stuff that the cult wouldn't like us to know - and yet they refuse to appear to dispute any of the claims, which just about says it all. It's made me hope that we don't have to wait too ,long before Tom C. makes a break - and, goodness me, then we really will see fireworks from both directions.

      Delete