- ► 2017 (117)
- ► 2016 (172)
- Thomas McCarthy | Spotlight
- Vittorio De Sica | Ladri di biciclette (The Bicycl...
- Kenji Mizoguchi | 西鶴一代女 Saikaku Ichidai Onna (The ...
- Mikio Naruse | 女が階段を上る時 Onna ga kaidan wo aga toki...
- Jacques Demy | Les Parapluies de Cherbourg (The Um...
- Volker Schlöndorff | Der junge Törless (Young Törl...
- Alex Gibney | Going Clear: Scientology and the Pri...
- Wong Kar-wai | 2046
- Kenji Mizoguchi | 地帯 Akasen Chitai (Street of Sham...
- Luis Buñuel | Tristana
- ▼ November (10)
- ► 2014 (118)
- ► 2013 (124)
- ► 2012 (147)
- ► 2011 (134)
Saturday, November 7, 2015
Alex Gibney | Going Clear: Scientology and the Prison of Belief
a murky vision
by Douglas Messerli
Alex Gibney (writer, based on Going Clear by Lawrence Wright), Alex Gibney (director) Going Clear: Scientology and the Prison of Belief / 2015
A bit predictably and far less complexly and fascinating than the Lawrence Wright book upon which it was based, the movie Going Clear: Scientology and the Prison of Belief, directed by Alex Gibney, explores—as have numerous other such investigations into scientology’s strange beliefs and alleged mistreatments of some of its believers—the history and values of the highly litigious institution.
Interviewing eight former Scientologists: the Oscar winning director, Paul Haggis; the church’s former second-in-charge, Mark Rathbun; the former head of the organization’s Office of Special Affairs; actor Jason Beghe; church liason with John Travolta, Sylvia “Spanky” Taylor; as well as three former ordinary members, Tom DeVocht, Sara Goldberg, and Hana Eltringham Whitfeld.
Divided into three parts, these former Scientologists begin by describing how they came to join the “church,” their reasons being often quite different, but ultimately sharing their “need” to find spiritual fulfillment and their being lured into the group through promises, the attractions of a belief based on confession and self-improvement through readings of the quite explicable E-meter readings, and through the celebrity of certain members such as Tom Cruise and John Travolta.
The second part gives a far too quick summation of founder L. Ron Hubbard’s very strange beliefs as expressed in his science-fiction books and Dianetics, as well as a series of formerly secret beliefs that are revealed as one continues along the path leading to “going clear,” a process that depends upon paying for years of continued study and E-meter readings. Through that process, moreover, the church comes to know and, apparently records, nearly all the information that its members are encouraged to reveal about themselves, often, as the third part, explores using that information against the individuals.
The film argues, quite convincingly, that church leadership, particularly David Miscavige, has continued abusing church members through verbal intimidating, beating, imprisonment, and exploitation. Some members are forced to sell themselves and their children to the church for decades, and are forced to work for extremely small amounts of money. Others, particularly senior executives who seemingly cross church teachings or rulings, have been locked away on a floor of the large Hollywood Scientology building in an area known as “The Hole.” Others are taken to desert locations and imprisoned for years.
The film discusses particular situations wherein Tom Cruise’ former wife Nicole Kidman was targeted for wire-tapping by the organization so that they might break up her and Cruise’s relationship. “Spanky” Taylor, personally “in charge” of John Travolta, hints that when Travolta attempted to leave the church, he was forced to remain out of fear that some of his personal life—presumably of a sexual nature—might be revealed.
If Miscavige is portrayed as the grand villain of this work, it is Cruise who, in several film clips is shown at major church conventions denying outsider accusations with a broad Cheshire cat-like giggling grin, comes off as a complete fool, utterly taken in by the organization’s incoherent philosophies and brainwashing behavior.
While I discuss these issues in more detail in my essay about Wright’s more intelligent book, the film successfully—and with a far broader audience, more inclusively—asks people to think about not only Scientology but about organizations which demand such absolute beliefs.
Yet much of what it reveals has been stated before, in just as frightening details. The fact that the Scientology organization continues attempt to sue directors such as Gibney and Wright, and to put pressure on television networks and even reviewers seems merely to reiterate that what is being revealed, yet again, has behind it a great deal of truth.
Although I was fascinated with his stories, and would have been willing to even suffer the attacks against me, as a single-person publishing house with hardly any money, I would not have been able to deal with their litigation, and, I was afraid, the book might never be published. Moreover, I feared that this particular individual just might be able to properly write his story; certainly I have no way of vetting the truth of his tales.
Wright’s book, along with Gibney’s film, accordingly, represent important steps in revealing the corruption of this group—which is clearly misusing the religious exemption granted to it after years of attacks on and lawsuits threatened against IRS government investigators—but I fear that this wealthy cult will continue in its activities, particularly when Hollywood celebrities such as Cruise blindly continue to help fund it.
Los Angeles, November 7, 2015