# What's up with Scientology and Germany?



## Outsider

There seems to be a controversy in Germany over Tom Cruise's next film. I've heard about it a few times in the media, but wasn't able to understand exactly what's going on. Here's an article that says what I'd already heard, but still leaves me confused.

Apparently, the objections to Cruise's participation in the film have to do with the fact that he's a scientologist. Why should this be a concern for Germans?

Is there anything controversial about the film itself? It didn't seem so, as the story it tells is about a man whom the Germans can rightly regard as a national hero, but you never know...

What about other countries? Could there be a similar outcry against an actor or film, for the same reasons?


----------



## divisortheory

My understanding is that Germany regards Scientology as a cult and a business, and that certain provisions in the German constitution forbid such practices. Therefore, they barred him on the grounds that his behavior is in direct conflict with their constitution. 

Would like to hear from a native German though.


----------



## Sepia

divisortheory said:


> My understanding is that Germany regards Scientology as a cult and a business, and that certain provisions in the German constitution forbid such practices. Therefore, they barred him on the grounds that his behavior is in direct conflict with their constitution.
> 
> Would like to hear from a native German though.




Not only many Germans regards the Scientology Organisations as a cult and a business, but at least one branch was convicted in a tax evasion case (+ some other counts) and as consequence classfied as a criminal organisation by court order. In practical terms this means that the entire property of this branch was closed and all its property impounded. 
This is something that normally only happens to political extremist organisations. 
I only know of one other case where this happened to an organisation claiming to be non-political. That was the Hell's Angels in Hamburg. 

There is nothing in the German constitution that can forbid the practice of Scientology as such - and personally I also think that some of the practices that L. Ron. Hubbard came up can be useful in the hands of the right persons - but the problem with the Scientology Organisation is that they have official policies that foresee a non-democratic state-system and non-democratic means make this system a reality. 

That is where the conflict with the German Constitution arises and what - with good reason - directs the attention of state security services on to these organisations. 

What the film is concerned - so far the problem is that they want to shoot on the original locations which are not on public ground and need the cooperation of the von Stauffenberg family. The deciding persons have denied to cooperate - to which they have no obligation.

What the Scientology Org. is concerned - they have a central office in California keeping an eye on everything that is being said and written about them. I am pretty sure they have a special search machine running that has already found and copied this tread too.


----------



## papillon

Sepia said:


> ...regards the Scientology Organisations as a cult ... classfied as a criminal organisation by court order... branch was closed and all its property impounded. This is something that normally only happens to political extremist organisations.


I remember reading about a similar situation. Can't remember the details, but it was a group consisting of mostly young men in Jerusalem, year ~0033.



Sepia said:


> ...they have a central office in California keeping an eye on everything that is being said and written about them...


Doesn't any church? Or any organization for that matter? Most large companies I know have a fairly well-staffed PR office.


----------



## Sepia

papillon said:


> I remember reading about a similar situation. Can't remember the details, but it was a group consisting of mostly young men in Jerusalem, year ~0033.
> 
> 
> Doesn't any church? Or any organization for that matter? Most large companies I know have a fairly well-staffed PR office.




It is not a PR-office - it is an investigation bureau. I don't know what they call it today but they used to call it the Guardian's Office. I was attending a trial once where they were pressing charges against an ex-member. As I noticed that everybody attending that trial was clandestinely being photographed I did some counter-investigation. One of the guys was a local Guardian's Office member and insiders reported to me that the other one had been sent from California. What they were doing had nothing to do with PR.

What you are telling about the young men in Jerusalem is not true, if the similarity you are pointing out are the policies I mentioned. There is no indication that they were intending to overthrow the governments of democratic states - or any governments for that matter. Providing we are talking about the same Jerusalem guys. 

Few churches have been convicted of severe tax-evasion here. But church or not, the definition of church is in this case unimportant. What gives the right to specal tax-rules ist the "e.V." (registered assosiation) in the name which you will also find in the name of many sports organisations. There are pretty exact rules defined in the laws about who is an "e.V." or not. The management democratic and grant equal rights to all members is one of the requirements. In some cases courts have found they did not meet the requirements of an "e.V.".


----------



## Kajjo

Outsider said:


> There seems to be a controversy in Germany over Tom Cruise's next film.


Yes, this is highly controversial in Germany, and rightly so.

Please consider these issues:

1) Scientology is a dangerous organisation abusing and manipulating people. They claim to be a religion, but in truth this is just camouflage for their commercial and, most probably, criminal activities. Scientology has been (and probably is still) under repeated surveillance by the German intelligence agency for the protection of our constitution, because it was suspected that the organisation's aims might be opposed to constitutional and human rights.

2) The role Tom Cruise is supposed to play is that of Stauffenberg (Wikipedia), who tried to kill Hitler -- which was the one and only serious attempt at Hitler's life that could have stopped all the evil Hitler did. Stauffenberg is a German hero for his unique resistance. Had Germany had more men of his courage we could have stopped Hitler. Unfortunately, we did not.

3) An actor which is working for Scientology, known for manipulation and disregard of human rights, is supposed to play our hero Stauffenberg -- this is insulting and devoid of any historical feeling.

Kajjo


----------



## Sepia

Kajjo said:


> Yes, this is highly controversial in Germany, and rightly so.
> 
> ...
> 
> 3) An actor which is working for Scientology, known for manipulation and disregard of human rights, is supposed to play our hero Stauffenberg -- this is insulting and devoid of any historical feeling.
> 
> ...
> 
> Kajjo



Is there any evidence that he is working for them - to my knowledge he is only a member. One might just as well consider him one of the victims. 

Anyway, my only real protest against your post is that it tends to enhance the impression which some are trying to make, that German state authorities are trying to impose some kind of sensorship on a film only because the guy playing the main part has different religious views than most people.

If that were the case and if that were justifiable, which it is not (based on our constitution), all the films that John Travolta was in should have been banned too, right?
So I say it again: There no law whatsoever that obliges the ministry of finance to make anybody shoot for a film in their back yard - which is actually the location they want. And if the von Stauffenberg family do not think that Tom Cruise is worthy to play the role of their murdered relative, it is their good right to deny even Holywood their cooperation. Period and halleluja.

That is not sensorship.

I am repeating this because I am pretty sick of this pathetic cry-baby-they-are-all-not-nice-to-us-attitude that you always get from official speakers of the Church of Scientology in situations like this - while they themselves use every chance they get to attack all persons, groups and organisations who represent the view that the stuff that L. Ron Hubbard left the population of this planet can be used to create a better world, but definitely not the way they are doing it. Those individuals actually the ones they are really afraid of, if they are afraid of anyone.

Unfortunately a lot of lies are told about the Church of Scientology. Unfortunately, because they are often so far fetched and can easily be proven to be lies. Unfortunately, because lies that are easily looked through draw the attention from the truth which in lots of cases is even worse.

I know from ex-insiders that were close friends of mine, that sometimes when tabloids or TV had covered this subjects some of their allegations were often so far-fetched that lots of people could tell and they got interested in finding out what it is really about. I am talking about claims about brain-washing people by the means of methods that are in fact simple communication drills. Such attempts by the press sometimes worked even better for the Church of Scientology than some of their own campaigns.

So therefore, please let us stick to mere provable facts and not exaggerate things. I could find bad enough things to say about them without having to tell lies.


----------



## Kajjo

Sepia said:


> Is there any evidence that he is working for them - to my knowledge he is only a member. One might just as well consider him one of the victims.


Absolutely, yes, there is a lot of evidence that Cruise uses each and every interview to promote Scientology -- I recently read an article that so many high-ranking hollywood officials are really sick of his ideological proselytizing. So, yes he is working on their side. But of course, you are right, he can be considered to be a victim, too.



> Anyway, my only real protest against your post is that it tends to enhance the impression which some are trying to make, that German state authorities are trying to impose some kind of sensorship on a film only because the guy playing the main part has different religious views than most people.


Sorry, Sepia, I did not say with a single word that state authorities are influencing the movie decision. I simply said that state authorities have been, and probably still are, investigating possible offences against our constitution. And this fact is true and fine with me!

Further, I do not see any problems why the German Bundeswehr should deny access to their areas for an actor that is supposed to be working for anti-constitutional societies. The vast majority of Germans are in favor of this policy. 



> There no law whatsoever that obliges the ministry of finance to make anybody shoot for a film in their back yard - which is actually the location they want. And if the von Stauffenberg family do not think that Tom Cruise is worthy to play the role of their murdered relative, it is their good right to deny even Holywood their cooperation. Period and halleluja.


I agree entirely.



> So therefore, please let us stick to mere provable facts and not exaggerate things. I could find bad enough things to say about them without having to tell lies.


Sure do. Please explain to me where I did not (here or by PM if you prefer so). We should always stick to facts and try to be as objective as possible. I cannot find any statement of my first contribution that would not pass these criteria.

I am sick about listening to people who claim that a commercial and esoteric institution like Scientology is a _church_. This is not about religious freedom. It is about protecting people from exploited.

Kajjo


----------



## Outsider

But what about free enterprise? 
(Sorry, I couldn't resist. Don't take this seriously.)

About Cruise's involvement with scientology, I remember that recently it was reported in the media that he had reached one of the highest levels in the church, so I assume he's not just an innocent pawn within it. In fact, now that I think about it, his proselytization sounds like it may be part of the reason why he was "promoted".

Oh, and thank you all for the excellent replies. Now it all makes more sense.


----------



## divisortheory

Outsider said:


> In fact, now that I think about it, his proselytization sounds like it may be part of the reason why he was "promoted".


 
Don't forget that he has a lot of money.  And well, the *only* way to progress through the higher levels is by simply paying for it.


----------



## cuchuflete

Personal experience with Scientology-

Many years ago, walking through downtown San Diego, California, I was accosted by a person who was a member of that "Church", and invited to take a "personality test".  I was curious, and had time, so I took the test, answering all questions honestly.  I was then asked to wait while the results were interpreted by another member of the group.  Then I was subjected to attempts to recruit me into the group, to help solve all that was ostensibly wrong with my personality.  I politely declined and proceeded on my way.

A few hours later, I passed the same storefront and was accosted by yet another member.  Curious, I played along, and took the identical test again, giving totally different answers.  The result was identical.  The recruiting script did not vary at all.    I again politely declined to join, and went on my way.

Draw your own conclusions.


----------



## Sepia

Kajjo said:


> Absolutely, yes, there is a lot of evidence that Cruise uses each and every interview to promote Scientology -- I recently read an article that so many high-ranking hollywood officials are really sick of his ideological proselytizing. So, yes he is working on their side. But of course, you are right, he can be considered to be a victim, too.
> 
> 
> Sorry, Sepia, I did not say with a single word that state authorities are influencing the movie decision. ....
> 
> Further, I do not see any problems why the German Bundeswehr should deny access to their areas for an actor that is supposed to be working for anti-constitutional societies. The vast majority of Germans are in favor of this policy.
> 
> ....
> 
> 
> Kajjo



So he is in fact their PR-man - OK. If that is a fact, it is a fact. But I don't think he is doing it for money only. What I don't like about the whole argument is, if it were John Doe a hundred people would say the poor guy has been brainwashed by them, and if it is a rich and famous guy, he is always the bad guy too. That is not a very rational way of judging things.

Yes, the Bundeswehr has the same right to deny cooperation as everybody else. For sure. Nobody has an obligation to cooperate with them.

I did not say you were saying that the state is imposing direct sensorship. But obviously the way that is being argued against them in the articles linked in the threadstarter-post and also in your post - is in my opinion too emotional an based on very few real facts. There is simply too little defendant-was-seen-with-a-smoking-gun-in-his-hand-stuff, in general. 

In stead it is more like, they are terrible and they are brainwashing people. But as long as this is not based on cold facts, let alon being able to define exactly what they mean with "brainwash" it will eventually it will revert itself as cheap advertizing for the guys in black.

I don't really care if they are calling themselves a church or not - I know that most Scientologists don't have a clue any more why they originally called themself a church. Other people should not decide what is religion to some other person, and putting too much attention on that point will eventually lead to missing the target and give way to comparisons like the one we had up thread - the guys in Jerusalem.

I mean, you must admit, that lots of the politicians and journalists talking about "them" really have not got a clue what "they" are doing in that organisation or why. And as long as they don't lots of attacks on them are backfiring.

Do you know much about what they are really doing?


----------



## Kajjo

Sepia said:


> What I don't like about the whole argument is, if it were John Doe a hundred people would say the poor guy has been brainwashed by them, and if it is a rich and famous guy, he is always the bad guy too. That is not a very rational way of judging things.


Sepia, there might be John Does who are high-ranking scientology officials and I would none of those let play Stauffenberg. There is nothing "not very rational" about my argument against letting no scientology official play Stauffenberg. Of course, I agree that the whole affair about heros and idols on one side and manipulating people on the other side (Hitler and Scientology) appears not to be absolutely _rational_ --it is about feelings, about subjective rating of actions and people are good or evil. But I think that my system is at least consistent and represents the common view of fairness and courage.



> I did not say you were saying that the state is imposing direct censorship. [...] is in my opinion too emotional an based on very few real facts. There is simply too little defendant-was-seen-with-a-smoking-gun-in-his-hand-stuff, in general.


You are right, the German authorities should investigate Scientology much closer. However, there just is evil in our world that ca be detected and felt without having a plethora of evidence -- this will not change my view of evil, but should only invigorate us to look more careful and to spread knowledge about such evil more intensively.



> I don't really care if they are calling themselves a church or not - I know that most Scientologists don't have a clue any more why they originally called themself a church.


I do, though. Calling themselves _church_ tries to employ constitutional rights that are not applicable at all -- we all pay for the rights they invalidly obtain, we all are less protected of their potentially criminal actions because they can be less monitored and persecuted if they are considered as church. They are no church. This is important!



> I mean, you must admit, that lots of the politicians and journalists talking about "them" really have not got a clue what "they" are doing in that organisation or why. And as long as they don't lots of attacks on them are backfiring.


Yes, you are right. 



> Do you know much about what they are really doing?


No, but _all_ evidence I have so far points towards the conclusion that they are no religion and not at all interested in the well-being of their members, but in money and infiltrating higher ranks of society. Let us investigate and persecute them more closely and we will soon discover the real intentions.

Kajjo


----------



## Kajjo

cuchuflete said:


> Personal experience with Scientology - Draw your own conclusions.


Excellent example! 

I simply do not understand why the CIA or similar authorities not yet got active and prevent infiltrating the goverment. This is an equal danger as terrorism.

Kajjo


----------



## cyanista

Kajjo said:


> 3) An actor which is working for Scientology, known for manipulation and disregard of human rights, is supposed to play our hero Stauffenberg -- this is insulting and devoid of any historical feeling.



This is certainly a sentiment that many German newspapers try to pass on to their readers but I didn't expect that a rational person like you, Kajjo, would go along with it. Since when are actors expected to be faultless to be able to play heroes??? 

If Liam Neeson who played Oscar Schindler in _Schindler's List_ turned out to be a heroine addict and a wife beater (sorry, Liam) would it make the film any worse? Should actors playing Che Guevara or von Stauffenberg prove the integrity of their motives and principles? But you surely don't maintain that villains should be played by, uhmm, demonstrably evil people? 

Sorry, I think the quality of acting and the screen-play are the things that matter. And I certainly see how Hollywood is able to turn any story of noble deeds into a piece of drivel. That would be a better reason to deny co-operation, in my opinion; but I repeat Sepia's words, the reason for refusal doesn't have to be, and probably isn't, somebody's scientologist beliefs (or anything we can think of here).


----------



## Drechuin

cyanista said:


> If Liam Neeson who played Oscar Schindler in _Schindler's List_ turned out to be a heroine addict and a wife beater (sorry, Liam) would it make the film any worse?



If Liam Neelson was using his fame as an actor to promote heroine and wife-beating, then it would be a good reason not to help him to make movies.
Especially movies about national heroes.


----------



## cyanista

Drechuin said:


> If Liam Neelson was using his fame as an actor to promote heroine and wife-beating, then it would be a good reason not to help him to make movies.


You are heavily exaggerating, but OK...

So would it make the film any worse or not? A film which has absolutely nothing to do with either heroine or wife-beating? Can a bad person be a good actor/writer/director/painter or not?

And I am not even saying that Cruise is "bad". He's engaged in some dubious activity, that's all we can say for sure. Mind you, he is not claiming to be an incarnation of Stauffenberg or even his follower. He is just going to play in a movie, which is basically entertainment. Has the border between movies and real life ceased to exist?


----------



## Drechuin

cyanista said:


> So would it make the film any worse or not? A film which has absolutely nothing to do with either heroine or wife-beating? Can a bad person be a good actor/writer/director/painter or not?



Of course one can be a 'bad' person and a good artist (Céline is one of the great French writers of the XXth century and yet rabidly antisemitic).

Should a government censor the works of those kind of people? I don't think so (as long as the work in itself doesn't break laws).
Should a government help and cooperate with them? I don't think so.


----------



## Fernando

I would be pleased if anyone would focus in Stauffenberg. If the script is OK I do not see the reason to deny Cruise the right to make a film on his person.

My opinion on Scientology is not better than the before posted.



cuchuflete said:


> Draw your own conclusions.



The conclusion is clear: There is no way to cheat the test. Even when you try the script is the same.


----------



## cyanista

Drechuin said:


> Should a government censor the works of those kind of people? I don't think so (as long as the work in itself doesn't break laws).
> Should a government help and cooperate with them? I don't think so.



Very well. Then we actually agree on all points. I only protested against the suggestion that Cruise's playing Stauffenberg is "insulting and devoid of any historical feeling". 

The governments have every right to co-operate or not co-operate with artists. It remains unknown whether the German government rated Cruise as "this kind of people" or whether their reasons were wholly different. But as Germany even ventured to support the project financially I'm inclined to believe the latter.


----------



## Kajjo

Fernando said:


> The conclusion is clear: There is no way to cheat the test. Even when you try the script is the same.


I like your reasoning! Very sharply observed!

Kajjo


----------



## Kajjo

cyanista said:


> This is certainly a sentiment that many German newspapers try to pass on to their readers but I didn't expect that a rational person like you, Kajjo, would go along with it.


Thank.  Well, Cyanista, probably this is about the German guilt taboo related with World War II and the Holocaust, which apparently is no rational and reasonable attitude in itself but which just is the way it currently is. However, as will be argued below, I do not see how my point of view is irrational in itself.



> Since when are actors expected to be faultless to be able to play heroes?


Generally, no.



> If Liam Neeson who played Oscar Schindler in _Schindler's List_ turned out to be a heroine addict and a wife beater (sorry, Liam) would it make the film any worse?


No, probably not. But if it were known _before_ that Liam Neeson was involved in denunciating dozens of jews who were subsequently killed in the genocide, it would be inproper to let him play Schindler. This is how I feel about a Scientologist playing Stauffenberg.



> But you surely don't maintain that villains should be played by, uhmm, demonstrably evil people?


Surely not.  Actors are actors.



> the reason for refusal doesn't have to be, and probably isn't, somebody's scientologist beliefs (or anything we can think of here).


Well, here we just have different opinions. I believe that some roles require a certain state of mind or state of morals to be acceptable.

Kajjo


----------



## Outsider

There is always the fact that the land where they want to film is private, and its owners (for their own reasons) have refused to allow the film to be shot in their property. Still, it's also interesting to hear about how individual Germans feel about this.


----------



## Kajjo

Outsider said:


> There is always the fact that the land where they want to film is private, and its owners (for their own reasons) have refused to allow the film to be shot in their property. Still, it's also interesting to hear about how individual Germans feel about this.


I am glad that we answered your questions satisfyingly for you and I think we covered the issue quite well. Let me conclude with a simple question back to you: Is Scientology viewed with milder eyes in Portugal?

Kajjo


----------



## cuchuflete

Random thoughts-

1. Outsider deserves high praise for an intriguing thread title.
2. Government should stay out of the film business.
3. Censorship, including qualification or disqualification of actors for specific roles based on their political or
other beliefs, is a bad idea.  If it is ok to deny an individual the right to portray a character in a film because we disagree with or dislike that actor's beliefs or organizational affiliations, then it would not be illogical to ban the works of Ezra Pound and Richard Wagner, who embraced some heinous ideas.  Censorship is bad.  Let the
public decide what films they choose to watch.  High principles imposing censorship are no better than vile ambitions imposing censorship.


----------



## Fernando

Kajjo said:


> Is Scientology viewed with milder eyes in Portugal?


 
I do not know about Portugal. In Spain is a legal association. It is seen with suspicious, despite (because?) they have a huge building in downtown Madrid. It has had problems since many people perceive it as a sect.


----------



## badgrammar

Scientology has a pretty bad reputation in France as well, with its large buildings in Paris, it is seen as a rich sect more than a church of any kind.

But, I gotta' agree with Cuchu, Tom Cruise is just an actor.  His opinions and religious beliefs wouldn't stop me from (or incite me to go) see his movies.  I still love Mel Gibson films, regardless of his anti-semitic remarks and heavy association with his religion.  Hell, I still put watch my Michael Jackson DVD, with his brilliant videos and acknowledge that, even though the music is a little too "pop" AND he's one screwed up, child-molesting, insane musician, still, he is (was) a creative genius. 

Against censorship, yup.  Let the public decide what they watch and listen to.


----------



## elizabeth_b

I found this interview with von Stauffenberg's son. 

Stauffenberg Junior is less than thrilled about the celebrity Scientologist playing the role of his father. 
"It's bound to be rubbish," 72-year-old Berthold Maria Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg, a retired German army officer and the oldest of Claus von Stauffenberg's five children, told the German newspaper _Süddeutsche Zeitung_ in an interview published in Friday's edition.
"It is unpleasant for me that an avowed Scientologist will be playing my father," Stauffenberg Junior told the newspaper. He admitted that he seldom went to the cinema or watched television, and that he only knew Cruise from "one of those military films" ("Top Gun"). 
"I'm not saying that Cruise is a bad actor -- I can't judge that," he said. "But I fear that only terrible kitsch will come out of the project."

Here's the link for the complete interview in case someone's interested on reading it:  http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,490147,00.html


----------



## Outsider

Kajjo said:


> I am glad that we answered your questions satisfyingly for you and I think we covered the issue quite well. Let me conclude with a simple question back to you: Is Scientology viewed with milder eyes in Portugal?


I don't know much about how scientology fares in Portugal. It's not a very visible organization. According to this report from the U.S. State Department:



> The Church of Scientology, although recognized as a religious association since 1986, does not benefit from the 2001 Religious Freedom Act, since it has not been established in the country for 30 years or recognized internationally for 60 years, as required under the law.



Curiously, I found out on the net that scientologists had an awkward incident in Portugal in their early days (read the fourth paragraph).

From the replies I got in this thread, I learned something I don't recall hearing in the media: that the people who are blocking the film in Germany are private citizens who own the land where the film crew wants to shoot. I think that private citizens should have every right to do so, for whatever reasons, and don't even need to explain themselves.


----------



## Kajjo

cuchuflete said:


> 1. Outsider deserves high praise for an intriguing thread title.


Indeed he does!



> 2. Government should stay out of the film business.


Yes, it should. 



> 3. Censorship, including qualification or disqualification of actors for specific roles based on their political or other beliefs, is a bad idea. [...] High principles imposing censorship are no better than vile ambitions imposing censorship.


I am entirely with you. I regard liberty as one of our highest goods and censorship is almost always a very bad idea. 

I never claimed that this movie, the actor or the issue itself shuold be censored in any way. Let them do what they want. I just expressed my personal opinion, which in this rare event conincides with the vast majority of Germans, that I regard letting a prime Scientologist play Stauffenberg is devoid of any historical feeling and shows how little touch to the real world Hollywood obviously has. 

Kajjo


----------



## Kajjo

Outsider said:


> ...that the people who are blocking the film in Germany are private citizens who own the land where the film crew wants to shoot. I think that private citizens should have every right to do so, for whatever reasons, and don't even need to explain themselves.


Yes, I feel exactly like you. This has nothing to do with censorship, but with personal opinions and courage.

Kajjo


----------



## Kajjo

Todays's news in Germany:
"The 14-year old step-daughter of the director of the Berlin Scientology headquarter escaped with her 11-year old brother into the custody of the German authorities (to Hamburgs youth protection center) in order to prevent to be forced to move to a Danish Scientology-owned boarding school and to adapt the Scientology way of life. She wanted 'to be able to lead a self-determined life without Scientology' ."

German original news:
NDR Online
WELT

Such news strenghten the German opposition to Scientology and they cast a very dubious light onto this potentially criminal and anti-constitutional organisation.

Kajjo


----------



## EmilyD

I hope this is not leaving the topic, and my apology if this has already been covered:

 ??

_Has "Germany" had similar or analogous responses to other "controversial" actors/directors/producers_* ??  *

There are many actors, etc who are Scientologists and it's hard for me to believe that none of them have filmed in Germany before...

This thread _is_ interesting and I wish to thank the Mod (or Mods.) who changed the title..
_
Nomi_


----------



## Fernando

I would say that T. Cruise is the most well-known Scientologist actor. I do not remember him to play a German character.


----------



## Kajjo

EmilyD said:


> _Has "Germany" had similar or analogous responses to other "controversial" actors/directors/producers? _There are many actors, etc who are Scientologists and it's hard for me to believe that none of them have filmed in Germany before...


Hello EmilyD,
surely, there might have been a lot of actors who are members of Scientology, but the whole controversy is about that a scientologist is playing the national hero. Cruise has enough German fans and actually I believe personally that he is a good actor. Nobody does care what he does in his sparetime and almost nobody would skip a movie of him solely because he is scientologist. It's the combination of Cruise/Stauffenberg that upsets the people.

By the way, Cruise is not _any_ member of Scientology, but by far the most prominent and the only who comes to my mind that actively and explicitly promotes Scientology to such a high degree that even very many Hollywood celebrities are pissed off.

Kajjo


----------



## John Mirra

*EDIT*: Also worth noting is that Scientology has been very notoriously linked to serious criminal activities in the states. I can't quite recall them all, but some higher ups were actually convicted of crimes some years back. "Conspiracy nuts" tend to see more than that to Scientology, however, and believe that the cult is responsible for several murders. I can fish up some sources if desired.


----------



## Sepia

John Mirra said:


> *EDIT*: Also worth noting is that Scientology has been very notoriously linked to serious criminal activities in the states. I can't quite recall them all, but some higher ups were actually convicted of crimes some years back. "Conspiracy nuts" tend to see more than that to Scientology, however, and believe that the cult is responsible for several murders. I can fish up some sources if desired.



Yes, I'd like to see more. Especially, documented hard facts - like the. As long as you mention the sources you are quoting, this forum and you should be on the safe side, legally. 

----

The reports from Portugal mentioned up-thread were interesting too. I'll be back with some additional info to that one.


----------



## belén

Outsider said:


> There is always the fact that the land where they want to film is private, and its owners (for their own reasons) have refused to allow the film to be shot in their property.



Yes, but there is always a way. They can recreate, rebuild and whatever is needed to make it as similar as the real land as possible. Of course at the beginning they try to use the real thing but not getting permission to use it will never mean that the production is _unshootable. _It only means that it will be more expensive or more-more expensive, depending on what they have to do.


----------



## Sepia

belén said:


> Yes, but there is always a way. They can recreate, rebuild and whatever is needed to make it as similar as the real land as possible. Of course at the beginning they try to use the real thing but not getting permission to use it will never mean that the production is _unshootable. _It only means that it will be more expensive or more-more expensive, depending on what they have to do.




I don't think anyone believes they can prevent that film from being made - and I also don't think anyone in Germany wants to reinstate any sensorship laws in this country again. Except, of course, for those few people who want a sort of "selective sensorship" - imposed only on those persons or groups they don't like. But you'll find them everywhere. 

But that a good deal of people will not cooperate - some maybe even boycott the movie, if it ever hits the theatres here, I can understand, at least to a certain extent. I can't tell if I would boycott it, because I was not intending to watch any film with Tom Cruise anyway, so I never gave it a thought.


----------



## Kajjo

@Sepia: Do you know this site? They list current pending trials and convictions of Scientology and its prominent members.

Kajjo


----------

