Log in

No account? Create an account


Beware the Creeper!

Iain's life as a psychotic crimefighter

Previous Entry Share Next Entry

Why I'll never pay for another Tom Cruise movie again

Or - Paul Haggis vs The Church of Scientology

Truly, truly scary stuff.

  • 1
We don't have to watch Paul Haggis movies instead, do we?

I've successfully avoided them so far.

(For some bizarre reason I kept mixing him up with Paul Gross from Due South - Haggis = Gross perhaps?)

Nonsense, haggis is a lovely kind of bready sausage. Surprisingly tasty with sweet chilli sauce.

Crash is the most overrated piece of crap they ever gave the Best Picture Oscar to.

He was the creator and head writer for Due South, which might be where the confusion comes from...

The article was a bit of a slow burn but, yes, scary stuff.

Ah, the Church of Scientology is a sinister organisation, but I decided long ago that I wouldn't discount any artist on the basis of their beliefs or affilations. Otherwise I'd have to knock out fundamentalist Christians, radical Muslims, &c &c &c.

I'll pick and choose what Tom Cruise and John Travolta films I see, because they're patchy. And I'll still listen to Beck.

There's a suggestion in the article that Tom Cruise had a vanity project (the aircraft hanger) built with what pretty much amounts to slave labour (acolytes from the Sea Org), hence the interest of the FBI.

It is quite possible that Tom Cruise was unaware of this, and simply thought they were doing him a favour.

But, you know, if you're happy for your money to be passed on to the Scientologists that's your own affair. I think there's a difference between an artist's views (that I may disagree with but continue to support the artist) and their active support of an organisation who's goals and activities I find reprehensible.

I thought the article made it pretty clear that Scientology keeps it's dodgier activities far from the view of their celebrity acolytes (in effect creating a bubble around them so they can't even perceive valid criticisms of Scientology.) However, the implication of the aircraft hanger story is that Cruise is more culpable than otherwise thought.

I didn't know you listened to Glenn Beck?

I assume you mean you'll just illegally download all of Tom Cruise's movies from now on.

BTW I thought Haggis did a good job on Casino Royale and his Eastwood films.

"From now on?" ;)

Yeah, I liked Casino Royale, but Haggis sounds overly worthy and unwieldy as a director.

Well I wouldn't give my money directly to Scientology (any more than I would donate to the causes/orgs that other actors or musos were involved in) and that's because I don't support them. Once you start unpicking who is aligned with whom and then decide whether you are going to watch/listen to them it becomes a different story.

Would you not listen to Wagner for example? There is a difference between the individual and the art they create. Luckily for me, I don't like a lot of Tom Cruise's stuff, but he isn't as bad an actor as some would have.

Wagner was an anti-semite who was popular with the Nazis, but that doesn't mean if I buy a record of Wagner's that the money goes to the National Front (unless Deutches Gramaphone is a National Front front.) As Cruise acts as a producer of his films, the flow of revenue from his films is less clear.

I think the Scientologists have been very clever in pushing their celebrity acolytes into positions where they can raise funds either explicitly or implicitly. There was an old story in Spy about how Tom Cruise got the studio making "Far and Away" to buy a sound system from the Scientologists because he was convinced it would remove his lisp.

A sore point with me is the "Writers of the Future" competition run by Scientology each year (through a shelf organisation, but the prize money comes from Scientology.) It's been very helpful to some writers' careers (including friends of mine) but its ultimate goal is a marketing exercise for Scientology.

The title of the post is "Why I'll never...". That's my decision to make, I'm not making it on anyone else's behalf. The article made it clear to me that Cruise at least is far more familiar with the dark side of Scientology than most people would believe. I have seen and heard nothing to change my opinion that Scientology is a dangerous cult that been able to propagate itself through its infiltration of Hollywood.

Oh no, I agree absolutely with your right to make that decision. In fact, of course, you could decide not to go and see his films because of his hair colour, or an annoying facial tic.

I agree, though, that the fact that the money goes to the organisation does make a difference. It's also a serious concern that it does not invite debate or dissent.

Now that's what I call journalism. Painstaking, detailed, clear about its sources (with a certain amount of lateral thinking obvious in their selection), demanding and rewarding an investment of time and concentration.

  • 1