This story was first reported by Foxnews yesterday, and now by MSN today.
Apparently, crazy Tom Cruise wants to portray the leading man in a movie about Col. Claus von Stauffenberg. Who is this you ask? Why, he is none other than the most major anti-Hitler plotter from within the German ranks of the military during WWII. Most of us would consider this to be no big deal, but it is the German government who is doing the tangling: they don't want a Scientologist playing the role of such an important historic figure.
My first instinct is to agree with the Germans that Scientology is evil. My second instinct is to disagree with studio chump Carl Woebcken in that Tom Cruise is not the best actor in the world.
What this ultimately comes down to, however much I'd like to see the Germans win out, is, are laws being broken? Is there some tangible reason, other than the German governement's stance that "Scientology is a commercial enterprise that takes advantage of vulnerable people" (which it is) that can give them just cause to disallow him from starring in the role? No. Probably not, and even if there were, the only thing the Germans could enforce is that he could not film at the intended historical landmarks, so as the production people said in the Foxnews article, they would simply film it someplace else.
Of course, there is one tiny issue that stands in the way of any party getting what it wants. Is Scientology a religion? After researching a little, I learned that Hubbard declared it a religion in order to procure tax breaks and get the government off his back. To top it off, Germany does not recognize Scientology to be a religion. Therefore, aren't those involved with the film subject to the German government's ruling on the matter? I would also venture to speculate that the fact the role would be played by a Scientologist was a hidden subject because the film's German team has claimed permissions have been granted, but the government has stated no permission will be given as long as it is a Scientologist who has the part.
Considering I'm extremely tired, I would really like everyone to comment, in case I forgot a key argument and also because I want to know what others think.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
The German government is taking coercive steps against an individual based on his beliefs. It's just plain prejudicial and wrong, no matter how wacky Scientology is (or whether or not they consider it a verifiable 'religion').
Having a certain belief system is not a crime and shouldn't be grounds to seek punitive or deterrent action against anyone. This whole thing sounds like a media-play by German politicians seeking to score brownie points - easy enough to do since it's de rigeur to criticize both Cruise and Scientology right now.
Imagine the uproar this would cause if you replaced "scientologist" with "islamic". The religions in question are different but the principle is the same.
If Germans don't like Cruise playing an historical figure all they have to do to register their protest is NOT watch the resultant film.
Correct. Because there are no legal OR morally right ways they can prevent him from making the movie.
I guess...regardless of what country you happen to be in, there are certain rights you have. Whether the country recognizes those rights can affect the outcome for you. This isn't to say that Germany doesn't recognize rights, only that (sadly) they may try to take some away in order to stop this, such as the right to film on public property.
I do not know much about German laws or basic rights, but in my Libertarian point of view, what they are attempting to do is unethical.
I agree, Scientology seeks only to prey on the more vulnerable of the species. One might argue natural selection here, except in this case lives are, possibly, being ruined instead of taken.
I agree with metrognome in that if one does not appreciate Cruise's religious beliefs, he should not demand that the movie be barred from creation, but instead boycott at the box office. This is the same thing I do with Michael Moore movies. I do not respect the man and his ridiculous speeches, and therefore I refuse to watch one of his movies. Even if someone else were to rent one, I would not pay him my time for the period it would take to watch it.
It's true. I agree that boycotting at the box office is the only way to demonstrate your disapproval.
Post a Comment