Skip to main content

Welcome to Church!

Going Clear: 
Scientology and the Prison of Belief
(2015)

Going Clear: Scientology and the Prison of Belief is a typically first rate piece of documentary filmmaking from HBO and director Alex Gibney (an Oscar winner for Taxi to the Dark Side), based on Lawrence Wright’s scientology exposé of the same name. Notably, Wright is one of the talking heads in an engrossing, fascinating, densely packed piece, and he sets out that an exposé was not his intent; he merely intended to understand what it was the church’s members got out of their religion. If Going Clear has a fault, it’s that it’s transparently one-sided, and so is in danger of coming over as pure polemic but, with its interviewees mostly high-ranking ex-members owning up to their own misdeeds in the name of the L Ron Hubster, it’s difficult to see this as other than straight up.


At times, as Gibney introduces us to L Ron Hubbard’s exotic and inventive history, Going Clear takes on something of the fascinatingly immersive patchwork histories Adam Curtis is apt to weave, just without an overriding philosophy he’s trying to glean from it. The use of sound, archive footage and narration is creative and illuminating (elsewhere there’s a spot of dramatic retelling, which feels ill-fitting), and anyone familiar with Hubbard’s oft-cited motivation to start a religion as the best way to make money will only be surprised at how unashamedly this is underlined.


Along the way we encounter his World War II record (relieved of his command when he accidentally shelled a Mexican island), dip into his flirtation with Jack Parsons and the rocket man’s Babalon Working rituals, which will be familiar to any Robert Anton Wilson fans, cover his prodigious science fiction publishing career, and subsequent reworking of fictions for the benefit of humanity as Dianetics, his SeaOrg and its sadistic work practices, his devout dedication to tax evasion (making Scientology a recognised church being crucial to this, albeit it happened after his death and followed the Church’s slew of lawsuits against IRS members; the IRS agreed for an easy life, essentially), and his own paranoia and potential for madness.


Wright’s perceptive conclusion is that, while Hubbard indeed wanted to make lots of money, this wasn’t a mere scam to him. He cites L Ron spending hours every day on the e-meter auditing himself, and his belief that he had a particularly powerful Thetan attached to him. In Wright’s view, the Church was his own form of self-therapy, and its adherents gradually descend into the same mental space as its somewhat potty founder; “Scientology is a going into the mind of L Ron Hubbard, and the more you get into it, the more like L Ron Hubbard you become”.


The doc has frequent moments of humour, and in particular there’s Paul Haggis recounting his stunned disbelief being given the secret Hubster manuals to read once he attained Operating Thetan (OT) status, and how none of it made any sense, with its talk of a Xenu the Galactic Overlord, hundreds of thousands of Thetans climbing into our bodies and the Earth hundreds of millions of years ago being just like the ‘50s (“What the fuck are you talking about? What the fuck is this?”)


While the origins make for a fascinating history, the heir incumbent of the church, David Miscavige, is where the main meat is found. The confessionals of former second-in-command Mark Rathbun and head of the Office of Special Affairs Mike Rinder (who left soon after the 2007 Panorama documentary into the church’s activities, in which he was the main talking head) dish the most dirt, and paint a damning portrait of Miscavige’s own monstrous paranoia and edicts, including the establishment of an effective prison system.


While Rathbun and Rinder’s insights are sobering (particularly the harassment of the former by Church members after he left), and the insights into families split apart as some are declared Suppressive Persons, such that all ties are to be severed, are disturbing, it’s the more Hollywood-tinged elements that provide the spice and colour. I’ve mentioned Haggis, but Jason Beghe is absolutely hilarious (“All scientologists are full of shit” he claims, noting that they go around saying how great they are while suffering from terrible migraines), a little less off-the-wall than his Richard “mangina” Bates in Californication, but a real live wire (and one of the biggest active denouncers of the religion).  He ponders how many people would join the church if they were told on day one what it actually believes; “Oh yeah, so why is Tom Cruise paying a thousand buck s to have invisible aliens pulled out of his body?


And inevitably there’s the juicy gossip. Although no one is coming out and saying anything directly about Travolta or Cruise, there are clear enough pointers as to why and how neither has broken ranks; as much as the Church can bring its weight to bear when accusations hit the news and protect the member, so it can threaten that member with all the dirt it has accumulated during the course of decades of auditing.


Travolta’s one-time best friend ponders “I often wonder what could possibly keep him there” amid headlines shown of lawsuits brought against him. Travolta, in footage shown, comes across as not all that bright, truth be told, whereas Cruise, as (I think) Beghe puts it “drank the Kool-Aid”. We see footage from the Church’s big gala events, hosted by Miscavige where he wheels out buddy Tom, the leading face of the church who received a “Freedom Medal of Valor” in 2004. We hear how Miscavige, a contemporary of Cruise who looks increasingly desiccated every time we see a more up-to-date piece of footage, engineered wayward Tom’s breakup with Nicole and disapproved of “how perverted” his sex life was.


Gibney neatly draws to a close with his interviewees’ exit dates of from the Church, most of them members for several decades or more, and notes that the Church’s active membership is now fewer than 50,000 people, but it has accumulated a vast store of wealth and property through its mercurial methods. It’s speculated where its future lies, now it no longer has a public affairs guy (and appears to have no intention of installing someone).


Going Clear isn’t perfect, as compelling and fascinating as it is. There’s no sense of balance, perhaps understandable given all the leading pro-lights turned down the opportunity to set out their side of things (the Church claims they proposed some 25 individuals to talk, but Gibney turned them down as he feared they were simply put forward to smear his own interview subjects). Also, the sense we get of what its ex-disciples got out of it is limited to the wow-seduction-factor, and it would be interesting to hear more of what/if they felt when they were actually there. For example, Beghe’s comments about having out of body experiences (“I went exterior!”) suggest something in their technique was doing something of note, even if the much-vaunted optimal mythic place of telekinesis and telepathy is framed as so much bunkum.


Crucially, just as we get to the point where Rinder comments on Scientology’s ability to control in relation to other religions Going Clear draws to a close. Because a broader sense of perspective is also needed. Not that Scientology isn’t nutso and loopy, but how nutso and loopy is it in comparison to other and longer established religions, cults and sects? Is it so scrutinised just because it happens to have a couple of high profile celebrity proponents, and garners its justified opprobrium because it is more tangibly crazy (its mythology being less ingrained and so less mundane)? For most people Scientology isn’t an everyday-encountered and mundane belief system, so its outré-ness still provokes a reaction. 


One of the interview subjects comments, “When you’re in the organisation, all the good that happens to you is because of scientology. And everything that isn’t good is your fault”. You could pretty much claim that as the operating principle of any religion ever, so it may not be in bad company there. Or, as someone else says, “You take on a matrix of thought that is not your own”. Scientology’s paradigm is merely a little easier to recognise and mock than the ones most of us sleepwalk through everyday.


Popular posts from this blog

You were this amazing occidental samurai.

Ricochet (1991) (SPOILERS) You have to wonder at Denzel Washington’s agent at this point in the actor’s career. He’d recently won his first Oscar for Glory , yet followed it with less-than-glorious heart-transplant ghost comedy Heart Condition (Bob Hoskins’ racist cop receives Washington’s dead lawyer’s ticker; a recipe for hijinks!) Not long after, he dipped his tentative toe in the action arena with this Joel Silver production; Denzel has made his share of action fare since, of course, most of it serviceable if unremarkable, but none of it comes near to delivering the schlocky excesses of Ricochet , a movie at once ingenious and risible in its plot permutations, performances and production profligacy.

He’ll regret it to his dying day, if ever he lives that long.

The Quiet Man (1952) (SPOILERS) The John Wayne & John Ford film for those who don’t like John Wayne & John Ford films? The Quiet Man takes its cues from Ford’s earlier How Green Was My Valley in terms of, well less Anglophile and Hibernophile and Cambrophile nostalgia respectively for past times, climes and heritage, as Wayne’s pugilist returns to his family seat and stirs up a hot bed of emotions, not least with Maureen O’Hara’s red-headed hothead. The result is a very likeable movie, for all its inculcated Oirishness and studied eccentricity.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Well, something’s broke on your daddy’s spaceship.

Apollo 13 (1995) (SPOILERS) The NASA propaganda movie to end all NASA propaganda movies. Their original conception of the perilous Apollo 13 mission deserves due credit in itself; what better way to bolster waning interest in slightly naff perambulations around a TV studio than to manufacture a crisis event, one emphasising the absurd fragility of the alleged non-terrestrial excursions and the indomitable force that is “science” in achieving them? Apollo 13 the lunar mission was tailor made for Apollo 13 the movie version – make believe the make-believe – and who could have been better to lead this fantasy ride than Guantanamo Hanks at his all-American popularity peak?

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

You think a monkey knows he’s sitting on top of a rocket that might explode?

The Right Stuff (1983) (SPOILERS) While it certainly more than fulfils the function of a NASA-propaganda picture – as in, it affirms the legitimacy of their activities – The Right Stuff escapes the designation of rote testament reserved for Ron Howard’s later Apollo 13 . Partly because it has such a distinctive personality and attitude. Partly too because of the way it has found its through line, which isn’t so much the “wow” of the Space Race and those picked to be a part of it as it is the personification of that titular quality in someone who wasn’t even in the Mercury programme: Chuck Yaeger (Sam Shephard). I was captivated by The Right Stuff when I first saw it, and even now, with the benefit of knowing-NASA-better – not that the movie is exactly extolling its virtues from the rooftops anyway – I consider it something of a masterpiece, an interrogation of legends that both builds them and tears them down. The latter aspect doubtless not NASA approved.

Drank the red. Good for you.

Morbius (2022) (SPOILERS) Generic isn’t necessarily a slur. Not if, by implication, it’s suggestive of the kind of movie made twenty years ago, when the alternative is the kind of super-woke content Disney currently prioritises. Unfortunately, after a reasonable first hour, Morbius descends so resignedly into such unmoderated formula that you’re left with a too-clear image of Sony’s Spider-Verse when it lacks a larger-than-life performer (Tom Hardy, for example) at the centre of any given vehicle.

He doesn’t want to lead you. He just wants you to follow.

Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore (2022) (SPOILERS) The general failing of the prequel concept is a fairly self-evident one; it’s spurred by the desire to cash in, rather than to tell a story. This is why so few prequels, in any form, are worth the viewer/reader/listener’s time, in and of themselves. At best, they tend to be something of a well-rehearsed fait accompli. In the movie medium, even when there is material that withstands closer inspection (the Star Wars prequels; The Hobbit , if you like), the execution ends up botched. With Fantastic Beasts , there was never a whiff of such lofty purpose, and each subsequent sequel to the first prequel has succeeded only in drawing attention to its prosaic function: keeping franchise flag flying, even at half-mast. Hence Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore , belatedly arriving after twice the envisaged gap between instalments and course-correcting none of the problems present in The Crimes of Grindelwald .

So, you’re telling me that NASA is going to kill the President of the United States with an earthquake?

Conspiracy Theory (1997) (SPOILERS) Mel Gibson’s official rehabilitation occurred with the announcement of 2016’s Oscar nominations, when Hacksaw Ridge garnered six nods, including Mel as director. Obviously, many refuse to be persuaded that there’s any legitimate atonement for the things someone says. They probably weren’t even convinced by Mel’s appearance in Daddy’s Home 2 , an act of abject obeisance if ever there was one. In other circles, though, Gibbo, or Mad Mel, is venerated as a saviour unsullied by the depraved Hollywood machine, one of the brave few who would not allow them to take his freedom. Or at least, his values. Of course, that’s frequently based on alleged comments he made, ones it’s highly likely he didn’t. But doesn’t that rather appeal to the premise of his 23-year-old star vehicle Conspiracy Theory , in which “ A good conspiracy theory is an unproveable one ”?

I have done some desperate, foolish things come 3 o'clock in the morning.

Sea of Love (1989) (SPOILERS) It’s difficult to imagine Sea of Love starring Dustin Hoffman, for whom Richard Price wrote the screenplay but who bowed out over requests for multiple rewrites. Perhaps Hoffman secretly recognised what most of us don’t need telling; there’s no way he fits into an erotic thriller (I’m not sure I’d even buy him as a cop). Although, he would doubtless have had fun essaying the investigative side, involving a succession of dates on the New York singles scene as a means to ensnare a killer. Al Pacino, on the other hand, has just the necessary seedy, threadbare, desperate quality, and he’s a powerhouse in a movie that, without its performances (Ellen Barkin and John Goodman may also take bows), would be a mostly pedestrian and unremarkable entry in the then burgeoning serial killer genre. Well, I say unremarkable. The rightly most-remarked-upon aspect of the murder mystery side is how unsatisfyingly it’s resolved. Sea of Love is so scant of r