My Scientology Movie reviewed by Mark Kermode
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 окт 2016
- Mark Kermode reviews My Scientology Movie. Louis Theroux investigates the infamous church of Scientology and its many followers.
Please tell us what you think of the film -- or Mark’s review of the film - below. We love to include your views on the show every Friday.
www.bbc.co.uk/5live
Fridays at 2pm on BBC 5 live. 
Кино
L Ron Hubbard would have made a great Bond villain.
Maybe he inspired Auric Goldfinger?
Hahaha excellent. His name even sounds like a Bond villain, doesn't it?
What I liked about Louis' documentary was that he was able to expose the farcical nature of Scientology - the absolute Pythonesque lunacy of the whole operation - using his unique sense of comedy and aloofness to make us laugh at, rather than fear (as in the case with Going Clear) this ridiculous church and the absurd people in it. Perverse organisations such as Scientology lose their power if the public fails to take them seriously. I applaud Louis for rightly adopting this tone towards buffoons like David Miscavige and Tom Cruise, and actually wish more people would make high-profile films with the agenda of pointing and laughing at them. I disagree with Kermode's analysis and I thoroughly enjoyed the film.
Yeah, let's all just laugh at Scientology and ignore it instead of doing something to prevent the awful things it does.
@@nectarinedreams7208 point: missed
I await Louis Theroux's "My Tommy Wiseau Movie" with great unction.
Can't wait
What a story pastrychef1985
Oh, hi Louis!
Given what Louis has done previously he will always have my respect. The guy is badass, he is allowed a few clunkers.
I agree, although I will judge it for myself when I see it.
But I don't think this was the right subject for him. As 'big' as he is, he doesn't have the clout (especially in the US) to make any kind of dent in the Scientology defense.
⛔ *Comment section closed* ⛔
This comment section is closed. You're trespassing, and you need to leave.
It's not closed. I don't need to leave.
Look, are you so stupid you cannot see the sign that says "comment section closed?"
Is there anything about that that you don't understand?
atomicdancer 👌
Do you know what "closed" means
Rеееаllуyу grееeеаt mоооviе. I fоund it hereеee => twitter.com/2907c432376879f08/status/834598851478564865
I think this documentary should have been about Marty, the ex-scientologist. When Louis confronted him about his actions while still a member, and his demeanor during reenactments were the best parts.
he said his name was louis after she asked "whats your name". This documentary wasn't great, especially the acting parts. You can tell that stuff was louis idea. He's known for being a naive neanderthal who's seriously surprised by literally the least surprising things. I find it funny that even after this documentary is getting bad reviews, marty's critism is still being dismissed.
You miss everything, don't you? You write an entire book because you miss the part where louis actually says his name to the girl and go on some crazy rabble like a stupid person. It's clear you're just a biased dumb person who's not good at paying attention. You're also ignorant to the fact that Marty had tons of criticism for how "unprofessional" this movie was made and how "it brings nothing intelligent to public discussion on scientology", how bad of an idea the acting bits were and how poorly they were executed and so much more fair criticism that is agreed upon and confirmed by these film critics and others I've read which of course you also have dismissed like bumbling moron who can't pay attention.
I love Louis Theroux but his style only works when he's actually close with his subjects. Here he isn't.
Have you seen the film?
..as per the Westboro Baptist Church. He tries to humanise monsters, and the fact that they fail either confirms or refutes this.
The response of the church of scientology was largely the point of the film, I think.
You just disproved your own point. "It's very hard to add much to Alex Gibney's documentary." Exactly. So "rigor" is NOT called for here. A different approach is called for, because Gibney already covered the subject in a rigorous and comprehensive manner. This is a more individualistic, idiosyncratic take. It's a Louis Theroux approach. Which is only appropriate.
Exactly. I already know the facts and figures so to speak. In the scene shown, it displays how their 'tech' looks in real life. She was using classic Scientology techniques to bully Louis into doing what she wanted. If the movie is more of that sort of thing, I would be very interested and I think it would make a valuable contribution to the discussion.
Yes but hasn't it been done several times already? We all knew the COS wasn't going to participate and so did Louis & the rest of his crew. The whole movie is about the COS's intimidation techniques & that has been very well documented. I can't see how this movie adds anything to the discussion. How do follow "Going Clear"? Thereoux definitely had his work cut out for him.
That conversation between Louis and the woman sounded like a beautiful poem.
As well as children bickering.
thanks so much for introducing me to Going Clear, it was amazing
I love Louis and thought the film was excellent, it wasn't an expose it was about human nature like so many of his documentaries, going to a weird place and humanising the people and as much as I like kermode I think he missed the charm of the film.
His holiness of the church of Wittertainment has insulted his holiness of the church of documentaries and now I'm confused.
I saw both this and Going Clear and while this movie through necessity has to rehash some of Going Clear I thought the Theroux movie had a great perspective. It was also very funny which I thought worked well in order to take in all the information. Also when he starts examining Marty Rathburn things take an interesting turn that hasn't been seen in any other Scientology doc.
I enjoyed it and felt that the re-enactments were actually quite telling, especially certain peoples' reactions to things like that. It's a different beast to Going Clear.
I thought it tapped into really creating an impression of how the people within the organisation might feel like, it was more understanding, especially given the audition process for the figures of Cruise but particularly Miscavage, how much raw hatred was needed to come from within the leader of such an organisation for it to have such a powerful hold over its members. It was a way of getting inside the heads of these people more intimately than perhaps interviewing the real deal would have done given their closed off and guarded faces. I thought it was a very powerful storytelling tool and made the story told far more mortifying at the base fact that all this could be generated from within any human being, that this is what we are capable of. It humanised the danger.
There was a brilliant channel 4 documentary years ago, secret lives , went into Hubbard in detail nade before they were granted religious status in UK.
Here's my uninformed and potentially uninspired take on the documentary: I think the scope of the documentary changed at the editing stage. After doing their best to do a Louis style expose of scientology and fundamentally not coming up with any material that did do much other than was done in Going Clear, the material they had painted a picture of hollywood and how scientology seems to be a reflection of the culture in hollywood.
One of the opening scenes was a woman who stops outside their window in her bikini and gets their attention to tell them they can't film her but quickly changes to her giving her resume of acting skills and pausing for a loving look at the camera. This felt a gross portent of a lot of the issues they touched upon during the course of the documentary - the conflict of integrity against being noticed. In this respect David Miscavige ends up being the ultimate casting director - the members of Scientology generally and Sea Org in particular's main motivation wasn't to achieve enlightment or knowledge of the universe but to cement their position within the organisation. Notably their responses to Louis' investigations weren't any use and only provided him with material but were carried out so they could be seen to be following the church's line on these types of threats by the higher-ups in the church. This search for acknowledged success was echoed by the casting process Louis created.
Lastly, i think Louis do a good job of pricking the pomposity of intimidation the church thought they had by simply not playing the Hollywood game of competing for a reputation for success in their weird bubble. I thought the church's attempts at intimidation by sending odd looking people to call their target a squirrel and wittering on about comm cycles was hardly allahu ackbar and their sinister edge was largely defused.
A week after the video, i'd be surprised if anybody read this nor subsequently cared about my potentially ill-formed opinion but, regardless, you're welcome youtube.
I saw it yesterday, it has nothing on "Going Clear". Louis method is almost like Colombo in that he harasses his interviewees with seemingly inane questions but allows us to get a glimpse into their psyche and they open themselves up to the seemingly harmless Louis.
But he has nobody to talk to apart from Marty Rathbun, which is interesting as well getting some insight into his real motives as to why he is cooperating with Louis. There is no other people to talk to though, they won't let him talk to any members so it seems like he is almost floundering.
I said INANE...lol
I am very familiar with Louis Theroux, I love weird weekends and his other docs. If you read my comment I'm not saying it should be more like "going clear". I'm saying that his style isn't as effective as it usually is in this particular case because he is severely limited in who he can talk to.
Both are completely different styles of documentary so its like apples and oranges trying to compare them, its just I feel like Going Clear was more effective in how it wanted to be perceived by the viewer.
I really liked the direction that Louis took with this film, but you're spot on - he didn't have anybody other than Marty to talk to. Episodes of Weird Weekends were only as fascinating as the unique characters that Louis lulled into exposing their psyches....My Scientology Movie had some interesting stuff with Marty but beyond that we barely broke the surface.
For most of the film Marty seemed like someone who has 'sobered-up' from this religion, denouncing everything he has taken part in.
But when he gets so fiercely triggered by seemingly harmless questions asked by Louis, he lashes out on everybody and reverts back to the 'whole world vs. me' mindset (possibly exacerbated by the alcohol).
Marty has accomplished so much getting out of the hole dug for him by the Church, it's sad to see these after-effects take hold on such a real, benevolent dude.
Love you kermode but still watching it.
Wasn't has heavy as some may have expected or hoped for but still an enertaining doc
About 6 months since I saw this, I've just seen Going Clear. It's excellent, but what rich source material to structure his piece around. Not to put the director down of course, I got shouted at for saying that last night!
I don't entirely agree with Kermode, did he say not enough rigour? Yes that's right, Louis just rocked up without research. Theroux's has definite merit, he challenges and as with most of his stuff gently takes the piss. The altercation in the clip was just right. His record is a bit hit and miss, I liked this one.
this was a really good documentary.
going to see this next week and haven't seen Going Clear yet. Should I watch Going Clear before or after My Scientology movie?
I haven't seen Louie's film yet but like Mark says Going Clear is superb. It's as gripping as any movie you will see this year and really sinister. It's hard to think what Louie's film can add that Going Clear didn't already do with aplomb. I'd definitely watch Going Clear first, and if your left wanting more then watch Louie's film. I'm probably going to skip it, it sounds pretty unnecessary from what Mark says.
MrJKL1980
Book is even better.
Louis should interview David
icke?
"And you must be Don Francisco's sister."
"No YOU must be Don Francisco's sister."
Mark like most has a pre conceived idea about how a Scientology movie should be. But it is an expose , in relation to those who have left and the tactics of the church. It wasn't made to add knowledge to the subject of Scientology , rather to question the motivations of those close to it and part of it , mainly evaluating the acts of individuals as much as anything else
Louis is a discount John Oliver.
LOL
Waarom is er Nederlandse ondertiteling? / Why is there Dutch subtitles?
Maybe this guy should try making a documentary on Scientology and see how far he gets. It’s easy to be a critic.
The real interest in the film was the study of Rathbun as a person. It would have been nice to have gone deeper into what makes him such an odd man.
All of Louis best work is done with the permission and in the presence of his subjects, the Jimmy Saville stuff etc, in the absence of that input his style was always going to struggle with Scientology as a subject.
Big fan of Louis, but I agree with a fair bit of what Kermode is saying here. It DOES feel like it lacks a bit of focus, and the reenactments DO feel a little gimmicky at times.
Theroux is at his best when he's able to have a full conversation with someone. He's a master at using faux-naivety to trip people up (or allowing them to trip themselves up). The problem is that in the film, he doesn't really get to speak with anyone notable from the church, and so he doesn't really get a chance to do what he's best at.
It's definitely not Louis' finest work, but it's still an entertaining film, and it's quite funny at times, too. Still worth a watch, IMO.
I kinda disagree with your conclusion here but for pretty much the reasons you allude to in your review. The point is if you like Louis's style, then the Scientologists provide incredibly low-hanging fruit for which he really show-cases his approach to great effect.
I did like the documentary, but I think some people including Mark Kermode missed the point. It wasn't about trying to cover all the areas of Scientology in detail or focus on any particular areas , its more of highlighting the little things that have rumoured to of happened in an effort to start something more.
From what I can gather when he speaks to two different ex-Scientlolgyists is the FBI have already started a case against them but to no avail, Louis documentary is more to reignite the little flame thats underneath Scientology. I came to this when he's speaking to the ex-member who was in charge of getting their books on the best seller lists, he said "speak to Marty Rathbun, ask him about the bodies" and Louis doesn't bat a eyelid. How could any documentarist ignore something like that?
I think Louis Theroux knew this documentary was more about getting more questions asked from Governments and other Agencies and to be honest I think it could work.
The clip reinforces why the doc had to be made.
As long as it supports Scientology, it's true. If it doesn't, treat them like they have claimed to have seen a U.F.O..
Marty Rathbun is now a Scientologist again
Kermode trashes Theroux! Will Louis respond? We need to see these two titans go head to head.
This almost seems like it was just something Louis Theroux was made to do, like it was a school project that he didn't really care about. The fact that they included him bickering with a church member like that, that they padded it with re-enactments and even down to the title, it all just looks so phoned in.
Not seen it yet, but maybe it was the same situation that actors get put in. A 'you make this movie for us and we'll make your little project for you' type thing.
I didnt mind it but it didnt add anything and didnt seem to have much of point to it either. It wasnt very good really, not for Louie
What Mark doesn't know is that Scientologists are TRAINED to antagonise people so Louis's 'bumbling' attitude is the pefect reaction to that angry woman.
This guy is spot on ! if these crazy people just ignored louis entirely, there will be no documentary at all ... very disappointed ..
First I like Louis Theroux , but didn't like this documentary. I found it a bit boring actually . Unlike many of his other works. Will say this if ever want proof of Karma just need to watch the scene Marty Rathbun was talking about how the church came after him with his own tactics that he helped create . Do agree was a low blow them bringing his son into but well. that's how they play dirty pool as they say.
The argument with the scientologist woman was so childish. "Tell him to stop." - "No, YOU tell HIM to stop!!" hahaha. Like two stubborn 8y olds fighting on a playground...
If you've never seen Going Clear or know little about Scientology, you'll find this documentary hilarious and interesting and different.
However, if you know anything about Scientology, you'll probably be disappointed at how lightly Louis Theroux tackles the subject. He makes them look like bumbling idiots (which they are) without really mentioning much of the stuff that makes them dangerous (i.e. campaign of hate against Yvette Cooper). Audience found it hilarious which was surprising to me.
On one level they are clowns. On another level, they are a dangerous criminal organization. Did you know they attempted to overthrow the government of Morocco in the early Seventies?
Think you missed the point with this one Mark. I could see you teetering on the edge with your comments.
Louis Theroux is a poor man's Jon Ronson...
Jon Ronson is a poor man's Ron Johnson.
LOL
ron johnson is a poor mans Boris Johnson
mitch Goodall Boris Johnson is a poor mans Louis Theroux
What a DULL documentary
It was a good documentary but way too soft. Scientology is actually very abusive and insidious
i think the documentary Going Clear covers everything on Scientology and this was just another regurgitation of it, nothing new to add
its a fine film, mark is missing the point here
Since you asked so nicely Harmony, I will elaborate. Going clear was about scientology and the horrible treatment people subjugate themselves in cults. Louis' movie was about our society of surveillance and the difficulty of trying to make a movie about scientology. Mark thought the film was boring and no new information was given, which is true to a degree, but not every documentary has to give new groundbreaking information on the subject matter. I thought it was a whimsical comedy about the absurd nature of black and white thinking that cults and many religions boast.
by the way im the same person, but somehow im on my old account here now
youtube is complicated sometimes
No problem, actually it was endearing that you noticed or knew my nationality :) we finns rarely get attention
*****
I was lucky enough for my best friend in school to be a Finnish girl. She taught me about Suomi and actually a lot about life itself. Her name was Salla Kaaronen which, like your name, is distinctly Finnish. The only phrase she taught me though was actually Swedish for "I can talk Swedish". Strange but true :)
Yes, but when will people realize that the religion is bonkers? Why do they have so much money, attention, followers and even governmental support?
I would like to add that if Marty Rathbun didn't agree to participate in this film there would be NO film. In my opinion Theroux knew exactly what he was doing when he was pushing Marty's buttons; he needed that strong reaction for the movie because there was really nothing else to it.
Am I the only one thinking that doing a documentary/film on Scientology in 2016 is completely outdated these days?
Perhaps Scientologists do too, who knows?
Not seen it so not sure if he reveals anything new, but they're still doing a lot of damage so best not to ignore them & keep making these things
Um, well, no, you are not correct. The "Church of Scientology" still exists, still owns huge, expensive properties, still makes young Scientologists who sign the infamous billion-year contract work for free at the church properties. It still threatens to blackmail celebrity members with information that has been taken from the private "auditing" sessions (similar to therapy sessions with a new age slant). It still ropes middle class folks to spend a fortune trying to obtain the higher and higher levels in the organization, and it is not cheap! So yes absolutely there is room for more than one major Scientology documentary. The Master was a film, not of course a documentary, so its exploration of themes is abstract.
When was it in date?
all in all a very disappointing movie, I expected more from louie really.
not this empty, pointless and rather facile movie.
was not a good documentary - it never had anything of worth it in
I take it that a headphoned zippy was not in it.
headphoned zippy is not amused....
Theroux has been poor for a few years now.
The review is a bit pompous not to mention that he seems to be doing that thing that you British tend to do to one another, none of my business.
The idea that there is a defined level of rigor needed to approach any subject is laughable. Going Clear makes its case in a particular way that speaks to people and so will this film. The clip you showed displays perfectly the absurdity and yes humor of even the most dangerous dogma.
One o the things this film does is not merely take the testimony of the people on camera at face value but in the case of Marty Rathbun, Louis challenges him throughout the film at a level that becomes uncomfortable for the audience and Rathbun.
Scientology is a dangerous cult and the more people who make films about it the better and this film is particularly good in exposing the damage.
In general Louis is hackey and gimmicky