..
This has been a thought-provoking thread, opening up (in
Roshomon-like fashion) different views of the same documentary.
Latest (evolving) thoughts. . .
[Let the tl;dr speculative rant begin! lol]
* I think it was Mimsey that posted something both funny and insightful about he'd have his stunt double do the clapping, rather than allow himself to be captured on film applauding Hubbard. That might be the real reason Rathbun performed that mini-freakout and stormed out. He might have been embarrassed and felt quite emasculated to be depicted following the "orders" of the film's director (Louis) to applaud a guru.
After all, Rathbun views himself as a scn
WARRIOR, right? And he was on record with Louis with a claim to be the cult's major "bad-ass". It occurred to me that Marty, if nothing else, always depicts himself publicly as a hard-charging, take-control, total-cause kinda guy. He's always the expert, the authority and the guy who shuts down dissent, whether in the cult as a fair game enforcer or out of the cult as a wickedly aggressive moderator of his blog--where the cyber corpses of censorship and insta-bans litter the battlefield.
On the set, he had no power to moderate, censor, ban or dead-agent Louis, the director--so he just stormed off. But not before delivering an "acceptable truth" about
why he was suddenly flipping out and bugging out. Warriors cannot very well say: "
Hey I'm embarrassed, to be ordered about and told to applaud---just like weak-minded scientologists are ordered about and told to applaud. I've got to hold on to my few remaining proud warrior pennies and not waste them on being depicted as former dupe, mark and gullibly-quite-average human sycophant."
Well, that's my current take on why he suddenly couldn't confront the reality that he
was (
and to some degree perhaps still is) within the dark gravitational push-n-pull of ye olde cult leader(s). He doesn't like it. Not one bit. And, I believe, what we witnessed at that moment was a LIVE REAL-TIME SHOWCASE (no script, folks!) of cognitive dissonance.
** Further aggravating the above conflict, Marty said he contributed perhaps a hundred hours of his time describing the philosophical and metaphysical underpinnings of the mystical world of Scientology and its technology. One might easily imagine that Marty believed he would be shown on screen (in the released movie) as a Renaissance man--intellectual, philosopher, author, free-thinker, raconteur, investigative journalist, warrior and folk hero. Just the kind of PR re-positioning and reputation-saving, phoenix-like ascension from the cult ashes that can only be admired by film viewers worldwide! Well, that didn't happen. And, I would surmise that Marty very instantly realized at the 'clapping moment' that he was just another doofus that could be told to clap on cue--just like his glorious Scn days or even his Indie days where he wrote the infamous "Ode to L. Ron Hubbard" (
incredibly, still on his blog).
*** Finally (
if anyone is still reading this rant, lol) all of the above speculation lead me to yet quite another interesting view (Roshomon Rocks!). Just this--
It occurred to me that the one documentary that has never been done on Scientology --one which I beleive is the ultimate story--is one that appears to be impossible to pull off. Unless one dedicated some years to being INSIDE scientology with some high tech recording device(s). In other words, an undercover spy to shows the real story of scientology by showing the real (behind the curtains) scientology in real life.
What is essentially missing from every one of the documentaries and exposes is the god-awful cognitive dissonance within the minds of true-believers. And capturing the all-elusive moments where they are asked about such miracles as exteriorization, "knocking off hats", wholetrack memory, levitation and the impressive menu of paranormal powers that Clears and OTs are able to scientifically attain by traveling on a 'bridge'.
Capturing such footage might well be a 3, 4 or 5 year project. It's never been done or even approached. Thus, filmmakers, documentarians and others have struggled madly to try to capture the core thinking of an Ideal Scientologist. They have never even gotten within 100,000 light years.
However, much to his brilliant credit, Louis did capture "wacky Scientologist" with Marty's performance. Not a performance or re-enactment (like the brilliant actor who portrayed COB); but, a real, live capture of a Scientologist's cognitive dissonance. Marty provided that in a very real way. But, it's not the exact cognitive dissonance at Scientology's center; it's not the infantile beliefs in superpowers and saving the planet. But, it
is wacky behavior. That's where the ethical and philosophical question arises. IF THE PURPOSE OF A DOCUMENTARY IS TO SHOW THE WACKY MINDSET PRODUCED UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF SCIENTOLOGY, IS IT FAIR TO PRECIPITATE OR TRIGGER WACKY BEHAVIOR AND USE THAT AS A SUBSTITUTE?
In other words, if the audience walks out of the theater thinking "Oh my God, Scientology really is a mindfuck to be avoided at all costs!" does it matter how the film maker produced that takeaway?
My answer is "sure why not". It's just a piece of art. If it provokes fear, rejection & ridicule of Hubbard's hoax, that would be quite helpful to the viewer or culture at large.
That's why if you have intimately known (or studied) the true story behind virtually EVERY movie ever made about real-life events, you discover that the movie makers took massive artistic license in order to get their core theme (message) across. Because life doesn't write itself in three perfect dramatic acts, according to the conventions of story-telling and a 2-hour movie format.
I think Louis succeeded at an extraordinary level by finding "back doors" and "tunnels" to travel the labyrinth of Scientology. You know, Scientology forbids anyone from looking (or, gasp, filming) behind the curtain, so that gives carte blanche to filmmakers and writers to tell the story another way.
End of rant.