Germany bans Cruise film shoot from military sites

[trueimage 0]

http://movies.yahoo.com/mv/news/va/2007062...279999700p.htmlGermany bans Cruise film shoot from military sites

Monday June 25 12:33 PM ET

Germany has barred the makers of a movie about a plot to kill Adolf Hitler from filming at German military sites because its star Tom Cruise is a Scientologist, the Defense Ministry said on Monday.

Cruise, also one of the film's producers, is a member of the Church of Scientology which the German government does not recognize as a church. Berlin says it masquerades as a religion to make money, a charge Scientology leaders reject.

The U.S. actor has been cast as Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg, leader of the unsuccessful attempt to assassinate the Nazi dictator in July 1944 with a bomb hidden in a briefcase.

Defense Ministry spokesman Harald Kammerbauer said the film makers "will not be allowed to film at German military sites if Count Stauffenberg is played by Tom Cruise, who has publicly professed to being a member of the Scientology cult."

"In general, the Bundeswehr (German military) has a special interest in the serious and authentic portrayal of the events of July 20, 1944 and Stauffenberg's person," Kammerbauer said.

Cruise's publicists could not be reached for comment.

Stauffenberg had been deeply opposed to the Nazis' treatment of the Jews and planted a briefcase bomb under a table near Hitler in his "Wolf's Lair" headquarters on July 20, 1944. The bomb went off but only wounded the Fuehrer.

The film, slated for a 2008 release and to be directed by Bryan Singer and co-starring Kenneth Branagh, is called "Valkyrie" after Operation Valkyrie, the plot's codename.

The main site of interest would be the "Bendlerblock" memorial inside the Defense Ministry complex in Berlin. This is where Stauffenberg and his co-conspirators hatched the plot and where he and his closest comrades were executed when it failed.

Kammerbauer said the ministry had not yet received official filming requests from the producers of "Valkyrie."

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Claus Von Stauffenberg was the one-armed, one-eyed, three-fingered guy who got himself shot after setting up the briefcase bomb, and all he achieved was to make Hitler slightly crazy and need a hearing aid.

[Heracles 417]

Good. Getting tired of those cult freaks..

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

What a bunch of Nazis.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Unsurprisingly the "Nazi-era" is viewed in a sobering light in Germany. I suspect that there's more to this than the scientologist stuff - specifically they reject the casting of Cruise as being able to do justice to the story - which going off of recent Hollywood WW2 efforts (U571 springs to mind) - you can't really blame them.

"In general, the Bundeswehr (German military) has a special interest in the serious and authentic portrayal of the events of July 20, 1944 and Stauffenberg's person,"

One of my best friends is German and he gets very uncomfortable with the protrayal of the Germans in the likes of Indiana Jones - in much the same way that I get uncomfortable with the portrayal of the British in Braveheart and The Patriot.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

How do you feel about the British in Austin Powers?

Yeah, baby.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

How do you feel about the British in Austin Powers?

Yeah, baby.

I can handle a caricature in the spirit of fun - but not a defamatory portrayal that purports to be to be accurate, or otherwise seems intended for the sole purpose of cementing certain cultural/racial stereotypes.

Which is much the same reason why I object to the racist portrayal of the Zorastrian Persians in '300'.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

On the subject of Braveheart... the essence of the British portrayal is that they took over parts of the world that didn't belong to them and were, shall we say, "less than nice" to the people who inhabited those lands. That, in essence, was very true of the British at one point in time. One can argue the details of each and every event in the movie, but the overall view isn't debatable, IMHO.

[trueimage 0]

Unsurprisingly the "Nazi-era" is viewed in a sobering light in Germany. I suspect that there's more to this than the scientologist stuff - specifically they reject the casting of Cruise as being able to do justice to the story - which going off of recent Hollywood WW2 efforts (U571 springs to mind) - you can't really blame them.

"In general, the Bundeswehr (German military) has a special interest in the serious and authentic portrayal of the events of July 20, 1944 and Stauffenberg's person,"

One of my best friends is German and he gets very uncomfortable with the protrayal of the Germans in the likes of Indiana Jones - in much the same way that I get uncomfortable with the portrayal of the British in Braveheart and The Patriot.

Braveheart is my alltime favorite movie!!!!!!

[trueimage 0]

I don't like Tom Cruise, so I thought this was funny.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

On the subject of Braveheart... the essence of the British portrayal is that they took over parts of the world that didn't belong to them and were, shall we say, "less than nice" to the people who inhabited those lands. That, in essence, was very true of the British at one point in time. One can argue the details of each and every event in the movie, but the overall view isn't debatable, IMHO.

But we have to be fair here - Britain wasn't a colonial power at the time of Edward I. In many respects most of the European countries were still dealing with the fallout from the dark-ages, not to mention the Crusades which were still going on AND the Mongol invasions.. In the 13th Century there's nothing that the UK was doing that France, Germany, Aragon and Spain weren't. but far worse was happening in the east.

Edited June 26, 2007 by erekose

[trueimage 0]

FREEEEEEEEDOOOOMMMMMM!!!!!!!!

Movies are never 100% correct. I guess real life doesn't make good showbusiness.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

FREEEEEEEEDOOOOMMMMMM!!!!!!!!

Movies are never 100% correct. I guess real life doesn't make good showbusiness.

Braveheart isn't even 25% accurate IMO - down to the costumes, "hobbit" village, and the depiction of the Battle of Stirling.

That said I don't think the problem is a lack of historical accuracy as a lack of basic honesty - in that respect I have a bigger problem with '300' than I do with 'Braveheart' because '300' appears to set out to defame one of the peoples it depicts.

[Alex+R 0]

I don't understand the reasoning here but it's damned hilarious.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Its not that hard to understand the German national sensitivities over the Nazi-era - especially when you realise that doing Hitler salutes or promoting nazi slogans will get you arrested over there.

The rationale seems to be this:

"In general, the Bundeswehr (German military) has a special interest in the serious and authentic portrayal of the events of July 20, 1944 and Stauffenberg's person,"

They don't think Cruise can pull this off in a manner that will do justice to the story or trivialise the events it depicts. The scientologist thing is ancilliary IMO.