Germany bans Cruise film shoot from military sites

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

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

There has been an intensifying feud between the scientology cult and the German government. What the movie has toi do with that is beyond me as well but I guess it's a general distrust that the German government has with this cult. I read some pretty heavy stuff in the magazines when Scientology opened their German HQ in Berlin - the whole infiltrating society thing and all. I thought it is funny that Scientology cannot hold Sunday services since they are not recognized as a Church but are considered a business that falls under the "Ladenschlussgesetz" and cannot therefore not open it's doors to the public on Sundays. Only a select few businesses are exempt from that.

Whatever the reason, access to these sites for business purposes is not a right but a privilege that Germany may or may not grant. It would have been better, IMO, to just say no and leave it at that.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_as_a_business

Tom Cruise apparently wanted to be a Catholic Priest at one time - big jump from that to Scientology.

[trueimage 0]

Depends on which sect of Catholism he was in. There is very conservative to very liberal. The liberal Catholics don't even believe Catholic beliefs. Yet they are all called 'Catholic'. Can be very confusing.

[Alex+R 0]

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.

Yeah, but, ancillary or not, it's damned hilarious. Why did they think calling him on being a scientologist would make sense to the outside world?

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

There has been an intensifying feud between the scientology cult and the German government. What the movie has toi do with that is beyond me as well but I guess it's a general distrust that the German government has with this cult. I read some pretty heavy stuff in the magazines when Scientology opened their German HQ in Berlin - the whole infiltrating society thing and all. I thought it is funny that Scientology cannot hold Sunday services since they are not recognized as a Church but are considered a business that falls under the "Ladenschlussgesetz" and cannot therefore not open it's doors to the public on Sundays. Only a select few businesses are exempt from that.

Whatever the reason, access to these sites for business purposes is not a right but a privilege that Germany may or may not grant. It would have been better, IMO, to just say no and leave it at that.

Ah, so there is a history. Still doesn't make sense to me, but I get a little more context.

[Portlander 0]

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.

The HBO series ROME is awesome, and quite accurate as far as events, costumes, sets - down to the graffiti on the walls. I think that most movies would actually be better off making things as reaslistic as possible in general, because it adds layers and layers of real life things that people can identify with and latch on to in the movie.

[pedroh 21]

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.

but the 300 is not based on the battle of Thermopylae directly, it's based on the Frank Miller's book which is based on that battle.. while the movie doesn't exactly follow the comic script (meaning no persian fat monsters or rhinos), the homoerotic tone of the movie is like in the comic..

[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.

The HBO series ROME is awesome, and quite accurate as far as events, costumes, sets - down to the graffiti on the walls. I think that most movies would actually be better off making things as reaslistic as possible in general, because it adds layers and layers of real life things that people can identify with and latch on to in the movie.

The depiction of Rome was accurate, Egypt was not.

[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.

but the 300 is not based on the battle of Thermopylae directly, it's based on the Frank Miller's book which is based on that battle.. while the movie doesn't exactly follow the comic script (meaning no persian fat monsters or rhinos), the homoerotic tone of the movie is like in the comic..

The **-erotic tone is not the problem - its the fact that they reduce a non-western ancient world civilization to the status of sub-human beast-men. As I said I’m not sure the point here is about historical accuracy as basic honesty (which is a criticism I'd also level at the original graphic novel).

This movie has been called fantasy by its director - all that says to me is that the director doesn't understand the material he's working with. I wonder if the public would accept that 'fantasy' argument if someone were to make a movie about the Roman Empire in which Caesar is depicted as a Devil, complete with horns? Indeed - what would be the purpose of showing a ‘horned caesar’ when most people know enough rudimentary information about the Roman Empire to know that isn’t true? IMO it’s hard to see how such a proposal could be intended to be anything other than provocative and insulting – I think that’s the point that needs to be emphasized here. While we take historical liberties with our own ancestral heritage (very few movies depicting on ancient cultures are historically accurate) – at least the film-makers aren’t out to actively defame them.

300 shows that it’s apparently ok to subject the Persians (i.e. ancestral heritage that does not belong to us) to this kind of treatment – not because anyone will necessarily see that depiction as literally accurate (although it would be accurate to suggest that westerners know less about the Persian Empire than they do about Rome or Greece); but that it will confirm certain prejudices that people hold of the Persian peoples today. Given the furore over the Danish cartoons (unjustified and OTT as that might have been) there seems to be this tendency nowadays to group together the broad tapestry of nations that comprise the middle-east into an amorphous mass of barbarians – and now it seems we’re using film to suggest that this has always been the case.

I also find it interesting that the whole “we fight for freedom” moniker that has been applied to this movie conveniently forgets the fact that the slavery was not exclusive to the Persian Empire, but practiced in Greece as well. And, of course, the movie conveniently does away with the several thousand helot slaves that fought with the Spartan Army as that would contradict its central message.

Edited June 26, 2007 by erekose

[PlatyPius 5]

I think they should just ban Cruise from making movies.

Or better yet, ban him from Earth. I'm sure some friendly alien cousins of his would take him in on Zthrye3.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Pseudo-religious weirdness aside - Cruise is ok. Just that for some reason every film of his I watch I'm aware that I'm watching Tom Cruise - can't really get into his movies because of that. Never convinces me that he's playing a fictional character, rather he's just reading the lines with dramatic emphasis.

I guess for serious and sensitive subjects like making a Hollywood movie about Nazi Germany in Germany - it would really be better to cast an unknown actor in the role so that you can focus on the subject matter and not on the guy in the lead.

Edited June 26, 2007 by erekose

[PlatyPius 5]

I guess for serious and sensitive subjects like making a Hollywood movie about Nazi Germany in Germany – it would really be better to cast an unknown actor in the role so that you can focus on the subject matter and not on the guy in the lead.

That's an excellent observation, and one I agree with fully. Or...an actor who is skilled enough that you forget who he is, that he's an actor, etc. Not many of those...

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I guess for serious and sensitive subjects like making a Hollywood movie about Nazi Germany in Germany – it would really be better to cast an unknown actor in the role so that you can focus on the subject matter and not on the guy in the lead.

That's an excellent observation, and one I agree with fully. Or...an actor who is skilled enough that you forget who he is, that he's an actor, etc. Not many of those...

They need a modern equivalent of the casting of Al Pacino in The Godfather. Being unknown the studio fought hard to get him and the director fired - so he had a lot to prove on that movie - and his performance in it was I think the best he ever did. These days all he does is rant and shout.

[Marilyn. 340]

I guess for serious and sensitive subjects like making a Hollywood movie about Nazi Germany in Germany – it would really be better to cast an unknown actor in the role so that you can focus on the subject matter and not on the guy in the lead.

That's an excellent observation, and one I agree with fully. Or...an actor who is skilled enough that you forget who he is, that he's an actor, etc. Not many of those...

and the few that there are don't really get the credit they deserve... one that comes to mind is Edward Norton... he seems to become the character ... and you forget that he is just acting...

Edited June 26, 2007 by MarilynP

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I guess for serious and sensitive subjects like making a Hollywood movie about Nazi Germany in Germany – it would really be better to cast an unknown actor in the role so that you can focus on the subject matter and not on the guy in the lead.

That's an excellent observation, and one I agree with fully. Or...an actor who is skilled enough that you forget who he is, that he's an actor, etc. Not many of those...

and the few that there are don't really get the credit they deserve... one that comes to mind is Edward Norton... he seems to become the character ... and you forget that he is just acting...

Johnny Depp built up much of his acting reputation long before he hit the big-time with Pirates. He actually made a point of turning down high-profile scripts if the role and the work didn't interest him. He's one of the most versatile Hollywood actors currently working IMO.

[PlatyPius 5]

I guess for serious and sensitive subjects like making a Hollywood movie about Nazi Germany in Germany â€" it would really be better to cast an unknown actor in the role so that you can focus on the subject matter and not on the guy in the lead.

That's an excellent observation, and one I agree with fully. Or...an actor who is skilled enough that you forget who he is, that he's an actor, etc. Not many of those...

and the few that there are don't really get the credit they deserve... one that comes to mind is Edward Norton... he seems to become the character ... and you forget that he is just acting...

And Gary Oldman.