Shaun O Connor

Articles on media, psychology, creativity and other happening stuff.

Posts Tagged ‘films’

My First Scientology Audit

Posted by shaunoc1 on August 6, 2008

On a recent trip to Germany, I was walking around the beautiful city of Hamburg, when I happened upon the local Scientology church. I was approached by a friendly, English-speaking guy who invited me in to the building for a “chat”. Since I had seen most of the city already, and had a few hours to spare, I went in.

Hamburg Church Of Scientology

After a few questions about my religious beliefs etc (I stayed as neutral as possible), I was ushered downstairs into a impressive private cinema, which I had all to myself. There I watched two Scientology induction films. The first was about a young American football player who, after suffering an (evidently psychosomatic) back injury, is given an array of useless treatments by nasty doctors and a hilarious, scenery-chewing evil psychiatrist. Eventually, when he hits rock bottom, he discovers “Dianetics” by L. Ron Hubbard, and promptly makes a miraculous recovery. He struts out of the hospital, past the seething doctors and psychiatrist. Scientology saves the day.

Dianetics

Dianetics

The second film was an induction for Scientology newbies regarding the organisation’s structure. The production values were high, but featured that unique brand of sloppy editing in corporate presentations that has people either waiting far too long to do something, or doing it twice. It concluded with the blow-dried presenter speaking directly to the viewer, saying something like:

“You could walk out that door right now and never think of Scientology again. It would be incredibly stupid of you, but you could do it”…. “It’s your choice: An eternity of freezing agony, or total bliss.”

I was astonished by the nerve of these statements. This was Book of Revelations stuff. However, I maintained calm as I left the cinema and spoke further with my designated acolyte / interviewer. Funnily enough, the next group to go the cinema were a bunch of teenagers, obviously there for shits and giggles, who had to be kicked out, laughing their heads off. As my interviewer sat back down with me after performing this duty, he said, in English, “Jesus Christ!!”. I remember thinking, “Shouldn’t that be ‘L. Ron’?”

The interview continued, and though I was freaked out by what I had just seen, I still wanted to be “audited”. For those of you who don’t know, this is purportedly a “personality test” in which the Church detects which parts of your being are flawed and can be improved by induction proper.

Before being allowed to do this, however, I had to watch another film, this time an introduction to the auditing process. I don’t think that this film is usually shown to people who want to participate. The reason I say this is simply because the concepts outlined in it were absolutely bizarre and certainly off-putting to any reasonable individual. Personally, I was most confused by the video’s theory that unconsciousness or intense emotion were the states in which people were most likely to absorb information.

Reactive Mind

Reactive Mind

For example, if someone was involved in a car crash, and was unconscious in the ambulance on the way to the hospital, there should be no negative pronouncements – and preferably, no speech in general – by anyone else in the ambulance. The injured party, though unconscious, is acutely aware of their surroundings, and any information relayed here could affect them negatively for life. The same goes for anyone who has suffered a lesser injury, like a fall off a bike (and not necessarily been knocked unconscious). Everyone around must stay quiet.

What knocked me out of my seat altogether, however, was the scene in which a woman giving birth was surrounded by doctors who held fingers to their lips and said “Shhhhh!” – so as not to unintentionally place negative thoughts in the baby’s mind which would generate future neuroses. It seemed moot to point out that the infant brain’s as-yet undeveloped linguistic centre would be unable to recognise any structured language ( I wondered if I’d ever encountered anything else that supported the Scientologists’ bizarre pre-lingual theory, and I realised that I had: the film “Look Who’s Talking“…. starring über-ologists John Travolta and Kirstie Alley…! ).

I was informed that I would have to return the following day to have my audit performed. I thought, well, I’ve come this far. So return I did. I was introduced to an older lady with an hilarious name who would be my auditor. We took a lift to one of the building’s upper levels, stepped into a sterile office, and began. She decided, for reasons unknown to me, that I wouldn’t need to be hooked up to the infamous E-Meter machine, and we started into it.

E-Meter

E-Meter

The audit, such as it was, consisted of a huge range of questions, each of which had to be answered three times, and each of which had a particular emotion or tactile sensation attached to it. For example, I would be asked, “Can you think of a time when you felt angry?”, and the prescribed sensation would be “Light or Heavy”. So, you answered the question, explaining the memory in detail, and then had to say whether the scene “felt” light or heavy. Then, she would ask, “When was another time you felt angry?”, and finally, “When was the first time you felt angry”, each one a full scene description with the Light / Heavy parameters.

And yes, it was every bit as boring as it sounds. At the beginning, I sincerely tried to give honest answers, wanting to actually see proper results of this “personality test”. But after about 45 minutes of these triple – barrel questions, with seemingly non-sequitur addenda to every single one (Was the memory light, heavy, black, red, big, small, fast, slow etc), I found myself making up stories just to answer the questions as quickly as possible.

But even at that, I couldn’t seem to make any headway. At around the 1& 1/2 hour mark, I asked how much longer the session was going to take. At this, my auditor became quite concerned, saying that being in a hurry was not a psychic state conducive to accurate results. It seemed that the audit was going to take as long as it had to. I relented and continued. But after 2 hours I couldn’t take any more. I told her that I had another engagement (which she wanted to know all about) and simply had to leave.

I promised that I would return the following day (I did not return). And to be honest, the only reason I think they let me leave without a big scene was because I had expressed genuine interest in the religion, and seemed to have been fascinated by the audit. Still, I left the building and felt relieved.

Time Magazine Scientology

Time Magazine Scientology

Thinking back on the audit, I noticed at least one huge fallacy in their beliefs. These are people who famously abhor psychiatry and psychotherapy as a means of personal growth, disregarding utterly the huge medical advances accomplished in these fields. And yet, in the audit itself, they used methods that pertain almost directly to psychotherapy.

For example, the whole idea of getting someone to recall vividly a memory, and it’s associated sensations, is a very powerful psychotherapeutic technique. NLP (Neurolinguistic Programming), one of newest branches of psychotherapy, uses it extensively, and is based on the idea of bringing the client into different “states”. The goal is to train people to access them at will, thereby allowing them to bypass anxious or depressive states.

The Scientology audit uses these exact same principles, but instead of moving towards a pure goal of personal development, the intent here is to get the client to associate the powerful experience of re-living memories to the auditor, and to the religion. This generates the false belief that the auditor has somehow accessed your deepest personal issues, the same issues that the religion can help fix (for a fee). The fact is that the auditor has done nothing more then encourage a self-induced semi-hypnotic state. They are covertly using the very same psychotherapeutic principles that the religion fervently claims to have debunked.

Indeed, the Scientologists’ dismissal of psychotherapy as a means of self-development is actually a typical cult tactic – the isolation of the individual. Just as Charles Manson kept orphans in a shack in Death Valley and Jim Jones took his subjects out of the US and into Guyana, Scientology must keep people isolated from, and resentful of, outside influences. They breed the idea that noone else can help you but “us”, that your mind and soul will be lost without “us”. (In fact, in researching this article, I learned that Charles Manson himself actually read and taught principles of Scientology).

David Miscavige

David Miscavige

So yes, the whole auditing experience was bizarre, and quite unsettling. But I think what is so frightening about Scientology, to me at least, is not strictly the cultish nature of the religion, but the slick way that it’s presented. They sell this thing like it’s the new must-have product. And they do so using the worst type of corporate techniques; cheesy 3D graphics, suited guys, Stepford girls, and horrible, horrible editing, animation, posters, voiceovers etc. This is a business, pure and simple. There is not an ounce of the sincerity, tact or true compassion that people actually need when they find themselves in an existential crisis and searching for spiritual guidance.

Scientology is the ultimate form of bully-boy advertising:

“Buy this product…or your soul will perish!”

f

f

Note: There is a ton of information available on the Internet about how Scientology is a highly dangerous organization, and how they exert massive pressure on anyone who speaks out against them, especially people who have left the religion. Here’s a selection of my favourite videos on the subject:

f

“The Bridge” is an great low-budget movie that is highly critical of Scientology. Directed by the then 18-year-old Brett Hanover, the Church of Scientology tried to bury it. It’s fascinating in particular for it’s striking use of official Scientology videos within the narrative. Here’s the full movie on Google Video:

f

In 2007, an episode of the BBC’s documentary series Panorama focused on the reality of the Church of Scientology. The investigator, John Sweeney was harassed at every turn as he tried to speak to interviewees who had left the church, and witnessed first-hand the brutal character assassination in which the church regularly engages. The documentary concludes with the now-infamous scene in which Sweeney loses his temper with the Church Rep who has been intimidating him.

f

Jason Beghe, an accomplished actor, spent years dedicating his life to Scientology and rose to the higher levels of the religion’s hierarchy before becoming disillusioned and quitting it. In this interview, he talks about how he came to the realisation that the teachings were “retarded” and that he had invested years of his life in something “empty”. An intelligent and articulate man, Beghe’s discussion of Scientology from the inside is fascinating.

f

And of course, how could I leave out the overview of the religion’s mythos as portrayed by the always-brilliant South Park?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 13 Comments »

5 Reasons Films Are Getting Better (Or, Are Old Films Getting Worse?)

Posted by shaunoc1 on January 11, 2008

This is a question that’s been bothering me for ages now. I have tended not to bring it up too much in general conversation, for the simple fact that it sounds like such a stupid thing to say. I have a Masters Degree in Film Studies, but bringing this topic up makes people look at me like a child who eats crayons.

But hear me out.

Are films getting better? Much better than older films? I mean, in pretty much every sense? Before you answer, consider the following :

1. Film is becoming a universally available and easily producible medium. Digital technology means that anyone with a camcorder and a pc can put their mini-opus together. Of course, that means a whole load of crap is produced, but for people with the ideas and the ingenuity, the opportunities to make your film is there. (The Blair Witch Project, Supersize Me etc)

2. We have seen some amazing films in the last decade. Just think of The Sixth Sense, Fight Club, American Beauty, Lord Of The Rings, The Matrix, Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind, LA Confidential, Saving Private Ryan, The Big Lebowski, The Prestige, Donnie Darko, The Departed…. I could go on. People talk about the Forties and the Seventies as “Golden Ages” of film; the fact is that we’ve been enjoying a Golden Age of film since about 1990, one that shows no signs of letting up.

3. Acting is getting better. Yes, it is. Granted, Marlon Brando and the Method school ushered in a vast sea-change in the art, but can you really tell me that there is any comparison between the stilted hamming of the 30’s and 40’s and the naturality of say, Edward Norton or De Niro?

4. Special effects. CGI is allowing directors to create images, nay, worlds from their imaginations. Compare the opening scene of Peter Jackson’s “Lord Of The Rings” to Ralph Bakshi’s 1978 disastrous version, purely in visual terms.

Jackson:

j

Bakshi:

j

There’s no comparison, right?

j

5. I think that a lot of older movies get more respect than they deserve solely because they’ve got a few decades on them; they can sport that miasma of age that seems to render them untouchable. For instance, I watched James Whale’s 1931 “Frankenstein” recently. This is considered a horror classic, and created the modern image of Frankenstein’s monster as a lumbering flat-top, bolt-neck behemoth (the image is still under the copyright of Universal Pictures). It also features the famous line, “It’s alive! It’s alive!” (voted the #49 movie quote of all time by the American Film Institute).

Frankenstein:

But, despite all of this, I thought the movie was pretty crap. I’m a big fan of Mary Shelley’s book, and I was appalled to see that the film discarded that story almost completely. The placement of American actors with thick American accents in the roles of German characters was atrocious. The tacked-on happy ending was painful. If that movie was made today, it would be a straight-to-video bottom-shelfer. All in all, I think that Kenneth Branagh’s 1994 version is leagues ahead of that version; it is far more subtle, believable and retains much more of the book’s poignant Oedipal themes.

But try saying that to any “serious” film fan or critic. I think I can safely say that if they don’t implode on the spot, they will subject you to a tirade of vitriol based mainly on the dogmatic clout of the film’s age.

(By the way, I have listened to film lecturers tell me that American Beauty is “implausible”, Lord Of The Rings is “juvenile”, and Titanic is “unwatchable”. I can tell you right now that if any of those films had been released 50 years ago – special effects notwithstanding – academics would today consider them cinematic landmarks. And in 50 years’ time, they will. But in academic circles at least, they haven’t earned their chronological kudos quite yet.)

The obvious counterargument is that movies are always made within the context of their times. And that our modern movies wouldn’t be here without them. Well, that’s true. But why, then, are there many older movies that totally transcend their times and context; that instead of being just a rung towards greatness, skip the queue and just are great? For example, “The Cabinet Of Dr. Caligari” (1920) or “Nosferatu” (1922) were hugely popular films when they released, and still stand as amazing horror films. They are subtle, creepy and beautiful – and in a different league totally to the American “Frankenstein”.

What I mean to propose is this….. What if more films are doing this today? What if more movies are simply obviating the constraints of context, passing “go” and hitting greatness? This may be a result of the sheer number of films being made. It may be because of studios becoming more liberal and independent. It may be because of the general freedom of information today as opposed to even a few decades ago. But the situation remains that we are, at least relatively speaking, being inundated with truly great films, and the trend doesn’t seem to be about to stop.

I will leave you with the immortal words of Peter Griffin: “I did not care for the Godfather….”

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments »