I am totally partial to this documentary: over the years I had read a lot of articles so there was nothing much for me to chew. I liked that it makes a strong use of prominent former scientologists and that digs into L. Ron Hubbard personality to reach what is to me the main statement about Scientology :
A. "The best way to make a fortune is by creating your own religion" (said L. Ron Hubbard, a libertarian who hated paying taxes) B. L. Ron Hubbard had a deranged personality and Dianetics was his attempt at self-therapy. Unfortunately his guru-like charisma branched out to a real cult he was able to cash in on... and most of all benefit from the group therapy.
The weakness of this documentary, which follows a very chronological storyline, is that these quintessential findings are lost in the middle. And since the director switches between various witnesses he finds himself unable to dig into the "prison of belief." Paul Haggis spent 35 years in it and cannot begin to understand what happened.
On one hand this is an essential aggregation of facts so that people have an opportunity to understand what is means when a religion strongly suggest that you can become a better person by giving them money. On the other hand it offers nothing to empathize with such victims by describing in detail the psychological elements at work that make people want to believe and then fear rejection from the group.
A. "The best way to make a fortune is by creating your own religion" (said L. Ron Hubbard, a libertarian who hated paying taxes) B. L. Ron Hubbard had a deranged personality and Dianetics was his attempt at self-therapy. Unfortunately his guru-like charisma branched out to a real cult he was able to cash in on... and most of all benefit from the group therapy.
The weakness of this documentary, which follows a very chronological storyline, is that these quintessential findings are lost in the middle. And since the director switches between various witnesses he finds himself unable to dig into the "prison of belief." Paul Haggis spent 35 years in it and cannot begin to understand what happened.
On one hand this is an essential aggregation of facts so that people have an opportunity to understand what is means when a religion strongly suggest that you can become a better person by giving them money. On the other hand it offers nothing to empathize with such victims by describing in detail the psychological elements at work that make people want to believe and then fear rejection from the group.