On Sun, 26 Aug 2001 23:07:18 -0400, Bob Minton <bob@minton.org> wrote:

>Peter Alexander. That's the long and the short of it. Peter is a professional
>and I had and have complete confidence in him to put together a movie that
>would portray the cult experience in a way that would help others understand
>the evil and ruthlessness of cults. No doubt that Peter borrowed from his own
>experience of twenty years in Scientology but the thing about cults is that
>they are all the same -- evil, ruthless and out to take your money. I think
>The Profit tells this story in a way that people can connect with. Sure, there
>are a lot of unbelievable things in The Profit but I think you can ask any
>former cult member and they will tell you that a lot of absurd and unbelievable
>things that happened to them on their own roads to total freedom.
snip I agree with Bob especially about the common characteristics of cults.

It would have been possible for the film to have been done to a modern look, but it would have missed the point. I think Peter was *trying* to make the film feel like a 50s B grade horror, and I think he succeeded. At least I sure find it creepy! I don't understand the complaints about "farfetched" in the SP Times review. "Farfetched"?

To be true to life or our favorite cult the film doesn't go Far ENOUGH! The reviewer would have gone out of their mind if the Kali ceremony (which was done right in Clearwater) had been included. By comparison the moonchild business was mild.

I don't know why people use words like "stilted" to refer to Peter's film. I think it matches scientology, heavy-handed and dark. I was surprised that they picked Cruise to be the model for the actor sucked in when Travolta would have been a more obvious choice.

It doesn't even mention jokes Hubbard played on his "sheep" like the bridge and the double cross. Hubbard's character is described as "hokey," as if Hubbard wasn't. Had this reviewer ever seen a video of cult members and he hasn't made up his mind? Has anyone ever shown him the cameras in downtown Clearwater? I get the impression the SP Times reviewer could have walked into a concentration camp and mistaken it for a spa.

Interesting that the same word used by the reviewer to apply to the Hubbard on film in "The Profit" is used to apply to Hubbard's writing in the management "course." "Hokey." Hokey is true to life!

I love Gerry Armstrong's review. He understands the film as no other reviewer has. I can just imagine someone guffawing through the whole thing and rolling on the floor as L. Conrad Powers runs out with the briefcase full of cash.

While I can't argue with Mark Bunker about the technical aspects of films, he got some things strange. He thinks "The Profit" shows that auditing works, whereas it is clearly shown that the woman whose eyesight seemed to improve later on needs her glasses. The tech only *seems* to work under intense social pressure. People are taken in by their own ability to fool themselves temporarily. Also I think Mark missed the intentional comic-book quality of the film. It's like the old "Classic Comics," where the "great books" are told as comic strips.

Bright colors, beautiful women, dramatic scenes, visual bites with word balloons. Works very well for this material. I think Scott's comment is on target. It's a broad comedy. Mark's reference to Ed Wood is right on, but he seems to miss that in this film are homages to Ed Wood. It might have to be cut some for commercial distribution, but I don't want to see it edited as Mark suggests. I think it is wonderful as it is. It is, as Patricia says, "a cult film," writ large in dark, saturated hues with entire chunks of reality thrown in like soup cans in a Warhol painting, except they are real soup cans.

I can see why Bob was so intent on getting a copy. I had to pull teeth to see it myself.

Keith Henson

Go Back