TORONTO CINEMA DIGEST
Note: My Reviews on Canoe Live and Helium.com will NOT appear on this site.


A SYMPOSIUM OF MOTION PICTURE OPINION ONLINE

EDITOR'S NOTE
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it." -George Bernard Shaw
-----------------------------------------------------
I studied film at the University of Toronto under Professor Bart Testa and have attended lectures on
film theory by Charlie Keil (guest lecturer) and a separate talk by producer Thomas N.Lackey on film production. I gained a renewed love of film analysis from doing so that compliment my natural affinity for the medium. But I began the odyssey of creating this movie review publication with the aim of providing an alternative view to that of the elitist and snobbish fraternity of movie critics who dominate popular culture today. Big name critics have been vilifying perfectly terrific movies since Hollywood was in its infancy.

The first film critics were naturally stage play critics. They had to learn about the new medium but started writing and publishing reviews of movies before they fully understood them. Then you have those critics that were just professional writers assigned to be film critics because they were on staff. Gene Siskel started out writing about real estate for the Chicago Tribune before being assigned the lowly task of writing movie reviews which will give you some idea how things have changed over the years.

We have those critics that seem to like to pick on certain films and stars more than others. The Razzie awards seem often more about insulting people in Hollywood that attempt work which goes beyond the boundaries of their talent than exposing those who are least competent. Their hatred of Bruce Willis, Demi Moore, Ben Affleck, Madonna has resulted in each getting more than their fair share of nominations.

Format remains an issue on this site but bear with me. One of my absolute favourite criticisms about the format I have is that I have contrived an "indie" look as a way of appearing impartial when in fact it is a stealth-marketing shill for big studio elites and their product. In truth, if you look at the reviews and articles all the big players and small ones get trashed pretty equally. But if people want to believe that the low-rent look (no rent actually) is deliberate then I really can't say I mind at present. The accusation was levelled at me by a reviewer/film historian well-known for his volatility and hippie polemicist view of the movie industry. He has had books published so I guess that means he knows everything about everyone. I got into a long, extended e-mail argument with him then just gave up trying to convince him that I wasn't what he thought I was. I can't make this any more indie than it already is and I am not going to try.

The previous incarnation of the Digest was a 'zine published irregularly through university, political activism and career travails. At one point it took the form of an e-mail newsletter. Of course, I have always ended up doing the bulk of the writing myself and haven't really minded even though I continue to solicit submissions.

Publications in print suffer from declining numbers in readership therefore the future of publishing is online. Online publishing is just more space efficient for everyone. No one has to figure out what to do with a magazine copy after they have finished reading it. No one's garage or attic gets cluttered up with stacks of old issues. There is no recycling problem. I probably wont publish the digest in any other form but online again. If there are hardcopy printings they will likely to be used to promote the online version.

This online publication does not have the old prejudices of the established critics. We are an impartial, fair and balanced view of modern cinema and this is reflected in our reviews and articles.

There is room for all manner of opinion in this world. Criticism is opinion. No matter how emphatically one may declare their opinion to be definitive it is never thus for this is a big world with a rich mix of people and a rich mix of viewpoints.

Some people love movies that many people absolutely loath. Keep in mind Roger Ebert wrote BEYOND THE VALLEY OF THE DOLLS and Rex Reed starred in MYRA BRECKINRIDGE. Making a cinematic masterpiece ain't as easy as it looks and them two guys should know.

Some critics actually view the motion picture industry and big theatre chains as the enemy. I don’t subscribe to that but I do often question the methodology Hollywood uses in what kinds of movies get made as well as the logic of high ticket prices etc.

This digest publishes your reviews but the catch is we don't pay for them. This is a non-profit even as much I would like for it to be for profit. Each review submitted is treated as a donation to the digest. Those writers submitting reviews should view their contributions as a public service. They'll retain ownership. I'll just post them on here until they tell me I can't.

Two of my best contributors over the years have been Jen Goldwin and Basia Grandon. If you have never heard of any of us its okay...we've probably never heard of you either.

If you want to submit a review please e-mail it to blackknightpc@yahoo.ca. Please type "Movie Review" in the subject line. I wont publish all of them and reserve the right to reject any review for any reason (but most likely only if it promotes hate or is libelous).

Keep in mind that while today's critics shoot for a catchy blurb to appear upon a movie poster I want something more substantial. A blurb usually tends only to be between 4 and 12 words. Some critics come up with the blurb first then write their respective review around the blurb. That is hardly satisfactory in capturing the substance of a feature film.

I don't just want reviews of mainstream Hollywood fair. I will publish reviews on the rarest of rare titles. The most foreign of foreign, the most indie of indie. If its rare it will get people to visit this site rather than others and those that visit will read the rest of the digest as well.

220 of my own reviews are currently up on this site. I will continue to add new and old reviews of mine periodically as well as a kind of "greatest hits collection" of my articles.

In some of the feedback I have gotten so far I've been labelled a "conservative libertarian" and "right-winger" for my interpretations of different themes and for my lack of enthusiasm for certain Hollywood liberal cliches (or just how they are presented). You may also find this in reading my reviews and articles. You may also find the reverse to be true. Feel free to have your own opinion. Not enough people do.

I apologize in advance to those that have trouble with waiting for the site to load. During weekdays I often only average a few hundred hits in a day but on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays that number climbs into the thousands. I am told it can take longer for the site to load on some computers because of this.

Thanks for reading,

Jason Daniel Baker, contributor & Editor-in-Chief

blackknightpc@yahoo.ca

Myspace Codes
- Online Dating Site

The 79th Academy Awards, If I picked the Winners

Best Picture:"The Departed" Easily the best movie of 2006 but it probably won't win the Best Picture Oscar for the simple reason that Scorsese movies don't win. It also does not have a particularly liberal message nor is it an uplifting story about the triumph of the human spirit.

Best Actor: Ryan Gosling, "Half Nelson" - It won't matter that Gosling turned in a virtuoso performance other lead actors nominated this year did not even approach and have not at any other time in their respective careers. Gosling has simply not been around long enough. Each of the other four actors nominated have and have each worked with most of the right people (those influential people that help other Academy members decide who deserves recognition and who doesn't).

Best Actress: Meryl Streep, "The Devil Wears Prada"; She hasn?t got a prayer of winning for the simple reason that she has won so many awards so many times and Hollywood is practically on bended knee to hand the award to Dame Helen Mirren.

Best Supporting Actor: Paul Giammatti, "The Illusionist". Giammatti turned in a performance reminiscent of Claude Rains in Casablanca and Hollywood didn't even see fit to nominate him. What a pure travesty!

Best Supporting Actress: Cate Blanchett, "Notes on a Scandal" The performance she gives is terrific and easily better than the other choices in the category. But best of all if she wins it might encourage her to take more supporting roles because she is clearly no leading lady and never has been.

Best Director: Martin Scorsese, "The Departed". Consistently over thirty plus years Scorsese has made riveting artistic statements on celluloid. I'd love to know why this guy has such a poor track record at Oscar time. His friendship with Hollywood blacklist collaborator Elia Kazan obviously hasn't helped but that can't be the only reason.

Foreign Language Film: "Water," Canada. Some will suggest my choice here is merely rooting for the home team but anyone who has seen this work and those also nominated will reasonably come to the conclusion that no better foreign language film was released in 2006.

Adapted Screenplay: Todd Field and Tom Perrotta, "The Little Children". Todd Field remains a terrific director ("In The Bedroom" being his signature work so far) and has never ceased to be efficient as an actor. Adapting screenplays is yet another of the skills he brings to the art of motion picture making and his work on "The Little Children" is the best of all done on adapting screenplays this year.

Original Screenplay: Michael Arndt, "Little Miss Sunshine". Simply put this script was among the funniest and most original concepts to come along in years (In The United States anyway). I remain stunned that it actually survived the Hollywood treatment.

Animated Feature Film: "Monster House". Its not like anyone really cares about who wins in this category except those nominated and the brats who watch animated movies but "Monster House" remains the best of the cartoons made this year.

Art Direction: "The Prestige". Slick is the word for the job done here. This film and its art direction were the most elaborate visual feast in film this year.

Cinematography: "The Illusionist". It is not easy to recreate another time period on celluloid today. It is quite difficult to do so at the same time as creating the ambience necessary to do justice to a hauntingly beautiful love story. The way "The Illusionist " was shot achieved both in a way in which the two naturally blend. The result was a superior Hollywood movie with storybook aspects.

Sound Mixing: "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest." Lost amidst Johnny Depp's tour de force performance and the obscene amount of money this one made is the work done on the nuts and bolts of the production particularly the soundwork.

Original Score: "The Good German" Thomas Newman. Just about the only thing salvageable about this tawdry melodrama with eccentric casting was its poetic and deeply moving score.

Original Song: "Listen" from "Dreamgirls," Henry Krieger, Scott Cutler and Anne Preven. Catchy tune as it well should be.

Costume: "Marie Antoinette". It's only every other aspect of this movie that is pure rubbish. There was nothing wrong with the meticulous costuming

Documentary Feature: "An Inconvenient Truth" . This one is about as subtle as a punch in the mouth with its message on global warming and considering the weather we have been having over the past decade that?s how it should be.

Overlooked Masterpiece - THE LIBERTINE with Johnny Depp


They don't come much better in Hollywood than Johnny Depp as far as talent derived from sheer work ethic is concerned.

Oscar Night 2006
I actually found the 2006 Oscar telecast to be the first watchable one in years. Celebrating the old-time glamour of the cinema the set evoked the image of the interior of an old movie house (kind of reminiscent of the old Eglinton theatre in Toronto) with a marquee above it. The set blended in with the theme of the night as did much of the proceedings. Hollywood is clearly getting desperate in trying to sell this retro-image of the deluxe movie-going experience. What it did not touch upon was that which made the magic of the silver screen so special: it used to be affordable to go to the movies. No amount of nostalgia can bring back audiences when the prices to see first-run feature films are what they are now.

I thought Jon Stewart did a good job as host inspite of what some are saying. The same criticism still apllies to the Oscar telecast: millions of people around the world are not tuning in to see who for Best Art Direction or Best Make-Up or Best-Sound Editing. Yes, these are very important awards given to important people that make the movies the memorable experiences that they are. But no one watches the Oscars to see them and the broadcast could be cut down to a reasonable length if they (as many technical awards already are) were handed out before the ceremony). Most people don't understand what goes into the science of moviemaking and they shouldn't. It will impede their ability to suspend disbelief for the duration of a movie. Again, the telecast ran about 22 minutes over its slotted time.

As for the actual awards the shock of the night was of course CRASH beating out BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN for Best Picture. This critic was dead wrong. I figured Hollywood wanted to send another message about gay rights when they actually wanted to do it about race relations. Phillip Seymour Hoffman as Best Actor and Reese Witherspoon as Best Actress were very predictable as was Ang Lee for best Director. George Clooney was shockingly frank in accepting the Best Supporting Actor Oscar saying "I guess this means I am not going to win for best director" (he was nominated for best director for GOOD NIGHT AND GOOD LUCK). Hollywood loves it's hunky actor/directors (going back through Mel Gibson, Kevin Costner, Warren Beatty and Robert Redford) because all actors want the option of directing and it thus fosters that ambition when one of them does it well. Sadly, for Clooney the Best Supporting Actor nod was his consolation prize. It was a bit of surprise that Rachel Weisz won for Best Supporting Actress. Not sure what factors served her in winning. Its not like anybody actually saw her movie.

Ryan Philippe once again treated audiences to his discomfort over the fact that his wife Reese Witherspoon is so much more successful than he is. It was very uncomfortable watching him squirm in his seat while his wife gave her acceptance speech and almost forgot to thank him. The tension was relieved when Philippe's movie CRASH upset BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN for Best Picture and he spontaneously celebrated with his castmates.
_____________________________________________________

PROFILE-PETER SARSGAARD by Jason Daniel Baker

Producers don't usually ask for actor Peter Sarsgaard. His type of actor is generally beyond their understanding. Try even spelling his name on a marquee.

Directors ask for him for the sublety his understated style offers. His unhandsome face, dead eyed stare and soft nasal cadences lead some to compare him with John Malkovich (who played his father Athos in MAN IN THE IRON MASK). One can only hope Sarsgaard's career doesnt tank the way Malkovich's has.

Sarsgaard seems like he came out of nowhere. He had a minor role on an episode of LAW & ORDER back in 1995 then seemed to build a career upon a series of scene-stealing turns in feature films. Even with the impressive body of work this guy has he is not a movie star in the conventional sense. It took me a few years before I could spell his name right and shake myself out of the notion that he was the talented younger brother of Danish actor Stellan Skarsgaard.

The originality of his approach to roles make his name worth the effort of learning how to spell. No actor today is better at communicating with the audience without saying anything.

SHATTERED GLASS was a prime example of Sarsgaard displaying the internal stress of a man who has taken on a great responsibility and all at once feels the walls caving in on his watch. This one shows Sarsgaard doing his patented "slow boil" as the pressure builds. It's like a commercial for TUMS or Pepto bismal.

THE SALTON SEA had Sarsgaard portraying a type of clingy, puppy dog best friend to Val Kilmers protaganist who is there for him when it matters most. Viewers may remember this as the last role in which Sarsgaard was thin.

CENTRE OF THE WORLD had Sarsgaard as wealthy computer geek Richard Longman who falls for a cold fish stripper played Canadian phenom Molly Parker. That was one of his rare extroverted performances. He derives the nerdiness of his character from the naivete and childlike whineyness letting Parker steal the show as she pulls a Sarsgaard and almost underplays him off the screen.

K-19: THE WIDOWMAKER was the result of producers coming up with the kind of money Harrison Ford requires to do a role, and the type of a role a geriatric action film star like him or Sean Connery could plausibly play. The prospect of it being a blockbuster was enough to lure Liam Neeson but whats Sarsgaard doing here? Sarsgaard plays a reactor engineer aboard a Soviet nuclear sub burdened with the kind of incompetence an unrealistic expectations that hints how Chernobyl might have happened. After a meltdown, Sarsgaard does more of an external boil and melts onscreen. Other than sicken the audience the role does little. K-19 was a faux blockbuster ripoff of DAS BOOT,the HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER, CRIMSON TIDE & DESTINATION:TOKYO. With Neeson and Ford it seemed cast like an action adventure extravaganza but thoroughly disappointed the meagre audience it was able to deliver.

BOYS DON'T CRY featured Sarsgaard as sniveling homophobiac bully John Lotter. Since I absolutely wanted to strangle him at times during the movie I imagine the performance was quite adequate.

EMPIRE cast Sarsgaard as slick, duplicitous Wall Street investment banker Jack Wimmer in a performance that was one-dimensional until the final scene. A throughly amateurish production right down to the casting of the extras one wonders why Sarsgaard would have let himself get talked into doing something like this.

SKELETON KEY actually marked Sarsgaard's worst performance. The Illinois native's portrayal of southern gentleman/attorney Luke Marshall was hindered by his use of an accent that, at times actually sounded rural New England. The part called for a charming romantic lead with a touch of Bayou je ne sais quoi and no visible sense of threat. Harry Connick jr would have been perfect. They did not need a heavyweight actor to play the role. In fact merely casting an actor of Sarsgaard's calibre tips off too much to the audience. One hopes Sarsgaard invested the salary wisely since the only other things the role accomplished were to help typecast him as a weirdo and show how bad he can make even the nicest 3-piece suits look.This dude is no magazine cover even if he ends up on one.

KINSEY-Showcased Sarsgaard as Clyde Martin, pioneering sexologist Alfred Kinsey's surveyor/research assistant and supposed one-time lover. The portrayal is the most tasteful one done so far by an actor of a sensitive, nurturing, priapic since Murray Head in SUNDAY, BLOODY SUNDAY and adequately serves as a bookend on the opposite side of his role in BOYS DON'T CRY.

GARDEN STATE-Sarsgaard's role as sleazo ditchdigger buddy to Zach Braff's lead is almost completeley superfluous. The performance is passable but nothing special. The film itself however is a revelation and its quirky subtlety are giving it a huge following. Quite frankly, when Natalie Portman is on screen in a role that is equal to her capabilities one can hardly pay much attention to her co-stars. One suspects that Sarsgaard coveted the lead role in this but settled for the supporting role because he liked the script so much. See the movie and you wont be able to blame him for it.

FLIGHTPLAN-Next to the petite Jodie Foster, the over 6-foot, 200 plus pound Sarsgaard looks as physically imposing onscreen as Forrest Whitaker so often has. You don't usually think of him as a big man but here he looks huge. Playing the role of air marshall Gene Carson, friendly and low-key early on in the movie, we are perhaps meant to think of his character as the nurturing Clyde of KINSEY. As the film goes he more resembles the stand-up guy under pressure Chuck from SHATTERED GLASS but the red herrings in the plot are not effective enough to draw us away from the real villain. The hideous Kate Beahan (probably a terrific lady but gross here) stewardess role shouldve been played by ex-Sarsgaard galpal Shalom Harlow. The movie grossed $200 million worldwide so his prowess as a bankable star may one day meet that of his acting.

JARHEAD-Sarsgaard's Troy character becomes a victim of combat fatigue in the Gulf War (the first one). His U.S. Marine (Jarhead) is nothing if not fascinating and consistent with most stories about combat fatigue I have heard of. Real servicepeople who have seen the phenomenon up close might not agree with the notion of its authenticity. Sarsgaard was born on an Air Force base so you might figure he got a chance to research the role somewhat from any early age.

Sarsgaard's choices of roles lately seem intent upon proving that he is leading man material. This indicates he aspires to more than simply challenging Phillip Seymour Hoffman as the most riveting, and original screen performer of his generation. Sadly, the roles he is choosing are of the variety Ben Affleck would normally play which are rapidly handing Affleck the title of this generation's worst actor (sorry Ben, there is no question in my mind that you've got talent but its not without its flaws and sometimes them flaws is pretty glaring).

ARTICLES

____________________________________________________

SCIENTOLOGY IN HOLLYWOOD

article by Jason Daniel Baker

Scientologists in Hollywood include John Travolta and wife Kelly Preston, Tom Cruise and ex-wife Mimi Rogers, Jason Lee, Kirstie Alley, brothers Danny and Chris Masterson, Erika Christensen, Nancy Cartwright, Catherine Bell, Geoffrey Lewis and daughter Juliette Lewis, Michael Pena, Giovanni Ribisi, Jenna Elfman, Leah Remini, Singers Isaac Hayes and Chaka Khan, jazz musician Chick Corea, Karen Black, Anne Archer, Priscilla Presley and daughter Lisa Marie, Michelle Stafford, Corin Nemec, Jason Beghe, Bernadette Peters, Cathy Lee Crosby. The list is growing. Some members (Giovanni Ribisi and Juliette Lewis for instance) were raised in the religion indicating a continuity that punctures the notion suggesting Scientology is just a passing fad or trendy cult.

While much of the hype is based on the talent in front of the camera that has embraced Scientology, Director J.J. Abrams, Ernest Lehman, screenwriter of The Sound of Music, Dick Tracy screenwriter Floyd Mutrux and composer Mark Isham (A River Runs Through It) are but a few examples of behind the scenes talent in the Church.

The mainstream media may have collectively decided to ridicule Scientology for various reasons but Hollywood is world renowned for it's flakiness. All kinds of weirdness and basic eccentricity are accomodated if those involved deliver vast sums of box office money or huge ratings. Scientologists (at least the ones you hear about) do that in spades.

The history of Hollywood has been one rife with important people vital to the entertainment industry abusing mass quantities of drugs, using prostitutes, espousing bizarre political stances etc. What is Scientology compared with that?

What is Scientology compared with other world religions? It has it's bad PR but Catholicism is being painted as a cadre of anti-semitism and pedophilia these days. Islam is being, and has long been characterized as a terrorist phenomenon. The media has actually been rougher in covering them than in covering Scientology.

Scientology claims to be the world's fastest growing religion. It is impossible to locate a time in American history when so-called small sects were not growing at a faster rate than denominations viewed as large and stable. It's growing stable of members in Hollywood have many occasions to work together.

Tom Cruise and Jason Lee co-starred in VANILLA SKY. Cruise and Kelly Preston co-starred in Jerry Maguire. Cruise starred in Mission Impossible 3 directed by fellow Scientologist J.J. Abrams.

Juliette Lewis has appeared on an episode of MY NAME IS EARL with fellow Scientologist Jason Lee. She has also appeared on an episode of DHARMA & GREG with fellow Scientologist Jenna Elfman. She also co-starred with Giovanni Ribisi in THE OTHER SISTER. Ribisi has also appeared on MY NAME IS EARL numerous times.

Ethan Suplee plays the brother of fellow Scientologist Jason Lee on the show MY NAME IS EARL. He has also appeared with Lee in MALLRATS, CHASING AMY & CLERKS II.

Leah Remini's first substantial role was as a guest star on CHEERS as Carla's daughter Serafina. Her first scenes were with fellow Scientologist Kirstie Alley.

Bodhi Elfman is husband to fellow Scientologist Jenna Elfman. He has appeared on her series Dharma & Greg and on the series VERONICA'S CLOSET which starred fellow Scientologist Kirstie Alley. He also appeared in the movie version of THE MOD SQUAD with fellow Scientologist Giovanni Ribisi, in COLLATERAL with fellow Scientologist Tom Cruise and in the 2002 movie LOST with fellow Scientologist Michelle Stafford.

Scientologists Jason Beghe and Catherine Bell co-starred in the 2002 tv movie CAB TO CANADA.

Are these cases of Scientologists helping fellow Scientologists get work? Or are these merely indicative of the prevalence that Scientology is getting in Hollywood? If Scientology could not get work for it's people do you really think an unlikely star as Bodhi Elfman would have a career?

You have to wonder when Scientology's influence in Hollywood will result in it's forming it's own film studio. The critical mass is falling into place and the money is in evidence.

Of course one need not become a Scientologist to get to work with Scientologists more than once. Thomas Gibson played Greg on DHARMA & GREG with Jenna Elfman and co-starred with Tom Cruise in the films FAR & AWAY and EYES WIDE SHUT.

Woody Harrelson has co-starred with Kirstie Alley on CHEERS, Juliette Lewis on NATURAL BORN KILLERS.

Former Scientologists like Patrick Swayze and Diane Canova (the tv series SOAP) have seen their careers decline after disowning Scientology. Coincidence? Probably.

Other past Scientologists include Jerry Seinfeld, Top Gun producer Don Simpson and actor Brad Pitt. Simpson is dead. Seinfeld does not work much in an onscreen way these days but Pitt is no less of a star than he was when he left Scientology.

The rest of the list of Ex-Scientologists? Here are just a few: Actresses Sharon Stone, Sofia Milos and Peggy Lipton, Emilio Estevez, director Oliver Stone, poet Leonard Cohen, John Brodie (former all-pro quarterback of the San Francisco 49ers), singers Lou Rawls and Ricky Martin.

Some of these people have perhaps joined temporarily to derive momentary advantage. One might speculate that membership put a director or producer in position to get an A-list actor for a movie (a huge step in getting a project greenlighted by a major studio) and joining Scientology helped.

Did Oliver Stone join Scientology to get Tom Cruise to star in BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY? Did Don Simpson join Scientology to get Tom Cruise to star in TOP GUN? The conspiracy theories are endless.

Conversely Karen Black, an actress who at one time during the the 1970's seemed to be in the most talked about movies of every year but gained a reputation for being extremely difficult to work with does not seem to have benefitted in recent years by affiliation with Scientology.

It will be telling to see what happens to those stars that have not just shunned but openly denigrated Scientology. Brooke Shields is one such star. Will her career be hurt by her numerous clashes in the media with Tom Cruise?

Tom Berenger used the fact that his wife was a Scientologist in divorce proceeding with his wife. He publicly criticized Scientology. His career has declined but it was going downhill anyway.

Actor Mike Farrell (MASH) also publicly criticized Scientology but he never had much of a career anyway outside of minor TV stardom and whatever decline it might have had could just as easily be attributed to the public criticisms the left-leaning ex-Marine has continually made of powerful interests throughout his career.

Director Richard Donner ran afoul of Scientology over a single line in perhaps his dumbest movie DELIRIOUS. The line and scene are not even worth repeating but seem to hint at brainwashing and refer to Scientology. Donner has suggested he received threatening phone calls from Scientologists over the reference.

Hollywood weirdness being what it is suggests that not only should celebrities in the entertainment field have their own religion but perhaps even their own planet.

CULT OR SECRET SOCIETY?

Author Alexis De Toqueville was effusive in talking about the United States in his writings. The one thing he felt made the U.S. special above all else was the strength of it's associations and the loyalty those associations were able to command from their respective members.

At the time that De Toqueville was writing the United States remained a bastion of various religious sects seeking refuge from repressive regimes in other countries. The United States has, of course, changed.

Religious sects that are in any way different from established religions are continually ridiculed as cults. Even with glamourous, well-heeled celebrities as members Scientology has not shaken the "cult" label and is viewed by some critics as being similar to the Moonies or Hari Krishnas.

Some even suggest that the term "cult" flatters what Scientology is saying that it is really just a gloirified tax shelter utilizing American tax laws regarding religion to their advantage.

Whatever it is and whatever it once was will continually be talked about no matter what it becomes. Included in that will be accusations of being a cult or secret society which will end when public perception collectively decides it should.

Hollywood has many associations of different varieties that entertainment industry people have found themselves in. Scientology has become the biggest and strongest. It offers an unmistakable path for advancement to it's members.

Source links:

http://www.factnet.org/Scientology/celebcrit.html

http://www.bible.ca/scientology-poor-famous-members.htm
_____________________________________________________