Latest 'Valkyrie' non-controversy controversy

As the puff pieces promoting the Tom Cruise WW2 vehicle "Valkyrie" become more and more prevelent, we're starting to see the first reviews... and a few columns featuring quotes from negative reviews.

A couple such columns have been penned by Roger Friedman of Fox News, who, at the earliest moment possible, did a round-up of negative commentary about "Valkyrie" in this column.

That column made sure he wasn't invited to the private New York press screening of "Valkyrie." Friedman followed it up with another column that focused on negative comments about the movie and its star, which you can read here.

I went and read Friedman's columns expecting to write a post about the habit that certain critics have in regards to watching and reviewing movies they know they're going to hate. With so many films to choose from, why bother writing up a film that you know you're going to pan? If you don't like Tom Cruise, why let your editor waste your time and his precious page space on sending you to see a movie that you're not going to give a fair shake?

The same goes for critics who pan every sci-fi or horror flick they see, no matter how good a film might be; they dump on it, because they are not the intended audience and they often don't get the film. I continue to think back with a warm, fuzzy feeling about how many critics revealed their cultural and literal illiteracy when they panned "Nacho Libre" and/or "Balls of Fury" as nothing more than a sports comedies when the first gets most of its humor from the fact that it's a blow-by-blow retelling of the "Epic of Gilgamesh" (as well as slavishly following Joesph Campbell's "Hero's Journey" theory) while the second is more of a spoof of 1970s Kung Fu flicks than sports movies. So many critics revealed themselves to be fairly ignorant and fairly untrustworthy thanks to those movies.

I'd figured I'd be able to grouse about Friedman in such terms based on his "Valkyrie" coverage. After all, Patrick Goldstein of the LA Times quoted United Artists marketing chief Michael Vollman publicist as saying, "If he'd [Friedman] indicated a desire to be open-minded and not telegraphed his intentions ahead of time, we would've acted differently. But when someone says 'I'm going to hate this movie,' you get the impression they have a closed mind."

He also stated that "Screenings are a privilege, not a right."

I agree with Vollman that screenings are a privilege not a right, and I also agree that one COULD interpert Friedman's column as telegraphing his intention to pan the movie; he was choosing his subject matter for a reason after all.

However, it is somewhat cowardly to silence potential critics before they've even really spoken out. UA's publicity department has shown themselves to have little faith in their product by not inviting Friedman to their screening. My guess is they didn't do themselves any favors, because all it got them was him writing another column full of negative quotes about "Valkyrie."

And they're not very interesting quotes at that, something that may be driving home the point that is further underscoring the sorry state of entertaiment journalism. Is that really the best Friedman could come up with for his spite-filled follow-up hit-piece on the film? Nitpicky little trifles that are neither insightful nor surprising as far as the criticism of Cruise's performance goes?

Of course, the quotes also reveal (or are out of context and thus make it appear) that Todd McCarthy is either petty or dim, because he seems to be blaming Cruise for something that's a flaw of the script. Quote the quote: "Cruise makes Stauffenberg a stalwart, flawed and honorable man, but reveals little sense of his stellar intellectual, artistic and family background."

McCarthy further coes on to kvetch about Cruise's American accent in a cast of otherwise British accents. Would he really rather that they all put on German accents like the actors in "Hogan's Heroes" and "Hitler, Dead or Alive"? I'm not sure what critic reveals himself to be the pettier--McCarthy for writing the initial criticsm or Friedman for quoting it.

I'm no fan of Tom Cruise. He surprised me in "Collatoral" and "Tropic Thunder", but otherwise I've been unimpressed by him as an actor. Yet the most insightful criticism that the oh-so-intelligent film critics can come up with is that he's not much of an actor, something that I observed long, long ago? And UA's publicist felt the need to ban Friedman from the screening for quoting a true statement?

Tom Cruise was a movie star. His star is fading. Based on the comments quoted by Friedman--comments that both Friedman and UA apparently felt were negative and damning but which I feel are words that Cruise and his agents should consider and take to heart when choosing his future roles--it seems that Cruise did a decent job as part of the ensemble cast that drives "Valkyrie." Cruise is starting to settle in where he should have been all along and in roles more fitting for his level of talent.

But, I digress.

Was it unkind of Friedman to do a column featuring quotes that said bad things about Cruise and "Valkyrie"? Sure. But that's a far cry from telegraphing that he was going to write a negative review about the movie. (He probably was going to, but I'm not convinced that one can draw that conclusion from the first column... unless one is already thinking that the movie sucks.)

UA were fools to not invite him. Hell, those who might be so inclined might even say that they were behaving true to the traditions of the Nazis that Col. Stauffenberg was so disgusted by in "Valkyrie"--they are trying to silence critics before they have a chance to speak out. Or, I suppose, one could say they are behaving like a Scientology propaganda machine. If one was prone to think such things.

Me, I'll make up my mind like I do with every movie that seems interesting to me--when I've seen it. If I thought I was going to hate, I'd not waste my time on it, something the so-called real critics and reviewers should consider doing. I will be seeing "Valkyrie" around the same time that Roger Friedman does, and we'll probably be posting our stories around the same time. (Although... please cry a tear for Roger Friedman. As he states in the second column on "Valkyrie" coverage, the poor baby will have to see the movie with the grubby hoi-poloi! Oh, the shame! Oh, the horror!)

German ministers overcome fear of Scientology cooties

I thought barring the "Valkyrie" crew from filming at certain spots because Cruise is a loony cultist as silly. It's nice to see someone come to their senses for once.

From the AP...

German defense ministry reverses "Valkyrie" decision

The German government has done an apparent about-face and will allow Tom Cruise to film key scenes of his movie "Valkyrie" at a location that had previously been placed off-limits to him.

A spokesman for the German Defense Ministry said Monday that after evaluating the script, officials had decided that it shed a light on the foundations of German democracy. (The film concerns a plot by a group of high-ranking military officers to assassinate Adolf Hitler in World War II; Cruise plays Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg, a German officer regarded as the ringleader of the group.)

When filming began last month, German officials granted only limited cooperation due to Cruise's association with Scientology, which is officially regarded as a dangerous cult in Germany. However, on Monday officials said they were satisfied that the story of the plot and the previously barred filming site -- where von Stauffenberg was executed -- would receive respectful treatment.

Anti-Scientology groups voiced their anger over the decision. In an interview with "Time" magazine, Ursula Caberta, a government worker who monitors Scientology in Germany, said that the decision is like "handing a trophy to Scientology. [...] Tom Cruise is not just Tome Cruise, but a figurehead of an anti-constitutional organization, and he should be treated that way."

(Oh, make sure you read Ursula Caberta's quote with a thick German accent and increasing hysteria as you go. It conveys her inner nature, I think.)

United Artists vs Germany: The Bizarre Battle of Bendlerblock

Since the news first broke about parts of the German government refusing to grant permission to Tom Cruise and United Artist to film "Valkyrie" at historic locations because Cruise is a wacky Scientology cultist, I've been saying the Germans were being stupid.

Well, that stupidity just grew to epic proportions. Not only has the refusal to use the disputed site (a war museum in a facility known as Bendlerblock) been fomalized by the department that actually had to sign off on it, but ANOTHER branch of the German government just chipped in the cash to pay for Tom Cruise's salary and Thetan Editing while working on the film.

(The German government is in the habit of giving grants to movies by people they consider national threats? Someone needs to tell al-Qaeda... I understand they're looking for someone to fund their next snuff flick.)

From IMDB....

In an action that appeared politically schizophrenic, the German Federal Film Fund agreed on Thursday (July 5) to contribute $6.5 million to the funding of Tom Cruise's "Valkyrie", just one day after the German Finance Ministry turned down an application by the production company to shoot key scenes of the film at a historic location.

In the movie, Cruise plays Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg, who headed the so-called Generals' Plot to assassinate Hitler during World War II, but some German politicians -- and the son of von Stauffenberg -- have objected to Cruise portraying von Stauffenberg because of the actor's association with Scientology.

A spokesperson for the film fund said Thursday that it granted the subsidy because "the criteria for the grant were fulfilled."

Production is scheduled to begin in Berlin on July 18.

Tom Cruise vs. Germany comes full circle

When I commented on the first wire story about the German military supposedly banning "Valkyrie" from being filmed at real military site (here), I observed that UA and the production team hadn't even submitted a request to do so.

The reading public is now being reminded of that fact, but it's also reassuring to see that the Germans still have some sort of short-term memory problem going on... along the lines of the problems that have persisted since around World War 2. (We're even hearing now that the German military isn't even the entity that approves use of the site that's the main point of contension... the Finance Ministry are the ones who handle that.)

Still... when I compare some of the quotes and claims in this article to the ones made earlier, I still have to wonder if the claim that "Cruise is a cooties-infested Scientologist" aren't just a smoke-screen for some other reason why the Germans are carrying on about him. (I'll show what I mean after the article.

German military not categorical opposed to Cruise-starring movie filming on their bases
By Scott Roxborough

COLOGNE, Germany (Hollywood Reporter) - The German Defense Ministry is scrambling to qualify its stance on the Tom Cruise World War Two thriller "Valkyrie," saying Thursday that, despite reports to the contrary, it has no opposition to the film shooting in Germany.

News reports earlier this week had started officials would ban "Valkyrie" from shooting at German military sites because of star Cruise's belief in Scientology.

The ministry now says that, while it hasn't received an official request from "Valkyrie" producers United Artists to shoot in the country, it would "look agreeably" upon any such application.

The film, slated for a 2008 release, tells the true story of Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg (Cruise), the leader of a failed German military plot to assassinate Adolf Hitler in 1944. The film's title comes from Operation Valkyrie, the plot's code name.

The producers have expressed interest in shooting at the Bendlerblock memorial in Berlin. It is the actual location where Stauffenberg and his fellow conspirators hatched the plot to assassinate Hitler with a bomb hidden in a briefcase. It also is where Stauffenberg and the other plotters were executed after the attempt failed.

Now a memorial site, the Bendlerblock also houses part of the Defense Ministry.

The Defense Ministry said Thursday that it wasn't even responsible for approving film shoots at Bendlerblock because they are only tenants on the land. The location is under the authority of Germany's Finance Ministry, a Defense Ministry spokesman said.

The source of the "Valkyrie" controversy seems to have stemmed from a posting on the Web site of conservative German member of parliament Antje Blumenthal. Blumenthal posted a statement Friday claiming that Defense Minister Franz-Josef Jung had pledged to her that Cruise would not get permission to shoot because of the purported danger posed by his Scientology.

Blumenthal is a cult expert for the conservative CDU/CSU party and a longtime opponent of Scientology.

The German government does not recognize Scientology as a religion and sees it instead as a dangerous cult, which brainwashes and exploits its members. Scientology is under official observation by Germany authorities as a potentially threat to German democracy, putting the organization on par with neo-Nazi groups.

Germany's film industry, however, has embraced the "Valkyrie" project.

The heads of Studio Babelsberg, Christoph Fisser and Carl Woebcken, on Thursday praised "Valkyrie" as one of the "too few examples of military opposition to Hitler's regime."

Fisser and Woebcken are in negotiations with United Artists to join the project as co-producers. If UA executives reach a deal, "Valkyrie" could begin shooting at Babelsberg next month.

"The assassination attempt against Hitler is hardly known outside Germany," Fisser said. "We should therefore be delighted and welcome this wonderful opportunity to improve the image of our country."

So... the claim is now that some random politician is the one who opposed the filming. Does this mean that the Reuters news service made the following up?

Defence Ministry spokesman Harald Kammerbauer said the film makers "will not be allowed to film at German military sites if Count Stauffenberg is played by Tom Cruise, who has publicly professed to being a member of the Scientology cult".

Or is it more likely that the Germans thinking that the world has a short-term memory problem similar to theirs? (As in the way it's impossible to find anyone with grandparents who supported Hitler, or how no one remembered they had Jewish or Communist neighbors whose stuff they stole after the Nazis carted them off).

Of course, either the AP is lying about this next bit, or the German government needs to get their stories straight:

Following a decision by the German military to bar the producers of the film, titled Valkyrie, after the code name used by the plotters, from using military bases as locales, a number of German lawmakers have gone on record to denounce the entire project.

Social Democratic lawmaker Klaus Uwe Benneter said that having a Scientologist play Col. Claus Graf Schenk von Stauffenberg, who is now regarded as a national hero, represents "a slap in the face to all upstanding democrats, all resistance fighters during the Third Reich, and all victims of the Scientology sect."

What does Tom Cruise's religious beliefs have to do with the character he plays? Are Scientologists approaching Jew-status in the eyes of the modern Germans? Are they somehow unclean and naturally evil? Or are German leaders just naturally stupid?

Of course, the pro-Cruise side isn't much better....

In an interview with the AP, Carl Woebcken, head of Babelsberg studio, which is hoping to co-produce the movie with United Artists, commented, "This is not a Scientology film, it is a Bryan Singer film, and Bryan Singer is Jewish ... and they want to make this film to show that during the Nazi regime there was heroic resistance. [Tom Cruise] is one of the best, if not the best, actors in the world for heroic roles and that is why Bryan Singer approached him."

Mr. Woebecken either lying or being willfully ignorant. Or maybe I am. Cruise OWNS the current incarnation of United Artists, the company behind "Valkyrie". Singer was HIRED by Cruise, not the other way around.

I think it's safe to say at least some of the casting of "Valkyrie" took place before the director was found. It's not an uncomming thing... stars are often attached to a film before a director is found.

(And Cruise is one of the best best actors in the world for heroic roles? Please. That sort of hyperbole should be left to nobody commentators like me, or maybe marketing flaks. Studioheads hoping to appear like they're worth paying attention to try to sound a bit smarter.)

Heirs of the Master Race vs Acolytes of L Ron Hubbard

Man... this is worse than when I found myself agreeing with Al Sharpton over Paris Hilton getting home arrest for violating probation!

I find myself shaking my head at the German military behaving like idiots because a wack-job cultist is going to be starring as a retro-active German warhero in "Valkyrie."


Tom Cruise has vowed Scientology will have no impact on his portrayal of a legendary German assassin, after being banned from filming at the country's military bases because of his controversial beliefs.

The actor is set to begin shooting Valkyrie in Germany this summer. In the film he plays Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg, leader of an unsuccessful plot to kill Adolf Hitler during World War II. However, permission to film scenes on genuine army sites has been denied by the country's Defense Ministry because Scientology is viewed as a "money-making cult" instead of legitimate church by the German government.

However, Cruise is adamant his beliefs have nothing to do with characterization, and is desperate to shoot the movie on location in von Stauffenberg's homeland.

His producing partner and United Artists CEO Paula Wagner says, "Aside from his obvious admiration of the man he is portraying, Mr. Cruise's personal beliefs have absolutely no bearing on the movie's plot, themes, or content. And even though we could shoot the movie anywhere in the world, we believe Germany is the only place we can truly do the story justice."

Von Stauffenberg's briefcase bomb in 1944 only succeeded in wounding Hitler. He was executed by firing squad for the plot the next morning.


REALITY TO THE GERMAN DEFENSE MINISTRY: The curse of Xenu (Xemu? Emu? Whatever the name of that extra-dimension comic book villian that doubles for Satan in the Scientology "religion" is called) won't be upon your army sites, nor will it or the vengeful spirit of Claus von Stauffenberg be infested with Scientology cooties if Tom Cruise films there.

If you don't want to cheapen your war memorials by letting a bunch of dirty Americans film there, just say so. But this "Tom Cruise is a Scientologist, so he can't set foot here!"-excuse makes you look like bigger fools than Cruise and others who let themselves get bilked by the "money-making cult."

And Cruise & Wagner... come on, guys. Alfred Hitchcock made all of "Torn Curtain" on a sound stage. Huge chunks of "Where Eagles Dare" was filmed on MGM sound stages in Great Britain. Maybe you should try going Old School and spend your money in and around Los Angeles. After all, the tax loophole that let you make movies in Germany for cheap has been closed. So, stay at home, and let the Germans carry on.

(By the way, what possible impact could Scientology have on the portrayal of Von Staufenberg? How do you tell a Scientologist from a sane person anyway, particularly when they're PLAYING A CHARACTER IN A MOVIE THAT'S SET A DECADE BEFORE L. RON HUBBARD THOUGHT UP SCIENTOLOGY?!)

This whole thing stupid! (But I still feel strange thinking Cruise is the sane one here.)

Germans hate Tom Cruise!

This smacks of a convenient excuse to me. If it hadn't be this, it would have been "you can't cast a person of non-German descent in the role."

The fact that Tom Cruise is a crazy cultist and gullible in the exteme has nothing to do with the parts he plays. Unless this film is being produced by the Church of Scienttology, the Germans are behaving like... well, Nazis. (Plus, it seems the Germans are jumping the gun here. The fimmakers haven't even requested to walk where their precious Nazis and rebellious Nazis once walked.)

Germans bar film company from shooting in German historical sites if Tom Cruise takes part

By Louis Charbonneau

BERLIN (Reuters) - Germany has barred the makers of a movie about a plot to kill Adolf Hitler from filming at German military sites because its star Tom Cruise is a Scientologist, the Defence Ministry said on Monday.

Cruise, also one of the film's producers, is a member of the Church of Scientology which the German government does not recognize as a church. Berlin says it masquerades as a religion to make money, a charge Scientology leaders reject.

The U.S. actor has been cast as Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg, leader of the unsuccessful attempt to assassinate the Nazi dictator in July 1944 with a bomb hidden in a briefcase.

Defence Ministry spokesman Harald Kammerbauer said the film makers "will not be allowed to film at German military sites if Count Stauffenberg is played by Tom Cruise, who has publicly professed to being a member of the Scientology cult".

"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," Kammerbauer said.

Cruise's publicists could not be reached for comment.

Stauffenberg had been deeply opposed to the Nazis' treatment of the Jews and planted a briefcase bomb under a table near Hitler in his "Wolf's Lair" headquarters on July 20, 1944. The bomb went off but only wounded the Fuehrer.

The film, slated for a 2008 release and to be directed by Bryan Singer and co-starring Kenneth Branagh, is called "Valkyrie" after Operation Valkyrie, the plot's codename.

The main site of interest would be the "Bendlerblock" memorial inside the Defence Ministry complex in Berlin. This is where Stauffenberg and his co-conspirators hatched the plot and where he and his closest comrades were executed when it failed.

Kammerbauer said the ministry had not yet received official filming requests from the producers of "Valkyrie".

© Reuters 2007. All rights reserved.

Isaac Hayes speaks for himself,says Isaac Hayes spokeswoman

It's official. Isaac Hayes has replaced Tom Cruise as the Biggest Scientology Clown.

In what is probably the last gasp of the 'South Park'/Chef/Isaac Hayes controversy, Mr. Hayes has come out to deny rumours that he is a stroke-ridden vegetable and that he does the bidding of his Scientology overlords in all things and that he speaks for himself.

Actually, he didn't really say that. A spokeswoman did.

Here's a free tip to Mr. Hayes: If you want to show that you make your own decisions and speak for for yourself, don't do it through a "spokeswoman."

"Isaac Hayes Speaks For Himself," Says Isaac Hayes Spokeswoman

Isaac Hayes has denied a report by FoxNews.com gossip columnist Roger Friedman that he suffered a stroke in January and that his current condition was the actual reason for his decision to quit the animated series "South Park".

Through a spokeswoman, Hayes also denied that Scientology "handlers" were behind his sudden departure. She declined to comment on the opening episode of the series, which aired last Wednesday, in which his character, Chef, appeared to be killed off.

The spokeswoman acknowledged that Hayes did check into a hospital earlier this year because of high blood pressure and exhaustion but that he is now doing well.