The Scientology film Tom Cruise wouldn't want you to see... 

By Brian Viner for the Daily Mail

Published: 19:52 EST, 6 October 2016 | Updated: 03:19 EST, 7 October 2016

My Scientology Movie (15)

Rating:

The collision between the Church of Scientology and Louis Theroux’s trademark faux-naivety was always likely to be a hoot, and so it proves, especially when, entirely po-faced, he films them filming him filming them.

Theroux (pictured), as always at least twice as guileful as his politely respectful demeanour suggests, finds out far more about this deeply strange organisation, founded by the man they all call ‘Ellaraitch’ (sci-fi writer L. Ron Hubbard), than more pugnacious documentary-makers ever could.

His uneasy ally is Marty Rathbun, who was once the Scientologists’ ‘Inspector-General’ but has since turned his back on the whole crazy business. Substitute ‘witchfinder’ for ‘Inspector’ and you wouldn’t be far wrong; Rathbun was a kind of enforcer, in thrall like everyone else to the sect’s charismatic leader, David Miscavige. 

The collision between the Church of Scientology and Louis Theroux’s trademark faux-naivety was always likely to be a hoot

The collision between the Church of Scientology and Louis Theroux’s trademark faux-naivety was always likely to be a hoot

Theroux has little actual archive to work from, though what he does have is disturbing enough, including a shot of the church’s most famous disciple, Tom Cruise, solemnly saluting Miscavige (who was best man at Cruise’s wedding to Katie Holmes).

Instead, with Rathbun’s help, Theroux hires actors to show how Scientology’s top-brass operate behind closed doors. If accurate, it’s beyond bizarre.

Of course, they say it’s not accurate. They claim to be an honourable organisation, outrageously maligned. A Miscavige of justice, if you will. Maybe that’s so. I certainly didn’t warm to Rathbun, whose sense of self-importance doesn’t seem to have diminished much since he was Miscavige’s right-hand man.

But if the Scientologists are more sinned against than sinning, there’s precious little evidence here.

Theroux has little actual archive to work from, though what he does have is disturbing enough

Theroux has little actual archive to work from, though what he does have is disturbing enough

 

Comments (36)

Share what you think

 View all

The comments below have not been moderated.

 View all

The views expressed in the contents above are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of MailOnline.

Add your comment

By posting your comment you agree to our house rules.

Who is this week's top commenter? Find out now