Operation Valkyrie: FOX News Piles On Tom Cruise, Scientology
Above is the trailer for Tom Cruise’s next film, Valkyrie, which details the heroic actions of Col. Claus Von Stauffenberg, a German assassin who plots to kill Nazi dictator Adolph Hitler. As history will tell us, Col. Stauffenberg was unsuccessful in his attempts, but in Germany he is considered a mythic and iconic hero emerging from a time which has marred the country’s psyche even to this day.
Problem is, Tom Cruise’s portrayal as a hero fighting a corrupt, evil and authoritarian government is a little more than disingenuous. In fact, the entire film’s production sparked a renewed hostility towards Cruise and the faith which he actively promotes, Scientology, within Germany, where the film was shot.
As Scientology attempts to quell the tide of negative sentiment being expressed around the world, Germany stands as a leader among Western nations in its effort to ban the entire organization from operating within German borders. The CoS has already been stripped of its status as a religion, and is being confronted with an active and hostile attitude by the government of Germany.
A BBC report from last December, gives further details on the German initiatives to ban the entire CoS operation:
Germany’s federal and state interior ministers have declared the Church of Scientology unconstitutional, clearing the way for a possible ban.
The ministers have asked Germany’s domestic intelligence agency to examine whether the Church’s legal status as an association could be challenged.
Scientology is not recognised as a religion in Germany.
A Church of Scientology statement said the ministers were “completely out of step with the rest of the world”.
The attempted ban is “a blatant attempt at justifying the on-going and never-ending discrimination against the Church of Scientology and its members in Germany,” said the Church in a statement.
Critics accuse the organisation of cult-type practices and exploiting followers for financial gain.
But Scientologists reject this and say that they promote a religion based on the understanding of the human spirit.
Back here in the states, Tom Cruise seems to be licking his wounds and hopefully rethinking his strategy of active stumping for the Church of Scientology, as it has had a dramatically negative effect on on his star power.
According to a report at FoxNews.com, Cruise has even taken to “groveling in public” with his ex-boss Paramount CEO Sumner Redstone. The two parted ways back in 2006 after Paramount refused to re-sign Cruise at the end of his contract. Redstone had some pretty strong words for Cruise and left no room for ambiguity as to their parting ways:
“As much as we like him personally, we thought it was wrong to renew his deal,” Redstone was quoted as saying in the Wall Street Journal. “His recent conduct has not been acceptable to Paramount.”
But that’s not all Redstone said, the NYP offered deeper, more eviscerating insight into Cruise’s “firing.”
“He was embarrassing the studio. And he was costing us a lot of money,” the outspoken Viacom chief tells the December issue of Vanity Fair.
Confirming a Page Six exclusive, Redstone admits it was his wife, Paula, who first soured on Cruise, which resulted in his decision not to renew Paramount’s megabucks deal with Cruise’s production company.
“Paula, like women everywhere, had come to hate him. The truth of the matter is, I did listen to her . . .” Redstone says. “His behavior was entirely unacceptable to Paula and to the rest of the world. He just didn’t turn one [woman] off. He turned off all women, and a lot of men.”
Redstone estimates that Cruise’s antics - acting wacky, ripping into psychiatry, firing his professional publicist - were the key elements in the star’s downfall: “When did I decide [to fire him]? I don’t know. When he was on the ‘Today’ show? When he was jumping on a couch at ‘Oprah’? He changed his handler, you know, to his sister [LeAnne Devette] - not a good idea.”
Redstone estimates that Cruise’s bizarre behavior cost Paramount “$100 million, $150 million on ‘Mission: Impossible III.’ It was the best picture of the three, and it did the worst.” He isn’t sorry he embarrassed Cruise publicly: “The explosion was good. It sent a message to the rest of the world that the time of the big star getting all this money is over. And it is! I would like to think that what I did, or what we did, has had a salutary effect on the rest of the industry.”
So why Tom’s renewed efforts to make nice with a man who said so many…um…unflattering things about him? FoxNews offers some interesting possibilities for the “reconnect:”
“The videos [infamous Mission Impossible/KSW pulled from YouTube] prompted dozens of parodies all over the Internet, all mocking Cruise. It’s not clear if he could be accepted again as an action hero, someone the audience is willing to root for, after being the butt of so many jokes.
The fact that Cruise groveled in public with Redstone would indicate that the actor knows just how bad “Valkyrie” is and that he’s trying to shore up his future before the eye patch hits the fan this fall. Certainly, a signed $20 million contract from Paramount would be insurance against this unavoidable disaster destroying his career.
It also begs the question about Cruise’s career agenda as it stands now. Beyond “Valkyrie,” he’s filmed a cameo in Ben Stiller’s “Tropic Thunder” wearing a fat suit. A preview of the film received a tepid response at aintitcoolnews.com — it’s a movie within a movie, always a bad concept as inside jokes go for the general audience.
He’s also attached to a comedy called “Men” to be directed by the less-than-elegant Todd Phillips (“Old School,” “Starsky and Hutch”). With yet another ill-conceived Ben Stiller project festering — “The Hardy Men” — it’s clear someone has decided this is Tom Cruise’s future. It’s paralyzing to think someone may have plotted this for him.
And it’s not like Cruise will find a lot of support at Paramount for his insta-return. Sources say that while the new folks running the studio would like to revive “Mission: Impossible,” they’ve been thinking more of a new young star, or an “M:I” team the way it was originally portrayed in the TV series.
“Would I like to do Mission: Impossible”? asked one Paramount exec rhetorically. “Yes, but not starring Tom Cruise.”
It’s hard to know if Tom Cruise has burned through his goodwill with the public. At the end of the day, Cruise is a really talented actor, who is versatile and passionate. He also is associated with a faith most consider a cult run by corrupt and greedy individuals, who Cruise just so happens to be BFF with. It’s not so much that Cruise isn’t appealing to women, he isn’t appealing to free-thinking individuals. As religiously influenced as we are here in the U.S., we are also fiercely independent when it comes to having the right to decide which faith best suits us. Using one’s celebrity status to promote their faith offends not only our most basic instincts, it’s a violation of who we are as a culture.
Scientology and Cruise really overestimated their appeal. It’s not that people are against Tom Cruise, they’re against the cheerful fascism of his belief system. Let’s face it, fascism isn’t cheerful.


















