Misplaced Pages

The Profit (film): Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:04, 13 December 2007 view sourceCirt (talk | contribs)199,086 editsmNo edit summary← Previous edit Latest revision as of 11:18, 22 December 2024 view source SporkBot (talk | contribs)Bots1,244,917 editsm Remove template per TFD outcome 
(193 intermediate revisions by 96 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{short description|2001 film by Peter N. Alexander}}
{{Infobox Film
{{use mdy dates|date=June 2023}}
{{Other uses|Profit (disambiguation)}}
{{pp-semi-indef}}
{{Infobox film
| name = The Profit | name = The Profit
| image = The Profit movie poster.jpg | image = The Profit movie poster.jpg
| caption = The Profit movie poster | caption = The Profit movie poster
| director = Peter N. Alexander | director = Peter N. Alexander
| producer = ]<br>Patricia Greenway | producer = ]<br />Patricia Greenway
| writer = Peter N. Alexander | writer = Peter N. Alexander
| starring = Eric Rath<br>]<br>Jeff Hughes<br>]<br>] | starring = Eric Rath<br />]<br />Jeff Hughes<br />]<br />Ryan Paul James
| music = Yuri Gorbachow | music = Yuri Gorbachow
| cinematography = Mark Woods | cinematography = Mark Woods
| editing = Cole Russing | editing = Cole Russing
| distributor = Human Rights Cinema Society | distributor = Human Rights Cinema Society
| released = made in 2001, release blocked by court order, 2002 | released = {{Film date|2002}}
| runtime = 128 minutes | runtime = 128 minutes
| country = {{USA}} | country = United States
| language = ] | language = English
| budget = ]2,000,000<ref name="veiledlook" /> | budget = ]2,000,000<ref name="veiledlook" />
| preceded_by =
| followed_by =
| website = http://www.theprofit.org/index2.html
| amg_id = 1:338237
| imdb_id = 0277255
}} }}
'''''The Profit''''' is a feature film written and directed by Peter N. Alexander. The film premiered at the ] in ] in 2001.<ref name="sipple">{{cite news | last =Sipple | first =Danielle | coauthors = | title =Alexander explains inspiration for controversial cult movie 'Profit' | work =University Wire, ] | pages =The Oracle | language = | publisher = | date =September 4, 2001 | url = | accessdate = }}<br>(U-WIRE) TAMPA, Fla. -- Stolen reels of film, numerous espionage attempts and general protests are among the many things that plagued the film The Profit. Filmed in the Tampa Bay area and premiered at the Cannes Film Festival in France, this independent movie captured the attention of the Church of Scientology. "This is not a movie about Scientology," said Peter Alexander, director and writer of the film. "It is about the rise of the power of a man who creates his own cult."</ref> Distribution of the film was prohibited by an American ] which was a result of a lawsuit brought by the ], although the filmmaker says that the film is not about Scientology. ''The Disinformation Book Of Lists'' and '']'' have characterized ''The Profit'' as a ] in the United States.<ref name="kick" /><ref name="purves" /> '''''The Profit''''' is a feature film written and directed by Peter N. Alexander. The film premiered at the ] in France in 2001.<ref name="sipple">{{cite news | last =Sipple | first =Danielle | title =Alexander explains inspiration for controversial cult movie 'Profit' | work =University Wire, ] | pages =The Oracle | date =September 4, 2001 }}</ref> Distribution of the film was prohibited by an American ] which was a result of a lawsuit brought by the ], although the filmmaker says that the film is not about Scientology. As a result, ''The Disinformation Book Of Lists'' and '']'' have characterized ''The Profit'' as a ] in the United States.<ref name="kick" /><ref name="purves" />


The film was described by its producers as a work of fiction, meant to educate the public about ]s and ]. It was widely seen, however, as a ] of the Church of Scientology and its founder, ]. The main character L. Conrad Powers leads an organization called the "Church of Scientific Spiritualism", and many elements about both the Church portrayed in the film, and Powers' life have been compared to Scientology and Hubbard. The film was mainly produced and shot in ], and the cast included actors from the area and cameos from a few ]. The film was described by its producers as a work of fiction, meant to educate the public about ]s and ]. It was widely seen as a ] of the Church of Scientology and its founder, ]. The main character L. Conrad Powers leads an organization called the "Church of Scientific Spiritualism", and many elements about both the Church and Powers' life portrayed in the film, have been compared to Scientology and Hubbard. The film was mainly produced and shot in the ], and the cast included actors from the area and cameos from a few ].


The Church of Scientology did not think favorably of the piece. Representatives from the ] came to protest the film, and the film's producers asserted that they were harassed by Scientologists. Initially, representatives of the Church stated the film had no resemblance to Scientology, but later the Church initiated litigation to block the film's distribution. As a result of a 2002 court order from the ] case, a ] judge blocked further distribution of the film in the United States. According to the film's attorney the injunction was lifted in 2007, but distribution is still blocked due to a conflict with one of the producers, ]. The film generally did not receive positive reviews from local press, and reviews in the '']'' criticized over-the-top acting, and noted that the director should have instead produced a non-fiction ] piece if he wanted to educate others about cults. Representatives from a Scientology affiliated group,<ref>]</ref> the ] of Florida came to protest against the film, and the film's producers asserted that they were harassed by Scientologists. Initially, representatives of the Church stated the film had no resemblance to Scientology, but later the Church initiated litigation to block the film's distribution. As a result of a 2002 court order from the ] case, a ] judge blocked further distribution of the film in the United States. According to the film's attorney the injunction was lifted in 2007, but distribution was blocked due to a conflict with one of the producers, ]. The film generally did not receive positive reviews from local press, and reviews in the '']'' criticized over-the-top acting, and noted that the director should have instead produced a non-fiction ] piece if he wanted to educate others about cults.


== Plot synopsis == == Plot synopsis ==
The film's promotional website describes it as "a work of fiction that attempts to explain how a con man can use mind control to effectively form/lead a group of deluded adherents."<ref name="faq">{{cite web | last =Production staff | first = | authorlink = | coauthors = | title =FAQ's Frequently Asked Questions | work =theprofit.org | publisher =The Profit, official Web site | date = | url =http://www.theprofit.org/faq.html | format = | doi = | accessdate = 2007-11-01 }}</ref> The film's director stated that the script was based upon a fictional character he had created with, however, "many parallels to reality."<ref name="veiledlook" /> Eric Rath plays a paranoid cult leader named L. Conrad Powers (taken by some observers to be a parody of ]),<ref name="veiledlook" /> whose organization is called the "Church of Scientific Spiritualism."<ref name="kick" /> Eric Rath plays a paranoid cult leader named L. Conrad Powers (a parody of ]),<ref name="veiledlook" /> whose organization is called the "Church of Scientific Spiritualism."<ref name="kick" />


The narrative starts with Leland Conrad Powers getting interested in cults and he watches a Black Mass from behind a tree being performed by Zach Carson. Carson invites Powers to perform the "Caliban Working" and afterwards Carson gives Powers $20,000 to sell sailboats. Powers sails off with the boat, the money, and Helen Hughes. In retribution, Carson evokes Satan to summon a typhoon.
The film often takes the form of ]. One of the church followers in the film creates a device that can read thoughts, called a "Mind Meter."<ref name="veiledlook" /> Scientology utilizes a similar looking device called an ], which they say can analyze what they believe is called the ].<ref name="nolovelost" /> Other elements in the film that have been cited as similar to L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology include conflict with the ], an infiltration of the ], usage of military uniforms and ] theology.<ref name="persall" /> L. Conrad Powers is also supported in the film by a "Tom Cruise-style celebrity," before eventually becoming a "reclusive demagogue."<ref name="nolovelost" />

The film often takes the form of ]. One of the church followers in the film creates a device that can read thoughts, called a "Mind Meter."<ref name="veiledlook" /> Scientologists use a similar-looking device, the ], as an aid in ], claimed to measure the "mass of a thought".<ref name="veiledlook" /> Other elements in the film that have been cited as similar to L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology include conflict with the ], an infiltration of the ], usage of military uniforms and ] theology.<ref name="persall" /> L. Conrad Powers is supported in the film by a "]-style celebrity," before eventually becoming a "reclusive demagogue."<ref name="nolovelost" />


== Production == == Production ==
Filming took place over the course of eight weeks during the summer of 2000, with locations near ], ] and ].<ref name="sipple" /><ref name="veiledlook">{{cite news | last =Farley | first =Robert | coauthors = | title =Man's film a veiled look at Scientology | work =] | pages = | language = | publisher = | date =August 2, 2001 | url =http://www.sptimes.com/News/080201/TampaBay/Man_s_film_a_veiled_l.shtml | accessdate = 2007-11-01}}</ref> Half of the cast came from Tampa Bay, Florida,<ref name="wtsp" /> and ]s by ] included ], ], ] and Ken Dandar.<ref name="veiledlook" /> Costume and design themes hearkened back to the '']'' period.<ref name="nolovelost" /> Bob Minton funded the film, and invested almost ]2.5 million into the piece.<ref>{{cite news | last =O'Neill | first =Deborah | coauthors = | title = Man spent millions fighting Scientology: The worldwide total: $10-million. Robert Minton spent much of that money in Pinellas County. | work =] | pages = | language = The film's director stated that the script was based upon a fictional character he had created with "many parallels to reality."<ref name="veiledlook" /> Filming took place over the course of eight weeks during the summer of 2000, with locations near ], ] and ].<ref name="veiledlook">{{cite news | last =Farley | first =Robert | title =Man's film a veiled look at Scientology | work =] | date =August 2, 2001 | url =http://www.sptimes.com/News/080201/TampaBay/Man_s_film_a_veiled_l.shtml | access-date = 2007-11-01 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161202021702/http://www.sptimes.com/News/080201/TampaBay/Man_s_film_a_veiled_l.shtml |archive-date=December 2, 2016}}</ref><ref name="sipple" /> Half of the cast came from Tampa Bay, Florida,<ref name="wtsp" /> and ]s by ] included ], ], Jesse Prince and Ken Dandar.<ref name="veiledlook" /> Costume and design themes hearkened back to the '']'' period.<ref name="nolovelost" /> Bob Minton funded the film, and invested almost ]2.5 million into the piece.<ref>{{cite news | last =O'Neill | first =Deborah | title = Man spent millions fighting Scientology| work =] | date =May 18, 2002 | url =http://www.sptimes.com/2002/05/18/TampaBay/Man_spent_millions_fi.shtml | access-date = 2007-11-01 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180302130646/http://www.sptimes.com:80/2002/05/18/TampaBay/Man_spent_millions_fi.shtml |archive-date=March 2, 2018}}</ref>
| publisher = | date =May 18, 2002 | url =http://www.sptimes.com/2002/05/18/TampaBay/Man_spent_millions_fi.shtml | accessdate = 2007-11-01}}</ref>


According to the director, the film's cast and crew faced harassment from Scientologists throughout production. Representatives from the ] &mdash; a Scientology front group &mdash; came to the shooting sites of the film and handed out fliers which demeaned the film's financial backers. They also followed crew members home in order to "press them for information about the content of the film."<ref name="veiledlook" /> In addition to the protests, promotional videos shipped to ] were reported to have disappeared, and Alexander believed that an individual disguised as himself came to pick up the videos.<ref name="persall" /> According to the director, the film's cast and crew faced harassment from Scientologists throughout production.<ref name="kick" /><ref name="persall" /> Representatives from the ] &mdash; a Scientology front group &mdash; came to the shooting sites of the film and handed out fliers which demeaned the film's financial backers. They followed crew members home in order to "press them for information about the content of the film."<ref name="veiledlook" /> In addition to the protests, promotional videos shipped to ] were reported to have disappeared, and Alexander believed that an individual disguised as himself came to pick up the videos.<ref name="persall" />


The founder of the Foundation for Religious Tolerance of Florida, Mary DeMoss of ], characterized the movie as a "hate propaganda film," denied that anyone from her foundation followed crewmembers home and stated that the fliers were passed out in order to let crew members know "who was behind this."<ref name="veiledlook" /> While Alexander was a member of the Church of Scientology for about twenty years, the filmmakers assert that "Any correlation between this story and Scientology is purely coincidental."<ref name="faq"/> The founder of the ] of Florida, Mary DeMoss of ], characterized the movie as a "hate propaganda film," denied that anyone from her foundation followed crewmembers home and stated that the fliers were passed out in order to let crew members know "who was behind this."<ref name="veiledlook" />


== Church of Scientology's response == == Church of Scientology's response ==
Initially in response to the film, Church of Scientology spokesman Ben Shaw agreed with the film's director that "the movie is fiction and has nothing to do with Scientology."<ref name="veiledlook" /> Notwithstanding the fictional elements of the film, the Church of Scientology took legal action against the film makers after a handful of test screenings in Florida. The Church said that the film was intended to influence the jury pool in the wrongful death case of a Scientologist, ], who died while in the care of the Church of Scientology in ]. In response to the lawsuit, ], Judge Robert Beach issued a court order in April 2002 enjoining ''The Profit'' from worldwide distribution for an indefinite period.<ref name="kick" /> As part of the decision, Church of Scientology attorneys were also barred from seeking any information about the film's production.<ref name="levesque" /> Initially in response to the film, Church of Scientology spokesman Ben Shaw agreed with the film's director that "the movie is fiction and has nothing to do with Scientology."<ref name="veiledlook" /> Notwithstanding the fictional elements of the film, the Church of Scientology took legal action against the film makers after a handful of test screenings in Florida. The Church said that the film was intended to influence the jury pool in the wrongful death case of a Scientologist, ], who died while in the care of the Church of Scientology in ]. In response to the lawsuit, ], Judge Robert Beach issued a court order in April 2002 enjoining ''The Profit'' from worldwide distribution for an indefinite period.<ref name="kick" /> As part of the decision, Church of Scientology attorneys were barred from seeking any information about the film's production.<ref name="levesque" />


In November 2002, ], one of the films producers, filed a lawsuit against Peter Alexander in order to see the financial accounts of the film's production.<ref name="levesque">{{cite news | last =Levesque | first =William R. | coauthors = | title = Scientology critic sues over movie: Robert S. Minton wants to see the financial books for The Profit, which he says he invested $2.44-million in. The film is a veiled look at Scientology. | work =] | pages = | language = | publisher = | date =November 9, 2002 | url =http://www.sptimes.com/2002/11/09/NorthPinellas/Scientology_critic_su.shtml | accessdate = 2007-11-01 }}</ref> According to the ''St. Petersburg Times'', "Minton went from being Scientology's archenemy to a cooperating witness who wanted out of an expensive fight against the church."<ref name="levesque" /> Though a contract signed by Minton and Alexander guaranteed either partner to demand an accounting of the film's finances, Alexander would not let Minton see the books. Peter Alexander's attorney "accused Minton of doing the church's bidding by attacking Alexander and a movie that could be interpreted as being critical of Scientology."<ref name="levesque" /> A spokesman for the Church of Scientology, however, denied any involvement in Minton's lawsuit.<ref name="levesque" /> The court issued an order, compelling the two parties to arbitration.<ref name="floridacaselaw" /> In 2003, Alexander filed in ] in ], seeking a writ of ] in the matter, and the court found in Alexander's favor and reversed the decision of the lower court.<ref name="floridacaselaw">Florida Case Law, ''ALEXANDER v. MINTON'', 855 So.2d 94, (Fla.App. 2 Dist. 2003), Case No. 2D02-5544. Opinion filed June 13, 2003.<br>"Petitioner Peter Alexander seeks a writ of certiorari to compel arbitration with Respondent Robert Minton based on a contract, the operating agreement under which they formed a company to develop a feature-length motion picture. Because the trial court's nonfinal order denies a claim of entitlement to arbitration, we deem this a nonfinal appeal pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iv), rather than a petition for certiorari. Finding merit in Mr. Alexander's arguments, we reverse."</ref> The producers of the film had a court hearing on ], ] to ask that the injunction on the film's distribution be lifted.<ref name="dearprofitfans">{{cite web | last =Film producers | first = | authorlink = | coauthors = | title =Dear PROFIT Fans | work =Official Web site, The Profit | publisher = | date =February 22, 2007 | url =http://www.theprofit.org/feb2207.htm | format = | doi = | accessdate = 2007-11-01 }}</ref> On ], ], attorney Luke Lirot announced on the official website for ''The Profit'' that the court injunction had been lifted.<ref name="greatnews">{{cite news | last =Lirot | first =Luke In November 2002, ], one of the film's producers, filed a lawsuit against Peter Alexander in order to see the financial accounts of the film's production.<ref name="levesque">{{cite news | last =Levesque | first =William R. | title = Scientology critic sues over movie | work =] | date =November 9, 2002 | url =http://www.sptimes.com/2002/11/09/NorthPinellas/Scientology_critic_su.shtml | access-date = 2007-11-01 }}</ref> According to the ''St. Petersburg Times'', "Minton went from being Scientology's archenemy to a cooperating witness who wanted out of an expensive fight against the church."<ref name="levesque" /> Though a contract signed by Minton and Alexander guaranteed either partner to demand an accounting of the film's finances, Alexander would not let Minton see the books. Peter Alexander's attorney "accused Minton of doing the church's bidding by attacking Alexander and a movie that could be interpreted as being critical of Scientology."<ref name="levesque" /> A spokesman for the Church of Scientology denied any involvement in Minton's lawsuit.<ref name="levesque" /> The court issued an order, compelling the two parties to arbitration.<ref name="floridacaselaw" /> In 2003, Alexander filed in ] in ], seeking a writ of ] in the matter, and the court found in Alexander's favor and reversed the decision of the lower court.<ref name="floridacaselaw">Florida Case Law, ''Alexander v. Minton'', 855 So.2d 94, (Fla.App. 2 Dist. 2003), Case No. 2D02-5544. Opinion filed June 13, 2003.</ref>
| coauthors = | title =Latest Legal Updates | work =The Profit Legal Updates | pages = | language =
| publisher =theprofit.org | date =], ] | url =http://www.theprofit.org/latest-legal.htm | accessdate = 2007-11-10}}</ref> Lirot also stated, however, that there was still an impediment to the film's release, writing "all that's stopping the release of the movie is the legal battle with the partner who was compromised by Scientology (Robert Minton) and is currently using his power as partner to stop the release of the film."<ref name="greatnews" />


== Reception == == Reception ==
'']'' reported on the opening of the film at the Cinema Cafe in ] on ], ], noting the film's controversial nature, and the fact that it appeared to be an ] of the Church of Scientology.<ref name="wtsp">{{cite news | last =Roundtree | first =Reginald | coauthors =Marty Matthews, Mike Deeson | title =The Profit | work =] | pages = | language = | publisher =] | date =August 24, 2001 | url = | accessdate = }}</ref> The report stated that a subtle message of the film was director Alexander's critique of Scientology and his motivation to bring information about it to the public.<ref name="wtsp" /> In an interview with ''Tampa Bay's 10'', Alexander stated he was trying to expose a hoax, and give others insight into "what it is that makes people join cults."<ref name="wtsp" /> '']'' called the film's portrayal of the Church of Scientific Spirituality as "oddly similar to the real world's Church of Scientology,"<ref name="wtvt" /> but also reported that Alexander asserted character L. Conrad Powers was actually a composite character, based on several "alleged cult leaders."<ref name="wtvt">{{cite news | last =Staff | first = | coauthors =Steve Nichols | title =Scientology Movie | work = ] | pages = | language = | publisher =] | date =August 24, 2001 | url = | accessdate = }}</ref> Alexander stated in an interview with ''FOX 13 News'', that he felt he could better inform others about cults through a fictional portrayal than he could have through a ].<ref name="wtvt" /> '']'' reported on the opening of the film at the Cinema Cafe in ] on August 24, 2001, noting the film's controversial nature, and the fact that it appeared to be an ] of the Church of Scientology.<ref name="wtsp">{{cite news | last =Roundtree | first =Reginald |author2=Marty Matthews |author3=Mike Deeson | title =The Profit | work =] | publisher =] | date =August 24, 2001 }}</ref> The report stated that a subtle message of the film was director Alexander's critique of Scientology and his motivation to bring information about it to the public.<ref name="wtsp" /> In an interview with ''Tampa Bay's 10'', Alexander stated he was trying to expose a hoax, and give others insight into "what it is that makes people join cults."<ref name="wtsp" /> '']'' called the film's portrayal of the Church of Scientific Spirituality as "oddly similar to the real world's Church of Scientology,"<ref name="wtvt" /> while reporting that Alexander asserted character L. Conrad Powers was actually a composite character, based on several "alleged cult leaders."<ref name="wtvt">{{cite news | last =Staff |author2=Steve Nichols | title =Scientology Movie | work = ] | publisher =] | date =August 24, 2001 }}</ref> Alexander stated in an interview with ''FOX 13 News'', that he felt he could better inform others about cults through a fictional portrayal than he could have through a ].<ref name="wtvt" />


The film was not well received in a review in the '']''.<ref name="nolovelost" /> The reviewer described the movie as "stilted", but also debunked the Alexander's statements that the film was not based on the life of L. Ron Hubbard, and drew several parallels between the plot of the film and Hubbard's life. The review also critiqued the length the story went to make a point, stating "Cultists may be capable of the acts The Profit describes, but this story comes across as farfetched rather than convincing."<ref name="nolovelost" /> Eric Rath's performance as "L. Conrad Powers" was seen as "over the top", and the review characterized the film on the whole as "National Enquirer-style entertainment."<ref name="nolovelost">{{cite news | last =Staff | first = | coauthors = | title =No love lost | work =] | pages =Indie Flix | language = | publisher = | date =August 23, 2001 | url =http://www.sptimes.com/News/082301/Weekend/Indie_Flix.shtml | accessdate = 2007-11-01}}</ref> The film was not well received in a review in the '']''.<ref name="nolovelost" /> The reviewer described the movie as "stilted", debunked Alexander's statements that the film was not based on the life of L. Ron Hubbard, and drew several parallels between the plot of the film and Hubbard's life. The review critiqued the length the story went to make a point, stating "Cultists may be capable of the acts The Profit describes, but this story comes across as farfetched rather than convincing."<ref name="nolovelost" /> Eric Rath's performance as "L. Conrad Powers" was seen as "over the top", and the review characterized the film on the whole as "National Enquirer-style entertainment."<ref name="nolovelost">{{cite news | last =Staff | title =No love lost | work =] | pages =Indie Flix | date =August 23, 2001 | url =http://www.sptimes.com/News/082301/Weekend/Indie_Flix.shtml | access-date = 2007-11-01}}</ref>


In a separate review in the ''St. Petersburg Times'', Steve Persall also did not view the film in high regard.<ref name="persall">{{cite news | last =Persall | first =Steve | coauthors = | title = Floridian: Real problems with a fictional movie | work =] | pages = | language = | publisher = | date =August 24, 2001 | url =http://www.sptimes.com/News/082401/news_pf/Floridian/Real_problems_with_a_.shtml | accessdate = 2007-11-01 }}</ref> Persall noted that although Peter Alexander stated the film was a "warning against the influence of religious cults,"<ref name="persall" /> and not based on Scientology specifically, he thought that "The Profit is a rant against Hubbard and Scientology, no matter how many cults the filmmakers claim to have researched and incorporated into the story."<ref name="persall" /> Persall expressed frustration when Alexander did not answer specific questions about his inspiration and influences used in the film, citing concerns that: "the evil empire will jump all over whoever else is going to show it next."<ref name="persall" /> Though the review was not favorable, Persall also wrote that the film would have been a more powerful piece as a truthful documentary, and not a parody, writing: "The Profit would make a stronger statement if Alexander used his Scientology experience to produce a documentary or a no-holds-barred version of Hubbard's life that calls him Hubbard."<ref name="persall" /> In a separate review in the ''St. Petersburg Times'', Steve Persall did not view the film in high regard.<ref name="persall">{{cite news | last =Persall | first =Steve | title = Floridian: Real problems with a fictional movie | work =] | date =August 24, 2001 | url =http://www.sptimes.com/News/082401/news_pf/Floridian/Real_problems_with_a_.shtml | access-date = 2007-11-01 }}</ref> Persall noted that although Peter Alexander stated the film was a "warning against the influence of religious cults,"<ref name="persall" /> and not based on Scientology specifically, he thought that "The Profit is a rant against Hubbard and Scientology, no matter how many cults the filmmakers claim to have researched and incorporated into the story."<ref name="persall" /> Persall expressed frustration when Alexander did not answer specific questions about his inspiration and influences used in the film, citing concerns that: "the evil empire will jump all over whoever else is going to show it next."<ref name="persall" /> Though the review was not favorable, Persall wrote that the film would have been a more powerful piece as a truthful documentary, and not a parody, writing: "The Profit would make a stronger statement if Alexander used his Scientology experience to produce a documentary or a no-holds-barred version of Hubbard's life that calls him Hubbard."<ref name="persall" />


The film is cited in Russ Kick's 2004 work, ''The Disinformation Book Of Lists'', as one of "16 Movies Banned in the U.S.," in between the 1987 film '']'' and ''Ernest and Bertram'', from 2002.<ref name="kick">{{cite book | last =Kick | first =Russ | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = The Disinformation Book Of Lists | publisher =The Disinformation Company | date =2004 | location = | pages =List 68: "16 Movies Banned in the U.S.", Page 238 | url = | doi = | id = | isbn =0972952942 }}</ref> Kick described the film as "obviously based on L. Ron Hubbard and the Church of Scientology."<ref name="kick" /> He also recounted how the Church of Scientology changed tactics midstep, writing that "Lawyers and spokespeople for the Church professed that the movie bore absolutely no resemblance to Scientology, then turned around and sued the filmmakers after it had been showing for a few weeks."<ref name="kick" /> Kick ended his segment on the film by writing that "The litigation continues..."<ref name="kick" /> In October 2007, '']'' discussed ''The Profit'' as part of an article on ] in film.<ref name="purves">{{cite news | last =Purves | first =Libby | coauthors = | title =The Blasphemy Collection | work =] | pages = | language = | publisher = | date =October 26, 2007 | url =http://timesonline.typepad.com/faith/2007/10/the-blasphemy-c.html | accessdate = 2007-11-01}}</ref> ''The Times'' noted that the film depicted a ] who had started a religion in order to become wealthy, and noted that the film is "banned in the US because of a lawsuit taken out against it by The Church of Scientology," in spite of the fact that the filmmaker states the film does not depict L. Ron Hubbard.<ref name="purves" /> The film is cited in Russ Kick's 2004 work, ''The Disinformation Book of Lists'', as one of "16 Movies Banned in the U.S.," in between the 1987 film '']'' and '']'', from 2002.<ref name="kick">{{cite book | last =Kick | first =Russ | title =The Disinformation Book Of Lists | publisher =The Disinformation Company | year =2004 | pages = | isbn =0-9729529-4-2 | no-pp =true | url-access =registration | url =https://archive.org/details/bookoflistssubve00kick/page/ }}</ref> Kick described the film as "obviously based on L. Ron Hubbard and the Church of Scientology."<ref name="kick" /> He recounted how the Church of Scientology changed tactics midstep, writing that "Lawyers and spokespeople for the Church professed that the movie bore absolutely no resemblance to Scientology, then turned around and sued the filmmakers after it had been showing for a few weeks."<ref name="kick" /> Kick ended his segment on the film by writing that "The litigation continues..."<ref name="kick" /> In October 2007, '']'' discussed ''The Profit'' as part of an article on ] in film.<ref name="purves">{{cite news | last =Purves | first =Libby | author-link=Libby Purves | title =The Blasphemy Collection | work =] | date =October 26, 2007 | url =http://timesonline.typepad.com/faith/2007/10/the-blasphemy-c.html | access-date = 2007-11-01 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20071028072039/http://timesonline.typepad.com/faith/2007/10/the-blasphemy-c.html <!-- Bot retrieved archive --> |archive-date = 2007-10-28}}</ref> ''The Times'' noted that the film depicted a ] who had started a religion in order to become wealthy, and noted that the film is "banned in the US because of a lawsuit taken out against it by The Church of Scientology," even though the filmmaker stated the film does not depict L. Ron Hubbard.<ref name="purves" /> In October 2010, Andre Soares of ''Alt Film Guide'' noted that the Spanish website ''Cineol.net'' included ''The Profit'' in "a list of the top ten movies censored and/or banned in Spain".<ref>{{cite news| last =Soares | first =Andre | title = Viridiana, The Barefoot Contessa, For Whom the Bell Tolls: Spain's Top Ten Censored Movies | work = Alt Film Guide| publisher = www.altfg.com | date =October 11, 2010 | url = http://www.altfg.com/blog/movie/viridiana-for-whom-the-bell-tolls-spain-censored-movies/ | access-date = 2010-10-12 }}</ref> José Hernández of ''Cineol.net'' noted that the film was banned due to a court order, and might never be seen other than in a ] manner.<ref>{{cite news| last =Hernández | first = José | title = 10 películas que fueron censuradas | work = Cineol.net| language = es | publisher = www.cineol.net| date =October 9, 2010 | url = http://www.cineol.net/noticias/7451_10-peliculas-que-fueron-censuradas | access-date = 2010-10-12 }}</ref>


==Cast== ==Cast==
Line 71: Line 69:
| Jeff Hughes || Zach Carson | Jeff Hughes || Zach Carson
|- |-
| ] || Smart Alec | Ryan Paul James || Smart Alec
|- |-
| Sandy Nelson || Wife | Sandy Nelson || Wife

Lanny Fuettere
|} |}


==See also== ==See also==
{{Portal|Film}} {{Portal|Film}}
*]
{{Portal|Scientology|Scientology e meter blue.jpg}}
*]
*] *]
*] *]
Line 86: Line 85:


==References== ==References==
{{reflist|2}} {{Reflist|2}}


==External links== ==External links==
* {{Wikinews|Banned film 'The Profit' appears on Web}}
*{{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.theprofit.org |date=* |title=''The Profit'' official website }}
*{{imdb title|id=0277255|title=The Profit}} *{{IMDb title|id=0277255|title=The Profit}}
*, televised documentation of ]ing during the film's production.
*
*, from the film's website, coverage on ], ], ].
*, ], ] *, ], ]


{{Scientology in popular culture}} {{Scientology in popular culture}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Profit, The}} {{DEFAULTSORT:Profit, The}}
] ]
] ]
] ]
] ]
]
]
] ]
] ]
]
]
]

Latest revision as of 11:18, 22 December 2024

2001 film by Peter N. Alexander

For other uses, see Profit (disambiguation).

The Profit
The Profit movie poster
Directed byPeter N. Alexander
Written byPeter N. Alexander
Produced byBob Minton
Patricia Greenway
StarringEric Rath
Christine Eads
Jeff Hughes
Jerry Ascione
Ryan Paul James
CinematographyMark Woods
Edited byCole Russing
Music byYuri Gorbachow
Distributed byHuman Rights Cinema Society
Release date
  • 2002 (2002)
Running time128 minutes
CountryUnited States
LanguageEnglish
BudgetUS$2,000,000

The Profit is a feature film written and directed by Peter N. Alexander. The film premiered at the Cannes Film Festival in France in 2001. Distribution of the film was prohibited by an American court order which was a result of a lawsuit brought by the Church of Scientology, although the filmmaker says that the film is not about Scientology. As a result, The Disinformation Book Of Lists and The Times have characterized The Profit as a banned film in the United States.

The film was described by its producers as a work of fiction, meant to educate the public about cults and con men. It was widely seen as a parody of the Church of Scientology and its founder, L. Ron Hubbard. The main character L. Conrad Powers leads an organization called the "Church of Scientific Spiritualism", and many elements about both the Church and Powers' life portrayed in the film, have been compared to Scientology and Hubbard. The film was mainly produced and shot in the Tampa Bay Area, and the cast included actors from the area and cameos from a few Scientology critics.

Representatives from a Scientology affiliated group, the Foundation for Religious Tolerance of Florida came to protest against the film, and the film's producers asserted that they were harassed by Scientologists. Initially, representatives of the Church stated the film had no resemblance to Scientology, but later the Church initiated litigation to block the film's distribution. As a result of a 2002 court order from the Lisa McPherson case, a Pinellas County judge blocked further distribution of the film in the United States. According to the film's attorney the injunction was lifted in 2007, but distribution was blocked due to a conflict with one of the producers, Bob Minton. The film generally did not receive positive reviews from local press, and reviews in the St. Petersburg Times criticized over-the-top acting, and noted that the director should have instead produced a non-fiction documentary piece if he wanted to educate others about cults.

Plot synopsis

Eric Rath plays a paranoid cult leader named L. Conrad Powers (a parody of L. Ron Hubbard), whose organization is called the "Church of Scientific Spiritualism."

The narrative starts with Leland Conrad Powers getting interested in cults and he watches a Black Mass from behind a tree being performed by Zach Carson. Carson invites Powers to perform the "Caliban Working" and afterwards Carson gives Powers $20,000 to sell sailboats. Powers sails off with the boat, the money, and Helen Hughes. In retribution, Carson evokes Satan to summon a typhoon.

The film often takes the form of parody. One of the church followers in the film creates a device that can read thoughts, called a "Mind Meter." Scientologists use a similar-looking device, the e-meter, as an aid in Scientology counseling, claimed to measure the "mass of a thought". Other elements in the film that have been cited as similar to L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology include conflict with the Internal Revenue Service, an infiltration of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, usage of military uniforms and science fiction theology. L. Conrad Powers is supported in the film by a "Tom Cruise-style celebrity," before eventually becoming a "reclusive demagogue."

Production

The film's director stated that the script was based upon a fictional character he had created with "many parallels to reality." Filming took place over the course of eight weeks during the summer of 2000, with locations near Fort De Soto Park, Ybor City and Tampa Bay, Florida. Half of the cast came from Tampa Bay, Florida, and cameo appearances by Scientology critics included Bob Minton, Stacy Brooks, Jesse Prince and Ken Dandar. Costume and design themes hearkened back to the Citizen Kane period. Bob Minton funded the film, and invested almost US$2.5 million into the piece.

According to the director, the film's cast and crew faced harassment from Scientologists throughout production. Representatives from the Foundation for Religious Tolerance of Florida — a Scientology front group — came to the shooting sites of the film and handed out fliers which demeaned the film's financial backers. They followed crew members home in order to "press them for information about the content of the film." In addition to the protests, promotional videos shipped to Cannes, France were reported to have disappeared, and Alexander believed that an individual disguised as himself came to pick up the videos.

The founder of the Foundation for Religious Tolerance of Florida, Mary DeMoss of Clearwater, Florida, characterized the movie as a "hate propaganda film," denied that anyone from her foundation followed crewmembers home and stated that the fliers were passed out in order to let crew members know "who was behind this."

Church of Scientology's response

Initially in response to the film, Church of Scientology spokesman Ben Shaw agreed with the film's director that "the movie is fiction and has nothing to do with Scientology." Notwithstanding the fictional elements of the film, the Church of Scientology took legal action against the film makers after a handful of test screenings in Florida. The Church said that the film was intended to influence the jury pool in the wrongful death case of a Scientologist, Lisa McPherson, who died while in the care of the Church of Scientology in Clearwater, Florida. In response to the lawsuit, Pinellas County, Florida, Judge Robert Beach issued a court order in April 2002 enjoining The Profit from worldwide distribution for an indefinite period. As part of the decision, Church of Scientology attorneys were barred from seeking any information about the film's production.

In November 2002, Bob Minton, one of the film's producers, filed a lawsuit against Peter Alexander in order to see the financial accounts of the film's production. According to the St. Petersburg Times, "Minton went from being Scientology's archenemy to a cooperating witness who wanted out of an expensive fight against the church." Though a contract signed by Minton and Alexander guaranteed either partner to demand an accounting of the film's finances, Alexander would not let Minton see the books. Peter Alexander's attorney "accused Minton of doing the church's bidding by attacking Alexander and a movie that could be interpreted as being critical of Scientology." A spokesman for the Church of Scientology denied any involvement in Minton's lawsuit. The court issued an order, compelling the two parties to arbitration. In 2003, Alexander filed in state court in Florida, seeking a writ of certiorari in the matter, and the court found in Alexander's favor and reversed the decision of the lower court.

Reception

Tampa Bay's 10 reported on the opening of the film at the Cinema Cafe in Clearwater, Florida on August 24, 2001, noting the film's controversial nature, and the fact that it appeared to be an exposé of the Church of Scientology. The report stated that a subtle message of the film was director Alexander's critique of Scientology and his motivation to bring information about it to the public. In an interview with Tampa Bay's 10, Alexander stated he was trying to expose a hoax, and give others insight into "what it is that makes people join cults." Fox 13 News called the film's portrayal of the Church of Scientific Spirituality as "oddly similar to the real world's Church of Scientology," while reporting that Alexander asserted character L. Conrad Powers was actually a composite character, based on several "alleged cult leaders." Alexander stated in an interview with FOX 13 News, that he felt he could better inform others about cults through a fictional portrayal than he could have through a documentary.

The film was not well received in a review in the St. Petersburg Times. The reviewer described the movie as "stilted", debunked Alexander's statements that the film was not based on the life of L. Ron Hubbard, and drew several parallels between the plot of the film and Hubbard's life. The review critiqued the length the story went to make a point, stating "Cultists may be capable of the acts The Profit describes, but this story comes across as farfetched rather than convincing." Eric Rath's performance as "L. Conrad Powers" was seen as "over the top", and the review characterized the film on the whole as "National Enquirer-style entertainment."

In a separate review in the St. Petersburg Times, Steve Persall did not view the film in high regard. Persall noted that although Peter Alexander stated the film was a "warning against the influence of religious cults," and not based on Scientology specifically, he thought that "The Profit is a rant against Hubbard and Scientology, no matter how many cults the filmmakers claim to have researched and incorporated into the story." Persall expressed frustration when Alexander did not answer specific questions about his inspiration and influences used in the film, citing concerns that: "the evil empire will jump all over whoever else is going to show it next." Though the review was not favorable, Persall wrote that the film would have been a more powerful piece as a truthful documentary, and not a parody, writing: "The Profit would make a stronger statement if Alexander used his Scientology experience to produce a documentary or a no-holds-barred version of Hubbard's life that calls him Hubbard."

The film is cited in Russ Kick's 2004 work, The Disinformation Book of Lists, as one of "16 Movies Banned in the U.S.," in between the 1987 film Superstar: The Karen Carpenter Story and Ernest and Bertram, from 2002. Kick described the film as "obviously based on L. Ron Hubbard and the Church of Scientology." He recounted how the Church of Scientology changed tactics midstep, writing that "Lawyers and spokespeople for the Church professed that the movie bore absolutely no resemblance to Scientology, then turned around and sued the filmmakers after it had been showing for a few weeks." Kick ended his segment on the film by writing that "The litigation continues..." In October 2007, The Times discussed The Profit as part of an article on blasphemy in film. The Times noted that the film depicted a con man who had started a religion in order to become wealthy, and noted that the film is "banned in the US because of a lawsuit taken out against it by The Church of Scientology," even though the filmmaker stated the film does not depict L. Ron Hubbard. In October 2010, Andre Soares of Alt Film Guide noted that the Spanish website Cineol.net included The Profit in "a list of the top ten movies censored and/or banned in Spain". José Hernández of Cineol.net noted that the film was banned due to a court order, and might never be seen other than in a clandestine manner.

Cast

Actor Role
Eric Rath L. Conrad Powers
Jerry Ascione Shill
Christine Eads Helen
Jeff Hughes Zach Carson
Ryan Paul James Smart Alec
Sandy Nelson Wife

Lanny Fuettere

See also

References

  1. ^ Farley, Robert (August 2, 2001). "Man's film a veiled look at Scientology". St. Petersburg Times. Archived from the original on December 2, 2016. Retrieved November 1, 2007.
  2. ^ Sipple, Danielle (September 4, 2001). "Alexander explains inspiration for controversial cult movie 'Profit'". University Wire, Tampa, Florida. pp. The Oracle.
  3. ^ Kick, Russ (2004). The Disinformation Book Of Lists. The Disinformation Company. List 68: "16 Movies Banned in the U.S.", Page 238. ISBN 0-9729529-4-2.
  4. ^ Purves, Libby (October 26, 2007). "The Blasphemy Collection". The Times. Archived from the original on October 28, 2007. Retrieved November 1, 2007.
  5. International Foundation for Human Rights and Tolerance
  6. ^ Persall, Steve (August 24, 2001). "Floridian: Real problems with a fictional movie". St. Petersburg Times. Retrieved November 1, 2007.
  7. ^ Staff (August 23, 2001). "No love lost". St. Petersburg Times. pp. Indie Flix. Retrieved November 1, 2007.
  8. ^ Roundtree, Reginald; Marty Matthews; Mike Deeson (August 24, 2001). "The Profit". Tampa Bay's 10. WTSP.
  9. O'Neill, Deborah (May 18, 2002). "Man spent millions fighting Scientology". St. Petersburg Times. Archived from the original on March 2, 2018. Retrieved November 1, 2007.
  10. ^ Levesque, William R. (November 9, 2002). "Scientology critic sues over movie". St. Petersburg Times. Retrieved November 1, 2007.
  11. ^ Florida Case Law, Alexander v. Minton, 855 So.2d 94, (Fla.App. 2 Dist. 2003), Case No. 2D02-5544. Opinion filed June 13, 2003.
  12. ^ Staff; Steve Nichols (August 24, 2001). "Scientology Movie". Fox 13 News. WTVT.
  13. Soares, Andre (October 11, 2010). "Viridiana, The Barefoot Contessa, For Whom the Bell Tolls: Spain's Top Ten Censored Movies". Alt Film Guide. www.altfg.com. Retrieved October 12, 2010.
  14. Hernández, José (October 9, 2010). "10 películas que fueron censuradas". Cineol.net (in Spanish). www.cineol.net. Retrieved October 12, 2010.

External links

Scientology in popular culture
Fiction and non-fiction
Film
Music and albums
Television
Theatre
Video games
Categories: