Q Case 1 - Text Chapter 2: Stepping In and Out of the Shadows Holy Hell Key cast members: Will Allen, Michel Rostand, former Buddhafield members Synopsis: Film school graduate Will Allen joined Buddhafield, a West Hollywood spiritual enlightenment group, after his mother rejected him for being gay. For the next 22 years, Allen served as Buddhafield’s videographer and personal assistant to the group’s charismatic leader, Michel. Michel provided members with a direct connection with God through a spiritual encounter called “the knowing.” Followers, in turn, offered Michel their total devotion, carrying the speedo-clad guru around on a special chair and catering to his every need. Over time, Buddhafield shifted focus from the inner spiritual growth of members to the worship of Michel (who later changed his name to Andreas). Members later discovered that their guru was a former gay porn star who sexually abused young male members (including Allen) and forced female followers into having plastic surgery and abortions. The group dissolved with Andreas and a few of the faithful relocating to Hawaii. Former members wonder why they followed Andreas while, at the same time, they miss the family they had as members of Buddhafield. Rating: Not rated, though likely R for language, description of sexual abuse, and brief sexual scenes Themes: narcissism, Machiavellianism, hubris, susceptible followers, the shadows of power, privilege and misinformation, groupthink Case Questions 1. What attracted adherents to Buddhafield? What made them susceptible to Michel/Andreas’ toxic leadership? 2. Did Michel/Andreas really believe his message or was he only putting on an act? 3. How do you account for the fact that former members still have fond memories of their Buddhafield experience? 4. Are spiritual seekers more vulnerable to destructive leaders than other followers? 5. How can we meet our spiritual needs without falling victim to narcissistic leaders Case 2 - Text Chapter 4: Combating Evil Good Key cast members: Vigo Mortensen, Jodie Whittaker, Jason Isaacs, Steven Mackintosh, Mark Strong Synopsis: Literature Professor John Halder (played by Mortensen) is a “good,” respectable German living in prewar Nazi Germany. Nazi authorities recruit him to write a paper supporting the regime’s mercy killing program after reading his novel, which was sympathetic to euthanasia. Soon Halder finds himself caught in a series of moral compromises. He joins the SS, earns the praise of Joseph Goebbels, takes over a lavish apartment confiscated from a Jewish family, and ultimately finds himself conducting an inspection tour of Auschwitz. Along the way he leaves his wife and children for a student, replaces his father-in-law as department chair, and does little to help his Jewish best friend (Isaacs) flee the Holocaust. In the end, Halder’s lack of moral principles and courage make him vulnerable to the seduction of flattery, power, and privilege. Rating: R for language Themes: ordinary evil, moral exclusion, evil as choice, evil as bureaucracy, virtue, loyalty and betrayal, corruption, the abuse of power and privilege Case Questions 1. What parallels do you see between the moral compromises Halder makes in his personal relationships and in his relationship with the Nazi regime? 2. What moral virtues does Halder lack? Does he demonstrate any good qualities? 3. What might have been the consequences for Professor Halder if he had refused the requests of Nazi authorities? 4. Is Professor Halder typical of “good” people who end up committing terrible crimes? What can we learn from his example? Case 3 - Text Chapter 8: Normative Leadership Theories A Perfect Day Key cast members: Benicio del Toro, Tim Robbins, Melanie Thierry, Olga Kurylenko, Eldar Residovic Synopsis: It is anything but a perfect day for a group of aid workers “somewhere in the Balkans” at the end of the Yugoslavian war in 1995. These humanitarians are tasked with removing a corpse from a well where it is fouling the water supply. A series of events makes a simple job very complicated. The old rope breaks, locals refuse to sell a new rope, and United Nations peacekeepers intervene at the last moment to prevent a second extraction attempt. The crew, made up of security chief Rogueish Mambru (del Toro), grizzled aid veteran “B” (Robbins), first-timer Sophie (Thierry), and outside evaluator Katya (Kurylenko), must run a gauntlet of booby traps and hostile checkpoints. They take a local boy (Residovic) under their care and protect him from the awful knowledge of what happened to his parents. The hearts of the aid workers are in the right place but they add to their problems in this tragicomedy. They sometimes ignore the advice of their translator, lack understanding of local customs, take unnecessary risks, and intervene when locals can handle the problem. Rating: R for graphic images, language, and sexual themes Themes: servant leadership, altruism, cross-cultural differences, evil, moral exclusion, ethical decision-making Case Questions 1. What does this team do right? Do wrong? 2. How could this team have been more effective as servant leaders? 3. Was it ethical for Mambru to hide the truth from Nikola? 4. Should it have been up to the local populace to remove the body from the well? Case 4 - Text Chapter 10: Creating Ethical, Inclusive Climate Icarus Key cast members: Bryan Fogel, Grigroy Rodchenkov Synopsis: Playwright Bryan Fogel sets out to film a documentary demonstrating how easy it is for cyclists and other professional athletes to evade detection for doping. He wants to improve his standing in a grueling amateur bike race through a doping regimen that fools drug tests. Fogel recruits a team of experts to help him carry out his experiment. An anti-doping scientist at UCLA introduces him to Grigory Rodchenkov, the head of the Moscow anti-doping lab. Rodchenkov, who is supposed to catch cheaters, knows a lot about how to fool drug tests. He quickly admits that he oversaw the Russian doping ring at the Sochi Winter Olympics. When World Anti-Doping Association officials release a report on Russia’s long-standing doping program and Rodchenkov’s role in it, the lab director fears for his life. He flees to the United States and becomes a whistle- blower. His detailed testimony reveals that Russia’s drug program operates with the approval of Vladimir Putin. Fogel becomes Rodchenkov’s protector, supplying him with money, housing, and legal assistance. Rodchenkov is forced to go into the federal witness protection to keep him safe from Russian operatives. (Grigory’s testimony helps convince the International Olympic Committee to ban Russia from the 2018 Olympics, though the country is later reinstated.) Rating: TV-MA due to mature themes and some graphic footage Themes: corruption, deception, truth, whistle-blowing, courage Case Questions 1. Are you surprised to learn of the extent of Russian corruption in its Olympic program? Does this reduce your interest in the Olympics? 2. Do you think that other nations are also engaged in efforts to conceal doping in the Olympics and other international competitions? 3. What character virtues does Rodchenkov demonstrate? Does Grigory reveal any character weaknesses? 4. What steps should the International Olympic Committee take to ensure that Russia doesn’t continue to run a doping program?