Why does the kid wear an Apollo 11 sweater? Taken from The Shining. Among the numerous theories surrounding the horror classic, which you can see in the excellent documentary Room 237, skeptics view it as Kubrick’s confession for being responsible for staging the moon landing through various hints and oddities. The plot of The Shining has nothing to do with the moon, telling the story of a writer who comes with his wife and kid to house-sit at a hotel that’s closed for the winter in hopes of breaking through his writer’s block. They had to wait 11 years until Kubrick’s The Shining to get it. To get more than just circumstantial evidence for his involvement in faking the moon landing, the doubters needed something that would tie everything up and make the story whole. The confessionĪnd here is where it gets exciting. Skeptics “noticed” that in the Apollo footage, the bottom of the screen is hidden in every scene where there’s space background and that the set/screen separation line can be seen, claiming that it’s proof the moon landing was filmed using front screen projection. Kubrick was actually one of the pioneers to apply front screen projection in filmmaking. Originally invented for photographic use in 1955, the technique involved having the subject perform in front of a reflective surface and projecting pre-filmed footage onto it from the front with a mirror in between. Was this only a trial run for staging the moon landing? Taken from 2001: A Space OdysseyĪnother element that amplified the theory was Kubrick’s mastery of the front projection effect, a technique used to create a background with a field depth. Kubrick’s camera lenses to film his 1975 film Barry Lyndon – Carl Zeiss AG Planar 50mm f/0.7 – were originally commissioned by NASA to take still photos of the dark side of the moon. There was also a cinematographic connection. Clarke’s work and NASA’s space achievements have run in parallel throughout the years, and there was mutual admiration between the space agency and the author. Clarke, who co-wrote the screenplay for 2001: A space odyssey. One such connection was renowned science fiction writer Arthur C. The fact that Kubrick also had ties to NASA added to the plausibility of his involvement. Kubrick used physical models of the planets and the space station, making it look believable. According to doubters, Kubrick’s 2001: Space Odyssey was so well done that it looked more realistic than the actual NASA footage, having the “right” shadows and the astronauts’ movements. Here’s where the theory starts to get interesting for us filmmakers. If Neil Armstrong was the first person on the moon, who filmed him from outside going down the ladder?Įven though each “piece of evidence” could be explained, the skepticism about the moon landing’s authenticity did not wane. Some argue that after spending billions, the American government decided to shut off the moon project but needed to have a grand finale to get public support back.Īssuming the moon landing was staged, the obvious question was, who would have had the skill and know-how to create such a credible hoax? Kubrick could pull it off.They were in space, yet you can’t see any stars in the photos.Instead, NASA photos don’t show any marks. The moon landing’s blast circle should have shown marks on the moon.Although the sun was the only light source, the astronauts’ shadows are in several directions, suggesting there were multiple light sources.Because of the moon’s vacuum, the American flag planted on the moon by the astronauts should have been loose.Here’s a partial list of signs which moon landing skeptics claimed did not fit with filming something on the moon:
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |