Kubrick's Odyssey: Secrets Hidden in the Films of Stanley Kubrick by Jay Weidner

A long time interest in Stanley Kubrick, and in 2001: A Space Odyssey in particular, brought me to this interesting documentary by conspiracy theorist Jay Weidner. Weidner believes that in the climate of the Cold War, Stanley Kubrick was approached by members of the US Government to fake the Apollo moon landings in return for help with his movies. Weidner does not argue that the landings were faked and man did not go to the moon, he argues that man did go to the moon, but what we saw on television was faked. He postulates that there would have been good reason to film a fake landing for public consumption during the climate of the Cold War, to avoid the public seeing a potential catastrophe, to ensure that the mission was seen to run smoothly, and so on. This documentary is the first of a planned trilogy of documentaries to be released annually that aim to uncover the links between Stanley Kubrick and the secret societies that have long been rumoured to control our nations from behind the curtain.

The early parts of Weidner's documentary focus on the front screen projection methods that Kubrick used for special effects shots in 2001: A Space Odyssey, and how the same method could have been used to fake the moon landing. For those who have not heard of front screen project before, it basically involves filming a set in front of a large screen onto which a background image is being projected, e.g. a desert, or a star field. In essence, it is a more convincing looking green screen effect. Weidner first analyses scenes from 2001 to show us how these effects are done, and then analyses the Apollo moon landing photographs in the same way by drawing an imaginary line over where he feels the set ends and the screen used to project the moon backgrounds begins. Some of this photo analysis is convincing, some is not depending on the photo. Although Weidner makes interesting points in this early part of the film, many elements of his argument are speculative. But it does importantly present the foundation of his idea.

It is the second half of the documentary that really impresses, as Weidner argues that Kubrick encoded a secret confession into his version of The Shining and it is this section that is very difficult to argue with. It manages to tap into many questions I myself had always had about The Shining, such as the significance of the American symbolism throughout the movie and the Apollo 11 jumper that Danny is seen wearing. Weidner wisely focuses his analysis on the differences between Kubrick's film and the Stephen King novel, and it is here where the documentary's strongest moments lie. It would be a disservice to Weidner's film to give too much of it away, but I will say that one of the most startling moments for me personally is when Weidner turns his attention to the famous typewriter scene. Maybe Weidner's theory about this scene has been discussed by other interpreters in the past, but it is something that I had never noticed before and would have sealed the deal for me if I hadn't already been sold on the evidence presented up until that point.

Good Thing

The in-depth yet succinct analysis of The Shining. This section of the documentary was the primary reason for converting me as a sceptic into a believer, and I imagine it will be the same for many viewers to come. If I have one criticism about the film other than what I've put under "Bad Thing" below, it's that I wish Weidner had edited his trilogy together as one big film that we could view now, but that is hardly a criticism at all. I wait with bated breath for next year's installment of Kubrick's Odyssey.

Bad Thing

Weidner doesn't always have the best way with words, and I fear that this may serve to undermine his argument in the eyes of those approaching his documentary with hostility. We sometimes get lines of narration like “Suddenly from nowhere, the hotel rolls the ball from nowhere,” and “It isn't the real launch of Apollo 11, it is of course the symbolic launch of Apollo 11. In other words, it isn't real.” These occasional missteps in Weidner's narration take some value away from his argument, and that's unfortunate, because if we can look past that then the content contained within is very good. Ultimately though the documentary feels unpolished as a result. Here's hoping that Weidner takes a little more time on the fine details of the two planned follow up films of his Kubrick trilogy.

 

A link to the DVD can be found here direct from Jay Weidner's website.