- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
The idea that Stanley Kubrick faked the moon landings is so incredibly absurd it practically makes anything this guy say irrelevant.
BUT...
I believe his interpretation of the film is mostly correct. He makes a pretty compelling case that Kubrick altered elements of the source material to make way for a symbolic commentery on the popular myth that was circulating at the time.
Obviously, this doesn't prove the moon landings WERE actually faked by Stanley Kubrick. It's funny how otherwise smart people can put on logic blinders when it comes to certain things. Practically every conspiracy theory ever proposed breaks down entirely once you apply cold logic to the situations.
But anyway, this is more likely an example of Kubrick having fun and teasing the audience. It probably amused him that a small segment of conspiracy theorists believed he helped fake the moon landing. So he put these elements in his film as a riff on that. It strikes me as similar to the likely scenario of how the Beatles started playing on the Paul-is-Dead theory, which of course conspiracy nuts took to prove the theory was true instead of the more reasonable answer that the Beatles were playing into it for fun.
But anyway, this guy has a good eye for detail. I thought some of his analyses were reaching at first but the more connections he points out the more it seems to make sense. I don't think this is why Kubrick made the film, but he does seem to have used the opportunity to put these references in there. Some of them, like the hotel symbolizing America, might actually be unrelated to the lunar subtext though. And some of his other ideas are a bit off, like some of his cold war references. But stuff like Danny wearing an Apollo 11 shirt and travelling to room 237 (in thousands, the number of miles to the moon) to witness things that aren't real is probably spot on.
