reel.deal wrote:Kubrick did not fake the moon-landings, NA$A coerced Kubrick into being 'technical assistant', used his scotchlite screens for the 'panoramic vistas', and then deresolutioned the lot. Kubrick was sore the rest of his life, but knew if he explicitly spilled the beans he'd get whacked. which may have been his fate anyway, as it turned out... [i]Kubrick was coerced, into an 'unholy alliance' he despised, a dark alliance he knew he would never shrug off...
How can you be so sure of how things went? I think we tend to have a certain preconceived idea of what and who these people are or are supposed to be because Hollywood instructed us about it for decades. Kubrick is reclusive; he is methodical; he is obsessive etc etc. What if these are all lies or trivializations?
Suppose he had to be involved, in whatever form, with the Apollo missions, but simply wasn't given enough time to be a perfectionist about it; suppose he was capable and intelligent enough to lower his standards as long as his name was not involved; suppose the geniality of it has been precisely in presenting a product of lower quality; suppose half the job consisted exactly in hiding one's method and signature: I could go on. It is easy to say now that Apollo is flawed -- A Space Odyssey is flawed too, in his own way. But they had a good run.
I say we don't know enough about it and that we should know more -- because a similar situation could and probably does apply to 9/11 as well, where the presence of Hollywood is not only marked by references in movies and sitcoms or secondary actors borrowed from the studios, but might be found in the scripts and storylines and direction and special effects and the whole shebang. Of course the final result sucks -- but honestly, behind the glitter, most of the things Hollywood produces suck, so nothing too strange there, no?