Red Dirt Report
Saturday, May 25, 2013
Advertising About Us Contact Us
ad
ad ad ad ad

FILM REVIEW: "Kubrick's Odyssey" by Jay Weidner

Story Image
Andrew W. Griffin
"Kubrick's Odyssey" by Jay Weidner

By Andrew W. Griffin

Red Dirt Report, editor

Posted: May 20, 2011

reddirtreporter@gmail.com

FILM REVIEW:  Kubrick’s Odyssey  by Jay Weidner (Sacred Mysteries / Cubed Brick Productions) 2011

My first introduction to the work of world-renowned director Stanley Kubrick took place in 1980, when I was eight years old. I went to see a movie, it may have been The Empire Strikes Back, but it was a trailer for the upcoming Kubrick film The Shining that got the attention of my fragile, eggshell mind.

My already over-active imagination did not quite know what to make of the horrific scene of a flood of blood coming out of a closed elevator. It was shocking to see, no doubt about it. The images from the trailer alone would stay with me for years, haunting me. And while it would be many years later when I actually took the time to watch The Shining, it’s impact would, once again, be powerful.

The first Kubrick film I would actually watch all the way through was 2001: A Space Odyssey.  This was the movie that hit my like a punch to the gut. It struck a chord in me I was previously unaware of. The story, the mood, the colors, the implications … it was as if I had been waiting all my life – I was then 13 – for Kubrick’s vision of Arthur C. Clarke’s science-fiction tale of transformation from ape to man to god-like eternal consciousness.

Clearly, Kubrick was on to something. His final film, 1999’s Eyes Wide Shut, is notable in that he died soon after its release. Starring Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman, Kubrick takes us on a journey into the secretive world of the elite. The folks really running the show. Allegedly there are scenes that have never been shown beyond some trailers which are now missing. What line did Kubrick cross that so upset Warner Bros. executives? Clearly Stanley Kubrick was “in the know” and he used his art as a brilliant film director to tell stories that revealed things often hidden in plain sight.

Enter Jay Weidner. This guy has been looking behind the curtain, as it were, for some time. Long interested in the mysterious and esoteric, Weidner has taken an interest in finding “mankind’s spiritual destiny via ancient societies and artifacts” and has interviewed countless alternative historical and scientific theorists. He has been featured on The History Channel and has been getting a lot of attention in recent years for his research into the 2012 theories.

As Weidner notes, in the opening credits of his fascinating documentary, “This film is the first in a series dedicated to revealing the secrets hidden inside the films of the greatest filmmaker of all time.”

And there are lots of secrets within Kubrick’s films, as we soon discover. Kubrick, suggests Weidner, is not only a great filmmaker, he was “privy to the main secrets of an occult society that rules the Earth.”

One of the biggest and most shocking is that Weidner speculates, through clues he found primarily in The Shining, that Kubrick faked the Apollo Moon landings, using his work on 1968’s 2001: A Space Odyssey as cover. Weidner, however, does believe the U.S. did get to the Moon, just not in the fashion we were told.

Weidner, who narrates, liberally uses footage from Dr Strangelove Or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964), 2001 and The Shining.

Dr. Strangelove, notes Weidner, “made fun of the Pentagon, the generals and their various war plans” and while this irritated the Defense Department, they were more amazed that Kubrick had pieced together what a B-52 looked like on the inside by looking at pictures in military magazines.

Because the U.S. Government, through NASA, was hellbent to get a man on the Moon before the end of the 1960’s, as President Kennedy had promised, and because they wanted to prove to the Soviet Union that the U.S. was going to win the space race, they had to have some insurance – a way to prove, at least to the public and the world – that the U.S. had the technology and wherewithal to get to the Moon.

That’s where Kubrick comes in. Impressed with his work on Dr. Strangelove, Weidner speculates that Kubrick made a deal with the U.S. Government to fake the Apollo Moon landings – with Apollo 11 ultimately being the first one to land in July 1969.

Weidner leans towards the idea that the U.S. did go to the Moon but that the Apollo missions between 1969 and 1972 shown to the public were all staged and Kubrick was the guy directing the whole thing.

So, how did he do it? Weidner says that Kubrick’s use of a cinematic technique called “front screen projection,” used effectively in the ape-man scenes in the first part of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Front screen projection allows scenes to be projected behind the actors. The ape-man scenes were filmed on a soundstage and scenes of a Spanish desert are projected behind the actors in ape costumes. The same technique is used in 2001’s Moon scenes as well.

This same technique, Weidner speculates, was used by Kubrick to film the Apollo Moon landings.

Interestingly, Weidner notes the research of Richard C. Hoagland. In his book Dark Mission, co-authored by Mike Bara and reviewed by this writer for The Norman Transcript, Hoagland believes glass-like structures are on the Moon and that NASA hid this evidence in the photos they released. Weidner believes what Hoagland is seeing tiny glass beads in the slightly flawed Scotchlite screen used in the background of the scenes by Kubrick.

Weidner says scenes showing people moving slowly in space in 2001 was to condition people to accept the same movements that would be seen a year later (and for three years after that) in the Apollo footage.

And while this is shocking, if it’s true, things get even stranger further in Weidner’s film when he uses Stephen King’s novel, The Shining, as the basis for a film with the same name. Of course this interpretation would bother purists and confuse others. But Weidner explains that Kubrick needed a way to get it out there that he was the one behind the Apollo Moon landing hoax and that The Shining would be the way he could accomplish this.

Starring Jack Nicholson as frustrated writer Jack Torrance, Weidner says Jack is actually Kubrick and that when Jack goes to the remote Overlook Hotel in the Colorado Rockies. It is here that Jack Torrance transforms from writer/caretaker into a homicidal monster. Clues are peppered throughout the film, explains Weidner, and the things he points out are quite shocking, from what Jack Torrance’s (Stanley Kubrick) real role was and how his son Danny and wife Wendy have roles in this situation as well.

In Kubrick’s Odyssey, Jay Weidner makes a compelling argument that there was a serious and deep cover-up of the true nature of the Apollo Moon missions. Director Stanley Kubrick, arguably the greatest filmmaker of all time (I vote for him!), made a deal with the U.S. Government to fake the Moon landings in exchange to get all the funding he could ever want to make films like 2001: A Space Odyssey. And feeling some level of frustration or guilt, Kubrick revealed the nature of his involvement in the cover-up via clues in the story told in his cinematic version of Stephen King’s novel The Shining.

This is an important documentary and the first in a series of films that Jay Weidner is working on. I, for one, can’t wait for the next installment.

For more information go to www.jayweidner.com or  www.sacredmysteries.com.

Grade - A

Copyright 2011 West Marie Media

Comments

Please leave a comment!
Only one comment per visit please.

Name:
Comment:

Edward May 17, 2013
To anyone who thinks there is no truth in Scotchlite 'front screen projection'(a precursor to the modern 'green screen') being used to fake the Apollo moon landings, how would you account for the definite separation between foreground and background in every single photo supposedly taken by the astronauts on the lunar surface? An actual 'line' separating the said foreground and background is always evident, in exactly the same manner as portrayed in landscape scenes from '2001 - A Space Odyssey'. In most, if not all of the photographs supposedly taken by the astronauts, (the only exception would be if there was an actual cliff in the distance - which I doubt was the case more than perhaps once or twice) the lunar surface should continue unbroken into the distance, eventually rising to form a hill or mountain, yet, without fail, a separating line is always present - as is the case in scenes from Kubrick's film using the technique. This, besides the always curiously smooth appearance of the background hills, in direct contrast to the textured and detailed foreground. One should be able to easily determine fine detail on the distant hills or mountains, such as cracks, shadows, fissures, etc, even miles away, as one can on mountains on earth, and especially so on the moon with no atmosphere or pollution present. The fact that this is not the case points to the more than likely probability that the backgrounds are not real but fake, lending credence to Mr. Weidner's theory that 'front screen projection' technology was used.
Jon Thune Mar 28, 2013
You have GOT to be kidding. Crikey, some people will believe anything.
Skeptic Tank Nov 28, 2012
I just heard this fellow on the Coast to Coast AM and must comment. This is a ridiculous assumption on his part and here's why: Kubrick himself was not responsible for the effects in the film. He hired specialists in the field such as Douglas Trumbull and Con Pederson whose work on the 1964 New York World's Fair attraction " To The Moon And Beyond" which was shown in Cinerama on a domed screen and impressed Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke greatly. Kubrick himself was not a special effects expert but surrounded himself with the finest in the business and let them run with it. The statement above that he "made a deal" in exchange for unlimited funding is childishly laughable. One of the big issues with the production of 2001 was that the excessive length of time to complete the film was causing extreme concern with MGM, who were funding the film. The film cost over 6 million dollars which at the time was an enormous amount of money at that time, the most EVER spent up to that time. He never put the money up for his films, period. The front projection method described was developed and suggested by the cinematographer Geoffrey Unsworth. This preposterous "assumption" put forth by the "author" is laughable in it's error and indicative of the disinformative mindset that seems to be plagueing our culture in the present day. Listening to this guy on the radio was a mind-numbing waste of time. It's a pity that the show screens out any callers that have issues with pure, let's face it, bullshit !
ukxdpgxuo Nov 04, 2012
tqhjy2 , [url=http://pynmzxajmrjy.com/]pynmzxajmrjy[/url], [link=http://znbcbvqxaibc.com/]znbcbvqxaibc[/link], http://uarbydgdfkai.com/
dsaitksjo Nov 02, 2012
WmsS8l , [url=http://lsaarevqqkmc.com/]lsaarevqqkmc[/url], [link=http://xufaznukwuie.com/]xufaznukwuie[/link], http://dqfeducsczbw.com/
Taty Nov 01, 2012
You seem to have a misconception of how films (and many TV shows) are made. Though dtaiigl moviemaking using HD cameras has become more common, the overwhelming majority of the film and TV show library exists on film, simply because most of the material was produced before the advent of HD filmmaking. (Film also has some technical and aesthetic advantages over dtaiigl, which I will not go into here, and still remains in wide use in the motion picture industry.)Even in the 1950s, very fine optics were available that could create very sharp, colorful images on motion picture film. A studio can take these original film masters of movies and TV shows and convert them to high definition video. This makes almost any movie made in the past 50 years a potential high definition movie. If the film has faded and has visual defects due to age, dtaiigl remastering techniques can restore and enhance the film to make it look better than new.It’s quite an eye-opener to see how good the old material can look in HD. I recently added the Voom HD channels to my Dish Network subscription and was delighted to find some of the old Gerry Anderson cult classics such as “UFO” and “Thunderbirds” on the Voom Family Room channel, all in glorious HD. Though they were filmed in the 1960s and early 1970s, the colors, sharpness, contrast, everything is absolutely first rate and true to the promise of high definition.“Hogan’s Heroes” also was shot on 35 mm film and is showing in high definition on HD Net. In short, if old Gerry Anderson sci-fi shows and “Hogan’s Heroes” can make the conversion to high definition and look great, the vast majority of motion pictures can, too.The question you should be asking yourself is: Which disc format do I want to support? There are two high definition disc formats, HD DVD and Blu-ray. Both are fighting to become the high-definition disc format, but the battle is far from over. There isn’t a tremendous amount of material available for either format yet; and combined with the relatively high cost of the players (especially Blu-ray players), I have a hard time recommending either format at the moment.Some die-hard film buffs and videophiles are certainly good candidates to own the players now. But if you have to ask the question, you probably would be best served by waiting a little while longer. There are rumors in the industry that we will be seeing large price drops around the holiday season of 2007.
A Writer Oct 21, 2012
I was stunned while watching the film that Nath is referring to, "Dark Side of the Moon", which is a staged documentary about the moon landing footage of 1969. After I found it was staged I was equally stunned. Why would anyone go to such lengths to profess that the media can be manipulated and to prove that the theories that Kubrick shot the landing are not true. This is complex so I'll reiterate. The documentary called "Dark Side of the Moon" was a fake documentary interviewing Nixon's cabinet (who were in on it) to basically prove that Kubrick did not shoot the moon landing footage. However, after watching Jay Weidner's film on this subject I do believe Kubrick shot the footage. It's just as "American" to lie and create fake images for the glory of the nation as it is apparently to cover up and lie to this extent. I want a book on this subject buy Jay Weidner won't answer my emails. I get his analysis but where does the info come from about Eyes Wide Shut being re-cut? I need more information because this is an important story.
Anonymous Jan 14, 2012
Popeye Dec 03, 2011
Quote "made a deal with the U.S. Government to fake the Moon landings in exchange to get all the funding he could ever want to make films" well with a clockwork orange he didn't get much out of them that was a low budget/banged out film I think filming was completed in three weeks!
Nath Nov 11, 2011
Hi I'm always wondering why articles about fake moon landings don't talk about that documentary made with...Donald Rumsfeld in it ! This was precisely about Kubrick actually faking moon landings for US gov and finally they turn the whole story into a big laugh. Then this might be to anticipate the accusation and mislead the opinion again! You follow me ? This doc might not be that famous...
English Chrissy Sep 07, 2011
The Shining is one of my favourite films of all time and this spectacular documentary reveals the true brilliance of this movie. The symbol are hidden in full view but I did not even notice one of them. This has got to be as close to the truth as we are ever likely to get.
Devin Winter Aug 25, 2011
Jay Weidner saw something that I never saw after over a hundred viewings of the Shining. Film students everywhere are about to "freak out" because "The Shining" is the most examined and missed understood of all of Stanley's films. Important article.