You are missing the point which Karel addresses directly in the outtakes....
Oh, you mean the FAKE documentary about Kubrick's involvement with Apollo?
"It is finally revealed that this is a mockumentary as the end credits roll over a montage of blooper reels, with the main participants laughing over the absurdity of their lines or questioning if particular ones would give the joke away too soon. Besides being a comedic documentary, it is also an exercise in Jean Baudrillard's theories of hyperreality. In a 2004 interview, the director was asked why he would elect to make a film "closer to a comedy than a serious film"; Karel replied that in the wake of having made serious documentaries, the objective was "de faire un film drôle" (to make a funny film).[1]
Several of the fictitious interviewees, such as Dave Bowman, Jack Torrance, and Dimitri Muffley are named after characters from movies directed by Kubrick. "
You are missing Karel's point BaaBaa, a point which Karel addresses directly, states very EXPLICITLY, in the outtakes.....
This is NOT a documentary/mockumentary in ANY genuine/literal sense, and it is NOT about Apollo fraud per se. It is an artistic piece which makes a strong statement about the strange realities of our culture. After the conclusion of the film, there is a great interview with Karel in which he talks about the film's inception and his views as regards his own film. Specifically, what the film's intent was, what Karel's intent was/is in making the film.
The film was made for television, and the television company that commissioned its production began by asking Karel to make a film, the theme of which would deal with the role of images in western culture. By images, Karel means media in its broadest sense, including artistic media like his film itself, and in this way, the film is remarkably and beautifully self referential in addition to the film’s addressing the theme of images in culture directly, a brilliant twist indeed, this self referential second turn of the screw!
Karel states in the interview that he initially thought about using the JFK assassination as the film’s “subject matter”. Here “subject matter” does not mean that the film was to be be a genuine documentary/mockumentary which would seek to comment in some direct way on the JFK assassination, speak to the assassination’s occult realities per se, but rather, this would be a film about the role of imagery in the context of the JFK issue, and more importantly, a commentary on the role of imagery as regards general public perception of ANY IMPORTANT CULTURAL ISSUE/EVENT FOR THAT MATTER(WW II, a political debate, Apollo, the OJ Simpson case, etc.). How do images impact/manipulate/color/influence/distort/refine/damage/provoke/alter/create/DEFINE our culture’s perception of the truth, the JFK assassination’s realities, or the realities of ANY MAJOR CULTURAL EVENT.
Karel decided against the Kennedy assassination setting as he said that he did not want “death” to be a major part of the film’s landscape. Conspiracy theories were/are great however for their controversy lends itself well to the notion that the unknown truth is subject to distortion or crystalline clarity of perception depending on the prism, images through which these controversial events are viewed.
Karel settled on the subject of Apollo because it was present tense topical at the time he made the film. There were 300 web sites he mentioned in which Apollo was discussed, presumably in some sense contentiously.
Karel makes it a point in his film to leave the question of the landing’s reality ambiguous. IN KAREL’S FILM, IT IS NOT CLEAR AT ALL AS TO WHETHER ASTRONAUTS LANDED OR DID NOT LAND ON THE MOON AND THIS IS INTENTIOANL AS THE POINT OF THE FILM IS THAT THE REALITY IS OF SECONDARY IMPORTANTANCE, THE IMAGES PRESENTING THE REALITY ARE WHAT MATTERS, AND IN THE CASE OF APOLLO SPECIFICALLY, MATTERED MOST, AND IRRESPECTIVE OF APOLLO "TRUTH" DEFINED ITS "REALITY" . So it did not matter if the Apollo 11 astronauts landed or not. Nixon as prez of the U.S. needed photos to prove this occurred. Whether it did occur or not was almost IRRELEVANT.
Karel’s film is NOT ABOUT APOLLO. He could have said the same thing using the JFK assassination as the film’s setting, or the SUPER BOWL for that matter. The film is not a film about Apollo as fraud, not a film addressing conspiracy concerns. It is a film about the role of media and images, their POWER, in our culture, the way in which they DEFINE OUR REALITY, OUR HISTORY IRRESPECTIVE OF WHAT EVENTS DID IN FACT FORM AND DISOLVE IN SPACE-TIME.
Karel’s film, OPERATION LUNE, is only relevant to this thread in the sense that it INDIRECTLY touches on the subject of the role of imagery in the case of Apollo in particular. To be sure, Karel must have his own views with respect to Apollo, fake vs. real. But he doesn’t tip his hand here, tell us what he thinks about Apollo’s authenticity, in his own film. Apollo is an incidental , though brilliantly employed backdrop. Check the film out. As I go along and think about it more and more, it strikes me more and more as the little masterpiece which it indeed it is, simply fabulous, especially its self referential aspects which I have not even touched on here in this brief discussion. The first time I saw the film, I did not realize how flat out great it was/is. Check it out, Karel has something to say about us that is astonishing, true and frightening.
