Why Doesn't Anyone mention Capricorn One?

    So let's say you view Jay Weidner's 1st installment of Kubrick's Odyssey. You are then acquainted with the idea that Kubrick faked the Moon Landings for NASA.
   Now, you happen upon the Youtube video, The Shining Code, which reinforces and elaborates on the clues Kubrick supposedly left in his 1980 film The Shining.
   So now armed you might move onto Room 237 or some other documentary that presents similar information.

So listen to this film maker regarding Apollo 11:

“There was one event of really enormous importance that had almost no witnesses. And the only verification we have . . . came from a TV camera.” link

He goes on to say,  "Whenever there was something on the news about a space shuttle, they would cut to a studio in St. Louis where there was a simulation of what was going on. I grew up in the generation where my parents basically believed if it was in the newspaper it was true. That turned out to be bullshit. My generation was brought up to believe television was true, and that was bullshit too. So I was watching these simulations and I wondered what would happen if someone faked a whole story." link

 The film maker is Peter Hyams, who wrote and directed Capricorn One.
 Capricorn One is a fictional account of a faked Mars landing that was done without the complicity of the astronauts (one of whom was O.J. Simpson). The reason for the hoodwinking was to prevent funding from being cutoff from the space program.  The astronauts are briefed at the last minute and are forced to comply to save their families. One of the astronauts transmits a coded message to his wife during an in flight TV chat. What could be more relevant to a discussion of coded messages about a faked lunar landing?

I recommend the movie. Highly.

   So my question becomes, why doesn't Jay Weidner or anyone else pushing the Kubrick Apollo theory mention Peter Hyams and this film? Their critics certainly do, with the gist being that they probably thought it was a documentary.

   What's more, Peter Hyams had contact with Kubrick. In fact he wrote and directed the sequel to 2001 A Space Odyssety, entitled 2010 The Year We Make Contact.

 
From Wikipedia:

When Clarke published his novel 2010: Odyssey Two in 1982, he telephoned Stanley Kubrick, and jokingly said, "Your job is to stop anybody [from] making it [into a movie] so I won't be bothered."
... However, Peter Hyams was interested and contacted both Clarke and Kubrick for their blessings:

    'I had a long conversation with Stanley and told him what was going on. If it met with his approval, I would do the film; and if it didn't, I wouldn't. I certainly would not have thought of doing the film if I had not gotten the blessing of Kubrick. He's one of my idols; simply one of the greatest talents that's ever walked the Earth. He more or less said, 'Sure. Go do it. I don't care.' And another time he said, 'Don't be afraid. Just go do your own movie.'

Again, what could be more relevant to the Kubrick/Apollo discussion? Why leave it out, because it taints the theory and makes it seem a derivative of the film? I think a strong argument could be made that it strengthens the theory and adds to the drive to disseminate the truth.

Till later, hope all is well.

Some ramblings or Herr Ziegler, there are Seven Days in May

   OK, I know no one reads this. Most people get here by accident. I've lost a lot of the drive to build to the final conclusion I've reached and reveal what I think was the inspiration for 'Somerton'.


  But here I am, damning all grammatical guidelines and pressing on. Why? Only God and Satan know the answer.

  I feel some pain when I hear or see the work of others where something I uncovered or shared is revealed as that individuals own work.

  So for that reason, I'm going to reveal some personal conclusions, speculative of course. Anyone who tells you 'This is what Kubrick REALLY meant" doesn't know anymore than you or I do. He played it close to the vest. Don't believe it? Read "Eyes Wide Open" by Frederic Raphael. 


   I'm obsessed with Eyes Wide Shut because it's like one of those stereoscopic pictures. I can't figure it out yet but if I cross my eyes enough I'll get the image in the background. And not unlike Michael Corleone, every time I walk away...

Jan Harlan, Kubrick's brother-in-law and executive producer, reported that Kubrick was "very happy" with the film and considered it to be his "greatest contribution to the art of cinema".
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyes_Wide_Shut-


  Sometime, when you are bored, Google this question:

"What do the colors red blue and gold symbolize in medieval art?"

 You might see this:

Answer:

It symbolizes a heroic act performed by a lowly member of the royal court during times of inter-kingdom feuds.

  Remember the 'mock sacrifice' in EWS?

Or was the sacrifice Kubrick's?

Let's go with some WILD speculation.

First, what we know:

• In 1942 our young film maker moves to a new home/apartment. His father wants him to follow him in medicine. Stanley prefers jazz (loves the drums). His father buys him his first camera to get him interested in something to compensate for his lagging schoolwork.
• He has his breakthrough film 'Paths of Glory' made with the help of Kirk Douglas and his Byrna Production group. It's filmed in Germany, where Kubrick meets his 3rd and final wife, Christiane who is an extra in the film. She is niece of German director Veit Harlan. 
• His first blockbuster and huge commercial success is Spartacus, again with the assistance of Kirk Douglas.
• Douglas and he argue on set. Douglas in his book on the making of Spartacus tells the story of confronting Kubrick on horseback and intimidating him. He berated him in front of the entire cast and crew about not changing his clothes and shooting battle scenes. Douglas recalls in his mind, he thought people were cheering. I'm not quite sure they saw it as heroic as Kirk did. 

 I've always felt 1942 and the Kirk Douglas collaboration are two huge turning points in Kubrick's life. So much so that he felt the need to mirror both in scenes in The Shining and Eyes Wide Shut.


The Shining -  the 'moving in' scene in the Overlook with it's Summer of 42 references. (The movie Summer of 42 is playing on a TV set)
Jack Nicholson's character is named Jack. Also the name of Kubrick's father.

Eyes Wide Shut - Bill Harford and Nick Nightingale represent two sides of Kubrick. Harford is a doctor (like Kubrick's father) and Nightingale is a medical school drop out who becomes a jazz musician (Stanley didn't follow in his father's footsteps and loved jazz, wanting to be a musician.)

My big reveal. I think the Victor Ziegler character represents Kirk Douglas. 

The Ziegler character brings Harford into a world he doesn't normally interact with socially or professionally. His wife asks him if he knows anyone at the party and he answers "Not a one."

This could mirror Douglas introducing Kubrick into the studio system from which he was an outsider, previously making documentaries and small budget independent films.

Ziegler makes subtle overtures to bring Harford (and perhaps his young wife) into they're 'circle'. Maybe this mirrors something Douglas did or maybe it is just mirrored into Douglas view of what Kubrick should be doing as a director (i.e. playing ball with the producer, studio, etc)

Harford goes a little nuts in infiltrating the Somerton club and ends up in trouble. Ziegler confronts him and basically gets him to drop it.

Refer to the Spartacus dust up mentioned earlier and outlined in Douglas' book "I Am Spartacus".

Now Kubrick could be mirroring the public confrontation but the one in EWS is private. And Spartacus was made in '60, EWS in '99. It seems like a long time to get that off your chest. Perhaps Stanley felt his health failing and new this would be his last film. Or maybe he knew it was his last for other reasons.

Maybe it was something that Kirk introduced him to that he never got over and his last wish was to point a finger.

What? you say. What connection did Kirk Douglas have with Eyes Wide Shut? In the appendix to 'I Am Spartacus" Douglas tells the tale of trying to work out his differences with Kubrick. He invited Stanley to a session with his therapist. At the end of the session, Kirk's therapist tells Stanley, "Hey, you know what would make a good movie? Arthur Schnitzler's Traumnovelle."