Opération Lune (2002)

Meesterlijk idee in sterke en slimme uitvoering alleen bij het punt van 150.000 troepen, ontstonden bij mij wat twijfels .... 4,0*

Verdere toelichting bij de film:


Originally, in 2001, director William Karel wanted to make a film on Stanley Kubrick, one year after his death. While talking to his widow, he discovered the extent of the collaboration that existed between Kubrick and the NASA. It turns out that Kubrick and other Hollywood producers contributed largely to the popular success of the US space programme by turning it into a show (design of astronauts’ suits, colour fo the Apollo capsule, positioning of the rocket launcher in Cape Canaveral, etc…)

Starting with this true story, we came up with our own… What if…? What if Nixon - under pressure to put the first man onto the moon before the end of the decade – had asked for a film of the landing on the moon be produced just in case the Apollo 11 went wrong and no pictures would be available…

A documentary intrigue, a subtle blend of facts, fiction and hypothesis, around an event that marked the 20th century: the landing on the moon.
What if it’s all been a big hoax triggered by the race of the two super-powers to be the first to conquer the moon ? What if there have been no “live transmissions” from the moon – as many claim? The progress of film and television technology has made it possible to manipulate images without it being obvious. Even the use of archive pictures is no guarantee for authenticity since they can be used to substantiate very different “facts”. How can the spectator KNOW what he watches?

Navigating carefully between lies and truth, the film mixes fact with pure invention. We will use every possible ingredient : ‘hijacked’ archive footage, false documents, real interviews which have been taken out of context or transformed through voice-over or dubbing, staged interviews by actors who reply from a script and, of course, interviews with astronauts such as Neil Armstrong who refute our claim or still others who believe for all what it’s worth that it was all a hoax.

This is not an ‘ordinary’ documentary… It’s intent is to inform and entertain the viewer, but also to shake him up, make him aware of the fact that television can get it wrong (intentionally or not) .We want to achieve this aim by using a universally known event (the landing on the Moon) that is surrounded by question marks (which is a fact) and spin some tale around it, that sounds plausible but isn't a fact (although there are elements in it that are real!). Confused? It will all be revealed before the end of the film... once the viewer is hooked, strung along and starts really wondering.

Het lijkt me vrij duidelijk: bovengenoemde mensen worden onder valse voorwendselen geinterviewd, krijgen volledig andere vragen en vervolgens is het knippen en plakken geblazen voor de makers.

Prachtige documentaire dit, over de kracht van TV en de noodzaak om feiten, fictie en verhalen uit elkaar weten te houden. Een lesje in kritisch TV kijken voor iedereen, want ook ik stonk er gedurende het eerste half uur met open ogen in. Op een gegeven moment komt dan wel de omslag (maar mensen, dit kan gewoon niet!), maar erg mooi en knap gedaan.

Een must see voor iedereen die bijvoorbeeld Moore's documentaires als zoete koek verorberd.

4*.

Hmm.

Moet ik nodig herzien, vond e.e.a. wel vermakelijk toentertijd. Echter, waaruit blijkt dat deze docu een mockumentary is, zoals de users hieronder beweren? Of ben ik dan toch in slaap gevallen voor het einde..

EDIT: Toch door de endcredits heen geslapen.Verdikke!

Toch knap gedaan, dit beentje lichten. Het is dat ik nu een beetje pissig ben. Edoch, drie sterren zowiezo. Knap gedaan.

EDIT 2: Jaren dus in de veronderstelling gezeten dat.. Shit, jullie lezen natuurlijk mee.. Ahum. Halfje erbij.

Zeer goed.