Harry - do you even bother to thoroughly read the stuff you post??
They're saying that the documentary was a tongue in cheek attempt to show how they "might" have faked footage of some key historical event like the moon landing - NOT that they DID.
It's intended to make people aware that they should be cautious about accepting what they see in the media at face value and question it - in spite of that Harry apparently took the front part of the film with the FAKED footage and took it as gospel and then ignored the back end where it's explained that it was all made up as a demonstration.
Here's the synopsis of the "Dark Side of the Moon" from the Filmakers Library - http://www.filmakers.com/indivs/DarkSide.htm :
Dark Side of the Moon for more films on Media
Directed by William Karel, for Point du Jour
This is not an ordinary documentary. Its intent is to inform and entertain the viewers, but also to shake them up and make them aware of the need to keep a critical eye on the media.
The progress of film and television technology has made it possible to manipulate images without it being obvious. Even the use of archival pictures is no guarantee for authenticity since they can be used to substantiate different "facts."
During an interview with Stanley Kubrick's widow the story came to light that Kubrick contributed to the popular success of the US space program with his film 2001: A Space Odyssey. He had the help and support of NASA which realized the film would popularize its costly space program. Note here that Kubrick received help from NASA because 2001 would help popularize space - NOT that NASA received help from Kubrick
William Karel, director of Dark Side of the Moon, took this revelation one step further _ by inventing an astonishing scenario for the images of the moon landing, and validating it with "hijacked" archival footage, false documents, and authentic interviews out of context. REPEAT: it was INVENTED for this documentary to show that the media can distort what they present (ala Michael Moore) - it's NOT REAL
This film should have your audience gasping at "the truth" and finally, when enlightened about the "plot", humbled in the realization of how difficult it is to separate truth from manipulation in the media. Harry - did you miss the part in the piece that explains that it was NOT REAL or did you just ignore it
They're saying that the documentary was a tongue in cheek attempt to show how they "might" have faked footage of some key historical event like the moon landing - NOT that they DID.
It's intended to make people aware that they should be cautious about accepting what they see in the media at face value and question it - in spite of that Harry apparently took the front part of the film with the FAKED footage and took it as gospel and then ignored the back end where it's explained that it was all made up as a demonstration.
Here's the synopsis of the "Dark Side of the Moon" from the Filmakers Library - http://www.filmakers.com/indivs/DarkSide.htm :
Dark Side of the Moon for more films on Media
Directed by William Karel, for Point du Jour
This is not an ordinary documentary. Its intent is to inform and entertain the viewers, but also to shake them up and make them aware of the need to keep a critical eye on the media.
The progress of film and television technology has made it possible to manipulate images without it being obvious. Even the use of archival pictures is no guarantee for authenticity since they can be used to substantiate different "facts."
During an interview with Stanley Kubrick's widow the story came to light that Kubrick contributed to the popular success of the US space program with his film 2001: A Space Odyssey. He had the help and support of NASA which realized the film would popularize its costly space program. Note here that Kubrick received help from NASA because 2001 would help popularize space - NOT that NASA received help from Kubrick
William Karel, director of Dark Side of the Moon, took this revelation one step further _ by inventing an astonishing scenario for the images of the moon landing, and validating it with "hijacked" archival footage, false documents, and authentic interviews out of context. REPEAT: it was INVENTED for this documentary to show that the media can distort what they present (ala Michael Moore) - it's NOT REAL
This film should have your audience gasping at "the truth" and finally, when enlightened about the "plot", humbled in the realization of how difficult it is to separate truth from manipulation in the media. Harry - did you miss the part in the piece that explains that it was NOT REAL or did you just ignore it
