Nichols 1

Chad Nichols
Dr. Clarke
English 300 (online)
10 February 2013
Dark Side of the Moon, Seriously Satirical
Foolish as it sounds to those of us who grew up with the historical canon of Neil
Armstrong being the first man to walk on the moon, there are still some diehard pockets of
resistors who believe that the small step for man...giant leap for mankind was filmed on Earth
in a studio. This mockumentary about that conspiracy theory, aside from some obvious
silliness that quickly gives it away as satire, could easily be accepted as serious.
To begin with, let us look at the production quality of the program. Anyone who has ever
watched a real documentary on the Discovery channel will agree that the interview style is
consistent, down to the real lighting in the room chosen for the interview, the tone and timbre
of the narrator's voice, and the reliance on stock video footage. In a studio, the lighting
manager's job is to create better than real lighting, that maximizes the theme or tone of the
interview rather than allowing shadows to fall naturally. The narrator also is consistent, keeping
an even voice tone throughout without extremes of emotion or excitement. The voiceovers were
delivered in a neutral yet expressive tone, with an erudite, relaxing timbre, just like professional
narrators on nature shows. Even the stock footage linking the interviews together was
reminiscent of historical documentaries. Indeed, I recognised much of it from other shows.
The interviews themselves also lent credence to the validity of the program, especially as
the governmental officials, family members and NASA experts appeared personally (for the most
part) instead of using impersonators, doubles and lookalikes. Henry Kissinger, Buzz Aldrin and
Christiane Kubric especially added credibility to the program, as they were the people most

Nichols 2
would expect to be closest to the topic from each of the angles (Kissinger on the planning, with
his experience in Military Intelligence and the NSA; Mrs. Kubric on the execution, being
married to the director of the alleged studio filming of the landing; and Buzz Aldrin from the
inside, being one of the Apollo 11 astronauts). Adding Alexander Haig, Lois Aldrin and Farouk
Elbaz to the cast lent even more verity, and having Vernon Walters as the primary interviewee
was icing on the cake. If I hadn't read the giveaway in the assignment that this was a spoof, I
wouldn't jave kown for the first half or so of the film.
However, this now brings me to the obvious (and not-so-obvious) giveaways of the farce.
As my goal was to illustrate how this show could be mistaken for an authentic program, I will
merely touch on these points: The bounciness of the astronauts in the faked Apollo 11 film is
in no way accurate; Neil Armstrong's personality has not been reported in other sources as the
type that would (or, in such an important mission, even could) forget that a lot of other people
were listening in on the comm channel, and chatter on about motor pool topics such as family
and NASA staff members; and the rather less-than-appropriate background music for the launch
footage. Some less-obvious giveaways include misreporting of dates, fallacious reports of
political offices held and a number of character names drawn from Kubrik's other films, as well
as from Alfred Hitchcock's work.
In conclusion, I must say that the film was exceptionally well-done. It struck all the right
notes with a minimum of faux pas, and was unusually convincing for a satire. If one subscribed
to the Apollo 11 landing as Hollywood hoax theory, this mockumentary could be hailed as a
landmark production for their cause. If one is a rational being, however, there are enough clues
as to its true nature to make it an amusing way to spend an hour.