Stanley Kubrick’s Daughter Vivian Debunks the Age-Old Moon Landing Conspiracy Theory

Kubrick Moon Landing

All moon-land­ing con­spir­a­cy the­o­rists refuse to believe that the Unit­ed States land­ed on that much-mythol­o­gized rock 250,00 miles away in 1969. As to why the rest of us believe that it did hap­pen, moon-land­ing con­spir­a­cy the­o­rists vary in the specifics of their sto­ries. Per­haps the most inter­est­ing ele­ment of the lore — inter­est­ing to cinephiles, at least — holds that Stan­ley Kubrick, fresh off the pro­duc­tion of 2001: A Space Odyssey, secret­ly shot the land­ing video seen across Amer­i­ca in a stu­dio, lat­er cash­ing in on the favor by bor­row­ing one of NASA’s cus­tom-made Zeiss lens­es to shoot 1975’s Bar­ry Lyn­don.

Kubrick died in 1999, and so can’t clear up the mat­ter him­self, unless you believe the “con­fes­sion” video that cir­cu­lat­ed last year, con­vinc­ing nobody but the already-con­vinced. But his daugh­ter Vivian took to Twit­ter just this month to put the mat­ter to rest her­self, embed­ding an impas­sioned defense of her father’s integri­ty (and an encour­age­ment to focus on the more plau­si­ble abus­es of pow­er quite pos­si­bly going on right this moment) that goes way beyond 140 char­ac­ters:

Kubrick Moon Landing Tweet

“Vivian Kubrick worked on the set of The Shin­ing with her father where she shot a behind-the-scenes mak­ing-of doc­u­men­tary about the film,” adds Vari­ety’s Lamar­co McClen­don. “The­o­rists have pur­port­ed [Stan­ley] even used the film to admit to shoot­ing the hoax by leav­ing behind clues. One such clue was Dan­ny Lloyd wear­ing an Apol­lo 11 sweater.” The Shin­ing has giv­en rise to a fair few the­o­ries, con­spir­a­cy and oth­er­wise, of its own, prov­ing that Kubrick fans can get obses­sive, watch­ing and re-watch­ing his work while seek­ing out sym­bols and pat­terns, see­ing con­nec­tions and draw­ing con­clu­sions by build­ing elab­o­rate inter­pre­tive struc­tures atop thin evi­dence. Come to think of it, you’d think they and the moon-land­ing con­spir­a­cy the­o­rists would have a lot to talk about.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Stan­ley Kubrick Faked the Apol­lo 11 Moon Land­ing in 1969, Or So the Con­spir­a­cy The­o­ry Goes

“Moon Hoax Not”: Short Film Explains Why It Was Impos­si­ble to Fake the Moon Land­ing

Michio Kaku & Noam Chom­sky School Moon Land­ing and 9/11 Con­spir­a­cy The­o­rists

Neil Arm­strong, Buzz Aldrin & Michael Collins Go Through Cus­toms and Sign Immi­gra­tion Form After the First Moon Land­ing (1969)

Based in Seoul, Col­in Mar­shall writes and broad­casts on cities and cul­ture. He’s at work on a book about Los Ange­les, A Los Ange­les Primer, the video series The City in Cin­e­ma, the crowd­fund­ed jour­nal­ism project Where Is the City of the Future?, and the Los Ange­les Review of Books’ Korea Blog. Fol­low him on Twit­ter at @colinmarshall or on Face­book.

by | Permalink | Comments (8) |

Sup­port Open Cul­ture

We’re hop­ing to rely on our loy­al read­ers rather than errat­ic ads. To sup­port Open Cul­ture’s edu­ca­tion­al mis­sion, please con­sid­er mak­ing a dona­tion. We accept Pay­Pal, Ven­mo (@openculture), Patre­on and Cryp­to! Please find all options here. We thank you!

Comments (8)
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
  • Fred says:

    Fake moon land­ing con­spir­a­cy is fun­ny stuff. No mat­ter this gives me a chance to say Kubrick as made two of my favorite films, 2001 and Dr Stan­gelove. I like many of oth­er works as well.

  • TVG says:

    Yes but Vivian is a Sci­en­tol­o­gist who broke with her father many years ago. I think this clar­i­fi­ca­tion of a fake is a fake clar­i­fi­ca­tion. Explain your­self Vivian, assum­ing this is real­ly you.

  • robbi says:

    i dont see a shad­ow of the flag and the flag stick …hmmm?

  • Mike Kaplan says:

    As Stan­ley’s point man for 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, from its New York pre­miere (see my GUARDIAN arti­cle) through the StarCHILD/Ultimate Trip relaunch in 1970 and beyond, and there­fore hav­ing worked with him intense­ly through 1969, speak­ing to him at least once a day, going over detailed dis­tri­b­u­tion and mar­ket­ing plans, expe­ri­enc­ing his metic­u­lous con­cen­tra­tion (and humor) col­lab­o­rat­ing on the specifics need­ed to per­pet­u­ate what was becom­ing a cul­tur­al phe­nom­e­non, there was no way he would have had the time and con­cen­tra­tion to cre­ate and film a fake moon land­ing as these crack­pot the­o­ries have pro­posed.

    Should the moon land­ing we saw been a Kubrick film and if there should have been a
    shad­ow on the flag and flag staff, he would have made sure what we saw was cor­rect.

    Vivian Kubrick­’s analy­sis of her father’s artis­tic integri­ty can’t be fault­ed. Remem­ber­ing her sit­ting on Stan­ley’s lap as he edit­ed the 19 min­utes from 2001 in the week fol­low­ing its open­ing— to the dai­ly fam­i­ly lunch­es we had at Abbot’s Mead when work­ing on CLOCKWORK ORANGE, she was always, even at her young age, astute and direct.
    She is her father’s daugh­ter.

  • AB says:

    Mon­day morn­ing.
    Bored. Unchal­leng­ing work.
    Cycle through a cou­ple of web­sites.
    #7: Open Cul­ture.
    Some­thing worth read­ing and con­sid­er­ing.

    I love her response. No, in my mind the chance that he would con­spire with the govt is nil.

  • TVG says:

    Of course the moon land­ing real­ly hap­pened and of course Kubrick had noth­ing to do with fak­ing any­thing. What I am ques­tion­ing are the actions of the well-known Sci­en­tol­o­gist Vivian Kubrick whose well-known break with her fam­i­ly gives a new colour­ing to state­ments like “She is her father’s daugh­ter”.

    Sci­en­tol­o­gists are encour­aged to lie — and often end up break­ing the hearts of their par­ents (as it has been report­ed Vivian Kubrick did hers) — so let’s not be either too gul­lable or too sen­ti­men­tal in response to this post.

  • steven augustine says:

    Clear­ly, Kubrick had noth­ing to do with this shod­dy hoax. Hav­ing said that, if he had, would he endan­ger any­one he cared for by let­ting them in on it? So, Vivian’s protes­ta­tions (while I agree with them in spir­it) are near­ly irrel­e­vant. And, in any case, the ele­phant in the room (Thetans, et al) is trum­pet­ing rather loud­ly over her “voice of rea­son”.

    Speak­ing of rea­son: con­sid­er­ing the tens of mil­lions of Amer­i­cans who believe in a beard­ed, vague­ly-Lev­an­tine, anus-free Sky Giant (aka Jeezis), I don’t find it either sur­pris­ing or per­sua­sive that so many Amer­i­cans also believe(d) that won­der­ful­ly-prim­i­tive 1960s Amer­i­can tech­nol­o­gy could achieve what the vast­ly-more-pow­er­ful tech­nol­o­gy of a dozen indus­tri­al nations (includ­ing the US! laugh) *still* can’t man­age, half a cen­tu­ry lat­er! Yes, I once believed in the fairy tale, too (and I’m Sci­ence-lit­er­ate)… but tak­ing a clos­er look, one day, keep­ing all of my prej­u­dices at bay… was quite the eye-open­er.

  • CBD says:


    If you can explain how this clar­i­fi­ca­tion of a fake is a fake clar­i­fi­ca­tion of of a fake, I think that it’s you who needs to explain your­self, assum­ing that you are the real TVG.


Leave a Reply

Open Culture was founded by Dan Colman.