Antoine Bardou-Jacquet
Moonwalkers

This French film by director Antoione Bardou-Jacquet, released in cinemas in 2015, is truly funny.

Written by Dean Craig, the idea behind 'Moonwalkers' is certainly not original: lunar conspiracy theories are something that today is part of Western culture just as much as the actual moon landing itself. I'm clearly referring to the first moon landing, that of the Apollo 11 mission on July 21, 1969. A historical and undeniable truth which, however, is debated and discussed with more or less scientific arguments by those we could define as skeptics or better yet conspiracy theorists. This has returned forcefully to the fore with the revival of the 'Flat Earth Society' and the reopening of the debate between supporters of the spherical shape of our planet and the minority (fortunately) that clings to theories that would demonstrate that the Earth is actually flat.

This last thesis, if supported, would consequently also exclude the moon landing.

The myth behind the lunar conspiracy theory, according to which the CIA asked the great director Stanley Kubrick to shoot the scenes of the alleged moon landing (a thesis first asserted way back in 1976 in the book 'We Never Went to the Moon' by American Bill Kaysing), is as integral to the story told in the film as the moon landing itself.

It should be noted specifically that some conspiracy theorists deny that first moon landing but not the subsequent ones. Others instead simply question the authenticity of the images.

I think that over the years so much material and so many theories on this subject have been produced that today you cannot talk about the moon landing without also discussing conspiracy theories: these are in any case an appendix to a proven historical fact.

Staying in the cinematic realm, I believe that in this genre one must mention one of the best films of the kind and one of my personal favorites, namely 'Capricorn One' by Peter Hyams (1978), in which a mission to Mars is practically simulated, drawing on the very same ideas behind the conspiracy theories.

In this specific case, however, the story draws from discussions that have truly been the subject of debate over the years and still are today: material treated with a certain irony in a funny and surreal hippie setting, filled with allusions to Kubrick's cinema.

The main character is the rough CIA agent Kidman who is tasked with going to London on a mission to hire the famous director Stanley Kubrick, convincing him with the promise of a large sum of money to shoot scenes to be released in case the Apollo 11 mission failed.

Played by the always great Ron Perlman, Kidman, a man haunted by his violent past and the Vietnam War, mistakenly contacts a pair of penniless individuals instead of the great director: agent Jonny (Rupert Grint) and his actor friend Leon (Robert Sheehan).

Due to a series of circumstances and caught in the crossfire of the CIA, doubtful of Kidman's work, and a criminal gang, Kidman will have no choice but to rely on his two new 'friends' to shoot the fateful moon landing scenes.

They will therefore resort to the help of a visionary and eccentric director, Renatus, who will be hired to complete the mission in a setting like a hippie commune where Kidman, initially uncomfortable, will slowly find that inner peace lost over the years.

In a chaotic and action-packed finale, the undertaking somehow concludes but our protagonists, involved to their necks in a story that was supposed to be and remain 'top secret', covertly escape to Spain where they will watch the moon landing scenes on television.

Or rather, the alleged moon landing.

In fact, 'Moonwalkers' leaves the door open to various conspiracy theories.

Of course, the work is a true comedy and has no scientific pretensions or documentary ambitions: it is not interested in questioning the authenticity of the moon landing scenes.

It thus re-proposes throughout the plot what for many still constitutes a matter of doubt and perplexity, but stripping the story of that typical mysterious and venomous aura of conspiracy, and thus in some way exorcizing this entire story, perhaps even covering it with ridicule.

For me, doubting the moon landing is senseless.

Personally, I have no doubt that on that day Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin (not to mention Michael Collins, who remained in lunar orbit, piloting the command module that would bring the astronauts home to Earth).

I truly consider them the greatest heroes in human history and do not see any reason to doubt their great feat, even if it must be viewed in the historical context of the Cold War, where the USA would do anything legal or not to surpass the USSR.

Which, however, never managed to send any living human to the Moon. Unlike the USA, which returned to the Moon five more times until December 7, 1972, the date of the Apollo 17 mission landing. The last one.

However, I have wondered what would change today if things in 1969 had gone differently from how they were told to us and how we were able to see them with our own eyes.

I'm not particularly frightened by those who, in some way, want to deny and cast doubt on what are historical truths: I think that most people perceive things and then discuss them according to their critical sense and their personal capacity for speculation.

Myths and legends, historical events more or less significant, have always been subjects of discussion for historians and scholars. We talk about events linked to true stories like those recounted in Homer's 'Iliad' and 'Odyssey'. The existence of Homer himself is debated. And why not? Even that of Jesus Christ.

Then there are people who belong to the category of 'deniers,' specifically concerning the burdensome issues of the last century, such as the authenticity of the Holocaust events.

Personally, I don't believe that denialism itself is as dangerous as having doubts about whether certain events occurred or not.

Aside from the fact that doubting something that is historically proven, with testimonies and 'historical' evidence like the Holocaust, isn't exactly the same as debating the existence and identity of Homer or Jesus Christ, I think the crux of the arguments around the Holocaust is independent of whether the events actually took place or not.

The fact that it's something monstrous, that all men are equal, and that violence and Nazism are wrong, is something individuals should perceive as their personal conviction, regardless of the facts and accepting certain evidence. These seem to me the basis of cohabitation principles and the very nature of being human.

The fact is that without questioning the importance, and in some cases the certainty, of science and the quest for historical truth, even where this is proclaimed, a different type of 'facts' emerges which—with supporting evidence or not—are something we must take into account and that impose choices on us. We can be skeptical. Speculate. Question and wonder. But in the meantime, life goes on and we must decide yes or no. We have no alternatives because these choices also define who we truly are and write the pages of history books.

Perhaps the formation of our critical sense, which is crucial for us and the society in which we live, must also pass through this type of experience, wherein we must find the right balance between what is truth and what may be more 'emotional' pulls toward false truths that, for various reasons, can become suggestive and, as such, harmful and dangerous for ourselves and others.