Change Your Image
jaywindley
Reviews
Unsealed: Conspiracy Files (2012)
Worse than worthless
This series appears simply to give a few selected conspiracy authors a free platform from which to spew unopposed a string of speculative, unsupported nonsense -- much of it debunked long ago by people who actually know the facts and relevant sciences. Far from relying upon "unsealed" official records as promised in the title and opening, the program simply presents the same conjectural hogwash these charlatan authors have been selling in their books and videos for years. There is no disclosure, no critical analysis, and no attention whatsoever devoted to opposing interpretations. Just a pile of conspiratorial woo-woo.
Quid Pro Quo (2008)
Glad I saw it
I saw this film on the closing night of Sundance, mostly because all the other films I wanted to see were sold out. I'm glad I went. Nick Stahl and Vera Farmiga dance adeptly around and through the film's premise, which is coaxed pleasantly out of a screenplay that writer-director Carlos Brooks has polished over seven years.
Stahl plays a public radio reporter confined to a wheelchair since a childhood accident. While following a lead in a bizarre story, he meets Fiona (Farmiga), a mysterious woman who leads him into a reclusive subculture. At first, microphone in hand, he wants the story. But then a trip to a second-hand store for some shoes convinces him the story isn't what he thought it was.
The Sundance catalogue billed it as a "psychological thriller," but in my opinion that misses the mark. Yes, we're introduced to some oddly quirky characters along the way. But Brooks bills is as a detective story, and that's how I think it's best approached. It's an exercise in restrained exposition that keeps the viewer guessing right up until the film's final scenes.
As with most independent films, this one makes good use of small-scale locations and intimate moments. Even the Manhattan exteriors favor enclosed sidewalks and narrow passages. The cinematography, done on high-definition video, is crisply executed and richly textured with subtle but effective details. (The lustrous wallpaper in Fiona's apartment actually has its own screen credit.) The camera spends a great deal of time at the eye level of a wheelchair occupant, emphasizing the point of view and expanding the small spaces in which many of the film's scenes take place.
Stahl and Farmiga drive a substantial portion of the film by themselves. Brooks admits that the their story took over the film as he shot and edited it. As a result the supporting ensemble retreats to the distance, a position from which performances from James Frain (as Stahl's mentor) and Michal Leamer (Fiona's mother) can give brief but memorable performances.
Vera Farmiga creates a complex character whom you can't help loving, hating, and fearing all at the same time. Nick Stahl's performance stays even and understated until his veneer breaks apart and the detective story comes full circle.
The only negative aspect to the film is the frank treatment of the subculture that frames the principal characters, not because the treatment is unfair or poorly executed, but because it's likely to take the average viewer by surprise. Look for wide release in May 2008.
The Truth Behind the Moon Landings (2003)
Response to critics
I was privileged to appear in this documentary. I can address a few criticisms here, although I am not affiliated with the producers nor do I speak for them.
First, the nature of the program. I understand that its intent was to respond scientifically to the moon hoax claims, not to present a middle- of-the-road exposition that gave equal attention and credibility to each side. Not all questions have an equal weight of supporting fact on each side, and not all programs that take a stand do so irresponsibly or deceptively.
The critic here has accused the program of being selectively edited, but he provides only evidence of such selectivity in a different program on an unrelated topic. In fact, the hoax proponents who appeared on this program made some points which the producers elected to leave unrebutted. That undermines the claim that this program was edited to remove "uncomfortable" evidence. Further, some of my on- camera demonstrations did not appear in the final film either. I see absolutely no evidence that the program was edited unfairly to the hoax claim.
The critic may also be interested to learn that certain hoax proponents were invited to appear on the program and defend their claims "head to head", but they declined to do so. Then, disingenuously, those hoax proponents attempted to nit-pick the program's conclusions after the fact on their own web site. It seems it is largely the hoax proponents who avoid having their claims and the responses to them seen side-by-side.
Second, examination of the claims by competent expertise. So-called "lie detectors" and "voice stress analysis" are not reliable ways of ascertaining truth -- especially compared to empirical tests such as those I conducted in the desert. The demonstrable facts are simply what they are, and no amount of handwaving on the part of hoax proponents makes them go away, nor do they require being attested to in a verbal statement. "Reverse speech" is hogwash. I must emphasize that I, and Jim Oberg, and Buzz Aldrin and others who disputed the hoax theory ARE the competent experts on space exploration. The suggestion that a mythical "robot spaceship" somehow lends credibility to the hoax theory is an excellent example of the ignorant grasping at straws that dominates the hoax theory.
As to quid-pro-quo responses, the production schedule did not always allow it. My segment, for example, was filmed before Bill Kaysing's, so I had no opportunity to respond to any of the specific claims he made -- he hadn't yet made them.
Ralph Rene's segment was filmed before mine, but the producers did not disclose to me anything he had said. While I could have responded, the producers already had in mind the topics they wanted me to cover for them and they limited my segment to those questions. I was shown none of the segments that had already been filmed. This is common practice in the documentary film-making industry; quoted experts hardly ever know what other comments will appear in the program, even though the final edit might make it appear that one person is responding to another.
(Spoilers follow)
Ralph Rene conducted two demonstrations that went unchallenged: a glove in a vacuum that refused to bend, and a leaf-blower experiment to show the alleged effects of rocket exhaust on rocks and dust. The glove experiment fails on two points: Rene used a pressure difference of 14 psi instead of the 3.5 psi that was actually the case on Apollo, and Rene used a glove that wasn't designed to allow flexing under pressure as spacesuit gloves are. The leaf-blower experiment fails because Rene seems unaware of the effect of fluid density on his experiment; the stream of air from his leaf blower was many times denser than a rocket exhaust plume in a vacuum and thus had a more pronounced mechanical effect.
Rene is qualified neither as a physicist nor as an engineer, although he is often able to fool laymen into believing he is. Because of his lack of training and experience, he makes many errors in scientific reasoning in his hoax claims that laymen are not necessarily disposed to notice. He is either unwilling or unable to understand why his experiments do not faithfully replicate Apollo conditions, and thus why they do not challenge the authenticity of the Apollo missions. Thus it often requires qualified experts such as myself to reveal and explain to laymen the flaws in his claims. That was largely the apparent purpose of this program.