In the Shadow of the Moon, by Andrew Joppa

In the Shadow of The Moon

by Andy Joppa

 

“If you could murder baby Hitler and prevent World War II, would you do it? What about his mother? What about his grandmother? What about every single person who ever knew him and who could have influenced him such as schoolteachers or neighbors, innocent or not?

Dialogue…In the Shadow of the Moon

 

There are times when small windows open to let you see larger, and more grotesque, realities. This is the case with the Netflix movie, “In the Shadow of The Moon.” It enables us to see the normally privy activities and attitudes of the American political Left. It also, unintentionally, explores the mind-set of all socialist regimes throughout history. That is, their willingness to kill or imprison anyone who might represent a threat to that regime’s intentions. “In the Shadow of the Moon” is “only” a movie in a like manner to “Mein Kampf” being “only” a book.; both laying out potentials for future actions…. neither to be ignored.

 

If someone on the Right were to offer that they predict that Leftist policies will destroy America, leaving countless numbers in despair and without meaningful resources and, as a remedy, they advocated the murdering of all Leftists who might contribute to that potential outcome… what would be the reaction? There is no doubt there would certainly be immediate outrage, with condemnation coming from every variant of the Leftist media, the internet would explode with indignancy and, within all great likelihood, the person advocating those acts of wanton violence, would be arrested and charged with domestic terrorism. In my hypothetical, that is as it should be.

 

But, what if all I stated above were politically reversed? What if someone on the Left suggested murdering those on the Right for comparable reasons; what would happen? We already have an answer to that query… “Nothing.”  The Netflix movie, “In the Shadow of the Moon,” does exactly that, and there hasn’t been a murmur of condemnation.  While critics have either liked or disliked the movie on artistic grounds, there isn’t a word said about the essential premise I stated above. I would add, that premise isn’t incidental to the plot…it is the plot.  That theme being reinforced symbolically, visually and with extensive dialogue throughout the entire movie.

 

It is clearly a propaganda piece, supported by the ideologies of Netflix, suggesting the need…no, the obligation…to kill those on the Right for the expression of ideas.  What are those ideas of the Right that are so offensive?  Primarily, they are “shown” as being the willingness to support the thoughts of the founders and other historical figures in America, linked with patriotism.

 

Now, I am a lifelong motion picture devotee. I love the silver screen and its ability to immerse its audience in the reality of an historical moment, a fantasy excursion into the future, the retelling of classic novels and a myriad of other benefits; benefits achievable, only, within the skills of the movie making world.

 

I’ve pushed aside my political views of Tom Hanks to watch, “Saving Private Ryan.”  I’ve held my nose and watched Robert DeNiro in “Good Fellas” and “The Godfather.” I’ve also suspended my view of climate change and enjoyed Leonardo De Caprio in almost anything.  I make these points to illustrate that I don’t watch or choose movies based on my existing political bias.  I let the movie speak for itself.  That is why I am comfortable in saying, “In the Shadow of the Moon,” is an entirely different genre.  It openly advocates the murder of other human beings for political gain. It is being presented by a major entertainment source under their banner.  It reveals a position of both Netflix and, what they see, as their audience.  I believe they are trying to provoke an American future that could destroy the essence of this nation.

 

Aside from the vague descriptions I’ve offered can I prove this thesis…beyond a reasonable doubt? The lack of subtlety in the movie makes that fairly easy to accomplish.  However, I’ll let you…the jury…decide.

 

The movie is a science fiction murder mystery.  I will not supply many details as they only serve as “carriers” of the essential theme. (I’ve pasted the plot at the end as presented by Wikipedia.  You should note that nothing I’m specifically describing appears; although its alluded to).

 

It starts out in the year 2024, where it is made obvious, without explanation, that a massive explosion has taken place in the heart of Philadelphia.  This is best pictured as having the devastation of 9/11. It shifts immediately to the year 1986.  A series of murders has taken place where the perpetrator is a young black woman.  We know little about her or the victims except one victim is carrying a biography of Thomas Jefferson.  That is shown in her pocket before her death and, afterwards, the camera does a sustained closeup on the cover.

 

Another victim, among several, is murdered nine years later by the same perpetrator in the same manner and this one carries a copy of a biography of Andrew Jackson.  Once again, the camera lingers over the cover.

Nine years later (again) another victim is created, this one the editor of a news pamphlet titled, The Real American Movement.”  On his desk are prominently displayed two books…a biography of George Washington and another of U.S. Grant. And…again…the camera lingers longer than is necessary, so as to make their point clear. This victim loved what Americans were…he was a patriot.

 

An attempt to stop these murders is made, and the policeman trying to stop her yells…” We must stop her…she’s a murderer.”  The reply, from a physicist character is, “That is the plan.  I also thought she was a murderer… but she is the savior.  She is preventing an event so horrible that all and any contributing to that future event must die…mothers, grandmothers, children…anyone, who may create that moment must die.” He screams, “What would you do to stop the American Civil War…who would you kill?” (I paraphrased here just a bit).

 

You see, our murderer is a time traveler from the future.  She has seen that the end result of patriotic fervor and a reverence for America’s heroes, will lead to catastrophe.  She has come back to ensure that those that might create the Right’s actions and success…will die.

 

This movie actively and consciously advocates murder as a reasonable tool to stop the Right from succeeding.  It’s constant focus on great American historical leaders and their followers, who must die as a result, is mind boggling in its implication, terrifying in its provocations. As I indicated earlier, these comments aren’t about a subtle sub-plot of this movie.  It is its raison d’etre.

 

Of greater concern than the willingness of Netflix to create and air this monstrosity, is its awareness, far more sophisticated than ours, of just who its audience is and in what directions they can be pushed. If you think my comments are extreme, I suggest you become more aware of the Left’s “brown shirts…antifa.  There is little doubt that… given the need and opportunity to kill…nothing would stand in their way.  That the movie, “In the Shadow of the Moon,” could air without comment or resistance, may be a strong indicator of what may be just ahead for our nation.

 

This isn’t just politics as usual.  This is a new and extremely dangerous manifestation of violence from the political Left. This movie sounded all too much like “marching orders” to the many thugs of Progressivism.

 

In the Shadow of the Moon- Plot from Wikipedia

In 1988, several people simultaneously hemorrhage to death in Philadelphia, disintegrating their brains and causing massive blood loss. Police officer Thomas Lockhart believes the case to be his ticket to becoming a detective, though his partner, Maddox, is less enthusiastic. Lockhart’s brother-in-law, Detective Holt (Hall), initially dismisses Lockhart’s observations but eventually admits the deaths are connected when Lockhart finds similar wounds on each victim. Lockhart and Maddox find an assault victim with similar wounds and she describes her assailant as a twenty-something African American woman with a wounded hand before dying. After Holt organizes a citywide manhunt, Lockhart and Maddox find the suspect and chase her into a subway, where she subdues Maddox. When Lockhart confronts her, the suspect reveals details about his life, including that his wife will give birth that day. She predicts her own death just prior to a struggle, which ends with a train hitting her. Although confused about the many unexplained details, the police close the case. Meanwhile, Lockhart’s wife dies in childbirth.

Nine years later, amid protests against police brutality on the anniversary of the suspect’s death, an apparent copycat begins another killing spree. Lockhart, now a detective, can find no apparent motive or connection between the victims. He urges the department to keep the reopened investigation quiet to minimize racial tensions. Riots break out when Holt publicizes surveillance footage of the copycat and promises a full investigation. Lockhart traces keys retrieved in 1988 to an aircraft manufactured in 1996. Naveen Rao, a physicist, insists this is proof of time travel, but Maddox and Lockhart ignore him. After tracking the copycat to an airfield, Lockhart is shocked to find the same suspect from 1988, who is alive and has not aged. She unintentionally kills Maddox and takes Lockhart hostage, again revealing knowledge about his life she could not know. After warning him off, she disappears.

In 2006, Lockhart is a private investigator obsessed with solving the case, which he now believes involves time travel and Dr Rao, who has disappeared. His teenage daughter lives with Holt, and Lockhart maintains only occasional contact with her. Lockhart discovers a previously unrecorded victim from the 1988 murders and visits the victim’s wife, who reveals her husband ran a white nationalist militia group. Lockhart meets Holt and advances the theory that the suspect is moving back in time as they are moving forward, meaning she genuinely died in 1988. Holt dismisses the theory and insists Lockhart gets psychiatric help. Lockhart steals Holt’s badge uses it to impersonate a police officer, and tracks down the former girlfriend of the white nationalist leader, arriving at her home to find she has been murdered by the suspect. Lockhart chases her and he wounds her hand with a bullet before she disappears in a time machine. Lockhart is arrested by Holt as an unseen Rao watches on.

Rao resurfaces in 2015, determined to stop Lockhart from interrupting the woman’s next killing spree. In addition, Rao admits to developing the technology the woman uses to kill her victims and says he now believes her cause is justified. He says that she is killing to stop something far worse and that to prevent such a major tragedy, it is necessary to kill enough people in the past who may spark the actions of those responsible. Lockhart escapes from Rao and confronts the woman, who reveals herself as Rya, his estranged daughter’s child from an interracial marriage.

In 2042 Lockhart convinced 27 years old Rya to take the mission after the militia group’s terrorism triggered a new civil war in 2024. Rya is traveling backwards in time, appearing every nine years in reverse chronological order. From her perspective, the events in 1988 have yet to occur, and her hand is not yet wounded. Overcome with guilt over causing his own granddaughter’s death, Lockhart reveals to her the events that unfold in 1988. Convinced that her cause is just, he lets her complete the killings. Lockhart reunites with his family, and the civil war is averted.

Check Also

Howard Roark: The Fountainhead, by Andrew Joppa

  Howard Roark: The Fountainhead Offered by Andy Joppa   “The crowd would have forgiven …