First Man (5/10)
by Tony Medley
Runtime 138 minutes
PG-13
Who knew? According to this
depressing film, nobody in the astronaut program was happy. Neil
Armstrong (Ryan Gosling; if they ever make a movie about Lee Harvey
Oswald, Gosling is a dead ringer for him) was mourning his infant
daughter who had died and it’s almost all he could think about. His wife
Janet (Claire Foy, in a fine performance) was supportive of his effort,
but there’s a scene the night Neil is leaving for his expedition to the
moon when she confronts him and asks, “You might not come back, right?”
as if this is something that just occurred to her, even though he had
been in training for years.
Let’s see, nobody has ever gone
to the moon; Neil is about to make the attempt. Three astronauts had
just died two years before testing the capsule. He's going into outer
space for an eight day trip to the moon and trying to land where it's
never been done and if there's any kind of a mishap, he's dead. And she just realized
that there was a chance that he might not return? This really happened
the night he is leaving to take the trip? I know that director Damien Chazelle made a movie called “La La Land,” but this scene, if accurate,
indicates that Janet had been living in La La Land all the while. That
said, I don’t believe the scene for a second.
I found this movie long,
depressing, and black, projecting very little feeling for the enormous
accomplishment. Immensely disappointing are the promised scenes of the
moon in IMAX. There are only a few shots of the moonscape and they were
made at a quarry in Atlanta.
The special effects of the
blastoff and the few scenes inside the space capsule are well done, as
is the fire that killed astronauts Gus Grissom (Shea Whigham), Ed White
(Jason Clarke) and Roger Chaffee (Cory Michael Smith) in 1967.
While the film shows a few
scenes of the astronaut training (one is very good) it doesn’t show
nearly enough of what they had to go through. Mostly it’s a film about
Neil and Janet and it is long, slow and fails to adequately capture the
tension and danger of putting together a try to get to the moon.
There is one iconic picture that
everyone remembers about Armstrong’s landing and that’s the one of the
American flag on the moon. The filmmakers (and Gosling) didn’t want
anything like that in the film apparently because it gives credit to
America. But this was an American triumph, not a triumph of an American
man. Christopher Columbus could take credit for the discovery of America
because he put the whole thing together; the idea (finding a route to
India), the financing, the ships, the crew, the voyage; it was a one man
show.
But according to Zack Sharf of
Indie Wire, at the Venice Film Festival, “Gosling said the moon landing
‘transcended countries and borders’ and the filmmaking team did not want
to ruin their film’s subjectivity by making a political statement.”
This is ignorant Hollywood
elitist nonsense. The filmmakers made a political statement by
omitting the picture.
Armstrong was an employee. The
idea of going to the moon before the end of the ‘60s was fostered by
President Kennedy in 1961 and 1962, and did not “transcend countries and
borders.” The American taxpayers paid the freight and the American
government contributed the science and the hardware. Armstrong was
merely a cog (albeit an important one) in a huge wheel. Not having the
scene of the American flag is a slap in the face of all Americans who
take pride in their country for this triumph.
In case you doubt this, both
director Chazelle and writer Josh Singer are contributors to the
Democratic Party and Obama supporters who do not believe in American
Exceptionalism, so clearly want to eliminate any praise for good the
country has achieved.
I don’t make any excuses for
pointing out the political biases of filmmakers because if they use art
as a weapon for their political beliefs, which they have done since they
were Communists beginning in the ‘30s, their motives should be revealed
so the audience can take what they see for what it’s worth which, as
epitomized by Gosling’s puerile statement, isn’t much.
Sure, the movie is about
Armstrong, but to eliminate this scene is a huge disrespect that
detracts greatly from the film. Armstrong did, in fact, plant the flag
and take the picture of Buzz Aldrin saluting it. Obviously this iconic
photograph was important to him and should be an essential part of any
meaningful biopic about him.
But that’s not the sole reason
the movie miscarries. It completely fails to provide an iota of a reason
why Armstrong was chosen to be the First Man. Gus Grissom was originally
tabbed for that role, but he perished. Chazelle provides no evidence
that Armstrong was a standout leader, or that he had accomplished
extraordinary tasks, or that he had a compelling personality like John
Glenn. Indeed, the movie shows just the opposite; he comes across as
parochial, plodding and depressed. Why was Neil Armstrong chosen to be
the first man on the moon? Given his bland credentials, why is he the
subject of a major movie? Who knows? Maybe, giving Chazelle credit,
that's the point of the movie. If so, I still found it slow and
lackluster.
The true heroes of the moon
landing were the engineers who figured out how to do it, how to televise
it live to the entire world, and how to bring them back safely. That’s a
movie I’d like to see.
|