Damien Chazelle's First Man (Neil Armstrong Biopic Starring Ryan Gosling)

Thought it was more or less fine. Some nice emotional resonance, and really liked the visceral immediacy of the way the actual space stuff was filmed, really felt like you were there.

Just a shame about their total wilful omission of all historical context which is pretty pivotal to the actual story. But whatever, that's all been covered ad nauseum by now. Just sort of holds it back from being truly pretty great. Really loved the performances and visual look to this though.

You either haven't seen the movie, or you're misrepresenting it. The Space Race with the Soviet Union is mentioned on various occasions, as is Congress and the public's skepticism about whether NASA is worth the money.
 
It sucks to be the only one unable to see what you guys are seeing with this. I just couldn't like this at all and this is coming from someone who had the press screening in an IMAX theater in Lincoln Square, NYC which is the largest IMAX in the country.

The cinematography is amazing. When it’s not experimenting with shaky cam, the film offers some beautiful shots that are astounding to see, especially in IMAX. It doesn’t even look like it was filmed on digital. The cinematography has a grainy, old school quality to it which correlates with the time period in which the story takes place. I appreciate that it occasionally utilizes archival footage to give contextual transitions to the narrative. It gives the film a rather grounded atmosphere.

This film is more of a personal story than one set on a larger scale because that’s what it needs to be in order for us to fully invest in this character. And while I respect that, you still need to incorporate that large scale because there is no real urgency or logical motivation. Even when it's revealed why Armstrong wanted to be the first man on the moon, it lacks that emotional impact that you wanted for the entire film. The film has a good turnaround by the final 30 minutes where the visuals are a large spectacle on par with films like “2001: A Space Odyssey” as the film becomes quiet, the music gets better, and the cinematography is fascinating. I would’ve loved it if the rest of the 2 hours was as coherent and amazing as the final 30 minutes, but since it took so long to get to that point, I was just bored. I mentally clocked out by the time the Apollo 11 mission sequence came into fruition.

FULL REVIEW: First Man Review: Don't Give an Art Student a History Assignment
 
You either haven't seen the movie, or you're misrepresenting it. The Space Race with the Soviet Union is mentioned on various occasions, as is Congress and the public's skepticism about whether NASA is worth the money.


So, why not show the flag-plant? Seems a weird hill to die on, the whole "it was for humanity, the US factor doesn't matter" given they actually did have throwaway lines throughout to do with the race. If you're going to dip a foot into all that, don't shy away from the conclusion.

And yes, I saw it about a week ago. Mostly liked it, contextual nitpicks aside.
 
So, why not show the flag-plant? Seems a weird hill to die on, the whole "it was for humanity, the US factor doesn't matter" given they actually did have throwaway lines throughout to do with the race. If you're going to dip a foot into all that, don't shy away from the conclusion.

And yes, I saw it about a week ago. Mostly liked it, contextual nitpicks aside.


...

...

...

Ryan-Gosling-despair-sad-reaction-GIF.gif


Cuz... It's not like they didn't mention the context of the space race or the Cold War... It's also not like in actual history Armstrong said the following while on the moon:

"Here men from the planet Earth first set foot upon the Moon. July 1969 AD. We came in peace for all mankind."

They told the story without showing the planting of the flag... OMG what an obvious... something?
 
To me the movie didn't really feel like it was really about the flag plant. I think both sides handled it badly.

The moon landing made it more about Neil having a personal journey and also coming to terms with a personal loss. Not sure if any of that really happened, but whatever.

I still don't get why Stanley Kubrick wasn't in it. ;)
 
Cuz... It's not like they didn't mention the context of the space race or the Cold War... It's also not like in actual history Armstrong said the following while on the moon:

"Here men from the planet Earth first set foot upon the Moon. July 1969 AD. We came in peace for all mankind."


No ****.

Thing is, going to the moon wasn't about the hugs-puppies-and-kittens-achievement-for-humanity thing, it was about sticking it to the Soviets. That was the whole point, and Armstrong was on board with that. He doesn't have to be some beer-swillin' "Murica!" guy to have acknowledged the contextual parameters of the mission. Gosling's actually right on Armstrong not being a particularly "oo-rah!" type of guy (compared to certain other astronauts of the time), but he was still a military man, a veteran, and not exactly a peacenik.

The "mankind" quote is a classy, lofty, inspirational line in victory. What do you expect him to say, get up there and be all "suck it, Ivan!"? The mission was about jumping humanity forward in a big way - America doing it before the Soviets did. These people weren't all "doesn't matter who gets there first, whoever does is cool, it'll be a big achievement for humanity!". Neil wanted us to win the damn thing, same as Buzz, and would have been mortified if they'd lost out to the USSR. That's different to being "'Murica!" guy. These guys pretty much just saw it as an extension of wartime, of something that had to be done, and by us if at all possible.

None of that's in the movie to any major extent, it's pretty much background stuff among the brass and the broader Kennedy outlook.

"... ... ...", to you too, I guess?
 
Thought it was more or less fine. Some nice emotional resonance, and really liked the visceral immediacy of the way the actual space stuff was filmed, really felt like you were there.

Just a shame about their total wilful omission of all historical context which is pretty pivotal to the actual story. But whatever, that's all been covered ad nauseum by now. Just sort of holds it back from being truly pretty great. Really loved the performances and visual look to this though.

Note to anyone who hasn't seen the film yet but this opinion is not in any way shape or form supported by the actual content of the film. Like... At all.


For those that have seen the film please read the following and understand that this non-controversy is just another in a long line of reactionary bull**** such as the "War on Christmas" or the issue with peaceful protests by players at football games which causes a certain type to get "triggered" even when all they do is tell others that they are too easily outraged.

From a piece in The Atlantic. Contains spoilers for those that haven't seen the film I'll tag the following:

‘First Man’ and the Absurd American Flag Controversy - The Atlantic

First Man is a 141-minute commercial for a uniquely American brand of determination and achievement. It provides a tour of increasingly advanced engineering: We join Armstrong in nerve-wracking, claustrophobic rides aboard an X-15 plane, a Gemini capsule, a lunar-landing simulator, and then, finally, the Apollo spacecraft. It depicts years of extensive training: We see astronauts braving the physical rigors of spaceflight firsthand, their bodies bruised, bloodied, singed, and burned. And it shows the intense resolve to continue in the face of loss: We grieve with Armstrong at the funerals of astronauts whose missions ended in tragedy.


Such moments clearly illustrate the stakes of what the United States was trying to do and the sacrifices it had to endure, which makes its ultimate success that much more triumphant.

If critics want explicitly American symbols, there are plenty. The flag appears on space suits and in archival news footage of elated crowds, and on the surface of the moon as the Apollo spacecraft departs after a successful mission. A creatively shot scene takes the viewer up a tall elevator on the launchpad, revealing each letter emblazoned on the side of a rocket as it goes: U-N-I-T-E-D-S-T-A-T-E-S. John F. Kennedy makes an appearance on a television screen. The camera lingers on the quiet moments in which Armstrong gingerly climbs down the ladder of the lunar module, presses his boot into the soil, and tells mission control about his one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind, with such similar tone and inflection as the real Armstrong did that the sound of the transmission gives you chills.

First Man does take a subtler approach compared to other films about significant achievements in the American space program, like in Apollo 13, the harrowing tale of an in-flight malfunction and the effort to return astronauts safely to Earth. The flight controllers, the heroic protagonists of that film, are minor supporting characters in First Man. But that’s the point. First Man is based on a biography of Armstrong, and the story of the moon landing is told in the confines of his life—the death of his young daughter Karen eight years before the moon landing, the trauma of losing his friends, and the constant current of fear that he may not come home to his wife Janet (Claire Foy) and their two sons. Viewers spend more time in Armstrong’s kitchen than they do in the spacecraft that takes him to the moon.


But you don’t have to see First Man to recognize that the furor over the film’s perceived lack of patriotism was never about the film itself. It is a sign of the times; the film is a natural target for members of the right who believe that national symbols are under attack by the left. For some conservatives, a Hollywood filmmaker’s decision not to include the planting of the flag is no different from a football player’s refusal to stand during the national anthem or a city council’s vote to remove a Confederate statue or rename a street or even a mountain peak.


It’s possible to walk out of the movie theater with complicated feelings about some aspects of the American space program, and about whether space exploration is worth it as a national, taxpayer-funded effort when so many problems back on Earth require political will and attention. In one scene, a black performer sings Gil Scott-Heron’s “Whitey on the Moon”: “I can’t pay no doctor bill / but Whitey’s on the moon / Ten years from now I’ll be payin’ still / while Whitey’s on the moon.” In another, Robert Gilruth (Ciarán Hinds), the director of nasa’s Manned Spacecraft Center, now the Johnson Space Center, growls at Armstrong over a failed test flight that could have killed him. “At what cost?” Gilruth asks him. “Don’t you think it’s a little late for that question?” Armstrong replies coolly.

In terms of portraying an American triumph and the indefatigable astronauts and engineers who made it happen, First Man is more than adequate.
 
Yeah, don't try to counter the points being made, just link to the frickin' Atlantic of all places. Love it.
 
No ****.

Thing is, going to the moon wasn't about the hugs-puppies-and-kittens-achievement-for-humanity thing, it was about sticking it to the Soviets. That was the whole point, and Armstrong was on board with that. He doesn't have to be some beer-swillin' "Murica!" guy to have acknowledged the contextual parameters of the mission. Gosling's actually right on Armstrong not being a particularly "oo-rah!" type of guy (compared to certain other astronauts of the time), but he was still a military man, a veteran, and not exactly a peacenik.

The "mankind" quote is a classy, lofty, inspirational line in victory. What do you expect him to say, get up there and be all "suck it, Ivan!"? The mission was about jumping humanity forward in a big way - America doing it before the Soviets did. These people weren't all "doesn't matter who gets there first, whoever does is cool, it'll be a big achievement for humanity!". Neil wanted us to win the damn thing, same as Buzz, and would have been mortified if they'd lost out to the USSR. That's different to being "'Murica!" guy. These guys pretty much just saw it as an extension of wartime, of something that had to be done, and by us if at all possible.

None of that's in the movie to any major extent, it's pretty much background stuff among the brass and the broader Kennedy outlook.

"... ... ...", to you too, I guess?

...

...

...

Except of course that they do present the historical context. Except that they do mention the Cold War in the film. Except that the film wasn't meant to be THE RIGHT STUFF, because we already have THE RIGHT STUFF. It was biopic about Armstrong, whom you yourself stated wasn't quite all" 'Murica" as you put it. Your complaint/criticism/towing the right wing reactionary bovine excrement line is however off the mark. The film does in fact give the context you claimed in your post with "Just a shame about their total wilful omission of all historical context which is pretty pivotal to the actual story" that it doesn't. The film does have those elements as part of the thrust of the story that focuses on Armstrong as a person, and indeed a commited American military person so... Yeah, your point is a hollow criticism. Perhaps the film doesn't have the elements of Cold War context in the AMOUNTS you desire, but saying they aren't there to the level that rises to a "wilful omission of ALL historical context" or implied or directly expressed in the movie is disingenuous.

Long story short... The "Flag" and "Patriotism" manufactured controversy spread on social media is but another in a long line of obtuse silliness we have to put up with from the group of people that claim that everyone else but them need to stop being so "sensitive" to things in media they don't like.
 
Yeah, don't try to counter the points being made, just link to the frickin' Atlantic of all places. Love it.

Your points are refuted by the content of the film.

Oh and also from that Atlantic piece...

But you don’t have to see First Man to recognize that the furor over the film’s perceived lack of patriotism was never about the film itself. It is a sign of the times; the film is a natural target for members of the right who believe that national symbols are under attack by the left. For some conservatives, a Hollywood filmmaker’s decision not to include the planting of the flag is no different from a football player’s refusal to stand during the national anthem or a city council’s vote to remove a Confederate statue or rename a street or even a mountain peak.

And I have refuted your argument by simply stating what's obviously wrong with the presentation of your position. Those elements you claim are practically nonexistent do in fact exist in the film. They just aren't at the level you want. But that's not the same as a hyperbolic statement that the film lacks any and all historical context. That really just a silly reading of the film.


PS: I'm sorry you are triggered by The Atlantic.
 
So I finally saw this movie and I quite enjoyed it. I don't think it is as good as The Right Stuff or Apollo 13, but still very good. I do wish the director went easier on the handhelds. It worked for the space/action scenes, but it was really distracting when it was a couple of people having a conversation around a dinner table or something. The was my biggest flaw with the film. I also found it easy to follow because I know all about this stuff, but I think some of the time jumps and just casual mentions of certain things without explanation may lose the average person. Gosling was really good as Armstrong and Claire Foy gets some good work in as his first wife, but we learn very little about anyone else. This movie is laser focused on the Armstrong character. The only other astronaut with any sort of development at all is Ed White. The space scenes are great with the highlight of the film being the lengthy Gemini VIII sequence.

8/10
 
To me the movie didn't really feel like it was really about the flag plant. I think both sides handled it badly.

The moon landing made it more about Neil having a personal journey and also coming to terms with a personal loss. Not sure if any of that really happened, but whatever.

I'll go further and say it shouldn't have been there. As you say, it is about Armstrong's personal journey. They spend only a small amount of time on the Moon in the film, and it is almost entirely focused on Armstrong's reaction. The flag planting would have been out of place. The flag is in the film, right in the center of a couple of shots of the landing site. They just don't draw attention to it.
 
I also agree that Right Stuff and Apollo 13 are far superior films.

I'm starting to doubt Ryan Gosling's quality as a leading man. I really wouldn't want him to be Batman after this film.
 
I thought Gosling was fine as Armstrong (which isn’t a showy kind of part), but I didn’t know people wanted him as Batman in the first place. Seems like a weird choice.
 
I thought Gosling was one of the high points. His portrayal was pretty accurate to how Armstrong was. He was not a showy personality (like Aldrin) at all.

As for Aldrin, I definitely preferred Bryan Cranston's portrayal in From the Earth to the Moon over Stoll's. Granted, Stoll wasn't given nearly as much to do. He's basically an afterthought here.
 
Last edited:
Krypton, dude, it was Gosling & the director saying they were making a statement by not including the flag-plant, in order to play up the "humanity's achievement" thing. This didn't come out of nowhere, they literally called attention to it themselves.

And yes, we're both in agreement wasn't some Bill Hillbilly "dey tooker jeeeerbs!" flag-nut. That's also not the point. He was a career military guy, anti-communist, who was well aware of the broader points at play and in agreement with them. You seem to be stuck on the "giant leap for mankind" part as if that's somehow dismissive of the fact that giant leap was desperately wanted/needed in the eyes of everyone involved to be made by the US rather than the USSR. Not just the brass, either. The story's incomplete without showing the flag-plant, or it's at least skewed by a modern narrative.

It's the intentional omission that's bugging people. The "it's not relevant" mentality in a film about the guy who was at the tip of the spear of a very-much-wartime American effort to beat the other guy to the greatest single act of exploration in the specie's history.
 
Stoll didn't even do enough for me to really say if he was good or bad. I mean, he played Aldrin like a jerk but that's the script, not Stoll.

It is accurate to who Aldrin was, but it really sticks out like a sore thumb and is never really addressed.

Minor nitpick, but it bugged me when they cut to the Apollo 11 launch and we get a giant graphic that says Cape Kennedy. Just no. Apollo 11 launched from Kennedy Space Center on Merritt Island, not Cape Kennedy/Canaveral. Cape Kennedy facilities (which are run by the Air Force instead of NASA) weren't large enough to handle the Saturn V.
 
Stoll didn't even do enough for me to really say if he was good or bad. I mean, he played Aldrin like a jerk but that's the script, not Stoll.

Based on his characterization there's absolutely no reason why someone like Neil Armstrong would allow him on his mission to the moon let alone put his life in this guy's hands.
 
Based on his characterization there's absolutely no reason why someone like Neil Armstrong would allow him on his mission to the moon let alone put his life in this guy's hands.

Yeah, this is something that could have been explained better. In real life, Slayton specifically asked Armstrong if he'd rather be with Jim Lovell instead, and Armstrong said he was fine with Aldrin. A lot of the other astronauts might not have gone for it, but Armstrong was so quiet and reserved he was able to remain cordial with pretty much anybody and in terms of ability and experience, Aldrin was easily the most qualified of the Apollo LM pilots (the others were all rookies for the Moon Landings). None of this is in the film.

Another thing not mentioned in the film was that Armstrong was first only because of blind luck. It was originally supposed to be Pete Conrad, but because of delays in manufacturing the LM they ended up swapping the missions (and crews and backup crews) of Apollos 8 and 9. Since the backup crews were going to be the primary crews on Apollos 11 and 12, those got swapped too and Armstrong ended up as the first man on the Moon instead of third like he was scheduled to be.
 
Last edited:
Based on his characterization there's absolutely no reason why someone like Neil Armstrong would allow him on his mission to the moon let alone put his life in this guy's hands.

Eh, Aldrin comes across like an abrasive personality, but there's nothing to suggest he's incompetent as an astronaut. And Armstrong isn't the best "people person" himself.
 
Eh, Aldrin comes across like an abrasive personality, but there's nothing to suggest he's incompetent as an astronaut. And Armstrong isn't the best "people person" himself.

The film did nothing to establish that Aldrin was a competent astronaut, and Armstrong would trust his competency on such an important mission. The only characterization we get for Aldrin is him making prickly or dickish comments and that only quietly enrage other characters.
 
The film did nothing to establish that Aldrin was a competent astronaut, and Armstrong would trust his competency on such an important mission. The only characterization we get for Aldrin is him making prickly or dickish comments and that only quietly enrage other characters.

Exactly. The problem isn't that Aldrin was a jerk, but there is never any explanation as to why Armstrong would accept him as LM Pilot. Armstrong even badmouths him at one point, which is one of the few times in the entire film he says something bad about somebody. Aldrin just acts like a jerk and then ends up on Apollo 11 like nothing ever happened. If that was the case, they should have just left the earlier scenes out. It is accurate to who Aldrin was, but film needs to work on its own as a story first and foremost.
 
This was a great movie, and I'm disheartened to see the conversation about it is being dominated by complaints of historical accuracy, lack of patriotism, or that it dared to be about a white man. I feel like everyone's missing the point. This is really a movie about loss and grief, repression and stoicism, and catharsis, and it does so in a manner that is experiential rather than procedural. THE RIGHT STUFF, APOLLO 13, and FROM THE EARTH TO THE MOON are all great, but none of them made me cry the way this one did in that moment with the bracelet. That's not to say one is better than the other, but I got something out of this one and its approach that I haven't in any other, and that is to be cherished.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Members online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
201,128
Messages
21,903,637
Members
45,702
Latest member
Nsl1354
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"