First Man Review + Editorial About the Controversy
This post is a two-in-one. It has my review that I wrote after I saw the film and an editorial I wrote in September regarding the flag controversy.
PART ONE: REVIEW
I can officially confirm that I saw the flag with my own eyes. It is in the movie. I repeat, it is in the movie. The planting is not, but the flag is visible, planted in the moon for two shots. It's not unpatriotic in any way.
First Man is directed by Damien Chazelle (director of La La Land, also starring Ryan Gosling) and is about Neil Armstrong's preparation for the big mission to the moon. It's one of the first big Oscar contenders this year and it certainly shows. This is probably one of my favorite space-travel movies that I have seen: up there with the greats like The Martian and Gravity.
The film is masterful in practically every standpoint. The cinematography is unbelievable. It doesn't just stick to plain, uninteresting framing: some shots are shaky, some are first-person perspective, some are shaky when it is necessary, and some are just normal. It makes the onscreen visuals more appealing and interesting, while also making the film all the more unique. Although it does have a long run-time, I didn't have an issue with the pacing (some might though). There is so much information that the film wants to convey that it does not waste its time, yet also doesn't feel too rushed. The scenes based around dialogue never feel like they drag on while the scenes that take place in space have a pace that allows you to absorb what's happening on screen. The visuals, whether they be practical or CG. I couldn't tell: there seemed to me to be a bit of both. And also, another excellent score from Justin Hurwitz. If you haven't heard his stuff (or haven't seen La La Land), I strongly recommend you check it out.
A movie of this magnitude also needs great performances. Fortunately, it has them. The two leads (Gosling and Claire Foy) both deliver amazing performances that will be talked about during awards season. The supporting cast is almost as great. Some of the performances will likely go unnoticed, due to a character's screen-time, but I didn't think any of the performances didn't work. Every character had a purpose in the story, so all of cast members fulfilled their purposes.
Finally, the aspect I admire the most about this film is the focus of the story. The film is not at about about us getting to the moon. Rather, it's more about HOW we got to the moon. But mostly, it's about a average man who became a national hero. It isn't really a space-thriller like Gravity or Apollo 13. It's more of a character study. Particularly, it reminded me of 127 Hours: the subject seems more fit to be turned into a thriller of some sort, but the film is instead an analysis of a complex man while he is thrust into an extreme circumstance. That's basically how the film progresses. By the end of the film, you really feel like you know Neil Armstrong's personality (Or at least his character. It seems like the movie is very accurate to the true story). Not only does he have to undergo stressful training in order to even go into space, he faces other issues, like the death of a daughter and having to tell his boys that he might not make it home when he goes to space. This is strongly supported by the dynamic between Armstrong and his wife, to the point I think the film would be much weaker without it. Ms. Armstrong is not in the story simply because she was married to him: she plays a very integral part of the story. Because that would quite honestly be the case in the real story also. Besides the character drama, the movie is also very informative about the procedures that the men went through in preparing for the film, allowing you to learn even more about one of America's most legendary events. And yes, the film does indeed decide to focus more on Neil's amazement when he reached the moon rather than the actual planting of the flag. The moon landing will probably be everyone's favorite part of the movie, as it should be. The filmmakers were clearly aware of this and made it a scene to remember.
SCORE: 10/10
All of these pieces that I mentioned fit phenomenally in order to make a great movie.
So that's my review. If you're interested in what I had to say about the flag controversy, keep reading for my editorial.
PART TWO: EDITORIALThe film is masterful in practically every standpoint. The cinematography is unbelievable. It doesn't just stick to plain, uninteresting framing: some shots are shaky, some are first-person perspective, some are shaky when it is necessary, and some are just normal. It makes the onscreen visuals more appealing and interesting, while also making the film all the more unique. Although it does have a long run-time, I didn't have an issue with the pacing (some might though). There is so much information that the film wants to convey that it does not waste its time, yet also doesn't feel too rushed. The scenes based around dialogue never feel like they drag on while the scenes that take place in space have a pace that allows you to absorb what's happening on screen. The visuals, whether they be practical or CG. I couldn't tell: there seemed to me to be a bit of both. And also, another excellent score from Justin Hurwitz. If you haven't heard his stuff (or haven't seen La La Land), I strongly recommend you check it out.
A movie of this magnitude also needs great performances. Fortunately, it has them. The two leads (Gosling and Claire Foy) both deliver amazing performances that will be talked about during awards season. The supporting cast is almost as great. Some of the performances will likely go unnoticed, due to a character's screen-time, but I didn't think any of the performances didn't work. Every character had a purpose in the story, so all of cast members fulfilled their purposes.
Finally, the aspect I admire the most about this film is the focus of the story. The film is not at about about us getting to the moon. Rather, it's more about HOW we got to the moon. But mostly, it's about a average man who became a national hero. It isn't really a space-thriller like Gravity or Apollo 13. It's more of a character study. Particularly, it reminded me of 127 Hours: the subject seems more fit to be turned into a thriller of some sort, but the film is instead an analysis of a complex man while he is thrust into an extreme circumstance. That's basically how the film progresses. By the end of the film, you really feel like you know Neil Armstrong's personality (Or at least his character. It seems like the movie is very accurate to the true story). Not only does he have to undergo stressful training in order to even go into space, he faces other issues, like the death of a daughter and having to tell his boys that he might not make it home when he goes to space. This is strongly supported by the dynamic between Armstrong and his wife, to the point I think the film would be much weaker without it. Ms. Armstrong is not in the story simply because she was married to him: she plays a very integral part of the story. Because that would quite honestly be the case in the real story also. Besides the character drama, the movie is also very informative about the procedures that the men went through in preparing for the film, allowing you to learn even more about one of America's most legendary events. And yes, the film does indeed decide to focus more on Neil's amazement when he reached the moon rather than the actual planting of the flag. The moon landing will probably be everyone's favorite part of the movie, as it should be. The filmmakers were clearly aware of this and made it a scene to remember.
SCORE: 10/10
All of these pieces that I mentioned fit phenomenally in order to make a great movie.
So that's my review. If you're interested in what I had to say about the flag controversy, keep reading for my editorial.
Originally posted on 9/16/18
Warning: this is not a post for everyone. If you think you might get triggered by what I have to say, skip this article. However, if you are open to hear opinions that may or may not be different, I strongly recommend you listen to what I have to say.
THE RUMOR
Many of you have probably heard about the fuss following the premiere of First Man at the Venice Film Festival. So for those of you who don't know about it, the Neil Armstrong biopic supposedly doesn't include the flag planting in the moon. Or the flag itself. Naturally, seeing how this a firestorm of insane magnitude can come from Starbucks choosing not to release Christmas cups one year, America went nuts. Absolutely berserk. Even Trump had something to say, because of course he did.
"It's unfortunate. It's almost like they're embarrassed at the achievement coming from America, I think it's a terrible thing. When you think of Neil Armstrong and when you think of the landing on the moon, you think about the American flag. For that reason, I wouldn't even want to watch the movie."
Now, let me just explain the reality of the situation. I think most people (including Trump) who are angry haven't actually seen the film, and I'm going to demonstrate to you why it is important to fact-check these things before getting all riled up.
"It's unfortunate. It's almost like they're embarrassed at the achievement coming from America, I think it's a terrible thing. When you think of Neil Armstrong and when you think of the landing on the moon, you think about the American flag. For that reason, I wouldn't even want to watch the movie."
Now, let me just explain the reality of the situation. I think most people (including Trump) who are angry haven't actually seen the film, and I'm going to demonstrate to you why it is important to fact-check these things before getting all riled up.
THE REAL STORY
The film premiered on August 29th at Venice and also screened at Telluride and TIFF in the following days. At first, it got nothing but acclaim from critics and audiences. In fact, I explicitly remember the IMDB score of First Man being higher than 8.0, which is really good on that website. However, on the day of the Telluride screening, the news broke out that the flag wasn't in the movie. That IMDB score soon dropped to the point that IMDB had to disable scoring for it. However, Damien Chazelle (best known for directing La La Land and writing 10 Cloverfield Lane, two of my favorite movies) insisted that it wasn't an anti-American message. But of course nobody listened to what he had to stay during all of the mass hysteria, even though the film is his directorial vision. While not including the American flag is a form of distorting history in a way, I had a feeling I wasn't hearing the whole story. And I wasn't.
What if I told you that the movie DID have the American flag in it?
Because it does. What isn't in the film, you ask? The physical act of Armstrong and Aldrin planting the flag into the moon.
You heard me right, the flag is in the film, but not the action of the two planting it.
What if I told you that the movie DID have the American flag in it?
Because it does. What isn't in the film, you ask? The physical act of Armstrong and Aldrin planting the flag into the moon.
You heard me right, the flag is in the film, but not the action of the two planting it.
So this means, all of these claims that have been spoken about the film have been for nothing! Absolutely nothing! All these claims of it being unpatriotic are just false! This unfortunately yet another controversy that has been spread like wildfire by people who simply don't know what talking about. In fact, I actually appreciate the reason Chazelle decided to not show the planting. Here's what he had to say.
"I show the American flag standing on the lunar surface, but the flag being physically planted into the surface is one of several moments [...] that I chose not to focus upon. To address the question of whether this was a political statement, the answer is no. My goal with this movie was to share with audiences the unseen, unknown aspects of America's mission to the Moon."
To be perfectly honest, I'd actually much rather learn about the things I don't know about regarding the mission rather than stuff I've heard time and time again. It also seems like the film is trying to focus on the human achievement of the landing while also showing the national achievement. It shows the flag in a symbol of patriotism, while also focusing on it being, in Armstrong's words himself, "One giant leap for mankind". I find that to be an admirable message.
And while I think anyone has the right to disagree with his narrative decision, I don't think getting angry about it does any good. There are way more pressing issues in this world that are worth getting angry and upset about rather than a film that only a few Americans have even seen not featuring the planting of the American flag. Or Colin Kaepernick getting a deal with Nike. Or even NFL players kneeling during the National Anthem. I actually think that backlash against something being supposedly unpatriotic is in a sense unpatriotic in itself. Our nation literally stands for the freedom of speech, religion, and political expression. That means if anyone doesn't want to act patriotic, they have every right to do so as a human being. You don't necessarily have to agree with them, but you should at least respect that their views are different and not hold anything against them for it. And while neither Chazelle or Kaepernick were being unpatriotic in their expression (one was trying to show the human achievement in the moon landing while the other was protesting police brutality), it is something to keep in mind.
I wrote this article, not to divide, but to unify Americans. Because in this day and age, in this time of turmoil, that's something our country needs desperately. Thank you for reading.
Comments
Post a Comment