Neil Armstrong Movie Airbrushes History

[Eric Paddon]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/2018/ ... atriotism/

I will not see this movie because of this. This is an absolute disgrace to deny a country its justifiable pride in what it accomplished and which NO other country accomplished. Like it or not, the planting of the American flag on the moon by Armstrong and Aldrin was a signature moment of the entire moonwalk and this director has chosen to airbrush this moment out (I can think of some societies that loved to do that) because of his bigoted attitude about America and the notion of American greatness.

[AndyDursin]

I will see it when its sent to me for review but I also am not going to pay to see it either.

If the director felt that way, he never should have made the film to begin with. I am tired of frustrated "artists" grafting their ideology onto the prism of history, especially now that people seem to have little interest in anything that happened betore the Kardashians came to prominence.

[Monterey Jack]

What cowardly horseflop. Why not just censor the shot in the foreign release and leave it unaltered for the U.S.? Oh yeah, that'd make too much sense.

[Johnmgm]

I was five at the time, so I don’t remember any controversy about the flag. However, if it was that controversial, there should have been a short scene discussing the situation and then a scene with Armstrong planting the American flag.

What I do remember reading was the moon landing brought Americans together in a very devisive time.

I don’t know if this aspect will keep me from skipping the film as much as the director’s previous film. I thought La La Land was tripe.

[Paul MacLean]

Are they going to change the dialog to be more inclusive? "One small step for persons, one giant leap for personskind".

[Eric Paddon]

Will he also airbrush out American flag symbols on the astronaut's uniforms or the rocket itself?

[AndyDursin]

I thought LaLaLand was crap, as John did, so that too would deter me from paying to see this movie (as does the presence of Gosling who I am not a fan of)...yet I truly dont understand why you would participate in telling a story that carries distinct national pride when you clearly carry personal disdain for the country.

[Johnmgm]

I don’t want to get too political but, from my personal observations liberals/leftists/progressives frequently display disdain for the US if a non-liberal is in the White House. If President Obama or Hillary Clinton were president the US flag would have appeared.

Conservative/right wingers *tend* not to disdain the country as a whole despite their hatred of the occupant of the Oval Office.

Obviously, these are generalizations, but this has been my experience/perceptions.

As a fairly cynical moderate/independent, I don’t put too much stock in the office of the president, as history shows most were blips on the landscape and didn’t leave much of a mark on history or the country.

[Eric Paddon]

I wouldn't disagree with your analysis It was during the Clinton presidency that we suddenly saw US presidents being depicted in heroic, action-hero like ways in "Independence Day" and "Air Force One." That represented the industry's extension of what an idealized Clinton president was like to them (and tellingly, "Clear And Present Danger" gave us a corrupt president purposefully meant to be more Reagan-like, right down to the jar of jelly beans).

[Monterey Jack]

Did Chazelle even intend to show the American flag being planted? If it's a case of not and people getting pissed off, I'm kind of on his side, but if it's a case of him actually filming it, and then cutting it out to appease the foreign film market, then that is kind of underhanded and cowardly (especially in the era where every third movie has at least one gratuitously-placed Chinese actor in the cast).

[AndyDursin]

I wouldn't disagree with your analysis It was during the Clinton presidency that we suddenly saw US presidents being depicted in heroic, action-hero like ways in "Independence Day" and "Air Force One." That represented the industry's extension of what an idealized Clinton president was like to them (and tellingly, "Clear And Present Danger" gave us a corrupt president purposefully meant to be more Reagan-like, right down to the jar of jelly beans).

If you want to see something hilarious go look at both movie reviews and even certain CD liner notes written after Obama was elected (I wont mention which ones but they are out there).

There was a review of the Abrams STAR TREK which went into this effusive praise of its positivity and "celebration of achievement in the age of Obama".

Of course we are living in medieval times today, as opposed to 2009 lol...even if economically and otherwise things are actually much better for many. Perception is reality for a lot of people.

[Eric Paddon]

Or in another vein, the people who put together the musical "Annie" in 1977 and who turned Harold Gray's anti-New Deal comic strip into a gushing tribute to FDR and the New Deal, wrote in *their* liner notes how this was all reflective of new "optimism" they felt with the coming of Jimmy Carter!

[KevinEK]

I really think people need to take a minute, calm down and actually examine the materials here before jumping off like this.

Here is the statement of the director, Damien Chazelle, who is actually quite a gifted filmmaker, as we have seen not only from La La Land, but more clearly from Whiplash. He says:

"In “First Man” I show the American flag standing on the lunar surface, but the flag being physically planted into the surface is one of several moments of the Apollo 11 lunar EVA 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 — particularly Neil Armstrong’s personal saga and what he may have been thinking and feeling during those famous few hours.

I wanted the primary focus in that scene to be on Neil’s solitary moments on the moon — his point of view as he first exited the LEM, his time spent at Little West Crater, the memories that may have crossed his mind during his lunar EVA. This was a feat beyond imagination; it was truly a giant leap for mankind. This film is about one of the most extraordinary accomplishments not only in American history, but in human history. My hope is that by digging under the surface and humanizing the icon, we can better understand just how difficult, audacious and heroic this moment really was."



And here is a joint statement from Neil Armstrong's sons and from author James R. Hanson:

"We’ve read a number of comments about the film today and specifically about the absence of the flag planting scene, made largely by people who haven’t seen the movie. As we’ve seen it multiple times, we thought maybe we should weigh in.

This is a film that focuses on what you don’t know about Neil Armstrong. It’s a film that focuses on things you didn’t see or may not remember about Neil’s journey to the moon. The filmmakers spent years doing extensive research to get at the man behind the myth, to get at the story behind the story. It’s a movie that gives you unique insight into the Armstrong family and fallen American Heroes like Elliot See and Ed White. It’s a very personal movie about our dad’s journey, seen through his eyes.

This story is human and it is universal. Of course, it celebrates an America achievement. It also celebrates an achievement “for all mankind,” as it says on the plaque Neil and Buzz left on the moon. It is a story about an ordinary man who makes profound sacrifices and suffers through intense loss in order to achieve the impossible.

Although Neil didn’t see himself that way, he was an American hero. He was also an engineer and a pilot, a father and a friend, a man who suffered privately through great tragedies with incredible grace. This is why, though there are numerous shots of the American flag on the moon, the filmmakers chose to focus on Neil looking back at the earth, his walk to Little West Crater, his unique, personal experience of completing this journey, a journey that has seen so many incredible highs and devastating lows.

In short, we do not feel this movie is anti-American in the slightest. Quite the opposite. But don’t take our word for it. We’d encourage everyone to go see this remarkable film and see for themselves."

[AndyDursin]

I get it, its going to be a "moody inward personal" film, which of course will enable Gosling to further cultivate his innate ability to stare out blankly at things. Luckily there wont be any awful, unmelodic songs this time.

Bottom line is if you feel the need to explain yourself with lengthy, PR crafted statements, telling people why you omitted one of the key American moments of the 20th century from a film about the man involved in that specific act, then there are likely valid reasons why you need to go on the defensive.

I get what he is saying to a degree, but so much of what Hollywood produces now is skewered for global markets that its impossible to give them the benefit of the doubt as well.

[Monterey Jack]

I suppose people wouldn't have been happy unless we saw the flag being planted in luxurious Michael Bay slomo with patriotic John Williams fanfares blasting off in the background.

The FLAG IS THERE, FFS. Who cares if the movie doesn't linger on it being planted? As long as Chazelle didn't shoot a scene of it being planted, then cut it to appease the foreign market, I don't give a crap.