Neil Armstrong Movie Airbrushes History

[AndyDursin]

Total strawman argument there MJ. I never wrote that.

[Eric Paddon]

His defense was pure crap to me. He felt this need to put forth spin that went out of its way to run down the moon landing as a signature American achievement by suggesting that Armstrong himself never cared about what he was doing for America. I'd note that General Chuck Yeager, who is incredibly still alive simply tweeted that that wasn't the Armstrong he knew. But presumably it's the one that we have to see presented according to the standards of the industry today.

[KevinEK]

I would wait to attack this movie until someone here has actually seen it.
Those who have actually seen it and reviewed it have said that it is quite a good film. It's certainly one that is going to be submitted for Awards consideration this fall and I'm sure I'll see a screener for it.

Damien Chazelle isn't mounting a "defense" or a "spin" - he's describing the movie he was making, and I believe he was quite clear that he was not making a political statement - he was trying to make the movie about Neil Armstrong the person. From what I can tell, they didn't shoot the scene of the flag planting. Their focus was on Armstrong's own journey on the moon, although they apparently do show the flag where it was placed, in multiple shots. It also doesn't sound like this was done to appease the Chinese market or any other. Just that they wanted to finally make this movie after it languished in turnaround since the early 2000s. (At one point, Clint Eastwood was interested in making it, but that petered out.)

I note that his sons are happy with the film and are clear that this is not an "anti-American" film, no matter what some people would want the public to think. I note that his sons would know the man better even than Chuck Yeager.

The other key is that James Hansen, who wrote the book upon which they based the movie, does not have problems with it. Usually in a case like this, you'd see the original author noting his issues. (Granted, he has a producer credit, which means they included him in their discussions, but I don't recall author involvement stopping that kind of thing in the past with Stephen King and others...)

To my mind, the key moments in history here were the actual landing on the moon ("The Eagle Has Landed"), and the first steps on the moon, where Armstrong made his famous statement of "That's One Small Step For (a) Man, One Giant Leap for Mankind."

All that said, I'm sure there are plenty of morose moments for Ryan Gosling. That is of course his specialty...

[Eric Paddon]

Buzz Aldrin, hardly an insignificant figure in the real story, subtly indicated his view of the whole thing.

One thing the director should also try to remember is that the moon landing and program was paid for 100% by American taxpayers and only came about because John F. Kennedy wanted to make a Cold War propaganda point and not because "it is there."

[KevinEK]

Buzz wasn't subtle about it.

But that doesn't change that Armstrong's family and biographer did not see the book or this film as un-American. And I think Damien Chazelle is fully aware of who funded NASA and the political reality of the Apollo Program. But that's not what the book or this movie are about, and we shouldn't be lecturing the author or the director on what their priorities should have been.

It's unfortunate that people who have not seen this film are fixating on this rather than trying to find out if the film is as good as we are hearing it is.

[AndyDursin]

Maybe not as good as some are claiming it is...

http://time.com/5381790/first-man-review/

[Paul MacLean]

Maybe not as good as some are claiming it is...

http://time.com/5381790/first-man-review/

Regardless of its (supposed) historic infidelity, I haven't seen or read anything that's drawing me towards seeing First Man. I mean, I was determined to be first in line after seeing The Right Stuff trailer -- but everything about this new film just leaves me feeling "eh". The clips also feel "small" and simply lacking in the epic scope which The Right Stuff (and even Apollo 13) had in spades.

Maybe I'll catch it on pay-per-view.

[AndyDursin]

Oh Paul clearly you just want flagwaving patriotism.

Listen I am going to see this movie eventually. Still the prospect of watching Gosling mope about his dead daughter while landing on the moon is something I can gladly hold off on. This is their "introverted modern psychological" approach to the material which the Time review indicates is heavy handed in its application.

I am sure, however, most of the reviews will end up being all out raves given this flag "controversy". Much like the Ghostbusters remake, the kool aid drinkers wont want to be on the wrong "woke" side of the issue.

[KevinEK]

Time and Vanity Fair's critics both felt the movie was too self-indulgent and too self-important.

The other advance reviews I've seen so far, mostly from British sources, (Daily Telegraph, Times, Daily Mail) and a few industry ones (Variety, Reporter, The Wrap) and EW all are saying good things.

The current RT rating is 86% is pretty good. We'll see what happens when it opens. (And again, I'm sure there will be plenty of long shots of Gosling staring morosely into the moonlight...)

I'll be seeing it, I'm sure, as a DGA screener in a couple of months. They'll want to push Chazelle, given that he won the Oscar for La La Land. (And I do like his work - Whiplash was a mean little movie, but it stayed with me.)


I disagree that the reviewers are all just salivating to rave over a movie just because Right Wingers have become outraged over something that doesn't sound like an issue. I agree that this isn't much of a "controversy" - simply because the loudest voices are the ones who haven't even seen it yet. That said, I never saw the Melissa McCarthy attempt at a Ghostbusters movie and have no intention of ever doing so. I'm happy with the original 1984 film, which continues to hold up for me.

[AndyDursin]

Not all reviewers but there is a definite bent to the gushing reviews the likes of Black Panther and several other films received IMO in recent years... At least the noname internet critics that drive Rotten Tomatoes scores. Though even they could not save or mostly support A Wrinkle in Time!

I agree on the rest. There is also a part of me that thinks this is intentionally designed to generate publicity for the film much like the Ghostbusters remake "controversy".

[Paul MacLean]

I'd rather watch this...

[AndyDursin]

Paul, please do not insult Sesame Street here like that.

[KevinEK]

To be fair, there have been plenty of movies (and television series) that were critics' darlings for various reasons but did not light up the box office (or ratings). That's not a political thing - it's a preference thing - and sometimes, I have found it to be a snobbish thing. (Witness the Academy's snubbing of a couple of directors in 2012, including DGA winner Ben Affleck, in favor of Michael Haneke and Benh Zeitlin. Granted, I wasn't that much of a fan of Argo, but that was a pretty full-frontal snub, and it tends to happen with the critics as well.

I have not seen Black Panther myself and don't really have an interest in it. (I actually haven't seen all the Marvel movies, and frankly have avoided nearly all the DC movies other than Wonder Woman, which was sent as a screener last year), but I didn't get the impression that it was a bad film or that it was being falsely propped up. The people I spoke to who saw it genuinely enjoyed it. Just wasn't something I wanted to run out to, and I was frankly busy working at the time.

As for the reviews so far for First Man, what I'm seeing are just the advance reviews, which are nearly all from named people I recognize from the publications I mentioned. This could change quickly once the movie opens and we get a wider spread of reactions, not to mention the different groups of anonymous people who try to drive Rotten Tomatoes scores up AND down, depending on whether they are pushing the movie in question or just hating on it.

I honestly don't think that the filmmakers ginned this thing up. It sounds like a genuine Right Wing overreaction by people who haven't seen the movie, don't like Hollywood or these filmmakers and wanted to find something to be outraged about. I don't know that it particularly succeeded, but I'll give them points for trying the distraction. In another week or two, I can't imagine anyone caring about this much of a non-issue.

[AndyDursin]

I have not seen Black Panther myself and don't really have an interest in it. (I actually haven't seen all the Marvel movies, and frankly have avoided nearly all the DC movies other than Wonder Woman, which was sent as a screener last year), but I didn't get the impression that it was a bad film or that it was being falsely propped up.

I didn't say it was bad -- but falsely propped up? Absolutely. Nothing more than a run of the mill Marvel film, portrayed in the press (and by many critics) as a cataclysmic cultural moment worthy of Academy Awards. By that standard BLADE should've been TITANIC back in the '90s!

[KevinEK]

To be honest, I felt and feel that Titanic was itself way overpraised. Had nice moments, particularly in the second half, but wow, what terrible dialogue throughout!

As for BP, I have a feeling Disney will send that as a screener to DGA. (Last year, they sent Guardians 2, and the year before they sent Captain America Civil War, which I thought was quite sporting of them). If I get it, I'll pipe up on it.

And I'm CERTAIN that Universal/Dreamworks will be sending First Man out for consideration in all categories. Some things I don't need to have written down for me - I can see that train coming a mile out.