Skip to main content

We need to fail. We need to fail down here so we don't fail up there.

First Man
(2018)

I was ambivalent about the need for First Man. The space race movie had already been made in The Right Stuff, and couldn’t possibly be bettered, and the “tribulations in space” movie had been one of the better Ron Howard pictures (still only solid, rather than great, though). Was another Hollywood production promulgating the official history of NASA needed? Probably not, as there's nothing very new here on that score, but what impresses about First Man is rather the perversely unglorifying approach it takes – which isn't to say it’s anything other than in awe of the risks taken by the risk takers – resulting in a piece that's almost the opposite of Philip Kaufman's film in scope, scale and design, despite sharing some of its iconography; it could even be seen as an anti-epic.


Such a viewpoint isn't about the feats featured, since both Damien Chazelle and Kaufman take pains to emphasise the death-defying career choice of these fledgling astronauts in what are essentially coffins strapped onto rockets (or boys' balsa wood model kits, as Claire Foy's Janet Armstrong suggests at one point, during a not-unmotivated or unreasonable tirade against the absurdity of the enterprise). Rather, it's about the man at the centre of them. Neil Armstrong (Ryan Gosling) is the very definition of interior, buttoned-down and self-controlled. Even by Gosling's career standards, this is a doozy for that impassive gaze. And then some. What's going on in Armstrong's head? Is he unreadable, a smorgasbord of unexpressed emotions? I didn't find this uncommunicative pose distancing, perhaps because I never got the sense from Gosling's performance that Armstrong was unfeeling or lacking in emotional range; rather, his comfort zone was to respond with precision and collectedness or not all. Fine for his work, problematic when it came to retreating from the stresses of dealing with his domestic world. 


Armstrong is implacable and unmoved as is for the much of the time; he'll rather immediately leave the family home than have a conversation with his wife over what happened at work that day, which just happened to be a near fatality for him, and has to be duly screamed at before he will sit the kids down and tell them he may not be coming back from the Moon, which amusingly takes on something closer to the form of reporters quizzing him at a press conference. In direct contrast, Janet is in a constant struggle to remain composed. As much as Gosling adopts Armstrong's inscrutability, Foy wears Janet's strain all over her face. It's a remarkable performance, and the sympathy is with her throughout. 


I'm not sure how authentic the trauma of the loss of daughter Karen was to Armstrong's ongoing motivation; I've seen it suggested it had little bearing on his devotion to his work, although the scene in which he shuts down a question probing precisely that point is great writing and acting; "I think it would be unreasonable to assume that it wouldn’t have some effect". Regardless, it's entirely believable that the man we see here would have chosen never to discuss the subject, and when broached, that he'd have retreated into his own inaccessible pain. That said, it's still a pat Hollywood arc as presented, the epic journey grounded in personal catharsis as Armstrong throws her bracelet onto the lunar surface (of which, there's no evidence, but the author of the biography on which this is based, First Man: The Life of Neil A. Armstrong by James R Hansen, nursed it as a pet theory). 


Happier familial scenes find the director apparently at a loss over how to proceed, so falling back on referencing others; the autumnal, lens-flared, handheld of domestic bliss has apparently fallen straight out of The Tree of Life. When it comes to the world of men doing manly things, Chazelle has no such caution; yes, the visual cues in the Lunar Landing Research Vehicle test remind one of Sam Shepard's Chuck Yaeger staggering out of the desert following a crash in The Right Stuff, yet it doesn’t feel an unearned or invalid lift.


Chazelle's story essentially picks up where The Right Stuff left off with the Mercury programme, the common astronaut to both movies being Gus Grissom (there played by the eminent Fred Ward, here by Shea Whigham), about whom there are even conspiracy theories (the idea that he his death was actually murder, a consequence of his criticism of the Apollo programme; he didn't believe there was much chance of it making the Moon on schedule). We also have common tropes to both movies; the team learning the ropes/worrying about the potentialities; the wives' lives; the mission going wrong and subsequent investigation (in The Right Stuff there's the hatch of the Liberty Bell 7 blowing, resulting in its loss). 


But there's no progressive sense of achievement or triumphalism to First Man. Janet isn't merely the obediently supporting wife, and the space flights aren't portrayed as stunning, poetic experiences, bar the odd snatched moment. Armstrong is engrossed in the work rather than family, but there's no victory in that, in obvious terms of satisfaction, which rather separates the picture from the sacrifice = achievement formula of Whiplash and La La Land. There, the ends justify the means as long as the ends are success; First Man is much more equivocal. Armstrong's motivation is never voiced as such. He's driven but not for outwardly-expressed motives, not for fame, not for the glory of being the first, or for lasting veneration. On that level at least, the movie represents a more mature, reflective piece of work for Chazelle.


Simply in terms of premise, Chazelle has set himself a very different task, and an uphill challenge; the movie is all in Neil's head – or in Janet's, who is unable to get into his head. This reticence in relation to one giant leap, the human achievement, seems to line up with the "Who is all this for?" of Gil Scott-Heron's Whitey on the Moon and the avoidance of focussing on the American flag. In the case of the latter, really, in context of the movie, it would have been very odd if it had, suggesting the complaints came from those who hadn't watched the film and had no clue about the context of the content. One might further infer apathy from the muted tone, towards an accomplishment where scepticism over its veracity simply won't go away, and indeed grows, the longer return visits are off the agenda (and in the Internet age, it's a debate in which those on either side of the lunar fence dig their heels in ever more voraciously).


One thing is abundantly clear from First Man; when he's got a clear idea about tackling a scene, Chazelle is an astonishingly proficient filmmaker. Perhaps the biggest problem here is that the picture peaks with the Gemini 8 mission to dock with the orbiting Agena target vehicle. It's a masterpiece of a sequence, utterly compelling even when you can't really get a fix on what is going on (so reflecting the astronauts' own experiences). It also perhaps gives us the clearest indication of how Armstrong ticks, as he tersely informs co-pilot David Scott (Christopher Abbot) that he hasn't got time for his distractions, his concentration focussed on the calculations necessary to adjust their trajectory for docking.


After this comes the fire that kills the Apollo 1 crew, again depicted with consummate diligence. I was less persuaded by the backend of the picture, however; even the scene in which Neil talks to his kids felt like a bit of a fudge (I mean, the chances he wouldn’t come back were fairly high on his previous space mission, surely). And there's little tension in the flight itself; even the lunar landing, avoiding a crater, is fairly sedate. It's almost as if, like the concentration on the flag point, the movie's about Armstrong getting there, rather than being there. Maybe not even that. If nothing else, it does, however, prove you can make a convincing Moon landing in a TV studio (or in a quarry, as the case may be). The other takeaway from this sequence is Justin Hurwitz's beautiful piece of scoring; it's curious that he's only worked with Chazelle thus far, as he must surely be in demand.


There’s another area where First Man distinguishes itself from The Right Stuff; Armstrong's fellow astronauts barely get a look in. Jason Clarke as Ed White has the most screen time, but even then, it's mostly about reflecting Neil. There are good performances from Ciarán Hinds and Kyle Chandler, but they simply aren't on screen long enough to make much of an impression. Pablo Schreiber presumably came on board on the proviso he got the lead in the sequel. Patrick Fugit fares better, but his fellow once-child-actor actor Lukas Haas has the short straw of the Apollo 11 astronauts as Ed Mitchell. Corey Stoll makes just the impact needed as Buzz Aldrin, though, just around long enough to establish that Armstrong thinks he's a dick (again, this makes an effective contrast with the camaraderie of the Kaufman film). 


While it will probably get a Best Picture nom, I don't think First Man is seriously going to trouble the Academy come Oscar night. As an officially stamped and approved space race recreation, it's pretty unimpeachable, but ironically on that score, it couldn't exactly be called a propaganda tool for NASA; it's too anti-mythologising. The last thing they'd want is a Moon movie in which the whole purpose is to underwhelm, in which walking on the Moon doesn't really seem like all that. To that end, I almost think Chazelle could have gone further. What if he hadn't even showed Armstrong getting there, and just had the whole thing playing on his face? His interview for the Gemini programme could have replayed, where he detours into a fascinating ramble about the philosophical importance of going into space being more important than mere exploration, and how it "allows us to see things. That maybe we should have seen a long time ago".



Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019)
(SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

You can’t climb a ladder, no. But you can skip like a goat into a bar.

Juno and the Paycock (1930)
(SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s second sound feature. Such was the lustre of this technological advance that a wordy play was picked. By Sean O’Casey, upon whom Hitchcock based the prophet of doom at the end of The Birds. Juno and the Paycock, set in 1922 during the Irish Civil War, begins as a broad comedy of domestic manners, but by the end has descended into full-blown Greek (or Catholic) tragedy. As such, it’s an uneven but still watchable affair, even if Hitch does nothing to disguise its stage origins.

I mean, I am just a dumb bunny, but, we are good at multiplying.

Zootropolis (2016)
(SPOILERS) The key to Zootropolis’ creative success isn’t so much the conceit of its much-vaunted allegory regarding prejudice and equality, or – conversely – the fun to be had riffing on animal stereotypes (simultaneously clever and obvious), or even the appealing central duo voiced by Ginnifier Goodwin (as first rabbit cop Judy Hopps) and Jason Bateman (fox hustler Nick Wilde). Rather, it’s coming armed with that rarity for an animation; a well-sustained plot that doesn’t devolve into overblown set pieces or rest on the easy laurels of musical numbers and montages.

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded
The Premise
George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.

You know what I think? I think he just wants to see one cook up close.

The Green Mile (1999)
(SPOILERS) There’s something very satisfying about the unhurried confidence of the storytelling in Frank Darabont’s two prison-set Stephen King adaptations (I’m less beholden to supermarket sweep The Mist); it’s sure, measured and precise, certain that the journey you’re being take on justifies the (indulgent) time spent, without the need for flashy visuals or ornate twists (the twists there are feel entirely germane – with a notable exception – as if they could only be that way). But. The Green Mile has rightly come under scrutiny for its reliance on – or to be more precise, building its foundation on – the “Magical Negro” trope, served with a mild sprinkling of idiot savant (so in respect of the latter, a Best Supporting Actor nomination was virtually guaranteed). One might argue that Stephen King’s magical realist narrative flourishes well-worn narrative ploys and characterisations at every stage – such that John Coffey’s initials are announcement enough of his…

We live in a twilight world.

Tenet (2020)
(SPOILERS) I’ve endured a fair few confusingly-executed action sequences in movies – more than enough, actually – but I don’t think I’ve previously had the odd experience of being on the edge of my seat during one while simultaneously failing to understand its objectives and how those objectives are being attempted. Which happened a few times during Tenet. If I stroll over to the Wiki page and read the plot synopsis, it is fairly explicable (fairly) but as a first dive into this Christopher Nolan film, I frequently found it, if not impenetrable, then most definitely opaque.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985)
(SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and gleefully distr…

It looks like we’ve got another schizoid embolism!

Total Recall (1990)
(SPOILERS) Paul Verhoeven offered his post-mortem on the failures of the remakes of Total Recall (2012) and Robocop (2013) when he suggested “They take these absurd stories and make them too serious”. There may be something in this, but I suspect the kernel of their issues is simply filmmakers without either the smarts or vision, or both, to make something distinctive from the material. No one would have suggested the problem with David Cronenberg’s prospective Total Recall was over-seriousness, yet his version would have been far from a quip-heavy Raiders of the Lost Ark Go to Mars (as he attributes screenwriter Ron Shusset’s take on the material). Indeed, I’d go as far as saying not only the star, but also the director of Total Recall (1990) were miscast, making it something of a miracle it works to the extent it does.

Just make love to that wall, pervert!

Seinfeld 2.10: The Statue
The Premise
Jerry employs a cleaner, the boyfriend of an author whose book Elaine is editing. He leaves the apartment spotless, but Jerry is convinced he has made off with a statue.

Seems silly, doesn't it? A wedding. Given everything that's going on.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I (2010)
(SPOILERS) What’s good in the first part of the dubiously split (of course it was done for the art) final instalment in the Harry Potter saga is very good, let down somewhat by decisions to include material that would otherwise have been rightly excised and the sometimes-meandering travelogue. Even there, aspects of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I can be quite rewarding, taking on the tone of an apocalyptic ‘70s aftermath movie or episode of Survivors (the original version), as our teenage heroes (some now twentysomethings) sleep rough, squabble, and try to salvage a plan. The main problem is that the frequently strong material requires a robust structure to get the best from it.