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

Believe me, Mr Bond, I could shoot you from Stuttgart und still create ze proper effect.

Tomorrow Never Dies (1997)
(SPOILERS) Some of the reactions to Spectre would have you believe it undoes all the “good” work cementing Daniel Craig’s incarnation of Bond in Skyfall. If you didn’t see that picture as the second coming of the franchise (I didn’t) your response to the latest may not be so harsh, despite its less successful choices (Blofeld among them). And it isn’t as if one step, forward two steps back are anything new in perceptions of the series (or indeed hugely divisive views on what even constitutes a decent Bond movie). After the raves greeting Goldeneye, Pierce Brosnan suffered a decidedly tepid response to his second outing, Tomorrow Never Dies, albeit it was less eviscerated than Craig’s sophomore Quantum of Solace. Tomorrow’s reputation disguises many strong points, although it has to be admitted that a Moore-era style finale and a floundering attempt to package in a halcyon villain aren’t among them.

The Bond series’ flirtations with contemporary relevance have a…

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989)
(SPOILERS) There’s Jaws, there’s Star Wars, and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy, to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “mainly boring”.

Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the system when Burton did it (even…

Remember, you're fighting for this woman's honour – which is probably more than she ever did.

Duck Soup (1933)
(SPOILERS) Not for nothing is Duck Soup acclaimed as one of the greatest comedies ever, and while you’d never hold it against Marx Brothers movies for having little in the way of coherent plotting in – indeed, it’s pretty much essential to their approach – the presence of actual thematic content this time helps sharpen the edges of both their slapstick and their satire.

Poor Easy Breezy.

Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood (2019)
(SPOILERS) My initial reaction to Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was mild disbelief that Tarantino managed to hoodwink studios into coming begging to make it, so wilfully perverse is it in disregarding any standard expectations of narrative or plotting. Then I remembered that studios, or studios that aren’t Disney, are desperate for product, and more especially, product that might guarantee them a hit. Quentin’s latest appears to be that, but whether it’s a sufficient one to justify the expense of his absurd vanity project remains to be seen.

I just hope my death makes more cents than my life.

Joker (2019)
(SPOILERS) So the murder sprees didn’t happen, and a thousand puff pieces desperate to fan the flames of such events and then told-ya-so have fallen flat on their faces. The biggest takeaway from Joker is not that the movie is an event, when once that seemed plausible but not a given, but that any mainstream press perspective on the picture appears unable to divorce its quality from its alleged or actual politics. Joker may be zeitgeisty, but isn’t another Taxi Driver in terms of cultural import, in the sense that Taxi Driver didn’t have a Taxi Driver in mind when Paul Schrader wrote it. It is, if you like, faux-incendiary, and can only ever play out on that level. It might be more accurately described as a grubbier, grimier (but still polished and glossy) The Talented Ripley, the tale of developing psychopathy, only tailored for a cinemagoing audience with few options left outside of comic book fare.

On account of you, I nearly heard the opera.

A Night at the Opera (1935)
(SPOILERS) The Marx Brothers head over to MGM, minus one Zeppo, and despite their variably citing A Night at the Opera as their best film, you can see – well, perhaps not instantly, but by about the half-hour mark – that something was undoubtedly lost along the way. It isn’t that there’s an absence of very funny material – there’s a strong contender for their best scene in the mix – but that there’s a lot else too. Added to which, the best of the very funny material can be found during the first half of the picture.

I still think it’s a terrible play, but it makes a wonderful rehearsal.

Room Service (1938)
(SPOILERS) The Marx Brothers step away from MGM for a solitary RKO outing, and a scarcely disguised adaption of a play to boot. Room Service lacks the requisite sense of anarchy and inventiveness of their better (earlier) pictures – even Groucho’s name, Gordon Miller, is disappointingly everyday – but it’s nevertheless an inoffensive time passer.

This better not be some 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea shit, man.

Underwater (2020)
(SPOILERS) There’s no shame in a quality B-movie, or in an Alien rip-off done well. But it’s nevertheless going to need that something extra to make it truly memorable in its own right. Underwater, despite being scuppered at the box office, is an entirely respectable entry in both those arenas from director William Eubank, but like the recent Life (which, in fairness, had an ending that very nearly elevated it to the truly memorable), it can’t quite go that extra mile, or summon that much needed sliver of inspiration to set it apart.

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

Goodbye, Mr Chimps.

At the Circus (1939)
(SPOILERS) This is where the brothers sink into their stretch of middling MGM movies, now absent the presence of their major supporter Irving Thalberg; it’s probably for the best this wasn’t called A Day at the Circus, as it would instantly have drawn unflattering comparisons with the earlier MGM pair that gave them their biggest hits. Nevertheless, there’s enough decent material to keep At the Circus fairly sprightly (rather than “fairly ponderous”, as Pauline Kael put it).