First Man - Film Review

In this post we will have a look on the new movie "First Man" about the life of Neil Armstrong .

To make a long story short, I find the movie to be false, shallow and boring. Everything good, inspiring and meaningful have been systematically filtered from the story.

If you are interested in the life Neil Armstrong, I strongly recommend that you skip "First Man" and read the book or watch this absolutely awesome BBC memorial documentary from 2012:

Let me try to explain, why I am so disappointed.

"First Man" is false and misleading

 

For good reasons, the film has sparked a lot of controversy already, particular regarding the omission of the planting of the American flag on the Moon. We already covered some of that controversy in an earlier post and Brett McCracken wrote this great piece covering the omission of Buzz Aldrin's communion on the Moon (Yes, the first food and the first drink on the Moon where the communion elements).

The film makers have distorted history by removing any trace of the perhaps two greatest cornerstones of this great adventure: The meaning, the why, the greater cause: the fight for freedom. And secondly the who were these great men (and women). The spirits of the human beings involved is completely neglected. One evident result of this is the fact that the audience is not moved emotionally once during the long movie, which really is a first for films portraying the Apollo project.

There is no sign of the excellence that so characterized machines and men, not least Neil Armstrong. No greatness. No fun, no laughter. No music (Neil Armstrong was in fact a talented musician). No meaning and yes, no religion too...

The makers of the film have clearly been twisting history in very disloyal and misleading way - throughout the movie. Only I cannot make out if this was done intentionally, by negligence or for some other reason. Let's maybe speculate about the motives in another post.

"First Man" paints a misleading image of Buzz Aldrin

 

The falsehood that made me the most sad was the abuse put on Buzz Aldrin. In particular the two scenes regarding the death of Charlie Basset and Elliot See and the Apollo 1 fire that killed astronauts Gus Grissom, Roger Chaffee and Ed White, Buzz Aldrin is framed saying appallingly disrespectful and unfeeling lines, that "rightfully" get reputed by his fellow astronauts. (even by Neil Armstrong, who would actually never would have done that - he never corrected anyone in public, according to the book, that the movie allegedly is based on[1]).

Buzz Aldrin was totally dedicated to the project and was involved in virtually every type of project planning. He had definite opinions which he held onto without softening, and he was no diplomat. He was undoubtedly personally ambitious, but at the same time he was a selfless patriot who would give his life for the cause of his country and freedom. Aldrin was a Presbyterian like the Mercury astronaut, John Glenn. They were Elders in the same church and both were animated by the same energetic, active spirit. Many found him to be contentious and obstinate, but Aldrin's apparent lack of flexibility was also the result of his exceptionally high intelligence and his determination not to let personal considerations get in the way of the mission. ("Men on the Moon" by yours truly)

Buzz Aldrin would never have said or behaved anything like that.

First of all Ed White and Buzz Aldrin were best friends. They were brother in arms! They had been through fire together. At West Point together, at service in Europe together, and it was Ed white that encouraged Aldrin to apply for astronaut. The Basset's were neighbors of the Aldrin's - Joan Aldrin and Jeannie Basset were best friends. Buzz Aldrin were deeply moved and saddened by the loss of his colleagues.

Second, there is no record in the literature to hint any support, that Buzz Aldrin said anything remotely like his lines in "First Man". I have been through all Apollo astronaut biographies, and just about all books written on the project and it's just not there...  No hint at all. "I can't think of a better symbol of courage for future generations than Ed White" wrote Buzz Aldrin in his 1989 autobiography [2]. Aldrin also left an Apollo 1 patch on the moon's surface, to honor his fallen friend!

Third, the thought that anyone in those days, in those circles, would treat the death of their fellow brothers in arms in such a cold and disrespectful way as depicted in the movie is simply unthinkable. To me, it proves that the film-makers did not penetrate the minds of the people that did these great deeds. And perhaps this is really the basic problem of the film: It is shallow.

Actually with the false portrait painted of Buzz Aldrin as a villain, I am pleased that his communion on the Moon was omitted (as any other of the many many religious references in the book by the way). It would only have back-lashed the Christian religion, if the villain of the movie was the only one expressing faith.

The abuse of Buzz Aldrin is not founded in any publicly available historical evidence, but rather contradicts it.

The attempted character assassination of the great man, Korean veteran, Colonel Buzz Aldrin, who repeatedly put his behind on the line, to free the world of one tyranny, who fought to save the freedom for future generations, including that of film director Damien Chazelle and Canadian actor Ryan Gosling, is in my view the worst of the many crimes of the movie.

The meaning of it all

"First Man" leaves the audience with absolutely no clue, whatsoever, why the Americans went to Moon. On the contrary we are left with the impression that it was a pointless, stubborn waste of money. This notion is supported by the appearance of several unchallenged hecklers like Leon Bridges and the unknown congressman picking on Neil Armstrong at a reception in Washington. Meanwhile no one is defending or even explaining the point. Why did the Americans spend so much money and human sacrifice on this? We analyzed this question in an earlier post and found that it was to win the important battle of the Cold War called the Space Race. It was free man's necessary battle against tyranny, not the first and not the last battle. The fact, that this "the greatest adventure on which Man has ever embarked" was a struggle against tyranny is never hinted in the movie. So, when neither characters, nor the audience knows why the characters are acting as they are, the whole adventure appears a meaningless endeavor - a waste.

The Americans went to the Moon to beat the Soviet Union in the battle of the cold war called the Space Race. JFK's own analysis was, that America would have to fight and win the Space Race, in order to mitigate the victory of totalitarian tyranny. The Apollo project was no more a waste of money than fighting WW2 was a waste of money.

"First Man" paints a misleading image of Neil Armstrong

The opening scene shows the only confirmed flying mistake, Neil Armstrong ever made according to the book [1]. (Neil Armstrong flew more than 200 different types of planes, and James Hansen is VERY thorough, so this says a lot about the excellence of N.A.). From then on, and throughout the film, Neil Armstrong is made to look like a mediocre pilot. In fact he was anything but an mediocre pilot. I spent the rest of the movie awaiting the moment when we were to restore and reveal the true professional excellence that Armstrong possessed - but that moment never really came. Not even his performance saving the Gemini 8-mission or the LLTV bail-out lets us feel his rare greatness. This means, the audience never really understands the excellence of Neil Armstrong, and they never understand the fact, that it was not a coincidence, that he was chosen to command Apollo 11 and designated to be the first man on the Moon. Neil Armstrong was indeed chosen because he was the best of the best.

Neil Armstrong was 38 and had 22 years of highly concentrated experience, when he strapped into the commander's seat of Apollo 11. Neil Armstrong knew how to fly.

The film misses several distinctive and important sides of Neil Armstrong (and we don't know that many of those, because he was so seclusive, so they should not have left any of them out!):

• The humility of his nature. Neil had been brought up with good words like D.L. Moody’s "If I will take care of my character, my reputation will take care of itself". He never raised his voice with anyone, never bragged, and it was no coincidence that the Apollo 11 patch is the only one with no astronaut names on it.
• The professional excellence. The evidence is overwhelming. Neil Armstrong was 38 and had 22 years of highly concentrated experience, when he strapped into the commander's seat of Apollo 11. Neil Armstrong knew how to fly. Let's just leave it with the words of Buzz Aldrin: "I don't think anybody can come close to touching the skills that he had." [3]
• His sense of responsibility. He did not go to war for fun. He did not become an astronaut for fun, neither by coincidence, but because he felt it was his responsibility. "If there was something that he could pass along to future generations -- I think it would be -- the conviction to do the right thing." said his son Mark Armstrong.[4] 
• Armstrong's accuracy. Everyone seems to describe him as a person that did not speak often, but when he spoke he was always right. He spoke slowly, probably to avoid errors. In "First Man" he appears just a bit slow-witted or plain dumb - at least to me - with Ryan Gosling not speaking much, but fast, like ordinary people.
• His out-of-this-world-appearance. Perhaps Norman Mailer came closest when he described Armstrong as "a presence in the room, as much spirit as man... Armstrong seemed of all the astronauts the man nearest to being saintly"[5]. Other people have said similar. Ryan Gosling comes no where near that. I doubt he is even trying. I doubt he even knows.

 

The Apollo 11 crew designed their own patch. It is no coincidence, that it is the only Apollo patch that does not include the names of the astronauts. The crew led by Neil Armstrong was truly humble.

 

"First Man" is boring

Having read James Hansen book, that the movie claims to be based on, a real page turner of some 700 pages, that made my summer of 2015 an absolutely mesmerizing tour through American history, I did NOT see a boring movie coming - no way.

You can not pack a human lifetime with more adventure and meaning than that of the great man Neil Armstrong:

• Born 1930, childhood during the great depression in the 1930's Ohio through World War 2
• Solo pilot certificate age 16
• Flying jets of aircraft carriers aged 18
• 78 Combat missions in the Korean war
• Test pilot at the Edwards Air Force base
• One of the chosen few to fly the fasted airplane ever, the incredible X-15
• Astronaut, first man to walk on the Moon
• Professor of Aerospace Engineering
• 3 children, daughter Karen died at two, divorced and remarried in the 90's. 

You can not pack a human lifetime with more adventure and meaning than that of Neil Armstrong. Future generations should be inspired and brought in awe - not whining over "wasted money" or wasting time doing emotional analysis of Neil Armstrong's alleged improper sorrow-handling. 

So, how do you make a boring movie out of that life?

First, you cut the story very short. We start at X-15 flight 3-4-8 February 1962 and close the story after the return to earth July 1969. There is no hint or reference to anything before or after this period.

Then you box the set of characters very, very tightly. We only really get an impression of Neil (though silently poker-faced throughout the film) and his wife Janet (though mostly nervous, and angry when not silent throughout the film). Other characters than Neil and Janet are portrayed only very vaguely, we don't really get to know anyone at all.

Janet Armstrong is clearly the intended hero of this story (!) and there is no sense of affection for any other characters, not for Neil Armstrong, not for anyone and certainly not for the Apollo-project.

So we are left in a very small and cold box in time and character set. Too small. It gets claustrophobic. I felt the urge to break out - wanting to know the roots, and the aims - the foundations and the meaning for the future - why did we do this and where did we come from. And I wanted to know all the incredible people that Neil and Janet connected to.

Secondly, it is a very silent movie. No one is talking most of the time, and no significant film music is applied for the sake of explaining the silence. Then from time to time the silence gets brutally disrupted with the somewhat impressive (I have to admit that) space-mission scenes, where the noise on the other hand is violently exaggerated.

So the film is a strange mix of longs scenes with quiet stone-faced people in silence and longs scenes with very loud machines. This probably connects with modern arts and the latest trends in film-making, in some intricate way. But it is beyond me, and I actually find it both annoying and boring.

Thirdly, the one dominant theme of the film is chosen to be the part of Neil Armstrong that we, and the film-makers, know almost nothing about: The personal and emotional life of Neil Armstrong. Even James Hansen [1] cannot penetrate these aspects, so claiming to be based on this book seems really to be another far stretch from Damien Chazelle.

But anyway, the tragic loss of their little daughter Karen, aged two, and Neil Armstrong's short-comings in expressing and sharing his feelings in this behalf is the turning point of the history. Neil did in fact handle the loss in a very "masculine" manner. He probably did not discuss it with anyone, and certainly not with his wife Janet. Instead he went back to work. This is a frequently recurring theme throughout the film (even when standing on the Moon!) with way too many way too long scenes of a completely poker-faced Ryan Gosling, apparently struggling internally with his feelings. That is, if he has any feelings - it is not clear. Because we never get under Ryan Goslings skin.

Some people, I know, do find these dramas of intense and dark contained internal emotional struggles interesting, but I don't, and I am not aware that anyone really gets moved anywhere good by this kind of stuff.

I left the cinema in a sad state of mind. Apparently even Hollywood is no longer able to understand and celebrate the great adventure, even when it is served them on a golden plate. What should and could so easily have been a celebration of a great man doing great things in absolute excellence, and a mighty celebration of the greatest adventure on which man has ever embarked, has instead become a dark, shallow and boring work of modern films art.

All put together it is no wonder that "First Man" is not a box office movie - at least not in Denmark. Some 800 seats out of 900 were vacant at the premier.

Yours truly were first man to enter the Cinema to see "First Man" in Copenhagen Imperial. Eventually some 100 people showed up. I recommend you to stay home and read the book or watch the BBC memorial documentary on the life of Neil Armstrong.

 "First Man" will inspire no one to do anything good, and that is such a waste of opportunity.

I hope and believe it will soon be forgotten and that some day, someone with an affection for Neil Armstrong will tell the real story of his life.

[1] James R. Hansen, First Man. The Life of Neil Armstrong, ISBN:9780743492324
[2] Buzz Aldrin, Men from Earth, ISBN: 9780553053746
[3] Buzz Aldrin in the documentary "In the Shadow of the Moon"
[4] Mark Armstrong, son, in the BBC documentary, First Man on the Moon.
[5] Norman Mailer: Moonfire, 1969