Skip to main content

A Small Step and a Giant Leap

 

I’ll be honest, I was a little disappointed when I heard that the next movie directed by Damien Chazelle was going to be a biopic on Neil Armstrong and the Moon Landing. As monumental a story as that is, I couldn’t help feel it was a big step down creatively from the sensational and technical brilliance of Whiplash and especially La La Land that made Chazelle one of the most promising filmmakers in Hollywood and the youngest Oscar-winning director. I underestimated Chazelle however, as though the story obviously isn’t original, the approach to this movie certainly is.
A character study as much as a chronicle of the various attempts by NASA during the 1960s to get ahead of the Russians in the space race, the movie follows an introverted but skilled pilot Neil Armstrong (Ryan Gosling), who joins NASA’s astronaut program after the tragic death of his daughter. As he takes part in various tests and missions, culminating in the inaugural lunar expedition, his wife Janet (Claire Foy) feels increasingly detached from him and stressed by the risk of the endeavours.
The first interesting thing about this film is the almost documentary-like nature Chazelle directs it with. Certain scenes are shot handheld and framed precisely. Especial focus is given to the technology both at the base and in the pods, distinctly noting its relative primitive nature compared to where we are now. There’s a lot of detail put into the operations and the road to the moon landing, the shaky, chaotic camerawork during the missions and the claustrophobia of the capsule puts the audience into the space with the astronauts. This allows the movie to spurn predictability and maintain a high level of intensity, notably in the Gemini 8 sequence which achieves near Gravity levels of chaos. This film doesn’t shy away from the high risks of what NASA’s attempting, and it asks the question (literally at one point) if going to the moon primarily just to beat the Russians is worth the human cost -which is bold for something now considered such an important, historic moment. The subtle acting from most of the cast creates the impression of true biography. Neil in particular is really reserved, quiet, and almost humourless, which is a far cry from what usually comes to mind when one thinks of a venerated American hero. But it also feels real, as does the effect his nonchalant, contemplative behaviour has on Janet.
Ryan Gosling doesn’t say a lot in this movie, but his performance is great. He plays Neil Armstrong with a solemn dedication and restrained intelligence. The film never goes into his reasons for staying with NASA, going on the dangerous missions, and putting his life on the line repeatedly. Nor does it resolve the fact that he’s never discussed his daughters’ death with his wife. But it does allow us to see his love for both, the latter particularly being a deep wound that drives him, and intuit its meaning on his priorities and actions. This kind of performance and direction could very easily have come across underdeveloped, but Gosling and Chazelle are talented enough to give it nuance and make it feel honest. Still, the better performance is Claire Foy keeping her frustration and anxiety hidden in the same way her husband hides his trauma. She however is not nearly as collected and has a couple stand-out moments confronting him or one of the other engineers. And these scenes are very affecting if for nothing else than Foy’s amazingly expressive eyes. The supporting cast is quite good, including Shea Whigham, Ciaran Hinds, Kyle Chandler, Pablo Schreiber, Jason Clarke as a friendly and brave Ed White, and Corey Stoll as a charismatic though inappropriately outspoken Buzz Aldrin.
In centring it’s attention on the space missions, and specifically Neil Armstrong’s perspective on them, First Man does overlook a few important aspects of Apollo 11 and the general goings-on at NASA in the 1960s. It doesn’t touch on John Glenn’s 1962 foray into orbit for example, and there’s nary a mention of the work of the mathematicians behind each mission, including Katherine Johnson and the women highlighted in Hidden Figures. But for this the movie still has incredible finesse in its depiction of space and the Moon Landing itself. Chazelle uses silence very well, muting the sound with every shot outside the modules in an impact tactic clearly inherited from 2001. The lunar landing itself is exceptionally well done, taking it’s time to build wonderfully. The sound editing is especially powerful when they open the door onto the lunar surface. You feel the weight of the footstep, the iconic quote, and the distance from Earth. And for all the insecure Americans worried about it, the flag does in fact appear.
Obviously this movie can’t capture the magnitude of the actual Moon Landing, certainly not for someone like my dad who watched it first-hand, but it does recall the event rather well. First Man isn’t as masterful as Chazelle’s previous films, though it was never going to be given how ubiquitous Neil Armstrong and the Moon Landing are in history and culture. But it does feel like a fresh, terrifically directed, skilfully acted, and fittingly grandiose telling of the story.

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Jordan_D_Bosch 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...