It should be no surprise to anyone who reads
this blog that I’m a fan of movies about space. Space adventure, like Star Trek. Space horror, like Alien. Near-future space, like Gravity. Even space comedy, like Guardians of the Galaxy.
But I’m happiest when I’m in the theater
watching truly inspiring space history: The
Right Stuff; Apollo 13; Hidden Figures. What made these films not only
interesting and watchable for space nerds like me, but among the most acclaimed
and well-loved movies for audiences at large, is that they made the heroes and
heroines of the American space program known to us as real people. Those high
flyers we had only seen in glossy magazine photographs, or blurred images from impossibly
far away (or not at all, in the case of the NASA “computers”) solidified into
human beings in those films, thanks to the actors and the filmmakers.
The real first man on the moon, Neil Armstrong, in 1969. |
Not so, I’m sorry to say, for the latest
film biopic of astronaut Neil Armstrong, First
Man. Even the formidable acting skills of Ryan Gosling as Armstrong, first
man on the moon, are no match for the post-modern, emotionally-detached filmmaking
style of Damien Chazelle (LaLaLand).
Instead of coming across as a strong-but-silent type trying desperately to hide
the pain of the loss of his young daughter from cancer early in the film,
Gosling too often goes through his scenes like an expressionless zombie. Claire
Foy (The Crown), as Armstrong’s wife
Janet, is normally solid, but here she overbalances on the shrill side in a vain
attempt to get some reaction out of her partner.
I don’t blame the actors; I certainly don’t
blame Armstrong, because I don’t believe for a minute that he was that kind of
guy. I blame Chazelle, and this recent tendency to remain distant from the
subject that is overtaking film. The camera may close in on its subject, but it
remains emotionally at arm’s length. Even though we see Armstrong at his most
private, vulnerable moments, it is though we are mere flies on the wall, unable
to empathize. Point of view, in fact, is a problem here. It really should be
Armstrong’s film, from his POV. We should feel
his emotions, but we never do.
There are times when this lack of POV works
like the cinema verité of old and
serves the film well. When we’re in the cockpit of an X-15 going beyond the
stratosphere, or in the Gemini capsule being launched into space. When something
goes wrong after docking with a second (unmanned) vehicle in space and both
capsule and docking cylinder start spinning out of control. And—most spectacularly—when
Armstrong and Aldrin land on the moon.
In those moments we in the audience can truly
feel as if we are there. Those jolts
of adrenalin alone may be worth the price of admission.
But we are soon down to Earth again, where
we may be grounded for some time, searching for the inspiration to head into
space again.
Cheers, Donna
Great review, Donna. I was so looking forward to this one (in spite of Hollywood feeling they needed to cut a key historical scene to "make a statement"), but I fear the lack of what we writers call deep POV is going to be a problem for me. It was the character insights that really made Apollo 13 and Gravity the great viewing experiences they were, and if this one falls short, it's really a huge opportunity missed, IMHO.
ReplyDeleteWhat a pity. I loved Apollo 13, Hidden Figures, The Right Stuff. So I'll watch this but I'll make sure I don't expect too much.
ReplyDelete