← Back to Reviews
in
First man
The true story about the life of Neil Armstrong leading up-to Gemini mission and ultimately moon landing.
This movie piqued my interest way before all the Oscar buzz and film festival chatter began. One of my most anticipated movies of 2019 is the upcoming Ford v. Ferrari movie by Logan director James Mangold. That movie stars Christian Bale and Matt Damon. When I was looking up that movie I realized that it is being made as a mission movie akin to The right stuff. Then I stumbled upon First man. Knowing Chazelle's filmography I expected that the movie would be an intense ride. The first trailer confirmed my opinions. This made me worried for Ford v. Ferrari because I felt that movie would fall short of this movie because it is given fall prestige run and that is coming in summer like Dunkirk. So, going into this movie I expected it to be a movie which starts with the space mission being this impossible thing where people are dying left and right and pressure is mounting in all directions on people involved in the program to make it happen. Ultimately once the mission succeeds, everyone gets catharsis in their own way but most importantly the lead character. One of the untapped sub-genre's in movies is the mission movie. Its a movie where people go at common goal time and again until it works. Lot of movies have this as a single sequence in the movie and then they move on to other themes. But having seen whiplash I know that Chazelle will give that treatment to this movie given that the whole movie revolves around a space mission.
Having watched First man I can say that all my fears for Ford v. Ferrari are gone. Because, this movie is not a mission movie. It doesn't have the attitude of an athlete. It is a slow paced docudrama. This movie for some reason doesn't feel organic. It feels very manipulative in its execution to get emotions in new ways. Its never a good thing when the script is written with the intention of trying to sound unique and fresh, things should just happen based on the approach taken by screenwriter as opposed to him thinking in each and every step if he is original enough. One of the things that surprised me is how much the filmmakers wanted to connect the death of Neil Armstrong's daughter with space mission. They never let it flow organically. They try and connect both things time and again.The movie is filled with young looking middle aged "oh it is that guy" type actors. That is something I hate. Another director who uses it a lot is Ron Howard. Its a tired trope that period pieces involving younger characters should avoid. You can't have bunch of slick haired guys that are capable of dirty deeds given heroic opportunities. All these guys except Armstrong are one step away from doing something dirty or creepy. Their personalities are like that. And those traits seep out in occasional looks/conversations.
When it comes to the direction, Damien Chazelle is doing something that is not quite auteurist but he is trying to carve out a niche for himself. This movie doesn't have a blockbuster budget but it does have a higher end of mid-level budget. What that does is, it gives the movie are very realistic feel. So, when the scenes take place in the house they feel small in scale and when the scenes take place in space station or on moon or in the rocket they feel large scale. If the budget of the movie is large then both the scenes feel large scale and if the budget of the movie is small then both feel small scale. So the movie switches between small scale and enormous scale scenes alternating each other. Because most of the movie takes place on earth and it makes it easier for audience to think that this movie is an art house movie but director does a good job of switching between scenes of varying scales . However, it does feel like emotional manipulation when he shows scenes of his daughter in between other scenes just so audience get that he is thinking about his daughter in these scenes. There is certain amount of Christopher Nolan copy going on in this movie. Instead of wide shots he is trying to place audience in the shoes of the characters. That's something Nolan does. Even the script is weak. Neil's wife is given no arc. She is forced to do a lot with very little dialogue. The movie feels like a glorified Wikipedia page. They just create danger for his life by showing how others around him die. But the biggest culprit is Ryan Gosling. He is playing himself. The fact that people are predicting him to get an Oscar nomination is the very definition of awards season auteur bias.
Ryan gosling is someone who I feel is an actor with very limited range. But he is just decent enough to not be a bad actor. And of course he is a movie star. That means he has some capital attached to him. You can green light a project with him as lead. So, he is either cast in roles that the director thinks he suits or the director will try to work around his limitations. In this movie it's the former. But that is an ill advised decision. The whole movie rests on his shoulders for emotional weight. But Neil's character as viewed by gosling and Damien through research and creativity is much more of a mute reserved character. So the movie is asking audience to care for a reserved character because he achieved something great in his life. Coming to think of it this does feel like a pickle. The movie can't make a big deal that he is reserved because its going for realistic tone and in reality people just don't care and just move on if someone is reserved. However there were some amateurish techniques. He explicitly portrays Buzz Aldrin as a jerk. He uses some unoriginal scenes to show how cold Neil Armstrong is towards everyone even his family. In the whole movie the only person that seems to evoke emotion in Neil Armstrong is his dead daughter.
Finally the whole Oscar buzz and campaign around this movie. Firstly, all this points to Damien Chazelle. If he was not attached to this movie then there wouldn't be any buzz for this movie. Since he has street cred from whiplash and la la land, people want to like and support him. La la land was his mount Everest. So, the next few movies that are in its blast radius will feel the effect. Critics , having revered La la land go soft on his next few movies unless he makes a piece of crap. But luckily since the movie bombed, all the critics and awards pundits in their high horses are hit with the hard cold reality of box office . This movie being a bomb will effect its Oscar chances significantly. On the contrary a movie like green book is met with skepticism because it is directed by a comedic director. So, this movie begs 2 questions. Is it worth telling a story in an expressive medium if its central character is unemotional ? and the other is, should Oscar campaign and hype be given only to filmmakers that has street cred and not to someone that's transitioning from other genre to serious prestige film-making ?
The true story about the life of Neil Armstrong leading up-to Gemini mission and ultimately moon landing.
This movie piqued my interest way before all the Oscar buzz and film festival chatter began. One of my most anticipated movies of 2019 is the upcoming Ford v. Ferrari movie by Logan director James Mangold. That movie stars Christian Bale and Matt Damon. When I was looking up that movie I realized that it is being made as a mission movie akin to The right stuff. Then I stumbled upon First man. Knowing Chazelle's filmography I expected that the movie would be an intense ride. The first trailer confirmed my opinions. This made me worried for Ford v. Ferrari because I felt that movie would fall short of this movie because it is given fall prestige run and that is coming in summer like Dunkirk. So, going into this movie I expected it to be a movie which starts with the space mission being this impossible thing where people are dying left and right and pressure is mounting in all directions on people involved in the program to make it happen. Ultimately once the mission succeeds, everyone gets catharsis in their own way but most importantly the lead character. One of the untapped sub-genre's in movies is the mission movie. Its a movie where people go at common goal time and again until it works. Lot of movies have this as a single sequence in the movie and then they move on to other themes. But having seen whiplash I know that Chazelle will give that treatment to this movie given that the whole movie revolves around a space mission.
Having watched First man I can say that all my fears for Ford v. Ferrari are gone. Because, this movie is not a mission movie. It doesn't have the attitude of an athlete. It is a slow paced docudrama. This movie for some reason doesn't feel organic. It feels very manipulative in its execution to get emotions in new ways. Its never a good thing when the script is written with the intention of trying to sound unique and fresh, things should just happen based on the approach taken by screenwriter as opposed to him thinking in each and every step if he is original enough. One of the things that surprised me is how much the filmmakers wanted to connect the death of Neil Armstrong's daughter with space mission. They never let it flow organically. They try and connect both things time and again.The movie is filled with young looking middle aged "oh it is that guy" type actors. That is something I hate. Another director who uses it a lot is Ron Howard. Its a tired trope that period pieces involving younger characters should avoid. You can't have bunch of slick haired guys that are capable of dirty deeds given heroic opportunities. All these guys except Armstrong are one step away from doing something dirty or creepy. Their personalities are like that. And those traits seep out in occasional looks/conversations.
When it comes to the direction, Damien Chazelle is doing something that is not quite auteurist but he is trying to carve out a niche for himself. This movie doesn't have a blockbuster budget but it does have a higher end of mid-level budget. What that does is, it gives the movie are very realistic feel. So, when the scenes take place in the house they feel small in scale and when the scenes take place in space station or on moon or in the rocket they feel large scale. If the budget of the movie is large then both the scenes feel large scale and if the budget of the movie is small then both feel small scale. So the movie switches between small scale and enormous scale scenes alternating each other. Because most of the movie takes place on earth and it makes it easier for audience to think that this movie is an art house movie but director does a good job of switching between scenes of varying scales . However, it does feel like emotional manipulation when he shows scenes of his daughter in between other scenes just so audience get that he is thinking about his daughter in these scenes. There is certain amount of Christopher Nolan copy going on in this movie. Instead of wide shots he is trying to place audience in the shoes of the characters. That's something Nolan does. Even the script is weak. Neil's wife is given no arc. She is forced to do a lot with very little dialogue. The movie feels like a glorified Wikipedia page. They just create danger for his life by showing how others around him die. But the biggest culprit is Ryan Gosling. He is playing himself. The fact that people are predicting him to get an Oscar nomination is the very definition of awards season auteur bias.
Ryan gosling is someone who I feel is an actor with very limited range. But he is just decent enough to not be a bad actor. And of course he is a movie star. That means he has some capital attached to him. You can green light a project with him as lead. So, he is either cast in roles that the director thinks he suits or the director will try to work around his limitations. In this movie it's the former. But that is an ill advised decision. The whole movie rests on his shoulders for emotional weight. But Neil's character as viewed by gosling and Damien through research and creativity is much more of a mute reserved character. So the movie is asking audience to care for a reserved character because he achieved something great in his life. Coming to think of it this does feel like a pickle. The movie can't make a big deal that he is reserved because its going for realistic tone and in reality people just don't care and just move on if someone is reserved. However there were some amateurish techniques. He explicitly portrays Buzz Aldrin as a jerk. He uses some unoriginal scenes to show how cold Neil Armstrong is towards everyone even his family. In the whole movie the only person that seems to evoke emotion in Neil Armstrong is his dead daughter.
Finally the whole Oscar buzz and campaign around this movie. Firstly, all this points to Damien Chazelle. If he was not attached to this movie then there wouldn't be any buzz for this movie. Since he has street cred from whiplash and la la land, people want to like and support him. La la land was his mount Everest. So, the next few movies that are in its blast radius will feel the effect. Critics , having revered La la land go soft on his next few movies unless he makes a piece of crap. But luckily since the movie bombed, all the critics and awards pundits in their high horses are hit with the hard cold reality of box office . This movie being a bomb will effect its Oscar chances significantly. On the contrary a movie like green book is met with skepticism because it is directed by a comedic director. So, this movie begs 2 questions. Is it worth telling a story in an expressive medium if its central character is unemotional ? and the other is, should Oscar campaign and hype be given only to filmmakers that has street cred and not to someone that's transitioning from other genre to serious prestige film-making ?