Most of this starts to feel a bit less relevant these days. But Hollywood is still making these sorts of stories. And we still see these stories as rather important. Because they are to remind us of what heroism is supposed to be, who is supposed to be important, and what we are supposed to aspire to, or perhaps more accurately admire dutifully from afar.
Director Damien Chazelle is an extraordinary film maker. His previous two films (Whiplash, La La Land) are both arguably masterpieces, and very personal examinations of young men's experiences. First Man attempts to be both that plus more. The approach in First Man is to make the story of the humankind's first steps on the Moon (and therefore anywhere other than Earth), the personal story of a man, and not just any man but the "everyman" that these sorts of stories are supposed to be about. But at the same time it is also about the greatness of mankind through exploring this historic event. The film makes no bones about whether or not landing on the moon was an amazing avhievment. Not by showing us but by telling us. More on that later.
This is where the film falls down for me. For me the story of this man as the centre of this achievement is a way of ignoring all that something like this would take, and all that it costs. The idea that this particular struggle (to get to the moon) is the one to highlight mankind's value is one that isn't questioned or examined. It is assumed. Almost all the assumptions in First Man are assumed. It doesn't take the time to convince us.
We've just seen Hollywood deconstruct this idea through the wonderful Hidden Figures. That film spoke to the idea of all that was going on behind such an achievement, the way many contributions were ignored or minimized, of how the nation watching all of this was struggling with its own demons. But here we are back to the exceptional man narrative forgetting all of that so we can once again centre Armstrong as the hero of the tale. The films doesn't want us to question the assumptions of the film. At one point a reporter is heard asking the question "is it worth the cost in money and lives?" But the film doesn't want to answer that. It prefers to dismiss the question in later off hand remarks and characters literally speaking the line that it is all worth it. Never showing us the benefits. Just trusting us to trust them that the benefits are there. Perhaps exploring the answer to that question, regardless of what that answer would be, would have been a more deeply satisfying movie.
Instead First Man is interested in what it takes to be the people who achieve this. The dedication, the sacrifice, the nobility is all on display. Armstrong is the prototype of the everyman this sort of ideology requires. And his wife, dutifully waiting behind and suffering strongly in silence is also admirable. Cause that's her role. First Man is a throw back to these sorts of stories, reinforcing the structure that celebrates this.
Chazelle accomplishes this beautifully. One cannot fairly criticize him for not making a breathtaking film which is visually stunning, intelligently structured for maximum impact, and exquisitely acted by a strong cast. Chazelle has an incredible talent for telling stories through the medium of film and First Man is another example of his power as a film maker.
But is the story up to his ambition and talent? We've seen this story before. As I've said the great man narrative has been done and we're starting to see film makers tell different stories. Does this one still hold power? In this case, for me, there was little here of any emotional power. Not due to Chazelle's efforts. There were times the sheer beauty of his work almost won me over. But I kept finding little to nothing of substance beneath all of Chazelle's glorious film making to make me care. What is here that we haven't seen before?
I'm not arguing that the race to the moon wasn't a valid exercize. I'm just saying it would have been nice for the film to make me care about the question, to care about the characters. I'm just not sure what First Man is about is enough to hold my passion no matter how lovely Chazelle makes it. I get that the Armstrong here is everything we are usually prepared to care about and admire in these movies. That's the way movies have been made for 100 years. I'm just not sure I'm prepared to care int he way I have been before.
Perhaps if you have a special passion for the stories of early astronauts, perhaps then First Man will offer you something more meaningful than it offered to me. I guess I've got to the point where I no longer feel the need to pretend like I am invested in these stories. Or I'm done convincing myself I have to be invested in these stories. Chazelle's job wasn't just to make a beautifully filmed story, but to make his audience feel it. I didn't feel it.
One might feel it. There are plenty of reasons why someone might feel a specific passion to be invested in this story. But, here is my critique, it's not really because of anything the film (in its script, direction, or performances) does. It's because we are supposed to. The film is designed to invoke the feelings we are conditioned to have during these sorts of stories. It doesn't necessarily invoke them itself.
For me First Man felt like a beautiful shallow thing. Shallow isn't always bad. But if the film is trying to not be shallow and it ends up feeling shallow, then perhaps it doesn't succeed. For me it didn't. It wasn't a terrible anything. It didn't grab me, make me care, or ignite any passion in me.
I will give Chazelle this. He gives us an amazing moon landing sequence. In fact it isn't until the last 10 minutes of the film where First Man truly came to life for me. Shot mostly in first person view, the moon landing is wonderfully executed and easily the most memorable part of the film. A film I spent 2 hours wading through to get here.
First Man
Starring: Ryan Gosling, Claire Foy, Corey Stoll, Pablo Schreiber, Jason Clarke, Kyle Chandler, Lucas Hoss
Director: Damien Chazelle
Writer: Josh Singer
No comments:
Post a Comment