'First Man' Review

Visually stunning and emotionally dramatic, Neil Armstrong's biopic reveals why the moon landings were such a "giant step" for one man in Damien Chazelle's intimate drama

The race to the moon begins in 'First Man' (Universal/Comcast Corp.)

by Jack Linsdell

Damien Chazelle's latest film 'First Man' has just debuted in UK cinemas, and the Ryan Gosling-as-Neil Armstrong biopic is worth every word of the awards hype it has received. The director of 'La La Land' and 'Whiplash' combines personal family drama with gorgeously-cinematic visuals, in an intimate and emotionally-charged depiction of a man everyone's heard of but nobody truly knows.

I saw this film in a screen containing only two other people, and despite the apparent lack of audience enthusiasm (so far) to watch it, I do believe this will become another "leggy" success for the filmmaker - or, the bottom line is, it deserves to be. I was suitably impressed and its a rare occasion where, if the awards hype turns into it gaining actual trophies, I will for once agree with the judging committees decision (not that its the "best" film of the year, but that it certainly deserves every success as one of a few excellent ones of 2018). The biopic picks up Armstrong's story from 1961, when the American space programme (run by NASA) is seriously lagging behind the USSR's space achievements. After being hired for the "Gemini" mission as a pilot, the film explores the personal challenges Armstrong and his family face, as well as the technological difficulties, in making him become the first man to walk on the moon. 

It's reported that the screenplay first started under the direction of veteran director-actor Clint Eastwood in 2003, based on the biography First Man: The Life of Neil A. Armstrong by James R. Hanson (who serves as a co-producer on the film), but once Chazelle signed on was re-written and incredulously re-researched by Josh Singer. The scribe of 'Spotlight' and 'The Post' has delivered a thought-provoking and (apparently) quite truthful depiction of Armstrong's most crucial few years - in what I believe is a combination of 'Hidden Figures' and 'Gravity' but with a more personal angle. Factually, Singer's work is impressive and as someone who had knew nothing about Armstrong or the Apollo 11 mission, the film is a very interesting watch. However, cinematically, his screenplay has masterfully balances tension, emotion and intrigue whilst giving Ryan Gosling and Claire Foy plenty of material to play with. The real highlight is his characterisation of Armstrong, and his wife, which really allows the audience to get inside their heads and understand the pressures and hardships acting on them/facing them in those difficult years. However, for example, when his daughter dies early on (arguably the inciting incident of the script as this is what drives him to go to the moon) characters don't sit and explain to the audience that see's passed on. Instead, Singer cuts from a scene of Gosling discussing the lack of progress at the medical appointments to a coffin being lowered into the ground - symbolic, moving and sophisticated and one of numerous examples where actions speak louder than words in the film. 

However, even with the quality of Singer's screenplay, the direction to the film could have limited to the typical Hollywood "overwhelm the audience with visually arousing framing and camera moves" style, which arguably plagues the majority of awards ceremony nominees these days. But, Chazelle has hit the jackpot here, giving us a unique filmmaking style that truly lifts the words on the page into far deeper meaning. The director/producer for the space-themed flick, employs a claustrophobic and personal camera in which to record the action un-folding before our eyes, with an unusual amount of close-ups and a continuously-changing depth of field, with characters going in and out of focus with every slight movement. This proximity the audience feels to the characters helps reinforce Singer's personal story, allowing us to feel even closer to these people and what they are going through. The hand-held camera adds to the documentary feel, and Chazelle doesn't cut between multiple angles during scenes, instead using movement to show us the most important things. When Armstrong (Gosling) is bonding with his daughter early on, the camera pans down from a close-up of his face to their hands touching. Simple, yet deeply meaningful filmmaking really gives this film a refreshing feel. Added to this, Chazelle's camera is deeply subjective, mostly showing events from Armstrong's POV - as he walks to his space shuttle the camera shows us what he's looking at and during the rocket sequences in space, the camera remains (largely) inside the space ship, adding to our feeling of being enclosed in the small space and seeing the planets through the window like he does. My point here is it would have been very easy to have just "filmed" these scenes in a typical way, except Chazelle has really thought about how his style can enhance the viewers experience and he's made some excellent creative choices, I must say. 

On that note, the look of the film is extraordinary, with the space sequences being filmed with IMAX cameras, really enhancing the splendid job done with the creation of the visual effects (especially considering it's relatively small-to-mid budget of $60 million). For this alone, see the film in the cinema as on a wider screen it's even more effective. And, of course, 'First Man' is notable for its standout performances by its two leading actors. Armstrong is played very graciously by Gosling (who reteams with Chazelle after 'La La Land'), who balances his character quiet, brooding, and grief-stricken nature with his underlying passion and self-motivation for science and reaching his lifelong ambition, the moon. I have to admit, Gosling has proven himself to be a talent here, with one scene particularly stealing the show. He cries very convincingly with grief, alone in his office after his daughter has died and it really sets the tone for the rest of the film. Claire Foy ('Breathe', 'The Crown') is used sparingly, but is considerably powerful in the few scenes she has. Unlike some criticism going around about how she was "underused", I believe we saw enough of Foy to justify the character's importance to the story - and anyway, it's a biopic about Neil Armstrong, so she was always going to be a supporting character. Nonetheless, we see the enormous pressure and stresses she was experiencing as a "potential future widow" and can only imagine how hard those years must of been for her. The last scene of the film is powerful. After returning from the moon, she visits Armstrong (whose in quarantine) and there is nothing either can say to each other except touch each others hands but from opposite sides of the glass. This left me with a feeling that stayed with me long after the film had finished and I still haven't really processed - actions do speak louder than words it seems.

The film has been described by Singer as being a film about loss. For me, it's about the challenges faced when we want and try to achieve a goal in our lives, and how we deal with these. Armstrong is shown looking up at the moon in the sky throughout the first two acts, foreshadowing subtly where his ambition will lead him. However, its the deeper meaning, in that he wants to go to the moon because he remembers studying it with his daughter before she died many-a-time, that makes us understand why it's so important to him. For years, he talks to no one about her death as its his way of coping. Other characters (understandably) grow frustrated with this and can't understand. This is where the film resonated most with me, having been on both sides of the fence, sadly. 'First Man' encourages us to believe our dreams, no matter how ridiculous they seem, can be realised if we try hard enough - we should all aim to reach for our own moon and take a "giant step for man" (namely ourselves) in doing this. 

My only criticism (if you can really call it that) is I'm not sure it falls into a film I could re-watch several times. In that, once the intrigue is taken away from the whole "how and did he do it?" thing, the main draw is seeing it for the dramatically emotional performances. As I said, this isn't really a criticism as many films are what I term "one watch only" ones. However, now I've seen the inspiration but hard-to-watch story been told on screen I'm satisfied enough not to be overtly keen to watch it again. But, hey - we never know, right? 

Upon the build up to its release, there was some controversy (in America mainly) about the filmmakers missing out the key moment when the American flag was planted in the moon, blaming it for a lack of patriotism. Now, firstly I want to be clear this is a pathetic accusation by some far-right people who obviously have too much time on their hands, so don't let it put you off. Instead, I believe it actually makes it a more universal (no pun intended as they're the theatrical distributors) story in that its seen as mankind's achievement (not just America's), but also is in-keeping with the film being about the man behind the space suit - not the country and the political benefits it gained from 1969. 

Overall, I was honestly pleasantly surprised at the quality of Damien Chazelle's Neil Armstrong biopic, which I thought really demonstrated a high-quality "based on a true story" drama, providing a well acted, directed and written piece of filmmaking. Some may (understandably) not relate to it as much as (strangely) I did, however I believe it's definitely worth your time. How it performs commercially is a tough question with more mainstream and conventionally filmed/written movies dominating cinemas at the moment, but as ever we'll see. Indeed, biopics of this quality only come once in a blue moon. And, for that - it's worth celebrating.

5/5 STARS