Canadian ‘First Man’ actor defends omitting American flag planting on moon: Achievement ‘transcended countries and borders’

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

On 9/3/2018 at 10:58 AM, LeesaMarie said:

 

 

I think this is the point the film is trying to make? It's so iconic, you don't need to have the flag there. We know the film is American, we know it's about an American astronaut. The world knows the USA were the first on the moon. We know all about this, we learn about this.

 

Perhaps omitting the flag was to remove the focus on USA doing it (as everyone knows this), and focus that humans reached the moon. Try not to confuse this with other countries attempting to take credit for the NASA space program, and perhaps try to think what it actually means from this films perspective. No one is trying to take anything from America by doing this, they are simply focusing on the part of history that matters to the film; the story of a man, not the story of a country, or even it's space program, just a man. If you don't like story telling in this way, a way that wants to capture something other than nationalism then I guess, don't watch the film, or even read about it. 

 

And I guess if you are really that upset, make your own version of the film that specifically focuses on the fact that America reached the moon first, but I am sure this has been done quite a few times in many films. But hey, why not keep repeating images just for the sake of it, right? 

Maybe they should have made him black as to not focus on white privilege 

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

42 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

A good bit of the movie is based upon his autobiography, and from his family and friends. Yes he was a grieving man that lost his baby daughter. He had a hard time connecting with people and people wondered if his grief would effect his piloting skills. His steely nerves under extreme situations and being in many near disasters made some think he was suicidal or was putting himself into danger intentionally. The distance at which he was with many, and guarded nature, prevented him from a lot of emotional warmth. As the film develops every time he finds connections with friends at NASA and begins to open up and reveal warmth, he loses them to death. Those deaths also effected him greatly. I'm sure poetic license was taken, as I said many films do, and should not be expected to be taken as 100% fact. The film sort of makes the connection between all of the loss he had in his life, and his desire to get to the moon. I think that the director found aspects about Armstrong and how he handled grief, pressure, and heroism as something he wanted to explore rather than any other focus.

It is an entertaining movie.. digitally some scenes are incredible and really leave you in awe, than many similar space related exploration films. But I think the overall point is... the director wasn't making a movie about how we got to the moon, he was making a movie about the emotions of a man who planted his feet on the moon and what that meant to him. I'm sure some of it was made more dramatic, but certainly it touched most of those in the audience yesterday. And I think that is what art should do on some level.

Not correct, we have already been told it;s fiction by the MDL/MOB.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

"Karen Armstrong was indeed diagnosed with an aggressive brain tumor. After radiation treatment proved to be more than Karen could take, the Armstrongs took her home where she died from pneumonia a few months after diagnosis at age 2 and a half. According to Hansen, the film does not exaggerate the extent of Armstrong’s stiff upper lip. “People who knew Armstrong well,” he writes, “indicated Neil never once brought up the subject of his daughter’s illness and death. In fact, several of his closest working associates stated they did not know Neil ever had a daughter.”

Karen died on Jan. 28, 1962. Armstrong made test flights throughout her illness until Jan. 17, and he was back in the air on Feb. 6, a week after her funeral, taking no time off until May. “Neil kind of used work as an excuse,” Grace Walker, a family friend, told Hansen. “He got as far away from the emotional thing as he could. I know he hurt terribly over Karen. That was just his way of dealing with it.”

 

https://slate.com/culture/2018/10/first-man-fact-vs-fiction-neil-armstrong-movie-daughter-bracelet.html

[yuna628 9,527]

1 hour ago, Marty Byrde said:

Not correct, we have already been told it;s fiction by the MDL/MOB.

Deliberately obtuse while swerving in the road causes crashing. Fix those tires man.

 

 

1 hour ago, Satisfied said:

"Karen Armstrong was indeed diagnosed with an aggressive brain tumor. After radiation treatment proved to be more than Karen could take, the Armstrongs took her home where she died from pneumonia a few months after diagnosis at age 2 and a half. According to Hansen, the film does not exaggerate the extent of Armstrong’s stiff upper lip. “People who knew Armstrong well,” he writes, “indicated Neil never once brought up the subject of his daughter’s illness and death. In fact, several of his closest working associates stated they did not know Neil ever had a daughter.”

Karen died on Jan. 28, 1962. Armstrong made test flights throughout her illness until Jan. 17, and he was back in the air on Feb. 6, a week after her funeral, taking no time off until May. “Neil kind of used work as an excuse,” Grace Walker, a family friend, told Hansen. “He got as far away from the emotional thing as he could. I know he hurt terribly over Karen. That was just his way of dealing with it.”

 

https://slate.com/culture/2018/10/first-man-fact-vs-fiction-neil-armstrong-movie-daughter-bracelet.html

There's nothing I'd dispute with that statement. As it says, the film does not exaggerate in that regard, but I do think it extrapolates and relates it to our own perception of death and loss. Otherwise we'd have a very boring textual drama which would have no depth you know? The child's death hurt him, and so did the deaths of his friends. He devoted himself to his work to cope and completely detached from his wife and kids. Those that are extremely detached during death, find their own unique ways to deal inside, but those that study human behavior would certainly (and those who have suffered such extreme loss) know that outward detachment does not reveal the turmoil and pain within. It may bother you that such a 'poetic license' could be taken on something we have no definitive evidence about, but again it is art and was not created to be exactly historically accurate. There's plenty of movies or documentaries that do that, but Hollywood doesn't typically. The bracelet thing was a big emotional moment for the viewer in the film, and it is also an absolutely unproven thing (but it did not offend his family to put it there). Some family members imagined it could have been a possibility. One other biographer recalls a moment where he stood at the crater and thought of his daughter in a way that certainly seemed to keep with the spirit of the film represented here.

Edited October 21, 2018 by yuna628

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Yuna, you should take over for Siskel and Ebert.  Good analysis!

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

Here is the rub. If you talked about the most iconic photos of the 60s, I think this would be in the top 10.  Also would be the little Vietnamese girl running from the village naked after napalm burned her clothes off.  The execution of a "Charlie" by the head of the South Vietnam police. The Black protesters siting at the white counter . The Monk setting himself on fire.

 

So why not include the most well known scene in the movie?

 

My guess is the producer knew it would cause a controversy and he would get millions in free publicity and it would pierce the veil of information over load we all suffer from. The fact we are talking about it is proof.

 

He also knows the vast majority of media personality would be drooling over it since he took a jab traditional Americans, because 95% are far left MDL/MOB

 

In the end I will probably go watch it or wait for rental.

 

[Dashinka 23,231]

Personally, I have never been attracted to non-fiction events depicted in movies with poetic license.  I like to know the real story, and not some version a producer, director, or actor decided to give us.  That being said, period pieces do tend to be popular, so I imagine it will do reasonably well with or without the politics injected by the makers of this film.

[yuna628 9,527]

17 hours ago, Marty Byrde said:

Here is the rub. If you talked about the most iconic photos of the 60s, I think this would be in the top 10.  Also would be the little Vietnamese girl running from the village naked after napalm burned her clothes off.  The execution of a "Charlie" by the head of the South Vietnam police. The Black protesters siting at the white counter . The Monk setting himself on fire.

 

So why not include the most well known scene in the movie?

 

My guess is the producer knew it would cause a controversy and he would get millions in free publicity and it would pierce the veil of information over load we all suffer from. The fact we are talking about it is proof.

 

He also knows the vast majority of media personality would be drooling over it since he took a jab traditional Americans, because 95% are far left MDL/MOB

 

In the end I will probably go watch it or wait for rental.

 

Despite the iconic nature, to me the scene doesn't belong in the film because of the context of what was happening at that moment, but it certainly could belong in it had the film been shot different, wanted to say something different (was less of a personal story and more of a bigger idea kind of story), or had been re-edited (which can either make or break it). It's over 2hrs in runtime, and the biggest drama is right near the end, inserting that would have required a breakway cut, a change in narrative, and a whole host of other things. So that is why I think creatively they left it.. and like I said the flag can be seen there. A different film and it may have fit well. But thanks for thinking about giving it a try!

2 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

Personally, I have never been attracted to non-fiction events depicted in movies with poetic license.  I like to know the real story, and not some version a producer, director, or actor decided to give us.  That being said, period pieces do tend to be popular, so I imagine it will do reasonably well with or without the politics injected by the makers of this film.

It hasn't done that well sadly either because of marketing problems, lack of interest in the story, or the controversy and yelling about it. It's just always a shame to me when people don't give films a chance. Even those that have poetic license can be worthwhile. Gosling is a great character actor. Foy was also solid. I liked this Pittsburgh paper review about it. http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/keith-c-burris/2018/10/21/Keith-C-Burris-The-first-man-was-the-right-man/stories/201810210044 As for period pieces, Mary, Queen of Scots is coming up... looks to be utter trash historically. It looks like a pretty film but a mess on accuracy.