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

[MacUK 983]

19 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

 

I look to Shakespeare as one who was really good at writing historical 'fiction' as propaganda pieces, then am amazed at the dramatic license taken when they are made into films that are supposed to be reverting things back to 'historical accuracy (nope!).

I went on a Yeoman Warders tour at the Tower of London a couple of years ago and when it came around to the Richard III - Tudor eras the Warder put it simply.

"What you have to remember is that Shakespeare wrote his plays with the thought in the back of his mind that he had to keep a redhead happy, so take them with a pinch of salt"

[Randyandyuni 2,682]

11 minutes ago, MacUK said:

No nationalism at all, merely that I didn't know enough of the facts off hand to be able to list absolutely every single country that was involved in the defeat of Germany.

my list was far from all-encompassing, just a couple of the top of my head, just an observation based on the snippet from your quote, no harm, no foul

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

2 hours ago, MacUK said:

Other than a couple of lines of dialogue in Saving Private Ryan the contributions of 100s of thousands of soldiers from the UK, Canada and all over the Commonwealth is completely ignored.

 

The Pearl Harbour one is a bit more obscure, the short section where the hero volunteers to fly with the RAF.

It implied that the USAAF was regularly sending volunteer pilots to the UK to help with the war effort. While there were many brave U.S. pilots who volunteered for the RAF it wasn't a USAAF thing, it was young U.S. civilians who just wanted to help defeat Germany.

still does not obscure the fact that if the US had not entered the war England would be speaking German right now. 

[MacUK 983]

5 hours ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

still does not obscure the fact that if the US had not entered the war England would be speaking German right now. 

Doubtful, seeing as Hitler had already indefinitely postponed all plans to invade Mainland Britain after failing to achieve air and naval superiority. 

If they had managed to invade then they probably would have been able to sweep through the British ground forces relatively easily (and as an Army veteran that's a tad annoying) but they realised they would never have been able to get a large enough force onto British soil with the Royal Navy controlling the channel and the RAF in control of the skies.

 

You can take solace in the fact that if America hadn't entered the war then most of Europe would be speaking German, without America the Allies would never have been able to liberate Europe.

 

[yuna628 9,530]

Hey I just wanted to say that after covering a veteran's event my husband and I went to go see this film. We found it really stunning, beautiful, and very emotional. It was loved by a lot of the older folks in the room who had remembered those times way back when. We sat around and talked about it for a while, and we decided that a lot of the controversy was very overblown. This was a movie about Armstrong and his very touching journey through pain and extreme loss.. the physical journey of him getting to the moon was a part of his story, but the film was largely and solely focused on him. It's not a fully historically accurate depiction and isn't meant to be in terms of physical events. It's more like a biopic of an incredible and.. pained man. There are clear depictions of American flags, ''USA'', and the importance of getting ''there'' before the soviets.. and for all the yelling, there is a shot in the distance of the flag clearly placed if you pay attention. But when you view the film in full context, him landing on the moon and what it meant personally to him, having an intercut of the flag moment may have actually upset the pace and direction of a very intense moment (the room was crying actually). So what I'm saying is, I'd really encourage people to go see this film. It's a good film, a real tear-jerker, and well-acted.

 

PS: It also focuses on the men in the project before him, his friends, who he lost, and what that meant to him in both his desire to succeed and honor them.

Edited October 21, 2018 by yuna628

[OptimusSpice 164]

On 9/3/2018 at 2:38 PM, Merle said:

You mean Neil Armstrong didn't build his own spacecraft and fly himself to the moon?

"Neil A." backwards...."Alien"....didn't you know - the whole moon thing is really the story of Aliens!!! 

 

We should use THIS flag!

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

10 hours ago, yuna628 said:

Hey I just wanted to say that after covering a veteran's event my husband and I went to go see this film. We found it really stunning, beautiful, and very emotional. It was loved by a lot of the older folks in the room who had remembered those times way back when. We sat around and talked about it for a while, and we decided that a lot of the controversy was very overblown. This was a movie about Armstrong and his very touching journey through pain and extreme loss.. the physical journey of him getting to the moon was a part of his story, but the film was largely and solely focused on him. It's not a fully historically accurate depiction and isn't meant to be in terms of physical events. It's more like a biopic of an incredible and.. pained man. There are clear depictions of American flags, ''USA'', and the importance of getting ''there'' before the soviets.. and for all the yelling, there is a shot in the distance of the flag clearly placed if you pay attention. But when you view the film in full context, him landing on the moon and what it meant personally to him, having an intercut of the flag moment may have actually upset the pace and direction of a very intense moment (the room was crying actually). So what I'm saying is, I'd really encourage people to go see this film. It's a good film, a real tear-jerker, and well-acted.

 

PS: It also focuses on the men in the project before him, his friends, who he lost, and what that meant to him in both his desire to succeed and honor them.

I feel that cutting the flag out , which was part of history. Causes me disenfranchisement. 

I am disenfranchised 

[yuna628 9,530]

1 hour ago, Marty Byrde said:

I feel that cutting the flag out , which was part of history. Causes me disenfranchisement. 

I am disenfranchised 

Disenfranchising means to deprive someone. So you feel deprived of a moment in a film. Which as I said, films are art, and everyone sees something different in art and will feel different things. The flag is still there placed on the moon in the film, we just don't see the act of placing it.

 

To put it in greater context, this film is a story about a very private and detached man that is intensely grieving. His whole drive to get to the moon isn't for 'America' it's for a greater goal of exploration and wonder, honor those who died so they won't die for nothing, and on a personal level to grieve and let go. The moon is a desolate and beautiful place, and is a metaphor for the desolate nature of emotions the character is feeling. It's tense moments are shot visually through his eyes. We experience the claustrophic intensity of being an astronaut and the harrowing danger. He's completely fearless and detached because he's lost a lot of what mattered to him and when they land on the moon - Armstrong just wants that quiet desolate moment to grieve, while Buzz just wants to experience the rush and joy. Maybe it would have been better for you, if while during the swell of an emotional moment, he suddenly gets all business like and sticks a flag in the dust.. but how everything had been building and had been shot, would have ruined the entire context. Still, there is nothing anti-America about this film. Most of the USAF vets I spoke to yesterday loved it.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

18 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

Disenfranchising means to deprive someone. So you feel deprived of a moment in a film. Which as I said, films are art, and everyone sees something different in art and will feel different things. The flag is still there placed on the moon in the film, we just don't see the act of placing it.

 

To put it in greater context, this film is a story about a very private and detached man that is intensely grieving. His whole drive to get to the moon isn't for 'America' it's for a greater goal of exploration and wonder, honor those who died so they won't die for nothing, and on a personal level to grieve and let go. The moon is a desolate and beautiful place, and is a metaphor for the desolate nature of emotions the character is feeling. It's tense moments are shot visually through his eyes. We experience the claustrophic intensity of being an astronaut and the harrowing danger. He's completely fearless and detached because he's lost a lot of what mattered to him and when they land on the moon - Armstrong just wants that quiet desolate moment to grieve, while Buzz just wants to experience the rush and joy. Maybe it would have been better for you, if while during the swell of an emotional moment, he suddenly gets all business like and sticks a flag in the dust.. but how everything had been building and had been shot, would have ruined the entire context. Still, there is nothing anti-America about this film. Most of the USAF vets I spoke to yesterday loved it.

The planting of the flag was the 2nd biggest Iconic moment besides the one small step. Why purposely cut it out ? The producers made it political.

[yuna628 9,530]

27 minutes ago, Marty Byrde said:

The planting of the flag was the 2nd biggest Iconic moment besides the one small step. Why purposely cut it out ? The producers made it political.

I just told you why.

 

Did you watch the film? You might get it then.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour ago, yuna628 said:

Disenfranchising means to deprive someone. So you feel deprived of a moment in a film. Which as I said, films are art, and everyone sees something different in art and will feel different things. The flag is still there placed on the moon in the film, we just don't see the act of placing it.

 

To put it in greater context, this film is a story about a very private and detached man that is intensely grieving. His whole drive to get to the moon isn't for 'America' it's for a greater goal of exploration and wonder, honor those who died so they won't die for nothing, and on a personal level to grieve and let go. The moon is a desolate and beautiful place, and is a metaphor for the desolate nature of emotions the character is feeling. It's tense moments are shot visually through his eyes. We experience the claustrophic intensity of being an astronaut and the harrowing danger. He's completely fearless and detached because he's lost a lot of what mattered to him and when they land on the moon - Armstrong just wants that quiet desolate moment to grieve, while Buzz just wants to experience the rush and joy. Maybe it would have been better for you, if while during the swell of an emotional moment, he suddenly gets all business like and sticks a flag in the dust.. but how everything had been building and had been shot, would have ruined the entire context. Still, there is nothing anti-America about this film. Most of the USAF vets I spoke to yesterday loved it.

Intensely grieving? For what?  Doesn't sound anything like the Neil Armstrong I remember from my youth.  Sounds to me like the producers took some liberties with his persona.

[Lemonslice 4,556]

1 minute ago, Satisfied said:

Intensely grieving? For what?  Doesn't sound anything like the Neil Armstrong I remember from my youth.  Sounds to me like the producers took some liberties with his persona.

I have not seen anyone pretend it was a documentary 🤨

Edited October 21, 2018 by Lemonslice

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 minute ago, Lemonslice said:

I have not seen anyone pretend it was a documentary 🤨

Nor did I use that word.  But it kind of changes many things when movies are made that are full of falsehoods.  Many people will believe the movie over the truth simply because they are too lazy to discover the truth.  Some simply want to be entertained. 

[Lemonslice 4,556]

2 minutes ago, Satisfied said:

Nor did I use that word.  But it kind of changes many things when movies are made that are full of falsehoods.  Many people will believe the movie over the truth simply because they are too lazy to discover the truth.  Some simply want to be entertained. 

It's a fiction movie - it is only falsehood if one can't realize the difference between fiction and reality (which I guess, no matter the population, some will always have trouble with that). 

[yuna628 9,530]

38 minutes ago, Satisfied said:

Intensely grieving? For what?  Doesn't sound anything like the Neil Armstrong I remember from my youth.  Sounds to me like the producers took some liberties with his persona.

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.

30 minutes ago, Satisfied said:

Nor did I use that word.  But it kind of changes many things when movies are made that are full of falsehoods.  Many people will believe the movie over the truth simply because they are too lazy to discover the truth.  Some simply want to be entertained. 

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.