"First Man" and the Stupidity of Outrage Culture

I saw the new Neil Armstrong biopic, First Man, this afternoon. It’s a fairly entertaining piece of Oscar bait with good performances from Ryan Gosling as Armstrong, Claire Foy as his wife Janet, and a solid supporting cast all around as well as some genuinely exciting moments and breathtaking visuals. It’s also overlong by at least 30 minutes and is hampered by the unfortunate use of handheld shaky-cam by cinematographer Linus Sandgren, who shot director Damien Chazelle’s previous film La La Land in a more classical style. I had to move to the way back of the theatre so that I didn’t get sick during the show. (Chazelle seems to be one of those directors like Paul Greengrass and Kathryn Bigelow who believe that any movie based on true historical events must be shot in a manner that gives its audience motion sickness. Having the camera swim around like a drunken fish apparently lends a sense of “realism” that classically-shot historical films don’t. I guess according to that logic, Lawrence of Arabia and Patton would be even better if the audience got vertigo while watching them. But that’s a different rant for a different time.)

As entertaining as First Man is, it also appears to be the hotbed of two of the stupidest controversies from opposite ends of our current political landscape. If you’re wondering to yourself how a biopic of the first man to ever walk on the moon could ever be controversial, then congratulations! You’re a sensible person who doesn’t read too much into things, unlike some of the overly outraged twits who are polluting America’s political discourse with triviality and nonsense.

On the right side of the equations, conservatives are outraged because the movie omits the iconic scene of Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin (played by Corey Stoll) planting the American flag on the moon. Never mind the fact that the flag is still shown on the lunar module and images of it appear frequently throughout the film. (An earlier scene features one of Armstrong’s sons proudly raising the flag on the family porch.) Because one image of Americana does not appear in the film, that means it is clearly godless, anti-American commie propaganda. Even our clueless dunce of a current president felt the need to add his unwanted two cents: "It's unfortunate. It's almost like they're embarrassed at the achievement coming from America, I think it's a terrible thing. When you think of Neil Armstrong and when you think of the landing on the moon, you think about the American flag. For that reason, I wouldn't even want to watch the movie.”

That’s fine, Donnie. I’m sure all of the scientific and technical jargon used by the NASA scientists throughout the film would just make your tiny, peanut-sized brain hurt anyway. Also, all of the female characters keep their clothes on, which is completely at odds at your sleazy, prurient interests. Seriously though, when did blind flag worship become a prerequisite for loving your country? We’ve all undoubtedly seen that embarrassing picture of the imbecile-in-chief hugging the American flag like Linus from Peanuts cuddling his blankie. I’d be more impressed if he had as much respect for the Constitution as he did for a giant symbolic piece of cloth. To quote the late, great Molly Ivins: “I prefer someone who burns the flag and then wraps themselves up in the Constitution over someone who burns the Constitution and then wraps themselves up in the flag.”

If insufficient flag-waving is the movie’s biggest flaw for viewers on the right, then a lack of color and diversity is the biggest problem for viewers on the left, some of whom are incensed that the filmmakers had the nerve to make a movie about a white man’s accomplishments without addressing any social problems affecting minorities at the time. The New Yorker’s Richard Brody has called it a “right-wing fetish object” and The Mary Sue’s Kate Gardener writes that "I’m glad they decided against making it a story of American exceptionalism, but as with most historical films, they decide to focus mostly on white men." Umm…maybe because the historical events in question concerned mostly white men? The sad fact is that in the 1960s, NASA and other cultural institutions weren’t as well-integrated and ethnically diverse as they are now. To pretend otherwise and to add a token minority face where none existed would be to distort historical accuracy for the sake of cultural sensitivity.  

So there you have it, folks. First Man can’t simply be enjoyed as an entertaining biopic about one of America’s greatest heroes. It must be molded into fitting into our own personal political agendas. It’s not patriotic enough for some viewers and too jingoistic for others. It’s a right-wing screed and a liberal polemic. It’s a floor wax and a dessert topping! Meanwhile, in the real world, climate change is threatening to wipe out our very existence, Hurricane Michael had devastated much of the east coast, Saudi Arabian journalist Jamal Khashoggi was murdered by extremists, and our country is being led by a shiftless dipshit of a president would rather suck up to pop stars than address any of the problems that are truly facing the country. Aren’t you glad you got upset over a movie?