First Man (3/5 Stars)

Can there be just one astronaut’s wife that doesn’t continually lose her shit.

First Man tells the story of Neil Armstrong, the first man to walk on the moon. The moon landing occurred in 1969, an event we are told was watched by 400 million people worldwide. Amazingly, this is the first biopic about Neil Armstrong that has ever been made. It comes twenty years after Apollo 13, the movie about the most disastrous Apollo mission, and even a couple of years after Hidden Figures the “untold story” about three obscure NASA mathematicians who happened to be black women. In a way, First Man’s long delay is a great illustration of the artistic community’s disconnect with science and engineering. First Man probably took so long to get made because Hollywood has no idea what makes the story interesting. Watching First Man it is clear that Hollywood still has no idea. Bless them, they understand the drama of a black woman being unable to use a “white’s only” bathroom, but a successful trip to the moon, that is uncharted territory.

It is possible to make an interesting movie that takes place in space and does justice to the people involved in the missions. Apollo 13 was a particularly good movie. The Martian also did a great job. What these movies understand is that science puzzles and engineering problems when presented with clarity and acuity can be suspenseful and interesting. First Man being based on real events that presented engineering problems, sometimes with fatal consequences, had a lot of potential to take this road. What the movie chose to focus on instead was family drama, most of it probably trumped up, and none of it deserving to be shown alongside the extraordinary historic moment the movie is supposedly celebrating.

Neil Armstrong is played by Ryan Gosling, who channels his Drive persona and does a great job in playing someone who historically was described as calm, quietly brave, and no-nonsense. I expect the real Neil would approve of the portrayal. Janet Armstrong, played by Claire Foy, can hardly keep her shit together. It would be hard for me to imagine the real Janet not being somewhat offended by her portrayal. The movie, in its misguided search for drama, decides that Janet’s fears for the safety of her husband is on the same level of importance as a mission to walk on the moon for the first time. She even goes so far as to berate her husband right before the mission about his cold emotional stability about the whole thing. I just wanted to shake her and explain, “Neil is about to WALK ON THE MOON. Your life, children, and nerves are insignificant bullshit compared to that!” There is even a segment of the movie that does a tour of the country zoning in on all the naysayers who thought the moon missions were a waste of time and money. Why is this here? I saw this movie because I was interested in Neil Armstrong and Apollo 11. I don’t care what a bunch of short-sighted idiots think.

First Man was directed by Damien Chazelle. This is his third feature behind Whiplash and La La Land. His first two movies were great movies about music and musicians. I really have no idea why he chose First Man as his next project. The direction is competent but lacks interest in the subject matter. Chazelle seems more interested in Armstrong’s dead daughter than he does about spaceflight. Surely dead daughters and fretful wives can be the subject of great films, just not great films about a man walking on the moon for the first time.

Midnight in Paris (5/5 Stars)

How to be an intellectual without being annoying about it.

There are two men in this movie that know an awful lot about Paris. One is, Paul, played by Michael Sheen. He’s the type of guy who would interrupt a tour guide, played here by 1^st lady Carla Bruni of France, with the words, “If I’m not mistaken, Rodin’s the Thinker was influenced more by his mistress than his wife.” First of all, he does not think he is mistaken and so is already disingenuous. Second, he is a jerk for upstaging the tour guide just in order to show off. I don’t know who influenced Rodin, but if Paul is right than he needlessly embarrassed the tour guide by making such a scene. If he is wrong than he needlessly made a complete fool of himself. All present should be annoyed. Than there is Gil Pender, played by Owen Wilson. He too is an intellectual, but his smarts show not by self-aggrandizing posturing but by a knowing wonder for the town. He keeps on bugging everyone to walk with him in the rain because as he says, “Paris is so beautiful in the rain!” The great thing about Woody Allen’s “Midnight in Paris” is that it understands so well the difference between these two ways of being a know-it-all. There is a difference between an intellectual who goes, “Wow! I can’t believe we’re in the same bar that Hemingway drank at! Hemingway was so cool and he drank so much! We’re going to have an awesome time here drinking and talking about Hemingway!” As opposed to an intellectual who lectures, “If I’m not mistaken, this is where Hemingway drank. His “Farewell to Arms” was okay but I felt in “A Moveable Feast” he was not as sure of himself. Also he drank way too much. That’s why he killed himself. You people should revere me because I am so knowledgeable about where we are.” “Midnight in Paris,” shows a vast familiarity with the 1920’s Lost Generation of Paris. It name drops excessively both from the well-known and not so well known people and places of the time and even includes quite a bit of French and Spanish, none of it in subtitles. But the movie never feels or seems pretentious. This isn’t an Honors English lecture. It is an inclusive party with old friends and one of the most enjoyable movies of the year. 

Gil Pender is a Hollywood hack screenwriter. It is good money but spiritually unfulfilling. He has a dream of moving to Paris and working on his novel because, well, all his literary heroes hung out in Paris and wrote novels. He visits Paris with his materialistic fiancé Inez, played by Rachel McAdams. There they bump into her parents on a business trip. The father refuses to enjoy Paris for political reasons. They also meet the pseudo-intellectual, Paul, who likes to label everything as romantic/surrealists/pre-new wave/etc/etc. One night, Gil chooses to leave the group and walk around Paris for no real reason but to do it. At midnight, a 1920’s car filled to the brim with flappers from the Rolling Twenties pulls up next to him. Before he knows it, Gil finds himself at a party where Cole Porter is playing the piano. A woman named Zelda starts a conversation with him. She is the wife of a guy named Francis Scott Fitzgerald. Zelda asks Gil what he thinks of the party. The bewildered/excited out of his mind/awestruck Gil doesn’t know what to say. “I know,” Zelda says, “this place is boring. We’re going to a better party. Want to come with us?”

What a trip! Not only is Gil meeting all his heroes, but also all his heroes are exactly as he thought they would be. Even better, they like him and are interested in the novel he is working on. Ernest Hemingway won’t read it himself because he is of the firm belief that a writer will either hate another's work or be envious of it and hate it all the more. But Hemingway will show Gil the manuscript to the only editor he trusts, one Gertrude Stein, played by Kathy Bates. As Gil enters the studio of Gertrude Stein she is critiquing one of Picasso’s new paintings with Picasso present and adamantly defending himself. “Gil,” Stein asks, “what do you think of Pablo’s new work?” Imagine that. Being asked to critique Picasso to his face. Having Stein read your novel. Drinking with Hemingway. Gil Pender spends a majority of the movie in a state of ecstasy. Owen Wilson, perfectly cast even at 40 years old, conveys a perfect sense of child-like wonder. There is a great shot with Gil back in the 21^st century, wide-awake in his bed and whispering to nobody, “I saw Hemingway. Gertrude Stein is reading my novel. I’m Gil Pender. I’m from Pasadena.” What is really amazing is that this is a Woody Allen movie. Allen has done over forty movies now and there has been such a consistent strain of pessimism and nihilism in his work. That has completely evaporated here and in its stead is gorgeous scenery, great larger-than-life characters, sharp and clever dialogue, and a protagonist who couldn’t possibly be enjoying himself more than he already is.

Standing at about 90 minutes, this movie is also a great example of story efficiency. It takes about two minutes to introduce all the real-life people and their different attitudes towards Paris. It takes another five to introduce the idea of nostalgia and the cynical view that it is an erroneous romanticization of the past to assume that it was a better time than it is now (This theme comes up again ironically when one of the 1920’s artists suggests that the real golden age of Paris was in the 1890s.) The literary figures show up at all the right places in all the right times. I especially liked who Gil explains his perplexing situation as a man who spends the night in the 1920s and wakes up in 2010. He says this to some 1920s surrealists and they see nothing strange about his situation. Salvador Dali, played nicely by Adrien Brody, seems far more interested with his new favorite word “Rhinocerous!” There is also room for a budding romance between Gil and one of the art groupies named Adriana, played by Marion Cotillard. Overall the movie, like all good comedies, is not too long but contains quite a lot. It moves fast, is consistently funny, and very romantic. And don’t forget Paris. It looks as good as ever.