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.

La La Land (5/5 Stars)

Watching “La La Land,” one wonders why there aren’t more movies like it. After all, it is a lot of fun. The movie starts in a typical traffic jam on a Los Angeles overpass. That is until one person starts singing a cute upbeat tune entitled “It’s Just Another Day of Sun.” She is joined one by one by her fellow commuters and then all at once by every other person stuck on the overpass. They are of all creeds and colors and are lightly dressed and brightly colored. They start dancing, doing tricks with bikes and skateboards, and at one point the back of a van opens to reveal a band already playing this upbeat song. Suddenly the song ends, everyone gets back into their cars, and the traffic jam continues. The camera pans up to show the Los Angeles skyline and the movie’s best joke appears as a title. Simply, it states, “Winter.”

“La La Land” is written and directed by a young man named Damien Chazelle. He’s made three movies so far. His first “Guy and Madeline on a Park Bench,” was notable in how it contained distinct musical numbers, set pieces almost never seen in a no-budget movie (almost never because Damien Chazelle did it). “Whiplash,” Chazelle’s first brush with a budget (albeit still a very small one), was a virtuoso in editing which spoke volumes about the director’s preternatural talent and industry for displaying rhythm on the screen. “La La Land” is the full flourishing of Chazelle’s power. He reunites with Justin Hurwitz, the musical director of his previous features, and has created the best movie musical since 2002’s “Chicago.”

Unbound by a restrictive budget and reveling in the presence of movie stars like main leads Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone, “La La Land” is a brilliantly romantic and exceptionally kinetic movie musical. The music riffs several themes over and over in various ways and they are good enough that the repetition is welcome. The cinematography wastes no frame in its attempt to make the movie wall to wall artistry. Cinema lovers who have watched Gene Kelly’s “Singin’ in the Rain” and “An American in Paris” will notice where the movie gets its inspiration. Gosling and Stone are not exceptional dancers (though they do a flawless Viennese Waltz at one point) but they don’t really need to be for you to have fun alongside them.

The movie might just win Best Picture and the reason it is the front-runner is also the only minor quip I have with it. The story, like previous Oscar winners like “The Artist,” “Argo,” and “Birdman,” is about people in the movie business. Emma Stone plays a wannabe actress striking out at various auditions and Ryan Gosling is a struggling jazz pianist. As someone who watches lots of movies, I believe I have seen enough movies about these particular types of people. “La La Land” is an exceptional movie musical, I just wish there were exceptional movie musicals that weren’t about people convinced the epitome of life is becoming famous.

Having said that, you may notice that these two characters aren’t necessarily equal in these cliche ambitions. Gosling is already good enough to get a good job in this movie, he just doesn’t want to settle for a regular gig. His ultimate goal is to open a jazz club where patrons can receive a very specific experience he feels is valuable. Whereas Emma Stone would be happy with any type of work and her ultimate goal is apparently to be recognized while buying coffee and insisting to pay for it when the manager tries to give it to her for free. One goal is actually worth having and this may reflect Chazelle’s far greater interest and experience in jazz than in whatever vague abstraction of success the Emma Stone character is going after.  

Whiplash (4/5 Stars)

Good Job

I could not be more impressed by a second feature and a first real budget (still low budget but still a budget) movie. The writer is Damien Chazelle. He is my age (OMFG) and his movie is absolutely killer. It is the sort of thing that registers a new cinematic presence in the neighborhood of greatness in your mind. I am excited for future movies from this kid. Let me explain: It is not too unusual for a very young person to give a great performance or write a very good screenplay or even to direct a good movie (take Ryan Coogler’s “Fruitvale Station” from last year). It’s unusual but not unheard of unusual. But the standout great thing about “Whiplash” is not any of these things. It is the editing. And Editing like Cinematography is a technical old-man-who-knows-how-to-work-machines job. Those other jobs can lean on the crutch of great inspiration or raw talent. Editing is a craft. Editing requires discipline and experience. And the editing that one experiences in “Whiplash” is so intricate, precise, and correct that to see a 28-year-old lead a team that does it is extraordinary. We need to give this Damien Chazelle some serious money and let him do whatever the fuck he wants next time around. The kid’s got rhythm.

“Whiplash” is a low budget movie. It has a protagonist (Jazz Drummer protégé played by Miles Teller) an antagonist (his sadistic/inspiring teacher played by J.K. Simmons) and two supporting characters: his easy going father and a girlfriend. The movie takes place in a series of rooms and concert halls and some country roads. The plot concerns the protagonist’s search for greatness in jazz drumming, his attempts to impress a teacher who is ideologically opposed to ever being impressed, and his ultimate confrontation and jazz drum battle with him. Now there is that on paper but on the screen you are watching what feels like an action blockbuster. This is pulled off by a focused screenplay, two great performances by Teller and Simmons and as I mentioned before extraordinary editing.

Jazz Drumming? Who gives a shit right? I knew nothing about it before seeing this movie (except of course for the Buddy Rich tapes). Well the presentation of a thing makes a world of difference. I am reminded of watching Bob Fosse’s “All That Jazz” and being turned off by the philandering reckless play director until the movie proved through choreography that he was a genius. There’s nothing like great art to diminish the distasteful eccentricities of the artist. So it is in “Whiplash.”Miles Teller really wants to be one of the greatest jazz drummers ever like Buddy Rich or Charlie Parker. His teacher mercilessly abuses him (not unlike the drill instructor in “Full Metal Jacket.”) There is yelling, slapping, throwing chairs, and sadistic mind fucking going all around. Miles practices until his hands start bleeding. He blows off his father. He breaks up with his girlfriend in order to focus more on his music. Why would Miles Teller go through this? Well fuck it’s the music. It’s great. And it fills the scenes with gorgeous suspense and hideous beauty. And the camera direction and editing seamlessly intertwine the pieces into the overall experience. The movie makes it plausible that greatness in this medium is worth experiencing terrible shit.

By making it plausible the movie opens a real discussion of whether greatness is worth destroying yourself in general. Miles has two father figures. His dad, easy going and unconditional in his love, is not particularly great at anything and requires nothing from his son. Then there is his teacher who demands and demands and demands and demands and who articulates that the most harmful words in the human language are “Good Job.” Well, is J.K. Simmons a good teacher? I have an opinion on that. I do not necessarily believe that yelling, slapping, or throwing chairs is bad leadership. I do have a problem with the manipulation and the lying. At one point in the movie the teacher confronts a student who is on-pitch with the accusation that they are off-pitch. The teacher knows that the student is on pitch. He also must know that in his strict disciplitarian camp of a classroom that the student cannot talk back or correct the teacher. And yet his excuse for his behavior when the student is dismissed is “well, he wasn’t off pitch but should have known that he wasn’t and that is worse.” So what is the point of his behavior? It is a perfect Catch-22 for the student. They will either get excoriated for differing from the teacher or get excoriated for being off pitch. There is no point is the answer. It is stupid and the teacher is a coward to only yell louder when he is called out on it. So “Full Metal Jacket” guy: all good in my book. I like him. The teacher in this movie: not so much. One kind of yelling toughens up a pupil, the other fucks with their mind. And if the teacher is not there to mold the mind, if he insists like in this movie that the perfect pupil will ultimately disregard his teaching than what is the point of the teacher at all.

Or to put it another way: What is the point of teachers when it comes to Greatness. If it can’t be taught then perhaps the best teacher is but an intelligent obstacle.

Or did I just persuade myself the other way….