Story

But story of Neil Armstrong becoming the person uttering iconic phrase while touching the surface of the Moon has been everything but easy. We find him in the cockpit of the X-15 rocket plane exiting atmosphere. But while returning to Earth his plane fails to enter. Armstrong makes a risky decision and manages to enter atmosphere with great danger to himself and plane. His bosses are not happy and he is grounded based on his dangerous behavior. But there is a reason for that. Armstrong’s 3-year-old daughter has a tumor. She passes away soon, leaving Neil totally broken and in despair. But being a person he is, instead of facing his emotions he decides just to turn the page. Right at this moment he notices that NASA is recruiting astronauts for Project Gemini, program that intends to put Americans to space. Neil doesn’t think twice before he signs up for it. After all what a better way is there to distract oneself than to sign up for potentially deadly task?

First Man on the Moon

Writing

Neil Armstrong has been a secretive, quiet person who didn’t like the spotlight that being the first man on Moon brought him. There was a reason he was selected as a first person to step on the Moon ahead of his much accomplished, decorated and esteemed fellow astronauts. It was that Neil Armstrong was humble, selfless, emotionless person. He earned respect for his ability to act cold-bloodedly under immense pressure. It was all these that made him make timely decisions in extremely dangerous conditions that lead to success of his missions.

Thus, filmmakers had to base a lot on deductions, interpretations and assumptions about his life. And while most of the stuff seem to fit right, there were some choices that didn’t. One of these choices is the emotional drive that Neil had. Without much spoiler, it is assumed that Armstrong’s biggest drive in his life was emotional attachment to his daughter Karen and her untimely death. That might not be a big stretch, but the way film exploits this idea paints Neil as a broken man who is constantly driven by his inability to save his daughter.

This could have worked with an imagined character, but in case of “First Man” it seems like filmmakers just wanted to instill empathy and tragedy, thus overdramatizing the real events. Chazelle again plays on viewer’s emotional state and tries to make Neil a relatable hero.

And while film concentrates on inner state of Neil, it completely misses opportunity to explore anyone but him. Supporting characters are very one-dimensional and raw. Even Janet (Neil’s wife) is not given much to do than just react to actions of Neil. What is surprising is that film is about her, just like it is about Neil. Instead, she is just an obedient wife who sits at home, smoking cigarettes and waiting for Neil to return. Sure.

Armstrong (Gosling) and Co. watching Saturn V take off

Directing

Damien Chazelle’s choice of cinematography and editing almost drove me nuts. I viewed this film in IMAX and it was one of the worst decisions I have made. Camera framing is impossible to bear, especially on a huge IMAX screen. Chazelle uses very extreme close-ups of main and supporting cast. There is literally very few establishing shots. Framing either consists of telescopic lenses or macro lenses.

And then there is constant camera shake and jitter. I understand, you have an emotionless character and you want to give some life into otherwise stale scenes, but why do we need camera shake through whole film is beyond my understanding.

Now, I have to admit this works amazing during rocket launch sequences, because it gives us point-of-view effect, concentrating on the feelings and emotions of Neil during takeoff instead of some glorious sequence of CGI rocket emitting CGI flames, taking off from CGI launchpad into CGI sky. That was all fine with me. This is exactly how it feels to take off with a bomb behind your back, but why use the technique to achieve same effect in the rest of film? Do we need to see insides of Neil’s nostrils or see pimples on his wife’s face?

Armstrong (Gosling) waits for launch

Editing also suffers greatly because of Chazelle’s decision to use shakes and framing. In some shots it is almost impossible to establish what is happening, especially in flight sequences, where everything turns into one big blur akin Transformers and you just don’t comprehend what is happening.

But there is one thing amazing about this film and that is soundtrack by Justin Hurwitz and Chazelle’s decision to use certain music in certain places. Soundtrack plays an extremely important role in understanding this film and elevates otherwise mundane scenes into another level. Soundtrack peaks during Moon flight and turns this section of “First Man” into an operatic masterpiece.

Unfortunately, it is only at the end of the film, and you will have to sit almost 2 hours of it before you see this epic ending.

Janet (Foy) has nothing else but to react to Neil’s actions

Acting

Ryan Gosling is not a stranger to quiet, emotionless roles. He is amazing in “Drive” where he portrays silent and enigmatic heist driver. It works in “Drive” because “Drive” is an arthouse film. His character can stare 5 seconds at his opponent before he answers, because we accept that just how it is. That is not real life. We accept it just like we accept that everybody is an assassin in John Wick. In “First Man” it feels fake, reused and not interesting.

Claire Foy plays Neil’s wife, Janet, but screenplay doesn’t give her anything much to do. So, she just concentrates on smoking cigarettes and waiting for Neil. Which is a shame because she was exceptional in “Unsane”. Same goes of greatly underutilized supporting cast including Jason Clarke, who shined in “Chappaquiddick”.

Summary

With one of the best rocket launch sequences ever to be filmed and invigorating soundtrack, “First Man” disappoints with overdramatization of events, long runtime and Chazelle’s extremely annoying decision with framing and camera shake.

The post First Man appeared first on Kino-AZ.

Story

In present, Stephen Hawking is at reception of the Queen of England with his family. But back in 1963, he was just a student at University of Cambridge. He is amazingly clever, but cocky and arrogant. At a local party he meets arts major Jane. He introduces himself as a complete atheist. She is devoted Christian. “What do you believe in?” she asks confused. “In finding an equation to explain everything,” replies Stephen. And so the relationship between two very different individuals starts. However, while having a sudden breakthrough in his research Stephen falls. Doctors have bad news: he has motor neuron disease. It will diminish his ability to walk, eat and eventually breathe. Two years is an average life span for this diagnosis. Stephen is devastated and in depression. But Jane arrives and promises to be with him for however long he has left. And despite the prognosis, Stephen lives for 55 years, becoming one of the most revolutionary physicists of all times. And he comes so close to finding his theory of everything.

Writing

Stephen (Redmayne) and Jane (Jones) share romantic moment

Based on the memoirs of Jane Hawking, film doesn’t concentrate specifically on Jane’s point of view. Maybe it was also because Stephen Hawking himself endorsed the film during his lifetime. Not sure. Regardless it feels more like a proper movie on the life on Stephen that merely a documentary. We get to learn how exactly he became who he is. At the same time, there is very little concentration on the science and theory. As a person who read Hawking’s books, I was a little disappointed in that regard. Film instead concentrates on the emotional view of Stephen and Jane’s life. The toll of taking care of the sharpest brain in modern history bound in the decayed and destroyed body.

One of the things I didn’t like much was the constant deliberation of characters regarding religion and science. The topic comes up pretty regularly. The evolution of characters is tied directly to religious imagery and contradiction of science. Not sure if that was in real life, but on the screen this seemed a little pushy to me. Also albeit having a little artistic freedom with historical events is acceptable for dramatic aspect, some motivations and choices of the characters seem to be a little far-fetched, unfortunately, and as such it might seem that the events were changed noticeably.

Jane (Jones) trying to communicate with Stephen after he lost ability to speak

Directing

Despite having a documentary feel, director James Marsh tries a lot to stay away from making it an actual documentary. And for the sake of the film, I think it works pretty well. He uses very careful expositions and cinematic imagery to support this. Also the film doesn’t shy away from stepping aside from the perspective of Jane and show us the life of Stephen. His problems, his character, his decisions, his arrogance, cockiness, annoyance and his eternal quest for the sacred theory. The emotional center of the film and the whole story is Jane and her struggle with Stephen and his ailment, but director gives us what everyone wants to see instead – the life of Stephen Hawking.

Acting

Stephen (Redmayne) in the most emotional moments of the film

Eddie Redmayne plays the famous physicist. For his portrayal of the character he deservedly received Academy Award for Best Actor. It is amazing the transformation he puts himself through. He replicates Hawking’s mannerisms, his speech and even his disability to unbelievable extent. There is one scene in the film towards the end, with the pen, that makes you totally forget what you are seeing and probably the whole reason for Redmayne winning Oscar. Felicity Jones also surprises in her portrayal of Jane Hawking as a strong and at the same time vulnerable person. We can clearly see the incredible journey of her life with Stephen Hawking.

Summary

“The Theory of Everything” is one the best modern biopics. While giving us an intimate view of Stephen Hawking’s life and his ultimate search for a theory he believes exists, we also get to see the emotional journey he has put on the person who love him most – his wife Jane Hawking.

The post The Theory of Everything appeared first on Kino-AZ.