Mike's Musings: The "First Man" Controversy

One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.  -Neil Armstrong

For a while now, there has been a controversy growing about "First Man," the new biopic of Neil Armstrong's landing on the moon.  Specifically, the part about the fact that the American flag has been left out.  A few weeks ago, my dad sent me an article from Douglas McKinnon, who wrote an article blasting this decision with such claims as that it was insulting to Armstrong, that it was Hollywood liberalism going out of control, and so on.  Oh boy...

The first criticism is Gosling's remark that Neil Armstrong didn't view himself as an "American hero."  A poor choice of words opened him up to a lot of criticism, but look at what he was referring to.  Both Gosling and McKinnon refer to Armstrong being very humble and uncomfortable with fame or the spotlight.  Gosling explained that there were 400,000 people that made that mission possible and that Armstrong didn't want to take the attention away from them.  Taken into context, his words are a fair point.

But his main criticism made me groan, both from the illogic of his arguments and how he uses them to attack the film.  McKinnon argues that leaving the flag out of the scene amounts to "revisionist history" and "liberal Hollywood bias."  I haven't seen the film so I can't speak for it.  But the decision to leave it out seems curious.  I mean, the image of the astronaut standing next to the flag is as iconic as Armstrong's famous ten words.

However, let's look at the facts that we do have.  The film was directed by Damien Chazelle, the youngest man ever to win a Best Director Oscar at age 32.  He was the man behind "Whiplash" and "La La Land."  Both good movies.  Chazelle is obviously smart and talented, and if he would make such a glaring omission, it must be for a reason rather than "Hollywood liberalism."

Look again at Gosling's words: "I think this was widely regarded in the end as a human achievement and that's how we chose to view it."  That makes perfect sense.  I mean, Armstrong was not only the first American on the moon, he was the first human being.  He said as much in those famous words he spoke when he landed and became engraved in the memory of everyone who saw it on the television that day.

What is actually aggravating about the article is how McKinnon uses a piece of constructive criticism as an attack on liberalism.  That he scoffs at Gosling supporting Bernie Sanders over Donald Trump is indicative of this.  Adding insult, it was his opening line.  His argument is that because this decision was made, regardless of the reason behind it, it was just Hollywood revisionism to push their liberal ideology and to insult the national pride of Armstrong.

McKinnon is certainly allowed to have his own beliefs.  He is also correct that Hollywood tends to swing left (although not always...there are a few conservatives in Hollywood such as James Woods, Robert Davi and Dennis Miller, to name a few).  But Gosling never sad anything about Armstrong's pride in being an American.  And according to the article, McKinnon's only evidence was Armstrong's humbleness and his military service.  I know more than a few proud veterans who are more liberal than I am.

If Armstrong was as humble as both men say he was, then I'm sure he would have been extremely uncomfortable with this pointless controversy.  What McKinnon has done is make unfounded assumptions about the reasoning for a creative decision in a film without having seen it, and used a deceased man who can't speak for himself to bolster his case.  That's exploiting Armstrong's memory any way you look at it.

The more I think about this, the angrier I become.  Railing against a perceived slight in a film you haven't seen is bad enough, but using the memory of a man who likely wouldn't have wanted a part in the controversy to whip up your readers in a nationalist frenzy to prove your point is really unforgivable.  Of course, if and when McKinnon sees the movie and the scene plays out the way he claims, his criticism is fair game.  But don't criticize a movie you haven't seen based on what you think you know about it.  And especially don't put words in the mouth of a dead man to support your case, especially since he may not have believed you.