View Single Post
  #3  
Old September 8th 18, 07:26 PM posted to sci.space.history
Stuf4
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 554
Default First Man - Flag Controversy Is Overlooking A Key Fact

From Jeff Findley:
In article ,
says...

Huge media attention has been given to the Neil Armstrong biopic First Man
in not showing the planting of the USA flag. I understand the reasons
offered behind this decision. If I was the one querying the director or
Ryan Gosling, I would say...

Imagine doing a movie on the life of Edmund Hillary, and then during the
scene of reaching the summit of Everest, not showing him raising the
British flag.
To quote Vizzini, inconceivable.

Or doing a movie about Iwo Jima, and not showing the raising of the flag.
Boggles the mind.

Now here is what no one is focusing on, given all the buzz:
Skipping that scene is not the only missed 'flag opportunity' that Damien
Chazelle passed on. He could have included in his movie what happened to
the flag as Apollo 11 blasted off of the lunar surface.

As far as I am aware, there has never been a presentation of the US flag
being blown over by the Ascent Stage blast. THAT would have made for a
dramatic scene that would have been worthy of intense post-premiere debate.

Back in 1998, Tom Hanks skipped this historical event entirely. His
episode dedicated to that mission ended with the flag raising. And other
parts of that depiction of the EVA were cringeworthy. In particular, Buzz
coming down the ladder. The E2M series on the whole held a high bar, so
why they showed that scene in the way they did is curious. I'd be
interested to hear Tom Hanks or Ron Howard comment on that. And whether
they gave any consideration to showing the

flag blowing over.

My guess is that that's a scene that no one has considered putting into any
Apollo 11 movie depiction. Not a production made in the USA, at least.



My $0.02.

This is a Neil Armstrong biopic (sp?). The flag is there in the scenes
on the lunar surface. They only omitted the planting of the flag, which
was not considered to be a big thing.


In the E2M depiction by Tom Hanks and Ron Howard, the flag planting was the ultimate thing. Their Apollo 11 episode "Mare Tranquilitatis" spent a full 45 seconds focused on the flag planting, with the final shot of the episode being a fadeout of the still frame from the 16mm LM camera.

As for Damien Chazelle & Ryan Gosling's opinion, I suggest that everyone associated with that project was *well aware* that the flag planting was "a big thing". It's just a big thing that they decided to ignore.

They're emphasizing the whole wee
came in peace for all mankind (the actual quote is on a plaque right
there on the moon left there by Apollo 11).

Homer Hickam wrote a good article about this issue. And if you don't
know who Homer Hickam is, look him up and read some of his books (hint:
one of them is famous and was made into a Hollywood movie).


Hint #2: Think twice before telling him to "Suck my dick and balls."

The new Neil Armstrong movie is about more than the lunar flag-planting
By Homer Hickam, September 5
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...anting-was-no-
big-deal-leaving-it-out-of-the-movie-is-no-big-deal-
too/2018/09/05/84096812-b13e-11e8-aed9-001309990777_story.html

Homer Hickam not only lived through that era (later working for USAAMC
and NASA), but he also has experience with Hollywood translating his own
work into a movie. So, I would consider him an authority in this area.


An authority in the area of exploration and flag planting would not overlook the key significance that this act has had historically. Planting a flag in a new territory had specific legal meaning. It meant that the country represented by this flag was claiming the territory as its own property.

Homer Hickam, for whatever reason, does not so much as hint about this key significance. And I see his article, by overlooking this central aspect, to contribute to the revisionist history that is central to this entire issue.

'Revisionist' is a very strong term, implying that facts are being changed. A better term would be "omissionist history". Facts that are selectively being ignored, or have been omitted by lack of due diligence in research.

One of the key reasons why the US Congress and NASA had considered planting a United Nations flag, and not a US flag, was because it was illegal for the US to claim any part of the Moon as its own.

Look at the hundreds of articles that have been published on this First Man controversy. How many authors mention that central aspect? It was central in 1969. Yet half a century later, people have forgotten it, if they ever learned it to begin with.

This summary presented by Homer Hickam falls WAY short of what I myself consider to be a complete assessment:
==============
Although the lunar flag-planting may seem like a given in hindsight, for months before the flight of Apollo 11 there was a debate within the federal government and in the press as to the wisdom of doing it. The argument for the flag was that the voyage was an entirely American effort that was paid for by American taxpayers, who deserved to see their flag planted in the lunar regolith. The argument against was that it could cast the landing in the eyes of the world as a nationalistic exercise, diminishing what was otherwise indisputably a triumph of American values and ideals, not to mention a demonstration of our technical superiority over our great adversary, the Soviet Union.
==============

If Homer Hickam was aware of the central *legality* issue, it is quite curious that he does not state it. He is contributing to the Omissionist History problem.

Homer Hickam also makes no mention in his article about what ended up happening to that flag, and the lack of anyone depicting a movie scene that has the potential to be extremely powerful.

Another questionable statement in Homer's article:
"It is not the story of the moon-landing but of the world-famous astronaut himself."

The *only reason* NAA was world-famous was *because* of his Moon landing.

Homer's most telling statement is:
"...I personally would have included the flag-raising..."

It is bizarre for anyone to even debate whether or not the flag planting should have been included. If a director were to do a 10-second micro-biopic of Neil Armstrong's life, the first thing you'd include is:

- His LM landing, piloting the Eagle to touchdown on Mare Tranquilitatis.

And the next thing you'd include is:

- His 1st Step.

And the next thing you'd include after that is:

- His flag planting.

Now if that same director were to expand this biopic project from 10 seconds to a run time of more than 2 hours, it is, as stated originally, utterly inconceivable that you would leave this scene out.

Homer Hickam is certainly entitled to his opinion. But his refusal to call this out strikes me as perhaps being motivated out of a desire that he wants the movie to make its money back in the box office.

Is Homer utterly unaware of what the movie title "First Man" is referring to? It means that NAA was:

- the First Man to land on the Moon,
- the First Man to step on the Moon, and
- the First Man to plant a flag on the Moon.

It is not worthy to debate whether or not it was proper to omit that third point. Imagine if Damien Chazelle had made a 2+ hour movie about the life of NAA being the "first man", and it screens at the Venice Film Festival, and the entire audience leaves bewildered that for some strange reason, his movie did not show the scene of the Eagle landing on the Moon.

This makes headlines: "First Man does not depict Eagle's landing on the Moon."
And then hundreds of articles are written by authors around the country and the world, including NASA experts like Homer Hickam justifying this editorial choice by saying:

"There's not much point to showing the actual landing. Besides, the movie shows many scenes with the Eagle on the surface of the Moon."

It would be laughable, and not worthy of debate.

And likewise, Damien Chazelle's decision to not show the flag planting is not worthy of debate. You might as well make a 2-hour movie about the life of Neil Armstrong and never show Neil Armstrong one single time.

It was one of the top three defining moments of his entire life. And it is those three events, taken together, which is why history for all time will remember him as the First Man.

~ CT