On October 12, filmmaker Damien Chazelle released his third major motion picture release, the intimate space biopic First Man (starring Ryan Gosling as Neil Armstrong and Clare Foy, in another Oscar worthy performance, as Janet Armstrong). With First Man, Chazelle found himself at a crossroads – continue to work with what's working (movies immersed in the culture of music) or to push himself topically and stylistically into uncharted space. He chose the latter, and this departure from the musical realm provides us as viewers with an intimate story about a topics infinitely vast – outer space and the inner life.
During the 141 minute journey to the moon, Chazelle channels Kubrick, Spielberg, Howard, and Malick all in order to paint an unconventional story about a very private and somewhat reclusive American legend. The choice to render a story about space travel so intimately has been the topic of much discussion in analysis of the film. But something I think that has gone unmentioned is that by mixing together a hodge-podge of directorial references, Chazelle magically avoids a voiceless grey and creates something completely new. Something I'm calling Chazelleian. And with First Man Chazelle has firmly planted himself as the first great "post-postmodern director" of our time.
Chazelle is a derivative director. Reading this, you may think I'm insulting the director, because for many, being derivative is anathema, and for many is always a bad thing. This stance, however, is naïve, because it's impossible to not be derivative, because no art is ever created in a vacuum, and all creators, whether unintentional or not are imitating and stealing from the other creative endeavors that whir past our senses. I believe Chazelle has not only realized this but he's embraced the notion that all film makers (past, present, and future) work in the shadows of those that created before them or alongside them. And he doesn't live in fear of it. He acknowledges it, pays homage to it, and somehow creates something totally new and original from source material and ideas that are objectively dated. I think most people would agree, we did not need another movie about space, but by zooming in on Armstrong and his inner-life through this process we were given a totally new movie about space, because it's actually just a movie about a emotionally complicated man.
Watching First Man, I felt hope for the coming generation of young filmmakers that will soon be filling the voids that legends like Scorsese and Spielberg will be leaving behind, because I saw in the movie a 33 year old director rejecting cynicism and embracing sincerity as he told a story about a complicated mission in a complicated country during one of the most tumultuous decades we have in our history. This is why I describe Chazelle as a "post-postmodernist," because, while he gladly references and re-mixes movie-making technologies (mixing super 16mm with IMAX) and story-telling motifs (e.g. all of La La Land) he is not cynical when he does it. And this is nothing short of miraculous, because for many of us in our 30s that are working creatively from the label of "millennial", cynicism has become the de facto millieu from which we work, create, and critique. And Chazelle is 100% earnest and has been since Guy and Madline sat on a park bench.
I think that is where art will need to move as we figure out our approach in this post-post-modern way of thinking. Not that we can't be critical or should embrace being naïve, but cynicism is an exhausting embrace of critical thinking that leaves no room for hope, adaptation, or evolution. Cynicism is exhausting and if we're learning anything from how Twitter suppresses creativity, we will need the young generation of filmmakers to ardently fight against if we're going to continue to see innovation in the field. My hope is that Chazelle and others around him will embrace earnestness in their filmmaking and we could move on from the stifling irony of the first 2 decades of the 20th century.
During the 141 minute journey to the moon, Chazelle channels Kubrick, Spielberg, Howard, and Malick all in order to paint an unconventional story about a very private and somewhat reclusive American legend. The choice to render a story about space travel so intimately has been the topic of much discussion in analysis of the film. But something I think that has gone unmentioned is that by mixing together a hodge-podge of directorial references, Chazelle magically avoids a voiceless grey and creates something completely new. Something I'm calling Chazelleian. And with First Man Chazelle has firmly planted himself as the first great "post-postmodern director" of our time.
Chazelle is a derivative director. Reading this, you may think I'm insulting the director, because for many, being derivative is anathema, and for many is always a bad thing. This stance, however, is naïve, because it's impossible to not be derivative, because no art is ever created in a vacuum, and all creators, whether unintentional or not are imitating and stealing from the other creative endeavors that whir past our senses. I believe Chazelle has not only realized this but he's embraced the notion that all film makers (past, present, and future) work in the shadows of those that created before them or alongside them. And he doesn't live in fear of it. He acknowledges it, pays homage to it, and somehow creates something totally new and original from source material and ideas that are objectively dated. I think most people would agree, we did not need another movie about space, but by zooming in on Armstrong and his inner-life through this process we were given a totally new movie about space, because it's actually just a movie about a emotionally complicated man.
Watching First Man, I felt hope for the coming generation of young filmmakers that will soon be filling the voids that legends like Scorsese and Spielberg will be leaving behind, because I saw in the movie a 33 year old director rejecting cynicism and embracing sincerity as he told a story about a complicated mission in a complicated country during one of the most tumultuous decades we have in our history. This is why I describe Chazelle as a "post-postmodernist," because, while he gladly references and re-mixes movie-making technologies (mixing super 16mm with IMAX) and story-telling motifs (e.g. all of La La Land) he is not cynical when he does it. And this is nothing short of miraculous, because for many of us in our 30s that are working creatively from the label of "millennial", cynicism has become the de facto millieu from which we work, create, and critique. And Chazelle is 100% earnest and has been since Guy and Madline sat on a park bench.
I think that is where art will need to move as we figure out our approach in this post-post-modern way of thinking. Not that we can't be critical or should embrace being naïve, but cynicism is an exhausting embrace of critical thinking that leaves no room for hope, adaptation, or evolution. Cynicism is exhausting and if we're learning anything from how Twitter suppresses creativity, we will need the young generation of filmmakers to ardently fight against if we're going to continue to see innovation in the field. My hope is that Chazelle and others around him will embrace earnestness in their filmmaking and we could move on from the stifling irony of the first 2 decades of the 20th century.