posted 08-24-2000 12:09 PM               

I have a question about it though. During one of Gordon Cooper's book signings, somebody asked Gordo if they thought he was portrayed accurately by Tom Wolfe in the book. Gordo responded that he thought it was very close.

Gordo elaborated though and stated there were three basic mistakes in the book. I only remembered one. Gordo stated that Wolfe's representation of LBJ was inaccurate.

posted 06-11-2003 12:01 AM               

On Monday night, WHV and The American Cinematheque hosted a Hollywood reception, screening and panel discussion with the cast and crew at The Egyptian Theater. My sister and I attended the 20th anniversary event, accompanying the winner's of Gordon Cooper's lot in the Astronaut Scholarship Foundation's Silent Auction.

The evening began outside the theater, where a red carpet and media line was set-up, complete with fans awaiting the arrival of the stars. Warner Bros. had on display a few of the props from the film, including the full scale Mercury capsule and minature Bell X-1 and X-1A:

The reception was primarily attended by the celebrities and their guests, but all were very approachable and very friendly to the few (including ourselves) who had no direct connection to the film. Among the first people we met were Scott Paulin (Deke Slayton) and Charles Frank (Scott Carpenter):

After the movie, the stars took the stage again, this time to answer questions from both a moderator and the audience. From left to right: the real Gordon Cooper, Chartoff, producer Irwin Winkler, Kaufman, Yeager, Caleb Deschanel, Barbara Hershey, Mary Jo Deschanel, Cartwright, Goldblum, Shearer, and Harris -

- Cooper and Yeager were very happy with how they were portrayed and agreed the rivalry and competition portrayed between the test pilots and the astronauts (and within their own groups) was accurate.

- The actors approached researching their roles in different ways. Harris was given by Kaufman tapes of Glenn and NASA material to study. Frank knew Carpenter before the film and remains friends today. Cartwright was told specifically by Kaufman not to speak with Betty Grissom, as he wanted to portray her innocense and felt that Betty had "hardened" and would have tainted the performance.

- Shearer and Goldblum had no research -- they improvised most of their performance. Kaufman created their roles to act as a bridge between scenes and they often felt they were making their own little movie within a movie.

- The iconic shot of the seven astronauts walking down the hallway was never planned. The location where it was shot was near their offices and Caleb noticed how the sunlight had created the perfect shot. So they raced to get the guys in costume and quickly film the scene before the light dimished.

After the Q&A and given the hour (it was almost midnight by now), the stars were most gracious and signed and posed with fans as desired.

posted 01-26-2006 09:20 AM               

I liked the movie... but I know it was just that, a movie.

posted 01-26-2006 11:22 AM               

If historical and/or technical exactness is your main interest then it isn't the best book about Mercury. In all other respects I think it's very hard to beat. It's very funny and above all insightful about the individual and collective motivations of the spacerace pioneers.

posted 01-26-2006 12:29 PM               

What many comments about the book miss is the fact that it is written by Tom Wolfe, who is one of the greatest living writers in America. He has an amazing mastery of words. In fact, you'll see that from the very first sentence of the very first page, when he starts out with a description that is odd, but somehow manages to hook you and pull you in.

Wolfe also managed to identify issues that many other writers never addressed, such as the fear the wives experienced whenever their husbands were flying, or how their social standing was inseparable from their husbands' military rank, or how Scott Carpenter was viewed with some disdain by the fighter jocks because he flew multi-engine airplanes, which were not considered macho. The Right Stuff remains one of the best books written about the space program, hands down. You must read it.

posted 01-26-2006 02:44 PM               

Or do you mean just the music throughout the movie?

posted 01-26-2006 03:08 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by ejectr:
There never was an actual "The Right Stuff Sound Track" recorded on CD...

---

posted 01-26-2006 04:13 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dwayne Day:
As for the movie, I've always thought that it was pretty good. I think that much of the criticism that it receives from space enthusiasts is shallow and stems primarily from their unhappiness at how it portrays their heroes.

---

The book is marvelous, and a must-read. It is classic Wolfe, and should be taken from that point of view... he looks for characters to write about in a certain way, and what he looks for, he finds. If read as one perspective on Mercury and Yeager, rather than as some authoritative version, it's excellent, and most of the astronauts covered in it agree.

By the time you get to the movie, it is perhaps too many steps removed. That is, there is the true story, then there is the book, then there is the movie of the book... and by then it begins to lose touch with the truth. The moviemakers have looked to make the most entertaining movie, rather than the most accurate. Fair enough, but it is human nature to watch a movie based on real events and imagine it as some kind of documentary-recreation. The Right Stuff movie is not that - it's entertainment.

If anything, the macho, "heroes" side you mention, Dwayne, is hyped up too much in the movie, not downplayed. Wally Schirra, perhaps too jovial and lighthearted for the image the moviemakers were going for, was hardly mentioned in the movie at all. The real Gordo Cooper was not much like his movie portrayal at all: he probably never said the "best pilot you ever saw" line back in the 50s and 60s, and was a far quieter, more boyishly charming person whose sense of humor was more softspoken and outwardly innocent. Quaid gave an incredible, powerfully impressive onscreen performance, but it wasn't Gordo, who was far less one-dimensional than Quaid's cocky fighter jock. The trouble is, everyone who saw the movie and didn't know Gordo assumed that was what he was like in real life. The same thing happened to Yeager - far less of a square-jawed loner type than the movie would have you believe.

The thing that throws the movie down the dumpster for me regarding accuracy is how it portrays Gus Grissom. Wolfe is masterful in his language when it comes to the rumors swirling around Gus and the LB7 hatch incident. The movie takes those hints and puts them directly into the mouths of Gus and others. Most misleadingly, it shows Gus after splashdown in the spacecraft looking scared and panicky - strongly hinting then and later in the movie that he blew the hatch.

This kind of thing is always going to be a problem when filming a movie that goes for entertainment, yet deals with real events.

The makers of "A Perfect Storm" were sued by the family of one of the real-life characters. The Cameron "Titanic" movie was properly criticised for its portrayal of a historical character, the ship's First Officer William McMaster Murdoch. In his home town in Scotland there is a memorial to his heroism and a charitable prize has been established in his name. In the film he is portrayed as taking a bribe, shooting passengers dead and finally shooting himself. After much criticism, the studio eventually admitted they had no evidence that Murdoch did these things and contributed a substantial amount to the prize fund.

Gus's portayal, while not as nasty as Murdoch's, is inaccurate for probably the same reason - why let the facts get in the way of a good script? Luckily, there are those who care about Gus's legacy and historical accuracy, who want to ensure people know that the movie is misleading.

posted 01-26-2006 05:10 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Actually, there was a commercial CD release

---

My CD has all the original songs on the play list:

posted 01-29-2006 01:04 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by spacecraft films:
If you want the Right Stuff theme, it is essentially Tchaikovsky's "Violin Concerto in D."

---

posted 01-29-2006 01:13 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by FFrench:
By the time you get to the movie, it is perhaps too many steps removed. That is, there is the true story, then there is the book, then there is the movie of the book... and by then it begins to lose touch with the truth.

---

There is a common defense in these cases that "it's only a movie" and therefore doesn't _have_ to be historically accurate. I accept that in some cases, but not in others, and I'll confess that my willingness to do so is not always logical.

I guess that in this case I simply don't have the emotional involvement to care all that much, perhaps because the historical "inaccuracies" are on the personal level rather than a bigger historical interpretation level--in other words, they are inaccurate about certain individuals if not the events themselves, and I don't have a personal emotional attachment to the astronauts that causes me to care.

There are other movies where I get more annoyed with historical liberties, and I bristle at the fact that many members of the public often take a movie's claim as the literal truth, even when they should know better. The ultimate example, of course, is the movie "JFK," about the Kennedy assassination. The bizarre thing about that case is that even within the JFK conspiracy community, the particular conspiracy that the movie endorses is considered to be a crackpot theory. In other words, even the kooks think that the Jim Garrison theory that the CIA did it is crazy. And yet, at least for a time after that movie premiered, public opinion polls showed that a vast majority of Americans believed the fundamental premise of the movie--that the CIA killed Kennedy, just like in the movie.

posted 01-29-2006 01:29 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by FFrench:
If anything, the macho, "heroes" side you mention, Dwayne, is hyped up too much in the movie, not downplayed.

---

For years I noticed this about space enthusiasts. They identified most with the macho test pilots and were more derogatory toward the people that the macho test-pilots did not respect. So they would argue that Carpenter was a screw-up because Gus/Shepard/whoever thought so. And they didn't respect the scientist-astronauts because the test pilots didn't like them. I've seen bizarre cases where someone would sympathize with "poor Joe Engle," who didn't get to walk on the moon because NASA was forced (by evil members of Congress) to fly a scientist instead. It was an odd case, because nobody who became an Apollo astronaut was promised anything, and it was rather stupid for NASA to refuse to include scientists in the missions at a time when the science was much more important and the LM was essentially proven. But test pilots are macho and scientists are geeks, and the space enthusiasts identified with the pilots.

A couple of years ago I noticed that this phenomenon exists for other macho professions as well. I noticed that there are people who absolutely worship Navy SEALS, for instance. And there are certainly people who do the same for military pilots. It was always odd to see somebody clash on the net with a member of one of these groups and then watch the groupies jump all over that person--even on the (admittedly few) cases where the first person was right. They would often chime in with "Hey, buddy, you're not a [astronaut/pilot/SEAL/whatever] and therefore not even qualified to look at him funny." It's one thing when this attitude is expressed by a member of that profession, but another when it is expressed by a worshipful groupie.

That's the attitude that I was referring to.

posted 01-29-2006 02:09 PM               

As for your comments about lack of emotional involvement, that is fine, but to denigrate a man as the movie did with Gus Grissom, and Slick Goodlin, was reprehensible. Purely and simply. This has nothing to do with hero worship - it has to do with honesty. Frances listed some examples of people who sued movies, for what Slick endured he would have had every justification to sue the movie but had more class.

The people who made the movie totally disrespected two men, for the sake of "artistic license". While this may appear harmless as "hey it's just a movie" these things are taken by the uneducated (in this area) as gospel.

For many years Gus's family had to defend his portrayal - basically it just was not true.

Further, Slick Goodlin even AFTER his death, had to suffer from this portrayal that took a very untrue and unfair portrayal as well.

As for the machosims portrayed in the movie, to a degree with yeager it was true. But the yeager portrayed in the movie is well away from the true man. His aviation feats are legendary, I am not taking that away.

posted 01-29-2006 03:26 PM            

Wolfe, in the book, is very clever in how he addresses some of the points you raise. He discusses the relative successes of Grissom and Carpenter, and the fact that, for whatever reason, Grissom's spacecraft was lost, Carpenter's (and Carpenter himself) was not. And yet, perhaps for the very clique-worship reasons you mention, Carpenter soon was bearing the brunt of the whispers, while Gus took a plum job for a test pilot - first flight of a new vehicle, Gemini. Wolfe writes about this subtly, laying out what happened without laying blame or trying to come to impossible conclusions. The movie takes a far more direct, brutal approach, turning whisps of rumors into supposed events. And once people see them on screen with their own eyes, they'll believe that's how it happened - just as you mention with the JFK movie.

So I agree with your points, but think that this movie is perhaps not the best example. As Al Hallonquist rightly points out, there is more than enough wrong with the movie from the point of view of verifiable history, that other theories of why people critique it are probably not necessary.

posted 01-29-2006 04:57 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by FFrench:
Thanks for the clarification of your comments, which I am in agreement with. I know what you mean about the tendency for many with a passion for a certain subject to paint themselves into the corner that their personal idols can do no wrong. It happens a lot with astronaut history, occasionally on this site and frequently in other posting groups.

---

There's another aspect of this hero worship that I've seen that may be related in a complex way--that's the way some space enthusiasts view Neil Armstrong. They will accept his skills, but they don't like him because they believe that he failed them by not becoming a spokesperson for a robust post-Apollo space program. Plus, they hate him because he doesn't sign autographs. The end result I think is similar to what I mentioned earlier. The linkage is the question of why people worship some heroes but not others, and what they demand of their heroes.

posted 01-29-2006 05:53 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dwayne Day:
As an aside, last fall I was invited to speak at a space conference in the former East Germany where for the first time I was exposed to a different aspect of this, which is how people in former communist states still worship members of the original cosmonaut corps.

---

posted 01-29-2006 06:52 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dwayne Day:
Actually, I would put a finer point on it--it is not that their heroes can do no wrong, but that they pick certain people whose faults they will defend, but decide that others who have faults are not worth defending.

---

posted 01-30-2006 12:08 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by FFrench:
Shepard did plenty of things that his colleagues did not admire and have rightfully criticized - but aren't you doing exactly what you are critizing others for when you dismiss him with one harsh word?

---

In my job I occasionally have to work with astronauts (I was working with two last week, both of whom are somewhat familiar names to space geeks). I am impressed by them. But I don't worship them.

posted 01-30-2006 12:42 PM               

I found the movie exhilarating and I believe some of the Mercury 7 have stated that it really captures the spirit of the time. Some of the scenes are classic -- the whole Lovelace Clinic segment -- and particularly the sperm sample scene that to me is an all-time movie moment.

The introduction of the M7 to the press and public at the Dolly Madison House was also a great scene. When in Washington with my son last summer I made it a point to find that house and you would never know it was where this great moment occurred.

I always wondered about the Gordo character as he always seemed to be quite laid-back in real life. It was a great role for Dennis Quaid but didn't portray the real Gordo I guess.

When the subject of the movie came up at the autograph shows, it was definately a sore point. Jim Lewis in particular still seemed upset -- he told me Grissom was calm and professional when he saw him on the carrier, not at all like he was portrayed.

Strangely perhaps, aside from the LB7 spashdown, I really found the Grissom character quite endearing. Does anyone care to comment on that part if the portrayal -- was it close to the real Grissom?

One thing I didn't like was the fact that Schirra and Carpenter were barely seen in the movie. Surely a couple of Schirra's gotchas would have been a good fit.

Dee O'Hara confirmed to me that the girdle story from the book in fact did happen. Can you imagine?

posted 01-31-2006 03:29 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by FFrench:
Sorry to hear about the brusque Shepard incident your friend witnessed. It's getting a little off-topic, but I guess I was fortunate to see another side of the guy. Another public event, and a woman there to hear him speak who...

---

Yeah, off topic, but I only related one of my anecdotes about him. I met him myself at an autograph signing (confession: I'm not into collecting autographs, but he was signing and I thought it would be a neat thing to do--so far I have collected Aldrin, Shepard, Bean and Mattingly, all of whom I have proudly displayed in a filing cabinet somewhere). He was quite brusque there as well, although I was willing to accept that everybody has a bad day. But a woman I know who was in her mid-30s at the time said that one of her female friends had recently been rather crudely propositioned by the 70+ year old (and still married) Shepard. Only three anecdotes, I guess, but they are all consistent with his reputation.

posted 01-31-2006 05:37 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dwayne Day:
But a woman I know who was in her mid-30s at the time said that one of her female friends had recently been rather crudely propositioned by the 70+ year old (and still married) Shepard. Only three anecdotes, I guess, but they are all consistent with his reputation.

---

While I neither doubt or can support what you say, I think we should be careful about posting third hand (or fourth hand) accounts of events like this. Important details can be lost in translation when telling the story of a friend of a friend. One person's wink or off-color comment can be another person's "crude proposition." Not that I'm trying to cast doubt on what you report...it's just that we should be careful when reporting things like this in a public forum that thousands of people may eventually read. Posting an opinion about his temperment is one thing, but posting about possible adulterous behavior comes a little too close to gossip. Some things are perhaps left buried and forgotten. I mean this in a friendly way and am not trying to be overly critical of your posting.