free counter with statistics Milk Review | Pajiba - Scathing Reviews for Bitchy People

43595381.jpg
You Don’t Get to Choose How You Are Going to Die Or When. You Can Only Decide How You’re Going to Live.

Milk / Ted Boynton

Film Reviews | December 5, 2008 | Comments (48)


Editor: This review contains plot references that might be considered spoilers; because the film is based on relatively well-known historical facts, these references are not marked in the text of the review.

In a beautiful and devastating portrayal of Harvey Milk in director Gus Van Sant’s late-life biography of the slain civil rights leader, Sean Penn has reduced the 2008 Best Actor race to a formality. Penn delivers a ridiculously perfect performance that renders the film’s few but significant flaws into shooting stars blotted out by the searing sun of Penn’s utter occupation of every frame in which he appears. While Penn’s phenomenal talent has long placed him on the short list for most gifted actor of his generation, his mammoth self-importance and near-pathological preening all too often swamp his projects. When placed under the firm control of a confident director, however, Penn can almost casually transcend the medium, and Van Sant’s sure hand in channeling Penn’s talent likely deserves a full share of the credit. Any missteps on Van Sant’s part, and there are a few, must be forgiven in light of his dialing down Penn’s emote-ometer to from “kill” to “stun.”

In that respect, Milk epitomizes the way in which a flawed and sometimes frustrating film can nevertheless realize its underlying concept perfectly. Much like Harvey Milk himself, the film occasionally squanders valuable time on annoying distractions, but every time Milk threatens to lose its way, Penn delivers a dazzling bit of dialogue or an astonishingly spot-on gesture to re-focus the narrative. In much the same way Harvey Milk galvanized the gay rights movement despite his own flaws as a man and as a leader, Penn harnesses Milk to his shoulders and carries the film to a great height despite some questionable narrative decisions.

The film picks up in 1970 at the time of Milk’s decision to live openly as a gay man and move from New York City to San Francisco, a decision that altered the destiny of millions of Americans. When we first see Milk walking through a New York subway, he chances to meet Scott Smith (James Franco), a young cruiser living a dangerous openly gay life. As Smith convinces Milk to come out of the closet, Milk and Smith form a deep bond that leads them to pack up and move west, with Milk rejecting his closeted life as a bland insurance executive to pursue the perceived freedom of the city of the Summer of Love.

When Milk and Smith arrive in San Francisco, however, they are confronted by the harsh reality of a post-Summer of Love San Francisco aggressively rejecting tolerance to return to its blue collar “family values” roots. Although the city’s Castro district has become a beacon of community and hope for gay men across the country, the city police remain lawlessly hostile, routinely rousting gay bars to harass and beat homosexuals. Gay-bashing is commonplace, with gay men fearing to walk the streets of their own neighborhoods. Neighboring merchants turn out to be unfriendly, and the government casually ignores the plight of this substantial portion of the populace. These challenges unexpectedly catalyze the activist streak and political acumen, to the surprise of Milk himself, who says early in the film that he regrets never having done anything important. His anger over the treatment he and his friends receive sets him on a course intended to secure not only the neighborhood, but the nation.

Initially forming his own neighborhood merchants’ association, Milk uses time-honored tactics such as boycotts and grass-roots organizing to create a reliable voting bloc and a community network to support the security of gays living in the Castro. Along the way, he discovers something critical about his nature: a raw talent for organizing resistance and pressure to counter the forces aligned against his community. Equally important, as an outsider, both socially and politically, he is not bound by the political compromises made by local gay leaders to achieve a modicum of recognition and security at the expense of true equality. Scoffing at leaders he views as sell-outs, he begins building a political machine to provide the gay community with access to the halls of power through the avatar of one Harvey Milk. Milk ultimately lands a coveted position on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, the legislative council that governs the city.

Surrounding Milk during his rise to power are a coterie of intellectuals and activists driven to the Castro by their own communities’ intolerance, and this group provides dramatic ballast to Penn’s personification of Harvey Milk: an ensemble of lovers, lieutenants, and supporters whose personal stakes in Milk’s rise lend an immediately personal aspect to the question of success or failure. This is not a faceless group of citizens, but a circle of trusted and loved friends whose ability to live in the open sunlight depends on the outcome of Milk’s political venture.

The historically accurate roster of activists includes several Bay Area icons who went on to help form the structure of liberal politics in Northern California for decades to come: energetic advisor Cleve Jones (an unrecognizably Jew-froed Emile Hirsch); grimly effective politico and fish-out-of-water dyke Anne Kronenberg (Alison Pill); and Milk’s soulmate, Scott Smith (Franco). Franco is dynamic and credible as Smith, initially playing a whispery muse to Milk’s awakening political spirit but ultimately becoming the mustachioed essence of the virile gay Castro. Hirsch and Pill likewise capture their characters, young activists barely old enough to vote, much less determine the future of the gay rights movement, yet committed entirely to Milk’s vision of combative rapprochement.

Special mention must go to Josh Brolin as Milk’s political antagonist, Dan White. White was a Supervisor from the politically besieged district south of the Castro, a blue collar neighborhood of Irish-American families whose strong religious roots ran counter to the radical politics shaking San Francisco’s foundation in the 1960s and 70s. White successfully ran on a platform of resisting the “deviants” who had overrun the Castro, and once in office, White and Milk began a queasy dance of near-friendship and political opposition that led to Milk’s assassination. Brolin brilliantly captures the fumbling, blind hatred felt by a fading demographic that chose outrage to respond to a sexual identity it could not comprehend. Beyond 1970s politics, however, Brolin’s performance epitomizes every politician who has selfishly scapegoated an ethnic or social minority. As Milk’s support grew, and as he successfully began to oppose laws marginalizing homosexuals, White’s rhetoric became more and more clueless and desperate, and Brolin’s portrayal rings true for more than a few of the same ilk skulking through the halls of power today. At the same time, Van Sant doesn’t shrink from Milk’s metamorphosis into a political creature who shifted alliances at his own convenience and occasionally alienated potential allies.

Van Sant generally succeeds in weaving these elements together into a convincing whole, effectively setting the players in the unmistakable environment of the 1970s. Van Sant achieves the era’s look and atmosphere both in obvious aspects such as fashion and in more subtle and critical ways, particularly the relatively earnest politics of the time. San Francisco’s entrenched gay leaders may oppose Milk’s methods, and California’s religious conservatives may oppose his very right to exist, but Van Sant fairly presents them as sincere - motivated less by cynicism than by genuine fear, as selfish and irrational as that fear might be.

The most significant stumble by Van Sant occurs in some of the film’s narrative choices, particularly in the handling of Milk’s rise to power. Van Sant delivers effective early sequences depicting Milk’s energetic neighborhood rabble-rousing, a time when he stood on a wooden box (stenciled with the word “soap”) reading political speeches to random passersby. Van Sant quickly jumps ahead to a time when Milk has assembled a network of thousands of supporters, an army of motivated loyalists ready to take to the streets at a moment’s notice. These events actually happened, of course, but it feels almost as if there’s a missing reel somewhere, a lost tale of stirring rallies and bitter learning experiences that eventually turned Milk into a wily political fox. Beyond a quick succession of scenes showing Milk’s early defeats in political races, there is little to explain how an anonymous insurance man from New York turned into the most important political figure in San Francisco in less than a decade.

This fault might be less noticeable if the film didn’t spend a significant portion of its two-hour-plus running time on melodramatic trifles such as the telephone calls Milk received from young men across the country seeking courage to face the discrimination heaped upon them. Again, these events happened, but in the larger context of the film the scenes do little to illuminate Milk’s motivation or political character while disrupting the flow of the movie and distracting from the vibrant community events shaping the gay rights movement.

Van Sant also devotes too much time to too little effect over the mercurial relationship between Milk and Jack Lira (Diego Luna), a mentally unbalanced young man who became Milk’s lover during his political ascendance. The relationship was important because it demonstrated Milk’s tendency to allow melodramatic personal involvements to interfere with his political work; at the same time, the scenes between Penn and Luna feel aimless and a bit contrived, leaving more of a puzzled feeling than an enlightened one. As noted above, this thematic stumble actually lends a certain poetry to the film because of the frustrating parallel to Milk’s life - distractions and questionable personal decisions that occasionally threatened to derail the powerful train of his destiny. The depiction of Lira overall becomes a negative, however, as Luna portrays him as a simpering empty vessel, a jealous and demanding anchor around Milk’s neck with few attributes other than youth and beauty.

Penn’s outstanding work smoothes over these patches, however, along with the generally excellent cast around him, and Van Sant’s greater skills as a historical narrator far outweigh the thematic meandering. In his film Elephant, a fictional take on the Columbine school shootings, Van Sant displayed a remarkable ability to interpret historical events through dramatic narrative. Milk works to an even greater extent as a historical document through Van Sant’s brilliant interspersing of news footage. The film begins with clips of police parading men in front of cameras following their arrests for crimes relating to their sexuality, typically at bars used as cruising spots. As a San Franciscan, it’s all too easy for me to forget that a mere three decades ago it was common for police departments to persecute U.S. citizens for honoring their sexual identities. In many parts of our country this still goes on, and the sobering use of this footage places Milk’s courage in an important historical context.

Throughout Milk Van Sant scatters in news reports of the 1970s campaign by right wing religious groups seeking to repeal city ordinances protecting gays from discrimination in places as disparate as Dade County, Florida and Wichita, Kansas. In particular, Van Sant focuses on the irrational bigotry of the national anti-gay movement, a powerful faction that appropriately adopted brainless beauty pageant winner Anita Bryant as its figurehead. In the late 1970s, the focus of their power and prejudice turned to California through the Briggs Initiative, a voter referendum seeking to institutionalize workplace discrimination against public school teachers who happened to be gay. Van Sant skillfully weaves news footage into the narrative, juxtaposing Milk’s bitter local battles with the national sweep of authentic Walter Cronkite news reports, gay pride protests, and laughably clueless sound bites from Bryant.

With the recent passage of Proposition 8 in California banning gay marriage, along with similar state referendums across the country, it is clear that Milk’s work is not complete. Van Sant’s vision and Penn’s searing portrayal demonstrate, however, that in any civil rights struggle, one individual can turn the tide - that it is the curious nature of human rights disputes that through neighborhood activism and local organizing, the disenfranchised can often realize gains that could not be accomplished by the mighty.

Ted Boynton is a dedicated sot who plans to leave his barstool to stalk Whit Stillman, now that someone has found Whit Stillman. Ted also manages to hold down a job and a wife, three hours each per day, whether they need it or not. Readers may scold, hector, admonish or taunt Ted by e-mailing him at thecarygrantrules@hotmail.com.


Pajiba Love 12/05/08 | Frost/Nixon Review



Comments

I haaaaated Elephant and yet as a gay dude I kinda feel a want to see this. Is it a bit more approachable than his prior films?

Posted by: Vincent at December 1, 2008 2:25 PM

Are there really people who are able to be spoiled about the plot of this film? For me the most moving part was at the end when the film switched to actual footage of the blocks and blocks of supporters walking down Market Street.

Posted by: Jeez Louise at December 1, 2008 2:37 PM

Let me go on record for being the first to say "Got Milk."

Posted by: Pookie at December 1, 2008 2:40 PM

I've heard nothing but good reviews for this film. I am really looking forward to seeing it. I'm sure it'll show up around here soon--well, soonish.

socalled thanks for the thoughtful--as always--review.

Posted by: tamatha at December 1, 2008 2:43 PM

Sean Penn has the interesting quality to make me want to watch every single one of his movies, but never meet him in person because I'd probably hate him and want to punch him in his face.

god, I'm stupid-excited for this movie.

Posted by: soto at December 1, 2008 2:47 PM

Are there really people who are able to be spoiled about the plot of this film?

I'm sure there are. After all, there were people in Titanic showings who didn't know the boat sank!

Posted by: mswas at December 1, 2008 2:55 PM

This review was awesome. Seriously. I love it when y'all snark the shit out of movies we know will be bad, but give the films that make an impression such loving treatment.

And mswas, please, please, please tell me that was a hyperbole and that our world is not doomed to a hell of ghastly ignorance.

Posted by: Kayanne at December 1, 2008 2:59 PM

this is a good review but you credit and blame van sant for all the genius and mistakes in the film. as far as i can tell, you didn't even mention the screenwriter's name once.

from where do you think came the "dazzling dialogue" and "remarkable ability to interpret historical events through dramatic narrative."? many of the choices that you attribute to van sant are actually script based or happened in the editing suite.

van sant didn't write the script, he interpreted it. then, along with an editor, he "wrote" the last draft. don't get me wrong, his contribution is invaluable and recognizable (the performances, the visual style, etc...) but it's not everything.

the screenwriter is also a filmmaker. i realize that most people don't care who wrote the script and even fewer people will remember, but for the record, it was dustin lance black, and he spent 5 years writing the script before the project even came across mr. van sant's desk.

Posted by: celery at December 1, 2008 2:59 PM

An interesting debate to start, celery, and one I get in with my playwright buddies a lot. At the end of the day, I tend to believe that the end product is solely to the blame or credit of the director, for this reason:

A script is entirely at the hands of the director once it leaves the desk of the writer. If the script is goddawful but the director is competent, you can get a great film (or theater production). BUT, if the script is great and the director blows it, no one will know the potential of the script - i.e. the words alone cannot save themselves. So, if you have a great script in the hands of a great director, it's the nature of the business for the director to get the credit, because it was his/her skills that made that great script sink or swim.

Sucks? Yep - but most writers I have known recognize this and soldier on, in the name of the work. It's a thankless job, but unless they have the skills to direct their own work (most do NOT), it's the way it works.

Posted by: Tammy at December 1, 2008 3:10 PM

hi tammy,

i don't think that you can get a "great" film out of a "goddawful" script.

also, the director is not the final maker of the film. in reality, the producer has as much to say about what makes it onto the screen as anyone. very few directors have final cut regarding picture or sound. related to this, editors are also forgotten heroes of the movie biz.

many films suffer because directors want to be "auteurs" and write their own scripts. of course, there are the few geniuses who do this well, but most great directors would make MAGNIFICENT films were they to collaborate with great writers.

i actually think the main reason why directors are so famous and writers are forgotten is related to the typical personalities associated with each craft. we (the writers) are mostly a introverted bunch who like to avoid the spotlight and care more about the work than egos. directors, on the other hand....

it's funny how the TV world is the opposite: the writers are the rock stars and the directors are usually guns for hire. i realize one main reason is because that film is a more visual medium, but it also might account for the rise in quality of TV over the last few years (hbo, showtime, etc....) and the general drop in quality of feature films.

turning directors into celebrities has had a cost for feature films. i believe that writers, good producers and editors are also filmmakers. it's such a highly collaborative process and (in most - but not all) cases, singling out one party as the "creator" only hurts the final product.

Posted by: celery at December 1, 2008 3:23 PM

p.s. as a writer, i am happy to let the director get the spotlight. as i said, that's my nature.

but in a review that glows about story, structure and dialogue, i think it's a grievous error to omit the name of the screenwriter or to continually to the "film" as "van sant" (i.e. van sant devotes too much to this relationship"...)

maybe reviewers (some on this site) recognize the importance of the script and the scribe behind it.

Posted by: celery at December 1, 2008 3:26 PM

I frackin' LOVED this movie. I cried at the end. And I never cry at the movies.

Posted by: Withnail at December 1, 2008 3:27 PM

Are there really people who are able to be spoiled about the plot of this film?
I read this up on Wikipedia recently, probably the last time this was mentioned here, but I have to say, I was totally ignorant of the major players in an important revolution, 30 years ago on another continent. I know that things used to be much worse and that they are better now, but I'm not big on the details in between. Partly because it seems so self evident that to discriminate on grounds of sexuality is wrong, learning about the history and extent of discrimination is too frustrating. Honestly, it's just as well time travel is impossible, what with racism and sexism too I'd have a heart attack 5 minutes into any conversation, I'd just be stuck on a loop of 'you can't SAY that' (of course these things are still issues today, but so much has changed for the better).

Posted by: ChrisD at December 1, 2008 3:29 PM

one more p.p.s. - i didn't mean this as a director bashing.
i have worked with some fantastic directors and have great relationships with them based on mutual respect.

they would be the first to admit, however, that their job requires them to be extroverted; i've heard a few of them refer to themselves as megalomaniacs. to run a set, to compete and to get the job done takes a lot of social chutzpah.

Posted by: celery at December 1, 2008 3:31 PM

On the historical spoiler issue, when Mr. PaddyDog and I went to see Troy, there were three girls sitting in front of us who were blown away by the Trojan Horse. They thought it was such a clever ruse for the film-maker to think up.

Posted by: PaddyDog at December 1, 2008 3:53 PM

And mswas, please, please, please tell me that was a hyperbole and that our world is not doomed to a hell of ghastly ignorance.

Hate to break it to you Kayanne, but PaddyDog's example plus the repeated elections of GWB strongly suggest that ignorance is in ever-growing supply.

Posted by: lordhelmet at December 1, 2008 3:59 PM

I have yet to see it, it just opened in the Castro theater in SF, which would be an absolutely amazing movie theater to view this film! I was actually in the crowd scene in the Castro during the filming, but I didn't see Franco or Penn anywhere in SF.

Posted by: ph at December 1, 2008 4:17 PM

I'm not sure I agree about not being able to get a good film out of a godawful script. I don't have any examples to give in particular, but with enough coverage and some ad libs and outtakes, a really good editor can work absolute magic. Take Men in Black, for instance. Whatever you think about the film, and I thought it was only okay, they massively changed the course of that film in the editing room.

I'm not an editor or anything, but this is a pet cause of mine. I think editors are the most unsung heroes in the movie world, maybe because they often work with the same directors all the time so people assume they are seeing the director's hand.

Posted by: Eep at December 1, 2008 5:54 PM

I think I tend to get caught up in the emotions of crowd scenes, because I shed a few tears during this movie. (Candles! Soapboxes! Crowds! Tears!)

Damn, damn Sean Penn for making me cry. But then again, back when I was a wee lad, Mel Gibson made me cry a little bit during Braveheart. (His secret wife achingly looking for him to rescue her before her throat was slit! Tear! Swelling emotions on the battlefield! Tear! Her ghost in the crowd watching him die! Tear!)

Cathartic though it was to cry, I now officially feel like a big wuss.

Posted by: noah at December 1, 2008 6:48 PM

Clarification, I feel like a wuss for the Braveheart crying, not the Milk crying.

And it's the silently-shed-a-tear cry, not the ugly-snotty-sobbing-dry-heaving cry I'm talking about.

Posted by: noah at December 1, 2008 6:52 PM

Really disappointed that my efforts to hate on Sean Penn have, once again, been thwarted. Please do better next time.

Posted by: greer at December 1, 2008 7:00 PM

True Story re: "spoilers". I went to see Mel Gibson as Hamlet, back in the days when he wasn't so creepy. In the final scenes of the film, I heard at least three people in the audience near me gasp in surprise as "Mel-Let" hammily expired, and one woman cried out "Hamlet DIES??". My hand to Godtopus, this is a true story.

Posted by: lil_a at December 1, 2008 7:21 PM

Very much looking forward to this one. Fantastic job on the review as always, Ted. :-)

Posted by: Another Jen at December 1, 2008 11:10 PM

a great script can survive a mediocre director but there is no director who can succeed with a " godawful " script.

Posted by: snake at December 2, 2008 12:00 AM

i'd love to see this film, but I cant believe(and hope their actually was and i missed it) that there wasn't an advertising campaign for this with the leading cast all wearing wickedly, hilariously saucy looks while they stood under the famous 'got milk' slogan with white liquid moustaches

Ladies and Gents, if you would, imagine the pure, concentrated SEXY that is Franco staring out at you with a fabulously knowing look about the implications of his 'Milk' Moustache while the Haters ripped out their own hair and I simultaneously laughed myself silly...and tried to kidnap Franco for my own INCREDIBLY RUDE purposes.


Like, I cant emphasise enough how Rude.

Posted by: nadine at December 2, 2008 1:47 AM

Alternate titles for this review:

Apparently Dan White is lactose intolerant
If you give the gay community a cookie...
and of course: Dead Man Walking

Posted by: Kevin Longrie at December 2, 2008 4:51 AM

Great Review.

Just a note: The Summer of Love was 1967.

How soon they forget...

Posted by: Ned at December 2, 2008 8:39 AM

Great Review.

Just a note: The Summer of Love was 1967.

How soon they forget...


You're correct, which explains my use of the phrase "post-Summer of Love San Francisco ...." tb

Posted by: Ned at December 2, 2008 8:40 AM

Hrm. I'm still not sure about how I feel about this movie, which is made worse by Pajiba's rather good review of it. For one, I'm not a fan of Sean Penn. He's also short, and Harvey Milk was tall. I know this is a stupid thing to latch onto, but short guys have a very different energy then tall guys. And I've never seen Sean Penn act like anything other then a terrier worrying a bone. I'm not even going to go into the whole I'm sick of seeing straight actors play gay roles thing. I know the arguments against that (actors should be able to just . .. act. -_- ), but as one of the "gays" I'm getting tired of having so few people to look up to and adore, in that Hollywood way. It really spoils the fantasy when you know that after making some groundbreaking gay flick, the guy goes home and has sex with his wife.

I'd highly recommend the documentary "The Life and Times of Harvey Milk" for anyone wanting to know more.

Posted by: Rowen at December 2, 2008 9:53 AM

I'm sick of seeing straight actors play gay roles

Well, other than Tom Cruise, there is serious underrepresentation. Rupert Everett was well on his way to stardom until the slack-jawed public finally clued in that he was gay, gay, gay, and as a result, one of the funniest and most charming men in movies turned into a bitter, dessicated man with no career. It was years and years after the black civil rights movement got under way before black actors were given a real chance in Hollywood, and I think the arc here is going to be similar. But I hear that Hugh Jackman guy is doing okay.

I think that, in this case, given the polarization around the gay marriage issue, it would have been hard to get the film made without some star power attached. Gus Van Sant, for sure, would not shy away from using gay actors, but the studio probably would not commit to the film with an unknown gay lead. Because of the political environment, this film needed to be made and released now, and needed to be taken seriously by the public, and the only way for that to happen was to go with a "serious actor" brand who would be widely accepted.

Also: Sean Penn was not really retarded in I Am Sam.

Posted by: ted boynton at December 2, 2008 10:25 AM

"Are there really people who are able to be spoiled about the plot of this film?"

"I'm sure there are. After all, there were people in Titanic showings who didn't know the boat sank!"

I am from Europe and I've never heard of this man before the movie... at all. I don't think his story is that well known outside the US.

Posted by: lastdaylight at December 2, 2008 11:53 AM

I'll be honest, I only knew of Milk as far as he relates to Dianne Feinstein. I had no idea about the rest of his story.

Posted by: Eep at December 2, 2008 5:11 PM

Re: spoilers

My recollection is that very early on the film includes the footage of Feinstein's announcement of the assassinations on the steps of City Hall. So that part is not really a spoiler anyway, I don't think.

Posted by: ted boynton at December 2, 2008 7:00 PM

"Great Review.

Just a note: The Summer of Love was 1967.

How soon they forget...


You're correct, which explains my use of the phrase "post-Summer of Love San Francisco ...." tb
"

I may be wrong here, but I think the original poster was simply pointing out that the Summer of Love was quickly forgotten and people went back to hating things that are different.

I don't think it was a jab at the review.

Posted by: pissant at December 3, 2008 10:15 AM

Also,
Jesus, Rowen, way to be shortsighted.

You know, it really spoils the fantasy for me when I see a sci-fi movie and then I realize that the actor is going home to his early 21st century home and sleeping in his regular ole bed that doesn't even cook him breakfast in the morning.

Oh, and don't get me started on 10000 BC. Did you know those guys in the movie aren't even 1200, let alone 12000, years old!? For fuck's sake! How can I enjoy that movie while simultaneously knowing that?

Seriously, though, maybe movies just aren't for you.

Posted by: pissant at December 3, 2008 10:26 AM

Pissant,

Your comments would make sense if there were plenty of respected and working gay actors in the community. Your comments would also make sense if sci-fi and fantasy movies were meant to be some form of biopic, and therefore have a basing in and a representation of reality.

Unfortunately, none of those are the case. Growing up gay, I got sick of feeling like I don't exist, except as the confidant to some love lost socialite (and still played by a straight man). Hopefully, we will get to a point where sexuality doesn't matter when choosing the actor, but as of yet, that hasn't happened.

P.S. Knowing that movie is set in a different time is NOT the fantasy that I was referring to. Please do not make massive assumptions and then try to insult my intelligence. It's impolite.

Posted by: Rowen at December 6, 2008 8:38 AM

saw this last night.
very moving.
afterwards, people clapped over the credits, which i always consider a good sign.
the end choked me up too.
i say, "see it!"

Posted by: gem at December 6, 2008 2:31 PM

This review is a work of art in itself.

Posted by: Maryscott O'Connor at December 6, 2008 10:49 PM

Great review. Great movie. But really it needs the 1984 documentary "The Times of Harvey Milk" to be re-viewed next to it. Perhaps a separate review could be done reflecting on MILK and "The Times of Harvey Milk" by Rob Epstein and Richard Schmiechen which won the Oscar for Best Documentary the following year. I watched it after we got home from seeing MILK and it is still so stunning to see. It's amazing to me that so many people a) had no idea who Harvey Milk was and b) have never see "The Times of Harvey Milk."

(fyi: GVS used footage from TToHM for MILK and Rob Epstein is thanked in the credits.)

Posted by: Rachel at December 6, 2008 10:58 PM

Oh my Godtopus, this movie is good. The review is spot on. The cast is amazing, with both Penn and Brolin completely inhabiting their roles. As for the argument of straight actors playing gay roles, Van Sant addressed the very question at a recent screening, where he simply admitted that the movie needed to have the stars attached to get made. Now what this says about the film industry, I can't say, but I am fine with straight actors playing gay roles if it allows for stories like Milk to be told.

Posted by: Fatboy at December 6, 2008 11:38 PM

I feel your pain, *pissant*. When I found out Tom Hanks wasn't really an astronaut, but just a regular... Everyman /cough/ after Apollo 13, I wept.

And don't even get me started on all these gay guys on Broadway playing lowly BREEDERS. Ick.

I absolutely cannot understand why who you like to bone should be taken into consideration when auditioning for a role. It's the worst kind of discrimination, in either direction.

"the studio probably would not commit to the film with an unknown gay lead..." Really? I can't imagine that could be true, but maybe I'm being naïve.

You did get one thing right though, Rowan. The Times of Harvey Milk is an excellent documentary (won the Best Documentary Oscar in 1985) and I highly, HIGHLY recommend it. I first saw it in college, and our enthusiastic first-year professor tearfully told us as the credits rolled that the story of Harvey Milk is what made her want to become a teacher. She said she hoped to inspire people to be as tolerant and knowledge-seeking as Mr. Milk did. She was so earnest, it didn't seem cloying in the least. And, my class with her was seven years ago. I remember all that pretty vividly, so well done, Mrs. Oestrick.

Posted by: K at December 7, 2008 7:00 AM

...aaaaand I don't know HTML tags before my first cup of coffee.

Posted by: K at December 7, 2008 7:03 AM

Who you bone shouldn't be taken into consideration, but unfortunately it is.

Though, in my original post, I stated that I had more issues with Sean Penn being a short man playing a tall man, as opposed to a straight man playing a gay man.

Of course, all this could be that I just think that Sean Penn is a shitty actor.

Posted by: Rowen at December 7, 2008 12:14 PM

Saw it today in LA and it moved me to tears. Van Sant knocked it out of the park, and I'm going to say that Emile Hirsch nearly steals the show.

Powerful, powerful film. Welcome to my top 10 of the year.

Posted by: Drew at December 7, 2008 11:28 PM

Just saw this last night in a special preview here in the UK and I lovedlovedloved it. Sean Penn was incredible; I literally would forget it was him he so embodied Harvey Milk. The supporting cast just rocked it. For real.

And am I the only one who sees the similarities between Anita Bryant and Sarah Palin? Yikes.

Posted by: amanda at December 8, 2008 7:53 AM

Oohh amanda, you're right.

Have ya'll seen the clip where Anita Bryant gets a pie in the face and then prays for the pie-thrower? Because it's awesome. It's shown in the first few minutes of the ALSO stellar documentary 'For the Bible Tells Me So'.

Posted by: K at December 9, 2008 11:25 AM

As a San Franciscan, it's all too easy for me to forget that a mere three decades ago it was common for police departments to persecute U.S. citizens for honoring their sexual identities. In many parts of our country this still goes on, and the sobering use of this footage places Milk's courage in an important historical context.


I lived through these years in the Bay Area, and it is shocking to remember that such discrimination was the rule not the exception. Thanks for a truly brilliant review.

Posted by: claire at December 10, 2008 2:24 PM

I have to disagree on "This fault might be less noticeable if the film didn't spend a significant portion of its two-hour-plus running time on melodramatic trifles such as the telephone calls Milk received from young men across the country seeking courage to face the discrimination heaped upon them."

While it may be an easy note to hit for some emotional punch, I found them grounding. That he sees an upswell of emotion in his neighborhood, where some progress is in the works, and yet around the country kids are still facing such tough issues. However, I do agree that it was a little too quick and easy from deciding to run to being such a competent politician, but Penn imbues such confidence in Milk that you just get on board.

Posted by: e at December 20, 2008 12:42 AM