Milk

[flipp525]

However, if it comes down to just one, Brolin, with W. in the same year, will be the one.

I didn't think this was true after I saw the film and now, following the first bout of nominations (even though they're just the Spirits and the Satellites), I'm starting to think that no one else will either. Franco and Hirsch have much stronger chances owing to the simple fact that their performances are just better.

Brolin could still find a way into this race, but I don't think his W. performance guarantees him the courtesy Milk supporting nod. That's the sort of groupthink that has now been debunked by the actual film.



Edited By flipp525 on 1228240970

[rolotomasi99]

this article from entertainment weekly about MILK screenwriter dustin lance black. i am not sure how much of this publicity is organic and how much of it is focus features selling the movie, but i have seen black being given a great deal of credit for finally getting a movie about harvey milk made. the selling point really seems to be black's age and his background as a gay mormon. it seems focus might be taking a page out of miramax's book, selling black as a screenwriter rather than selling his screenplay -- much like harvey weinstein did with ben affleck and matt damon for GOOD WILL HUNTING. while i would say there are probably better screenplays this year in the original category, there are not any major contenders (the two best picture frontrunners are adapted). black could easily win in the original screenplay category.


'Milk': How It Got Made
For 16 years, no one in Hollywood had been able to make a movie about Harvey Milk, San Francisco's legendary gay civil rights icon. Then a young screenwriter cracked the code -- and became a hero himself

By Adam B. Vary Adam B. Vary

If Sean Penn wins his second Oscar next February, he'll have a young, unknown screenwriter to thank for it. In Milk, directed by Gus Van Sant (Good Will Hunting), Penn plays gay civil rights revolutionary Harvey Milk, a charismatic San Francisco politician assassinated 30 years ago this week. ''If there's a gay Martin Luther King, it's probably Harvey Milk,'' Van Sant says. ''When something important was happening, whether it was a street fair or a fight with the cops, Harvey was always there — the guy in front.''

It's a hell of a part, in other words, the kind that actors search for their entire careers. And yet no one in Hollywood had been able to get a movie about Milk off the ground for more than a decade. Not Oliver Stone. Not Bryan Singer. Not even Van Sant himself. Then Dustin Lance Black, a 34-year-old ex-Mormon, a neophyte writer on the periphery of the film industry, decided to take it on. ''I was tired of waiting for someone else to bring Harvey's story back to life,'' Black said at a tribute dinner for the activist last summer. ''The studios wouldn't listen to me, so I set out to do it independently.''

Thanks to Brokeback Mountain, gay-focused films don't face the same uphill climb at the cineplex that they used to, but a movie about Harvey Milk is still a tough sell. He's political. Sexual. Confrontational. And until recently, he was cinematic kryptonite. In 1991, producers Craig Zadan and Neil Meron (Hairspray) had bought the rights to the acclaimed book about Milk, The Mayor of Castro Street, and had set the project up at Warner Bros. It remained in development there for 16 years, through five directors, the arrival (and departure) of star Robin Williams, and an endless stream of screenplays. ''The studio was afraid of everything that had to do with Harvey Milk,'' says David Franzoni (Gladiator), who wrote one of those early scripts for Oliver Stone, back when Warner was under different leadership. ''They didn't want to go out there with a big expensive movie about a gay politician.''

Other factors certainly didn't help. Stone dropped out in 1991 when activists accused his film JFK of being homophobic. Van Sant tried twice to get it made. The first time, in 1992, he says the script focused too much on a politician named Dan White — Milk's rival on San Francisco's board of supervisors, and his eventual assassin. After director Rob Cohen (XXX) came and went, Van Sant gave it another go in 1995, this time offering Tom Cruise the role of White. Cruise never called back. Years passed. Bryan Singer (Superman Returns) signed on in 2005, envisioning the movie as a political thriller, but then he went off to make Valkyrie with, ahem, Tom Cruise instead.

Dustin Lance Black hadn't been involved in any of those developments, but Harvey Milk had already had an impact on his life. At 14, Black had struggled through his early childhood in a Mormon, military household and was working as an apprentice at a theater in San Francisco, when a director first told him the story of Milk's political rise to become the first openly gay official elected in a major U.S. city. ''That was quite a moment for me,'' Black says now. ''I thought that if you were a gay man, you were supposed to stay in the closet. But here was a gay man who was honored by his city. That story stuck with me.''

Black was starting his career as a writer in 2004 when he went with a pal to Palm Springs, Calif., for the weekend to meet a close friend of Milk's, Cleve Jones. Black was dazzled by Jones' stories and archives. ''We spent hours going through boxes,'' Black says. ''I got to know the real Harvey, a man who was deeply flawed, a failure in his business life, a failure in his love life. It was all the stuff you never learn. I thought, 'Wow, now here's a story.'''

A story that had stymied seasoned screenwriters for years. But Black, by both circumstance and sensibility, wasn't hampered by the same roadblocks. Many scripts adapted from The Mayor of Castro Street focused on the trial of Dan White. White was convicted of the lesser charge of manslaughter after his attorneys argued that junk food had made him mentally unstable: the infamous ''Twinkie defense.'' Black wasn't interested in that. He was going to write about Milk and his politics, the very thing other scripts had avoided. In 2005, Black approached producers Zadan and Meron about his new vision, but they chose not to hire him. (Zadan and Meron declined to comment.) Black ultimately decided to go around them, and around Warner, and write an original screenplay.

Black couldn't use The Mayor of Castro Street as source material — Zadan and Meron had the rights to that — so he set off to interview Milk's friends and acquaintances. After two and a half years, he handed his script to Jones, who was astonished. ''I've read maybe 40 treatments, outlines, and scripts over the years, and I was never impressed,'' he says. ''But when I read [Black's script], I could hear Harvey's voice.''

Jones arranged a meeting with his friend Van Sant, who decided that a third time was the charm and signed on to direct. American Beauty producers Dan Jinks and Bruce Cohen agreed to produce. Sean Penn accepted the lead role. And Focus Features, the distributors of Brokeback, opted to release the film. ''Meeting Lance was a part of what sold people on this script,'' says Milk executive producer Michael London (Sideways), whose company cofinanced the film. ''His whole life he'd been waiting to pay Harvey Milk back for inspiring him to stand up for himself.''

The finished film, which has drawn strong early praise, is now a possible Oscar nominee. What's more, after 16 years of false starts, a feature film about Harvey Milk now finds itself smack in the center of the zeitgeist. On Nov. 4, Californians approved Proposition 8, a ballot measure outlawing gay marriage. In a bitter twist, it was heavily funded by leaders of Black's childhood faith: the Mormon church. Thirty years after Milk's murder, the fight continues. At that tribute dinner last summer, Black talked about the hurdles for gay kids today, and how important it is that this film reaches them. ''It is our job to give Harvey's story back to the people it belongs to,'' he said. ''We have to give them hope.''

[rolotomasi99]

Of the supporting men, none really have a great, standout role. Josh Brolin is the most likely awards nominee (mainly given his strong run the past two years), as he manages to create a foil that is both sympathetic and quite compelling -- his performance suggests the notion that bigotry can often stem not simply from personal cruelty, but from political desperation and convenience, a very timely idea, I think. My favorite supporting performance, though, is probably Emile Hirsch, who is an absolute hoot from scene to scene. James Franco doesn't have much to do -- a nomination would surprise me, though he's solid.

i agree with pretty much everything you said the original bj. your comments about the supporting players is particularly interesting. this is clearly sean penn's movie. i went into it thinking james franco would be the strongest presence among the secondary characters, but was completely won over by emile hirsch as cleve jones. both the actor and the character charmed me to no end. i actually like that the movie focused on milk's relationship with jones, training him as his protege.

i was also deeply moved by josh brolin's dan white. brolin easily could have played white as a mustache-twirling cliche of a villain, but he found the humanity of the guy and made us actually care for him. by treating dan as a complex person rather than just someone the audience should hate, the assasination scene becomes all the more tragic.

as for franco, i think maybe all the publicity he has been doing made me think he had a more prominent role in the film. his performance was spot on, but the movie only gave him so much to do. i am glad the filmmakers did not try to force the character to be a bigger part of harvey's story than he was in real life.

in terms of nominations, hirsch and brolin have the best chances, with franco being a longshot. between the first two, i would give the edge to hirsch. i know it is cliche for someone to say "they will get nominated for [blank] out of sympathy for being snubbed for [blank]", but here i think it is a real possibility. just like paul giamatti who was snubbed for lead actor in '04 and then nominated for supporting in '05, i think hirsch could easily garner enough support from people who wanted to see him nominated last year and will push for a nomination this year. the fact that his performance was so good is the main reason he will be nominated, but the "sympathy/make-up" vote will help him.

josh brolin will benefit not from regret over snubbing him last year, but combining last year's performance with his work in W and now MILK will give him the "several performances recognized through one nomination" vote.

franco seems unlikely. he two supporting co-stars will just steal too much of the focus from him. even with supporting actor not shaping up to be all that crowded, his nomination seems like a longshot. then again, if mark wahlberg could be nominated over his many far more deserving actors in THE DEPARTED, anything is possible.

[OscarGuy]

Franco Surprised By Gay Love Scene

1 December 2008 4:05 AM, PST

James Franco's kiss with Sean Penn in Harvey Milk biopic Milk left him feeling uncomfortable - because his co-star wanted to act out a full-on love scene.

Franco, who plays San Francisco politician Milk's gay lover Scott Smith in the Gus Van Sant film, knew he'd have to pucker-up with Penn - but was shocked when the director told him the Colors actor wanted to take it further.

He tells Elle magazine, "In the original script I read, there was only one real kissing scene.

"A month after Gus asked me to do it, they sent me another script, and on Page 5 there was a full-on love scene. And I was like, 'Gus, what the heck?' He says, 'Well, it was Sean's idea'."

[The Original BJ]

I think Milk is pretty clearly the best live-action film I've seen so far this year, and, as most everyone has assumed, seems a near-certain Best Picture nominee.

One of the things I found most interesting about the film is that, aside from the framing device/minor time-jumping, the film isn't structured very differently from most biographies -- the this happened/then this happened/then this happened approach is still very much the foundation here. And yet, where so many biopics feel endlessly drawn-out because of this narrative crutch, Milk seems to fly by (Sabin's 80-minute comment seems particularly on-point.)

The conclusion I'd come to then, is that this is pretty standard material elevated by the artistry of all involved. The photography is never flashy in a gorgeous, Oscar-baiting way, but the compositions are carefully constructed and always involving. The editing, similarly, moves the film along at a brisk pace without overusing the tiresome montages of "time-moving-forward" that have long been a biopic staple.

And the cast is wonderful, all working together as an ensemble to create a very lived-in sense of time and place. Sean Penn is magnificent, capturing what I felt Philip Seymour Hoffman lacked in his portrayal of Truman Capote -- the sense of charm and lovability that made a seemingly oddball character appealing to the masses. Given the film and performance, as well as the actor's status, I'd consider him a strong candidate for Oscar #2.

Of the supporting men, none really have a great, standout role. Josh Brolin is the most likely awards nominee (mainly given his strong run the past two years), as he manages to create a foil that is both sympathetic and quite compelling -- his performance suggests the notion that bigotry can often stem not simply from personal cruelty, but from political desperation and convenience, a very timely idea, I think. My favorite supporting performance, though, is probably Emile Hirsch, who is an absolute hoot from scene to scene. James Franco doesn't have much to do -- a nomination would surprise me, though he's solid.

I, too, found the film almost overwhelmingly moving. The sequence when Proposition 6 is defeated had me in tears of joy, and of course the film's final sequences are naturally, quite powerful.

Over the past few years, we've seen edgy artists pick up directing Oscars when they've made something a bit more mainstream -- Soderbergh, Polanski, Jackson, Scorsese. Might Van Sant be yet another?

And Anita Bryant was a real bitch, wasn't she?



Edited By The Original BJ on 1230773376

[rolotomasi99]

very lovely mini-review sabin. like i said previously, i have seen THE TIMES OF HARVEY MILK repeatedly and i basically knew every singly historical plot point the movie would probably hit. the struggle for any biopic is finding the right balance between showing the public part of the person (which most people already know) with the private part.

you can go the route of GANDHI and basically cover only the acts of the famous person without ever knowing the psychology of what made the person tick; or you can do the complete opposite like NIXON and fabricate some pretty explicit scenes illustrating a person's motivations for their actions -- create a deep psychological profile based on the filmmaker's own opinion.

it seemed MILK was finding the in-between. it did not want to just present what everyone knew from the documentary and books, but also felt a responsibility not to just make harvey milk into a movie character completely detached from the real person. compared to more basic biopic's like RAY, FINDING NEVERLAND, SEABISCUIT, WALK THE LINE, etc., this film wanted to help people understand not just who harvey was but what he could have been. it wanted to show how he was taken down before he even had a chance to shine.

to me, that was what was so sad at the end of the film. harvey was not just interested in his own political power, but truly empowering a community that felt so powerless. that was particularly apparent when he passed the bullhorn (symbolic torch) to cleve jones. he was helping the entire gay community feel they had a right to be heard. just an amazing movie for an amazing story.

[Sabin]

'Milk' is a brilliant act of salesmanship, brilliant in execution and holding firm to its beliefs. There are just enough beautiful artistic touches that Gus Van Sant brings to the film to enliven what is a very standard though cannily-structured screenplay. Everybody's happy, even to be watching what is a very standard biopic - including myself. I didn't want it to end. My chief frustration is that for a movie that speeds through its 2+ hour running time, it felt like eighty minutes at best. I wanted more of what fueled Harvey from the onset and his subsequent defeats. Gus Van Sant does a fantastic job of compensating for this and eliciting a communal buzz that's unrivaled outside of a Michel Gondry film, so I'm willing to let it go that 'Milk' feels like more of an act of salesmanship than understanding. It doesn't dive into his love of opera or his past and has about as much themeatic depth as 'Slumdog Millionaire'. Because Sean Penn is perfect as Harvey Milk and Gus Van Sant has as much dedication to Castro Street as Milk, this is not always apparent.

But like the best biopics, 'Milk' has a genuine interest in its subject matter and likes playing with it. It's not 'Paranoid Park', but it's a strong piece of filmmaking full of anger, sadness, humor, and joy; and even more so than 'Good Will Hunting', everything comes together even if it's not as inspired with the filmmaker's mode of formal experimentation. It goes without saying that this is a much, much stronger film than 'Good Will Hunting', beautifully shot, edited, and performed. I don't think any of the supporting performances are going to receive the attention they deserve but Emile Hirsch is on the forefront for being such a delightful presence on the margins of every scene.

'Milk' is probably Gus Van Sant's most outwardly emotional film and by the end I was awash in frustration tempered by tears.

[rolotomasi99]

what an amazing movie!
made me laugh! :laugh: made me cry! made me angry that this shit is still going on!

i went in with very high expectations, and because of that i was worried there was no way the movie could hold up. it was the same way i felt when i went into BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN, and just like that film i was thrilled to find the entire production amazingly well done.
the acting, writing, directing, and every other aspect of the film was beautiful. this movie should clearly be on everyone's nomination list for best picture. probably will not win, but for it not to be nominated would be a huge snub.
i love gus van sant, particularly his early films like MY OWN PRIVATE IDAHO and DRUGSTORE COWBOY. i was very disappointed with his most commercial film, GOOD WILL HUNTING. i felt van sant sacrificed too much of what made him such a great director to make that film multiplex friendly, so i worried the same fate would befall MILK. i was pleasantly surprised to find van sant mixing some very interesting visual narrative techniques (the phone tree, the falling chads, etc.) with a clear and concise plot. even if SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE or THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON win best picture, van sant still has a good chance of winning best director.
of course, sean penn as the title character was just amazing. i know its cliche to say "i forgot i was watching the actor and just saw them as the character"...but here it is absolutely true. an actor known for being such a tough guy in his life and playing such tough characters created a wonderfully vulnerable but brave harvey milk. i own THE TIMES OF HARVEY MILK and have seen it close to 10 times. sean penn captured that wonderful confidence harvey showed in front of crowds, and presented us with the vulnerable side of harvey a documentary cannot show you. harvey's humor, intelligence, and ego were all there for us to see. much like helen mirren's powerful creation in THE QUEEN, you really felt like you were seeing the private side of a very public figure. it was just beautifully done. definitely a front runner, with langella offering the only real competition.
all the supporting actors were great. josh brolin, james franco, and emile hirsch were all wonderful, and could easily find themselves nominated this year.
other nominations would definitely be the screenplay, and since the two big best picture front-runners, SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE and THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON, are adapted screenplays, dustin lance black has a good shot of winning in the original category.
editing and cinematography are also possible nominations. if GOOD WILL HUNTING could be nominated for its editing, then MILK easily could. harris savides continues to amaze me with his work. it is not as incredible as ZODIAC, but it is still solid. his use of natural lighting and coloring, and his use of shadows is quite gorgeous. much like the naturalistic cinematography of BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN and NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, hopefully the cinematographers can recognize this great work along with all the more "pretty" photography of AUSTRALIA and THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON.
danny elfman's score was nice and sparse. probably will not garner a nomination, but it certainly added nicely to the film

i continue to think there is some sort of focuse features curse. like TRAFFIC, THE PIANIST, and BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN, i think MILK will win many critics awards and be nominated for several top tier oscar categories. in terms of wins, it could easily get screenplay, director, and actor, only to see best picture to go to something far more crowd pleasing. as long as the film is recognized by the academy for its great work in the appropriate categories, i can live with some other film taking best picture.



Edited By rolotomasi99 on 1227988175

[rolotomasi99]

"Once in a while, a movie arrives at such a perfect moment, its message and meaning so finely tuned to the current zeitgeist, that it seems less a cinematic event than a cosmic convergence, willed into being by a once-in-a-lifetime alignment of the stars."

this is a very valid point. not see the accident at three mile island occurred a couple days after the release of THE CHINA SYNDROME has a films release coinciding with real life events had such potential to help it become part of the cultural zeitgeist.
while i do not think this would be enough to help MILK receive nominations from the academy if the film were not any good, i think it will certainly keep it alive in people's minds at the beginning of 2009, after all the other big oscar films have been released, and the academy voters are filling out their ballots.
just like heath ledger's death along with incredible reviews for THE DARK KNIGHT have made its oscar chances skyrocket, the stunning defeat of marriage equality in california has made MILK quite topical and relevant. i do not think it will be enough to secure a best picture win, but i think MILK is the first "sure thing" in this oscar race. as the other much buzzed films are released in the next few weeks, we will see what four other films will be joining MILK in the best picture line-up.

[flipp525]

By Delivering Poignant Depth, 'Milk' Hits the Stirring Height

By Ann Hornaday
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 26, 2008; Page C01

Once in a while, a movie arrives at such a perfect moment, its message and meaning so finely tuned to the current zeitgeist, that it seems less a cinematic event than a cosmic convergence, willed into being by a once-in-a-lifetime alignment of the stars.

Such are the goose bumps induced by "Milk," Gus Van Sant's vivid, affecting portrait of Harvey Milk, who in 1978 joined the San Francisco Board of Supervisors as the first openly gay man to be elected to American public office. Just 10 months later, he was assassinated by former fellow board member Dan White, who moments earlier murdered San Francisco Mayor George Moscone. Today, Harvey Milk's legacy -- as a pioneer, strategist, martyr and icon -- still reverberates in ways the director wisely leaves to viewers to contemplate.

Whether the title character is invoking hope in a speech that eerily anticipates this year's own historic "first," or inviting ironic reflection on the recent passage of California's anti-gay marriage Proposition 8, "Milk" resonates with uncanny depth, faithfully representing a bygone era while subtly tapping into the current one.

The list of things "Milk" gets right is a long one. But the first item has to be Sean Penn, who undergoes a startling physical transformation to play the title character. He hasn't put on or lost tons of weight, and the only visible prosthetics are a pair of brown contact lenses. But by way of simple changes in posture, facial expression and mostly voice, Penn virtually disappears into his character, burying any trace of native mannerism or accent and emerging as a wholly convincing New York Jewish boy made good.

Elfin, mischievous, often concealing a quiet giggle behind shy hands, Penn leaves his smoker's mumble behind to explore his wispier upper register, and the high-pitched Long Island drawl that emerges has the almost instantaneous effect of making him vulnerable and even childlike.

Thanks in large part to Penn's sensitive portrayal, when Harvey picks up a young stranger in a Manhattan subway station as "Milk" opens, the encounter doesn't feel predatory. Instead, it bespeaks the isolation and furtive search for intimacy engendered by years of stigma and persecution.

The young man in question, Scott Smith (James Franco), winds up going home with Harvey to celebrate the latter's 40th birthday, and two years later he moves with Harvey to San Francisco, where they set up house in the Castro neighborhood, and where Harvey proceeds to open a camera shop, become involved in local business issues and, in short order, run for office.

As the Castro takes root as a gay destination, Harvey increasingly finds his political voice, discovering a talent for coalition-building (an early success was joining local Teamsters in their boycott of Coors beer) and a genius for commanding press attention. A longtime opera fan, Harvey understood one of the most crucial axioms of getting and keeping power. "Politics is theater," he says to a potential acolyte. "It'll be fun."

As "Milk" vibrantly conveys, no one had more fun than Harvey himself, whether in the rhetorical jujitsu of his stock speech opener ("I am Harvey Milk and I'm here to recruit you") or, as the Toscanini of the photo-op, introducing a "pooper scooper" law that proves hugely popular. With impish glee, Penn imbues Harvey with that odd mix of idealism, compulsion and ambition that drives so many politicians. But, more crucially, he captures the joy. As Harvey goes toe-to-toe with his opponents, who range from San Francisco's gay establishment to a homophobic state legislator (back then it was Prop 6), he's not just a gay warrior but also a genuinely happy one.

Happy but, gratifyingly, not perfect. Along with Harvey's successes, "Milk" frankly depicts his flaws, including what would prove to be his fatal misreading of the hapless White. A sucker for strays, Harvey breaks up with Scott and eventually falls for a man named Jack Lira (Diego Luna), whose instability was at nearly constant odds with Harvey's own growing confidence and influence. (Viewers will be forgiven for wishing that Harvey and Scott stay together, if only because Franco's performance provides such a warm, appealing complement to Penn's.)

Throughout a career that has spanned such edgy independent films as "My Own Private Idaho" and mainstream fare like "Good Will Hunting," Van Sant has proved to be a director of rare fluency and intelligence. Here, both sensibilities serve him well as he unpacks the myriad forces that influenced Harvey's rise and fall. Van Sant packs an enormous amount of information into "Milk," meticulously weaving gay history, California politics, the nascent Christian conservative movement and the events of Harvey's personal life into one densely layered whole.

Van Sant uses just about every cinematic technique at his disposal -- newsreel footage, split screens, a variety of film stocks -- to keep "Milk" not just visually exciting, but also expressive. At one crucial juncture, for example, when Harvey needs to enlist a group of activists quickly, Van Sant uses multiplying frames of men answering the phone to illustrate swiftly and with graphic simplicity both the mechanics and exhilarating power of grass-roots organizing.

And, finally, that might be the most difficult and important thing that "Milk" gets right: celebrating the bravery, brio and burrowing, antlike banality of political work. What makes "Milk" extraordinary isn't just that it's a nuanced, stirring portrait of one of the 20th century's most pivotal figures, but also that it's also a nuanced, stirring portrait of the thousands of people he energized.

Harvey Milk was no doubt a great man, but Van Sant gratifyingly avoids making him a Great Man. Instead, he shifts his focus throughout "Milk" from Harvey himself to the movement he so ingeniously led. What's more, that push-pull approach flawlessly suits the idea Van Sant expresses most subtly: That history isn't a straight line, but an often heartbreaking two-steps-back gavotte. The point, as Harvey Milk taught so many so well, is to stay in the dance.

Milk (128 minutes, at area theaters) is rated R for language, some sexual content and brief violence.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn....57.html

[rolotomasi99]

And people thought I was stupid/crazy for putting Emile Hirsch in my list of nominees back in July.

no, not for emile hirsch. i think you are crazy (though never stupid) for including nicole kidman and hugh jackman for lead nominations. :p still love you though, oscarguy.

[OscarGuy]

And people thought I was stupid/crazy for putting Emile Hirsch in my list of nominees back in July.

[Big Magilla]

There is definitely (as someone brought up in an earlier thread) a possibility of three supporting performances from this film being nominated come January (Franco, Hirsch, Brolin).

I was the someone. Those three plus Ledger and Shannon wouldn't surprise me at all. However, if it comes down to just one, Brolin, with W. in the same year, will be the one.

[flipp525]

I'm switching out Josh Brolin for Emile Hirsch in support for my predictions. Brolin does a solid job as Dan White (can't help but imagine what first-choice Matt Damon might've brought to the table), but Hirsch was a delight. Easily one of the film's several standouts. He reminded me very much of Tommy Boatwright in Larry Kramer's "The Normal Heart", a character I played on stage.

There is definitely (as someone brought up in an earlier thread) a possibility of three supporting performances from this film being nominated come January (Franco, Hirsch, Brolin). Franco really impressed me, giving a touching and solid performance as Milk's longtime lover, Scott Smith

More later. Penn, by the way, was phenomenal. A career-topping performance. He completely disappears into the role (to use a tired, yet apt, description).



Edited By flipp525 on 1227721086

[rolotomasi99]

franco on the other hand has seemed to shy away from most of the big blockbusters except as a supporting player in the SPIDER-MAN series. i could definitely see him as the type of guy willing to sacrifice money and fame for being honest about himself.

Franco is no dummy: this past June, he graduated from UCLA and is currently enrolled at Columbia pursuing an MA in creative writing. I suspect that doesn't give him much time to focus on a "blockbuster" career and he's thus more interested in good but smaller roles in less arduous films.

in hollywood, giving up fame and fortune for an education is considered stupid. franco should be proud to call himself the dumbest heart-throb in hollywood.