Milk

[kaytodd]

One narrative quibble: I was a bit unclear on why White resigned in the first place, so his reversal was hard to put in context (other than the dark intimations of police pressure). This would be one spot where making the film mostly from Milk's point of view, rather than having an omniscient narrator's view, deprived the audience of information it would have liked to have.

I am relying strictly on memory here. Not too long after the murders, I had read that White resigned so he and his wife could open a seafood restaurant. He explained that he was not making enough money as a member of the Board Of Supervisors. This was shocking to his constituents and other supporters around the city and state. His district was blue collar and filled with people who did not like what had happened to San Francisco's image since the early 1960's with the hippies followed by the gay activists. White was good looking with some charisma and his having been a policeman and fireman also helped him politically. In his brief political career he had convinced a lot of people he would fight with them to "clean up" the city's image from the damage done by the left wing extremists. Many of his supporters saw him as a future candidate for mayor or even statewide office.

He convinced people he wanted to be a Supervisor because he was dedicated to making San Francisco a better place to live and raise a family. For someone like that to give up his office because he was not making enough money was shocking to a lot of people.

For some reason, the restaurant quickly collapsed and White needed his job back. Mayor Moscone decided to appoint someone who was more in agreement with him politically. White's former supporters were not going to bust their backs fighting for him to get his seat back because they felt he had let them down.

[OscarGuy]

The film seems to suggest that he resigned in protest over the passage of the bill he alone opposed, but I'm sure there was more to it that I'm not remembering.

[Mister Tee]

Way later than everyone else at finally getting to this.

I think "biopic" is slightly off as a descriptor for the film, if only because there isn't the standard childhood/young man section of Milk's life, something Ray or Walk the Line or a thousand other films would have highlighted. The story we see is limited to the facts, but it only covers a six year period -- really, 2/3 of the movie is the events of just 16 months. Thus, as a dramatic work, it gets closer to Aristotelian unities than most sprawling biopics do.

I've never seen The Times of Harvey Milk, but I saw The Execution of Justice, and followed many of the film's developments (Anita Bryant, the Briggs fight and the Milk/ Moscone assassinations) in real time, so my information level going in was strong but not limiting in the way some of you have expressed.

I liked the movie; it was quite solid, well made, engrossing after a slightly slow start. I admired van Sant's work, both visually and with his actors. But for me the film didn't have anything extra to elevate it beyond a good story (the leitmotif of 2008's films, for me). I have nothing bad to say about anytihng or anybody, and have no problem with the film's likely best picture nomination. But I continue to long for a film that takes me somewhere unexpected, and this wasn't quite that.

What stands out are of course the performances. Penn has never shown such an easy sense of humor. I confess I felt him straining just a tad in the earliest scenes, but before long I lost all distance between him and Harvey Milk; it felt like his most natural perormance ever. All the rest are fine, and I'd agree that it's hard to pick a standout. Brolin's being pinpointed is probably partly because of his recent run of excellence, and partly because his story line exists so apart from all the others. But this is above all an ensemble piece, which hopefully SAG will recognize.

One narrative quibble: I was a bit unclear on why White resigned in the first place, so his reversal was hard to put in context (other than the dark intimations of police pressure). This would be one spot where making the film mostly from Milk's point of view, rather than having an omniscient narrator's view, deprived the audience of information it would have liked to have.

[rolotomasi99]

I almost feel like you came up with this phrase and thought it was too good to get rid of even though it doesn't accurately describe the film.

I don't think anything I write is too good to get rid of. In any case, I'm serious. Milk is so effective as a celebration of life that when it turns to death, it feels ever-so-slightly off. Which is not to say it becomes a bad movie or even a mediocre film.

i think i understand what you are talking about sabin. i unabashedly love this movie. it does not reach the brilliance of BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN, but those two films are very different so any comparison is quite unfair.

i think screenwriter dustin lance black and director gus van sant wanted to tell three different movies -- and did a good job doing it.

first they wanted to tell the political story. that is the primary focus of harvey milk. whether he had been killed or not, he was an incredible political force to reckon with. he would probably be in the u.s. senate if still alive. he was that good at politics and winning over non-gay voters. he would have gone far, and the filmmakers wanted to show how savy he was. they wanted people to understand how instrumental he was in defeating prop 6. the gay rights movement has been different from say the black and women rights movement in how few powerful and famous leaders we have had. harvey milk was that leader and powerful persona, and he would have done so much more if he had lived.

the second story they wanted to tell was obviously the assasination story. from what i read, all other screenplays about harvey milk involved dan white's trial and the subsequent riots over his light sentence. dustin lance black felt once you got too far away from harvey milk the person you lost the emotional core and narrative direction of the story. while i would have been interested in seeing them stage the riots from a purely visceral place of wanting to see gay people literally fighting back against heterosexual oppression, i understand how it would have derailed the emotional crescendo you feel at the end watching the parade of candle light mourners. that was a wonderful moment, and showing any part of the trial or the riots would have weighed the film down. it would have felt like THE RETURN OF THE KING with its 5 different endings.

the third story black and van sant wanted to tell was the romance between milk and scott smith. this is why i love how they spliced milk's pending assasination with his early morning conversation with smith. i would imagine this moment was entirely created by black for the movie, but i just found it such a "human" element to what was largely a "historical" film. it helped you identify with milk the man rather than just admire milk the political machine. it was an important moment, and one of the reasons i admire black's deceptively beautiful screenplay.

when you make a movie about a celebrate public figure you always face the challenge of pleasing everyone. i applaud black, van sant, and everyone else involved for making such a beautiful and intelligent film.

[Sabin]

I almost feel like you came up with this phrase and thought it was too good to get rid of even though it doesn't accurately describe the film.

I don't think anything I write is too good to get rid of. In any case, I'm serious. Milk is so effective as a celebration of life that when it turns to death, it feels ever-so-slightly off. Which is not to say it becomes a bad movie or even a mediocre film.



Edited By Sabin on 1230584093

[OscarGuy]

For me, I agree to a VERY small extent with Sabin. The assassination doesn't come as a surprise at all. The scene is still quite eloquent and exciting, but from the moment the film opens, it's clear that this isn't your traditional biopic as this isn't necessarily a biopic about the person per se, but about his cause. But then again, perhaps that WAS Harvey Milk. From his conversations with Franco's character, it's clear that Milk didn't start out as just another politician, but as a crusader who could never get enough. I couldn't imagine this film being any good if it had just been about the man and who the man was because the man was more than just a man, the man was a man with a cause and thus the cause takes center stage.

Thinking more about a lot of the movies at the end of the year, I've already started re-evaluating some. I've shifted WALL-E to 4-stars already because the film feels like an exploration of every genre Hollywood has ever offered with the small exception of horror films. You have romance, comedy, silent, sci-fi, western, action all blended effortlessly together. Milk is starting to edge its way to 4-stars simply because I'm seeing the use of the cause in the film as a strong suit and not a detriment as Sabin sees it. I also realize I may have been to cruel to a number of films so far this year and too generous to others. I will slowly re-evaluate for my top 10 list, which probably won't be ready until mid-January.

[flipp525]

But the film is strictly a biopic about the cause with Milk the Man almost secondary to the point that it feels ever-so-slightly off when he is elected into office and the film becomes almost a death march until assassination.

I almost feel like you came up with this phrase and thought it was too good to get rid of even though it doesn't accurately describe the film. We know Milk is going to die from the first scene yet, somehow, acombination of the effervescence of Penn's performance, the slow boiling structure of the Black's script and Gus Van Sant's assured direction, his assassination still comes as a surprise. In effect, Penn is so good, so full of spirit and a genuine zest for his cause, it seems impossible that his light can really be extinguished.

Josh Brolin was good, especially in the drunk birthday party scene where he played up the ambiguity of Dan White's psychosis, but I agree with Italiano that James Franco was the most impressive supporting performance. He really ought to be nominated instead or, at the very least, alongside Brolin.



Edited By flipp525 on 1230559025

[Sabin]

When I first saw Milk, I was a little annoyed that we didn't see more of Harvey Milk The Man, that it was all about the cause and perhaps too conventional a biopic despite the fact that it's one of the most exemplary biopics in ages. But the film is strictly a biopic about the cause with Milk the Man almost secondary to the point that it feels ever-so-slightly off when he is elected into office and the film becomes almost a death march until assassination. Sean Penn is so fantastic in this role and Gus Van Sant so effortlessly juggles all the performances that you don't need any more of the man. Like his sexual "outness", his life is in the closet to the point that what you see everything that you need to and everything that is left behind is past.

[ITALIANO]

I know, it's a bit late to talk about this one, and it will never win Best Picture, but since it will probably be my favorite among the five nominees (though I still have some hopes for Benjamin Button), let me say two or three things.

It IS a conventional American biopic, but what I found interesting is that it is applied to a person who was, and in some way unfortunately still is for many, unconventional. But conventional doesnt mean stupid - and actually the screenplay is full of absorbing details about not only the man, but the period, and American society during the period, and extremely interesting for someone who, like me and I'm sure many other Europeans, knew next to nothing about Harvey Milk. It's a very American movie, but then the character was also very American - and both American in the best possible way.

This is also probably the first gay-themed American A-production which doesnt feel the need of including a straight "point-of-view" to make the heterosexual audience more confortable. Well, of course there IS a straight character (more than one if one considers Anita Bryant), but certainly not a "confortable", reassuring straight character. No perplexed wife here, no friendly lawyer, no understanding childhood friend, not even a nice couple of married neighbors whom the non-homosexual viewer can desperately identify with. (Though one could say that the fact that all the gay roles are played by straight or officially straight actors is still reassuring in itself). Anyway, I found this, for an American movie, quite original. And while it's true that Milk, unlike for example the completely different Brokeback Mountain, is more about politics than feelings, there is a strong emotional side to it, too - and Harvey's two love relationships are rather subtly presented.

One could also say that the script doesnt try to go too deep in analyzing Harvey's psychology - it's not a devastatingly complex portrayal - but Sean Penn's performance suggests alot, and is, of course, brilliant. If he hadnt won an Oscar already, we'd know by now the outcome of Best Actor - but then he's such a respected actor, and this is such a great performance, that I'm sure that he won't have any problem in winning his second trophy. But Gus Van Sant's talent with actors is especially evident with the rest of the cast, not only in the individual performances but in the way the actors interact with each other and as a group (this is exactly the kind of movie which should win Best Ensemble awards). The one who will be nominated is certainly Josh Brolin, because he has the showiest supporting role and plays it well - though (intentionally, I think, and sometimes fascinatingly too) the character isn't always clearly drawn. But all the others are very good too, and the best is probably, and surprisingly, James Franco, whose character I found extremely believable and slowly affecting.



Edited By ITALIANO on 1230551366

[rolotomasi99]

It depends on the definition of Masterpiece. My definition has refined itself over the years. And while some would say 4 stars is a masterpiece, a 4 star film is a terrific movie that works on every level with a few minor issues. Masterpieces also have 4-star ratings, but are absolutely perfect.

I don't know if I would classify any film this decade as a masterpiece per se, but The Lord of the Rings trilogy would rank very close if not right at that definition. There Will Be Blood is another that approaches Masterpiece status as do Children of Men, Brokeback Mountain, Lost in Translation, Hero, Far From Heaven, Spirited Away, Dancer in the Dark and Requiem for a Dream. There may be a few more in there that I rank highly.

I also think one can't exactly hand out the Masterpiece title until one can look at it from at least a decade away. Sometimes films feel like they are part of a moment and when looked at in retrospect feel less so.

As for films this year I've given four stars to, Blindness is the only one so far and that's more of an idiosyncratic choice on my part than anything. I'm still waiting for a better film because even WALL-E, The Dark Knight, Milk, Frost/Nixon and The Wrestler had major issues that prevented me from giving them a four-star rating.

i agree with your sentiments about masterpieces. you need at least a decade after a film has been released before you know if it is a masterpiece.

i like using the imdb star system. it is quite convenient for keeping tabs of all the movies i see, even going back to all the movies i can remember seeing when i was a little kid. i have 2,004 movies rated on imdb, and i am know there are some i have seen but forgot to rate. the best part of imdb is you can change your vote on a film, and it is interesting to see how my opinion of certain films and cinema in general has changed throughout the years.

imdb allows 10 stars (no half stars), and for me 7 and 8 stars is what i give the best movies of the year. 9 and 10 stars are reserved for masterpieces. it is very rare for me to give a film a 9 or 10. even the masterpieces i listed from this decade only received 9 stars. 10 stars are only for films which have met the test of time. the most recently released film i have given 10 stars to is GOODFELLAS, release back in 1990. there are about a half a dozen films from the 90's and the four previously mentioned films from this decade which have received 9 stars, but none have come to the 10 star masterpiece level.

i do not expect there to be any 9 star films from this year, and there is only one more year left in this decade to add to my short 9 star list. i doubt there will be any films from this year to survive the test of time and eventually become 10 star films.

[OscarGuy]

It depends on the definition of Masterpiece. My definition has refined itself over the years. And while some would say 4 stars is a masterpiece, a 4 star film is a terrific movie that works on every level with a few minor issues. Masterpieces also have 4-star ratings, but are nearly perfect.

I don't know if I would classify any film this decade as a masterpiece per se, but The Lord of the Rings trilogy would rank very close if not right at that definition. There Will Be Blood is another that approaches Masterpiece status as do Children of Men, Brokeback Mountain, Lost in Translation, Hero, Far From Heaven, Spirited Away, Dancer in the Dark and Requiem for a Dream. There may be a few more in there that I rank highly.

I also think one can't exactly hand out the Masterpiece title until one can look at it from at least a decade away. Sometimes films feel like they are part of a moment and when looked at in retrospect feel less so.

As for films this year I've given four stars to, Blindness is the only one so far and that's more of an idiosyncratic choice on my part than anything. I'm still waiting for a better film because even WALL-E, The Dark Knight, Milk, Frost/Nixon and The Wrestler had major issues that prevented me from giving them a four-star rating.

But, after reading through my four-star film list, I would have to say that Spirited Away is the only film that I don't feel I have to wait on to declare a masterpiece. I also don't think I'm going to wait much longer on declaring LOTR a masterpiece. There Will Be Blood definitely requires some post-decade thought. It may age well or age poorly.



Edited By OscarGuy on 1229984517

[rolotomasi99]

Definitely among the best I've seen this year (I'm fairly unimpressed with the year as a whole so far), but not the masterpiece I was hoping it would be. I'll have more when I formulate words into a review.

just out of curiousity, to better understand your criteria for film, have you seen a masterpiece this year? were there any masterpieces from last year?

the only films from this decade i think approach masterpiece level are:
THE PIANIST
BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN
LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA
THERE WILL BE BLOOD

[OscarGuy]

Definitely among the best I've seen this year (I'm fairly unimpressed with the year as a whole so far), but not the masterpiece I was hoping it would be. I'll have more when I formulate words into a review.

[Penelope]

One problem I had with Milk, one that will most likely not be noticed by the vast majorities for moviegoers, is that I already knew quite a bit about Harvey Milk's life before seeing the film. Thus, I was able to spot altered events, combined events and the various real people playing themselves. As a result there were occasional moments when I was taken "out" of the film and not as emotionally involved as I would have liked to have been. That's a minor quibble, and I look forward to seeing the film again, if only because there's so much to take it.

Gus Van Sant's direction is very eclectic, and possibly the only (certainly probably the best) way this project could've been done. The combining of different film stocks, the matching with archival footage, the recreation of a 70s style, even the one-off of multi-screen, all this was terrific. Somewhat in the same vein as the historicity I mentioned above, I found myself look all around the screen--so much was happening everywhere. Marvelous.

Sean Penn is astonishingly good; certainly his best performance since Dead Man Walking and currently my choice for the Oscar. Josh Brolin gives a devastating performance (interestingly, many critics have stated that speculation that Dan White was a deeply repressed homosexual is just a thow-away comment by Milk; it seemed to me that the film drove that point home several times, notably in White's drunk scene during Harvey's birthday party). James Franco and Emile Hirsch do fine with what they're given, though I think it's a shame that Diego Luna isn't being recognized as often as his co-stars: though relatively brief, he gives a stellar, funny, heartbreaking performance--his introduction in the film is, I think, one of those great and unforgettable cinematic moments for an actor.

[Sabin]

This is the most difficult article I've read in some time. Isn't it just outwardly difficult to get through? Not just ideologically but following his under-explored tangents?