Milk
Movie Review
"Milk"
Review by Eric D. Snider
Grade: B+
Rating: R
Released: Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Directed by:
Cast:
The only way Gus Van Sant's "Milk," a biopic of America's first openly gay public official, could have been more timely is if it had been released before the election, not after. The parallels between Harvey Milk's crusading against anti-gay Proposition 6 in 1978 and the campaign against anti-gay-marriage Proposition 8 in 2008 are uncanny. The only difference is the outcome -- but who knows, Prop 8 might have gone differently if "Milk" had come out in time to earn more voters' sympathy.
Make no mistake: If you believe the mainstreaming of homosexuality is wrong, then "Milk" is a dangerous film. In its depiction of the problems gays faced in San Francisco in the 1970s, including police harassment and blatant civil-rights violations, it shows how much things have changed while subtly reminding us of how they haven't. It would be hard to watch it and not come away with more sympathy for the gay community and indignation over the injustices it has faced. And that makes the film either an inspiring biography or a shrewd chunk of propaganda, depending on your views.
Sean Penn, in what might be the most likable performance of his self-serious career, plays Harvey Milk, a gay New Yorker who moved to San Francisco in the early 1970s, when he was in his early 40s. He's accompanied by his younger boyfriend, Scott (James Franco), and soon finds that he wants to do something useful with his life. He sets up a camera shop on Castro Street, at the center of what is starting to be San Francisco's gay community, then fights back against the anti-gay business owners nearby who harass him.
Harvey quickly becomes a local activist and organizer, the "mayor of Castro Street" ("I may have invented the term myself," he confides), making inroads even with traditionally heterosexual groups like truck drivers and labor unions. He persuades people of the power of the gay voting bloc. Gays are not to be marginalized and disregarded anymore, not on Harvey's watch. Meanwhile, at home, the apolitical Scott just wants his boyfriend back.
Harvey's dedication to public life only increases, though, as he starts running for office and becomes surrounded by campaign managers, strategists, volunteers, and activists. After a few failed tries he's elected to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in 1977, thus becoming, in the words of Time magazine, "the first openly gay man elected to any substantial political office in the history of the planet."
The historical significance of this is not lost on Harvey's detractors. These include the shrill harridan Anita Bryant (seen in archival footage) and State Sen. John Briggs (Denis O'Hare) -- the man behind Proposition 6, which would make it legal for schools to fire employees solely for being gay. Briggs' ignorance of homosexuality (he seems to think it's contagious) would be hilarious if it weren't so alarmingly common in the 1970s and not totally unknown today. (A nice touch: The actor who plays Briggs is openly gay, a fact that would surely horrify the real Briggs, which is probably why Van Sant cast him.)
The film is punctuated by snippets of Harvey alone in his apartment in 1978, recording a tape to be played in the event of his assassination. He is well aware of the dangers of his notoriety, and he faces it even among his fellow board members, including Dan White (Josh Brolin), a family man who seems to desire Harvey's friendship as much as his downfall.
Penn's performance is key, of course. The best testimonial I can give is to point out how much I dislike his dour, humorless real-life persona, then weigh that against how much I love his character in "Milk." Some actors excel at playing people who aren't much different from themselves; Penn, it seems, is playing a man who is his polar opposite -- outgoing, charismatic, optimistic, and smiling -- and doing a fantastic job of it. Acting, ladies and gentlemen! Acting!
Speaking of acting, there are some good examples of it in the other roles, too. James Franco's sweet, understated turn as Harvey's longtime partner is quietly effective; Diego Luna shines in his few scenes as one of Harvey's slightly less stable lovers; and Josh Brolin, who just played another in-over-his-head politician in "W.," actually earns some empathy as Harvey's nemesis.
Van Sant, working from a screenplay by gay ex-Mormon Dustin Lance Black, has constructed a flawless re-creation of the sights and sounds of the 1970s. It's nearly impossible to tell where the archival footage stops and the re-enactments begin. After a series of obtuse, difficult movies, it's great to see Van Sant making something that's accessible -- entertaining, emotional, and vibrant -- without forsaking depth and intelligence. "Milk" hits the usual biopic notes, including the career-focused protagonist whose ambition causes him to neglect his spouse or partner, but does it without indulging in too much cliché or formula. This middle ground between the avant-garde weirdness of "Last Days" and the total commercial sell-outism of "Finding Forrester" is a good place for Van Sant. I hope he stays here for a while.
Grade: B+
Rated R, some harsh profanity, a little nudity, brief strong sexuality, brief violence
2 hrs., 8 min.
Copyright © Eric D. Snider.
This work may not be transmitted via the Internet, nor reproduced in any other way, without written consent from Eric D. Snider.
This item has 12 comments
November 26, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Do we realy need to know that Dustin Lance Black is ex-Mormon? What does that have to do with anything? Mormons hate gays now he is one?
November 26, 2008 at 7:11 pm
The fact that Dustin Lance Black was raised LDS probably ISN'T relevant to "Milk", although it is often mentioned in reviews & articles about the film -- which usually also point out that he wrote some episodes of HBO's "Big Love".
(Do you think it would be relevant to mention it in THAT contect, OZ? -- And is the fact that Dustin Lance Black is GAY relevant to his writing the screenplay for "Milk"?)
I always look at such references as interesting but not important. I remember hearing a Canadian once mention that when two or more of them are gathered they will often find themselves interjecting "Canadian!" if someone in the group mentions the name of a writer or actor or whatever during the course of a conversation. My grandmother used to always point to the TV and say "S/he's a Catholic, you know. . ." if someone of that faith came onscreen. I don't remember ever asking her what that had to do with anyhing. . .
November 26, 2008 at 8:47 pm
I guess it's becauase I find it neither important nor interesting.
November 26, 2008 at 10:50 pm
It's probably of interest that he's an ex-Mormon because Eric Snider and many of his loyal readers happen to be Mormon.
There's also the irony factor.
November 27, 2008 at 4:19 am
Black's background speaks to his ability to understand and relate to Milk's story. The intolerance towards homosexuality of Milk's time was greater than the intolerance towards homosexuality of today, and likewise Mormonism of today has a greater intolerance towards homosexuality than broader society.
November 28, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Firing someone because they are gay = violation of civil rights.
Not being able to marry someone of the same gender = not a violation of civil rights, as the law is applied to all people equally. Everyone is allowed to marry one person of the opposite gender who is over 18 and isn't married to anyone else.
The idea that Prop 6 and Prop 8 are even remotely equivalent is false--does Eric or anyone have any evidence that any significant percentage of Prop 8 supporters believe that gays also should be able to be fired from their jobs because they are gay?
Inconveniently (for gay marriage supporters), gays are already treated equally under the law regarding marriage in all 50 states.
Even more inconveniently, California has had a domestic partnership law on the books since 2005 which is equivalent to marriage in all but name (and remains unchanged after Prop 8). Therefore, gays in California have exactly the same opportunities to form a legally recognized gay partnership in California with all the benefits of marriage today as they did the day before the election. The only thing different is the name.
We're all familiar with the "hatemongering" straw man used by the left to condemn anyone who disagrees with them--they've been using it effectively for decades: If you oppose gay marriage, you're an intolerant bigot who hates gays. If you oppose abortion, you're an intolerant bigot who hates women. If you oppose affirmative action, you're an intolerant bigot who hates minorities. And so on...
Does anyone care that perhaps voters in California (including Mormons) know many gay couples, associate with them daily, don't believe they should be fired from their jobs (or beaten, or discriminated against in society)--perhaps, in fact, wish them all happiness in life...but don't feel that the case for gay marriage has been made either as an equal rights issue, or as a practical matter of secular benefits given the existence of marriage-equivalent domestic partnerships already? Or is that too nuanced a view for those who'd rather hold to their black-and-white view of gay 'intolerance'?
November 29, 2008 at 4:31 pm
America is anything but free of discrimination against homosexuals.
Less than 25 states have enacted laws prohibiting discrimination against sexual orientation in the private workplace.
Domestic partnerships are anything but equal to marriages. Partnerships require evidence that two individuals were living together before they are granted. Domestic partners need to file separate taxes, and only one of them can typically claim a child.
Then of course there is the whole "violation of the Constitution" thing. Church and state need to be separated, and no matter how tied our citizens are to the religious and cultural roots of the word marriage, it is still a governmental item. You need a license no matter who you are or what you believe, so forget the "religious right" argument.
Additionally, it violates the freedom of religion. Gay couples wishing to recognize the religious aspect of marriage (which is only an option, not a requirement) are turned away; they are unable to practice their religion.
Honestly. Atheists get married. 18 year olds marry 90 year olds. Why can't homosexuals marry - something that needs to be done for complete legal freedom?
Because people discriminate, just like they did in Milk's time. The two relate perfectly well; they both show how America's coined phrase "Land of the Free" just isn't always true.
December 4, 2008 at 7:39 am
I hate bigoted people and anyone who doesn't agree with me is just being hateful and intolerant.
December 13, 2008 at 4:23 am
Great movie........amazing acting by Penn. I also love the way the old footage combines with the movie flawlessly. I am a conservative and I agree with KMB that Prop 8 and Prop 6 are very different. I was pretty shocked to read Eric's first paragraph. I'm against gay marriage (not really my main issue but I would vote against it), but I would agree with everything Harvey Milk was fighting for in the 1970's.
January 20, 2009 at 4:51 pm
I think that the mainstreaming of homosexuality is wrong and yet, I thought this film was excellent. How can knowledge of another's woes ever be considered dangerous? I first heard about the tragedy of the two deaths while living as an out-of-state student in San Deigo, so I wanted to see the film to put the deaths into perspective, which the film succeeded perfectly in doing. I recommend this film to all.
January 22, 2009 at 9:59 am
Was Jacob's comment meant to be ironic, or is he seriously that big of a jerk? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Sure there are lots of people who don't tolerate gays and minorities, but then to turn around and hate them doesn't make you any better. What's wrong with some of the people in today's minority groups (gays, non-Christians, etc.) is that they also refuse to tolerate anyone who is a white Christian. They shout "Diversity!" and "Tolerance!" then refuse to accept anyone who holds traditional values and then have the gall to call THEM intolerant. They want to take Christian teachings out of the schools while adding lessons about Islam and homosexuality. That isn't diverse or tolerant. If they want one they should have to keep the other. Sure we all need to be nice and tolerant of each other like this film promoted, but fringe groups need to be tolerant of the majority as well or they'll only come off sounding whiney and obnoxious.
January 22, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Fantastic film. I just finished watching it.
The mention of the gay ex-Mormon writer is relevant as it was no doubt the Mormon influence that made the difference in the California's Prop 8, as alluded to in the first sentence of the review:
"The only way Gus Van Sant's 'Milk,' a biopic of America's first openly gay public official, could have been more timely is if it had been released before the election, not after."