*** Official MILK Review Thread (1 Viewer)

[Greg_M]

"MILK" - one of the best films so far this year. Probably not the best title for a film esp in middle America, but the film is excellent.

Sean Penn will most likely be nominated and possibly win the Oscar again. The supporting cast was also uniformly excellent.

The story is told in flash back so it starts with the actual news telecast that Milk was shot and killed and then fills in the prior 8 years of his life. The film is refreshing in that nothing much is made of his relationships with men - they are pretty much a"given" as about as normal as in a film about a man who was married to a woman. The story proceeds to show the political side of his life. Very little is made of the facts that occurred after the shooting, as the film is more about human rights than the trial and events that followed.

Unfortunately many of the rights Harvey Milk was fighting for are as relevant today as 30 years ago. Had the film opened prior to the election prop 8 may not have passed in California. There are many clips of actual news footage esp with Anita Bryant - who comes across as quite ridiculous in light of what has happened in the last 30 years.

The screenplay was also strong - though one thing that might prevent the film from getting a best Picture nom is the fact that Dan White's character is short changed near the end - I kept feeling a few more scenes were needed to show what was going on in his mind - to lead him to act the way he did. The performance was fine, but a little more of his break down would have been a bit more satisfying


The film is uplifting and the last scene (mixed with actual news footage) is powerful in that so many people show up with their candles burning

 

[Adam_S]

Milk
I'm Harvey Milk, and I'm here to recruit you!

I doubt many people have watched The Times of Harvey Milk a thirty minute, mid-eighties documentary on the man that I believe won an oscar. If you have, some of the vintage footage seen in this film should be familiar. If you haven't, and like me (before I saw it) you don't even know who Harvey Milk is, here's a brief primer on a modern day martyr who is scrupulously ignored whenever possible outside of the gay community.

Harvey Milk was the first openly gay man elected to a major public office in history. He was elected to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors (like a city council) promoted gay activism and gay rights and was assassinated in 1978 by Dan White.

The film is quite remarkable, Sean Penn's stunning performance overshadows all else (except the director and cinematographer) in the film, and he will be a major force in awards and oscar contention this season. Unless Clint pulls a Rooster Cogburn with Gran Torino, or DiCaprio or Langella gather an undeniable momentum, I think he's probably the frontrunner to win. The performance is simultaneously both intensely loud but also quite subtly modulated, there is passion and drive to Milk, but also turmoil, doubt, and years of pent up frustrations, repressions, fears and anger. In fact it often seems as though he is not acting all that much, despite never seeming anything but completely Harvey, it's an outstanding and complete piece of work making the overwrought screeching of Mystic River all the more flat by comparison. Hellen Mirren in the Queen is an apt comparison for Penn's work, I think, though that is overdoing it with more than a little hyperbole, as he is not that good.

I think my biggest disappointment is that the supporting men, Diego Luna, James Franco, Emile Hirsch and Josh Brolin are all quite overshadowed by Penn-as-Milk. all turn in very good work, Hirsch the most natural and best at being on screen with Milk, Franco is the most strained and Luna is baity and over the top. Brolin is very very subdued in the presence he puts on film, he almost fades into the background even while talking, which makes his final actions, and march, all the more chilling. The one cast member I felt really did stand out, and this is probably mainly simply because of the contrast to an almost 100% male cast, is Alison Pill who turned in an outstanding piece of work that I found more convincing and also (in the end) quite touching.

Gus Van Sant's direction of this film is absolutely outstanding. he navigates the transitions, flow of time, the evolution of Milk into a politician (eventually with a team) seamlessly, the narrative pulses and drives along like a an All the President's Men, and that's a tribute to Van Sant (and his editor's) skill.

The third star of the film is cinematographer Harris Savides. He puts together a fantastic amalgamation of images, matching source footage, shooting with what I presume is different stocks and at times vintage consumer camera equipment and it all works together. At the same time there are some stunning shots made, such as a scene shot in a macro reflection off of a whistle's side. The film is a feast for the eyes which certainly helps the story a great deal.

But there are also some reservations to the film. It's not a deep examination of Milk. It is more about what he did than who he was. On the other hand, the film itself sort of tells us that who he was is what he did. That is to say, what he accomplished and achieved in his years in San Francisco. This would not be so much of a problem if we didn't have a throwaway lines about the suicide attempts of his past lovers. It's an indication of the times Harvey Milk lived in, and not a reflection on him as a person, but it also is an incredibly intriguing element to explore because we do see from his two relationships in the film that he's a career driven person, who likes the companionship and sex that comes with a relationship, but we often get the sense that his name is more important to him than his lovers. I'm not saying this element of ambiguity is a flaw. I sort of like the fact that the film lets us see that Harvey was often quite a conniving asshole in his professional life and for all of his fondness and sweet moments with lovers could also be an asshole to them as well. The flaw, to me, is in that we get glimpses of this conflict but it doesn't seem fully explored. Likewise the relationship with Dan White. It's clear the film is pushing White to be somewhat incidental (while making sure to mention him many times) and I'm glad it's not turned into an American Beauty scenario but I wish there was just a little bit more to fill it out.

It's not quite a perfect movie, but it is a damn fine one, and probably one of the ten best this year. 9 of 10

 

[Robert Crawford]

This thread is now the Official Review Thread for "Milk". Please post all HTF member reviews in this thread.

Any other comments, links to other reviews, or discussion items will be deleted from this thread without warning!

If you need to discuss those type of issues then I have designated an Official Discussion Thread.



Crawdaddy

 

[Robert Crawford]

For future reviews let's stop any mentioning of what effect this film may or may not of had on Proposition 8. This is not the forum for such discussion and has been noted in our posting guidelines so any mention of Proposition 8 invites responses we don't want to deal with here. Thank you.






Crawdaddy

 

[Patrick Sun]

"Milk" is a good solid film, with a sparkling performance by Sean Penn who simply is Harvey Milk on the screen. The supporting cast is hit-or-miss for me at times, but I think it's due to the screenplay, moreso than the tenor of the acting by some of the supporting cast. Gus van Sant does a tremendous job of weaving the old footage from the 1970s and early 1980s with the footage shot for the film, as well as keeping track of the progresion of the story as Harvey Milk's gay activism leads him to lead a charge against Prop 6 (targeting gay teachers in public school for termination), taking on the Prop 6 sponsor in open debates wherever possible, and orchestrating moves to guide public sentiment towards gay-friendly in spite of heavy moral opposition from gay-unfriendly forces.

I give it 3.5 stars, or a grade of B+.

 

[Kevin Hewell]

I got around to seeing Milk and I thought it was great. I was just flabbergasted by Sean Penn's performance. I haven't been this wowed by a performance of his since Jeff Spicoli in Fast Times At Ridgemont High, which is the only other role of his where I don't see any trace of him in the role. Emile Hirsch was outstanding as Cleve Jones. I've met Cleve a couple of times and I think he captured him perfectly.

I was surprised by how emotional I got toward the end of the film. I've read the books and seen the films about Harvey and I knew how he taped his thoughts for posterity but the way Penn brought it across was incredibly real to me.

Brolin, I think, had a tougher row to hoe in portraying Dan White. He's been demonized, and rightly so, in the gay community for so long yet I think he caught the essence of a man who was caught up in circumstances and times that were far beyond him, so I commend him (Brolin).

James Franco was also really good. He provided some of the stability the film needed.

Diego Luna's character was odd but totally spot-on from everything I've read.

Two of my best friends live in SF, near the Castro, and I'm really interested to get their take on this after they get back from their trip to Australia to celebrate their 20th anniversary.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I saw this last night and thought it was a fairly poor film. The good: Sean Penn. I've always thought Penn was a good actor, but I don't think he's ever lost himself in a role like this. He really transformed himself into someone else - it was easy to forget I was watching "Sean Penn" and just believe the character.

The bad: pretty much everything else. Milk doesn't attempt to be a biography - it's a hagiography that exists to tell the tale of St. Harvey. Obviously Milk was a pioneering figure and an important one, but the person depicted in this film isn't a real person. He's an idealized one-dimensional representation of a concept: the great crusader. What do we learn about Milk from this movie? Very little beyond basics you'd get from a competent documentary.

At least he makes out better than most of the supporting characters, all of whom aren't even fleshed out enough to qualify as one-dimensional! You need a scorecard to keep track of them, as they rarely show enough personality to register. Scott comes into the picture, stays in the background other than as the nagging "spouse", then goes away. Jack enters and exists mostly as a red herring. We know Milk will die, so if you don't know whodunnit, Jack becomes a leading candidate because he's a kook. He exists as an equivalent to the Glenn Close character from Fatal Attraction and nothing more.

The others like Cleve and the like get even less exposition; I learned more about them from the little text blurbs at the end than I did during the movie's two hours. One could argue that it's not their story, and one would be correct. Nonetheless, they come and go with no attempt to make them real; they're there to support Harvey, so they turn into props.

Ironically, the one exception comes from Dan White. The Bad Guy is actually the only character in the movie who plays like a real person. We see positives and negatives, so he feels like a living, breathing human being. That contrast becomes more notable given the simplistic nature of the others.

I get the sense the filmmakers are afraid to offer anything other than a 100 percent glowing portrayal of gays. Perhaps they feel that gays have been maligned long enough so let's get positive role models out there. They'd be right about the long history of negativity toward gays, but I think it's almost as insulting to insist on turning gays - or blacks, or women, or whatever - into saintly stereotypes.

And this factor also makes the movie feel dated. Back when we saw few gays portrayed prominently in films or TV, I could better accept the argument that they needed to be idealized. However, that day is long gone. Gays are common in various media now, so I think the belief that they can't be shown warts and all is irrelevant. Milk's insistence on doing so gives it a feel like it was made in 1993, not today.

To be sure, Milk is a well-meaning film, and it tells an important story. Unfortunately, it does so in a problematic manner. The cast all do well in their roles, and Sean Penn turns in possibly the performance of his life. Too bad it's all in service of a one-dimensional TV movie.