"Milk" **** (out of ****)Finally I have seen "Milk". I showed some resistance to it. I knew one day I'd see it because of all the critical acclaim thrown at it and the fact it won two Oscars, it was all just a question of when.
So what caused the trepidation? I was afraid "Milk" would only be about homosexuals. Homosexuality, as a cinematic theme alone, doesn't interest me. I need a little more added to the story in order to really grab my attention. A perfect example would be a Hungarian film called "Another Way (Egymasra nezve)" it deals with life after the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and government suppression. It just so happens the two lead characters are lesbians. It deals with gay & lesbian issues but also makes a larger argument about the government and the memory of '56. It is one of director Karoly Makk's great films.
Some of the other "gay" movies which I have seen that I've enjoyed include Claude Chabrol's "Les Biches" (which I reviewed as part of my "Masterpiece Film Series"). The film follows two female lovers but it turns into a psychological suspense film and makes a commentary on identity thief.
When a film tries to make a larger comment I respond well. I like to see movies about something. I think we all do. And to my great enjoyment "Milk" seems to make larger points, then to just be the story of one man.
I'm also sure for political reasons, there will be a good number of people who stay away from this movie. I'm not going to judge them, in a free society it is their right if they chose not to watch this or any movie. But, I've always said, you don't have to share a movie's politics to enjoy it. Many people hold Godard's political views against his films, or Michael Moore. People are unable to merely see these films as "cinematic entertainment" and nothing more.
In Sean Penn's "Into the Wild", which I also reviewed on here, I gave it four stars. I disagree with everything the movie argues in defense of. It is making a commentary on nature and the characters, not surprisingly, considering it is a Sean Penn film, are liberals. But, there is no way I could deny the story it told was well done. "Milk" is another example. I may not agree with everything said in the film and where it will all eventually lead, but, when I watch movies I check my politics at the door. This is a film and I will judge it purely on its artistic and entertainment value.
"Milk" is based on the true story of the first openly gay person to run and hold government office. Harvey Milk (Sean Penn) lives in San Francisco and decides why should gays put up with discrimination, including police brutality? It is said there is strength in numbers. If all the gays ban together and put one of their own in government, they would see real change on their behalf. Someone would fight for and defend issues which concern them. Harvey Milk plans to be the person to take on the task. He runs 3 times for office and loses each time until winning an election as a city supervisor.
What may have caused his victory was strong opposition to gay rights from a singer, Anita Bryant, and orange juice spokesperson as well as from Sen. Briggs (Denis O' Hare). They want to deny gays working as school teachers for instance believing gays would use their position of power on small children and pass their ideology onto them corrupting the minds of children thus making them gay. Some readers this may think that sounds funny but, this is real. People do hold those opinions. Laughing at them won't make it go away.
Milk believes as the opposition grows stronger this will cause a chain reaction and make more gays come out and fight for their rights. He believes once straight people see exactly how many gays & lesbians there are, and that they may in fact know someone who is gay, they too will also stand up for gay rights.
Events reach their peak when the said initiative is put on a ballot. The state will attempt to overturn a court ruling taking back discrimination rights allowing employers to right to deny people jobs based on sexual orientation.
An interesting sub-plot emerges between Milk and another supervisor, Dan White (Josh Brolin). White is not in favor of gay rights, but, the two men talk and seem, at least on a professional level, friendly. Milk invites him to his birthday party, White invites Milk to his baby's baptism. Milk even believes White may be one of them. Unfortunately, on the film's part, I never felt this aspect was properly explored. It felt like a throw away line on Milk's part.
Still "Milk" succeeds. I was very much drawn into the political aspects of the film. The way politicians speak to one another, suggesting trading votes as if they really don't matter. I liked the process in which Milk had to go through in order to win. I wish it would have been more in depth giving some more insight into what goes on behind closed doors.
And then you have Penn's performance. It is a very good role. In fact it might have been too good. It never felt like a strenuous performance to me. Penn almost makes it feel like he is not playing a character at all. It is one of the most natural performances I think I've ever seen him give. I think Penn is a great actor, one of the best of his generation, but even in movies I enjoyed a lot like "The Assassination of Richard Nixon" or "21 Grams", as good as he is in those movies, you can still tell Penn is giving a performance. He goes through a lot of emotional highs and lows. I didn't feel that here in "Milk". Penn remains consistent through the entire film. There didn't seem to be very much emotional complexity. And if there was, Penn makes it all look so simple I hadn't noticed it at all.
That may speak volumes about Penn and his acting ability and Gus van Sant's directing. Van Sant is a talented filmmaker. I didn't enjoy his last film, "Paranoid Park" but he makes a nice rebound here. He seems to be one of the few directors who can make a small, independent film, "Elephant", "Park" and then make more mainstream titles such as this or "Good Will Hunting". He pulls everything together here nicely. Near the end, the film started to feel a little long to me, but the story moves at a pleasant pace.
Should "Milk" have won any of the Oscar awards it did win? Probably not. I've seen all the other films which were nominated against it and "Milk" didn't seem quite as deserving. I think Rourke would have been a better choice for "Best Actor" and I don't think the screenplay was Oscar worthy. I think the film won largely so the Academy could make a political statement. When "Milk" was in wide released, there was a gay marriage bill on the ballot during the presidential election. The bill failed. This made "Milk" quite timely and the Academy wouldn't want to pass up an opportunity to advance a cause which it claims to support. It sends a message to the rest of the world. Listen and watch what Penn said during his acceptance speech.
On the flip side I should mention winning Oscars really don't mean a thing. If "Milk" did lose those awards, would that mean people shouldn't see "Milk"? Is the film suddenly worthless? Of course not. Viewers shouldn't based their opinion on movies based on whether or not a movie wins award.
Posts
