Capo
Administrator 
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Feb 8, 2009 15:39:09 GMT
SPOILERS (though if you know anything about Milk's real life, they're not major)
Disappointing, though Gus Van Sant returning to the mainstream with a biopic wasn't very promising in the first place.
For a film named after Harvey Milk, it's woefully and fatally imbalanced with the activist stuff and Dan White - and what's more, those two factors were actually the most interesting. Essentially, whatever we're told about Milk as a person is reduced to a political filter: Milk running for Castro Mayor, Milk running for Supervisor, etc.
And then Dan White, who isn't introduced until two thirds in. To end on the note that it does is of course true to actual events, but such an emphasis is given to White that he becomes the film's most interesting character - Van Sant suggests that Milk's final conclusive assassination by White is due to the latter's repressed homosexuality as much as the desperation with which he tries to get his job back. It might have been a better film to include White from the off and follow him; his inner psychological battle is much meatier than Milk's clearly more open activism. Or, at the very least, make it a film of two halves, following the pair in a double narrative shape.
As it is, the intimate close-ups that drive the first half of the film seem a weak attempt at drawing us in. Where they should be warm and affectionate, they're claustrophobic and naive.
Penn's good but doesn't have much to work with; it's a by-the-numbers biopic that neglects the actual person it's portraying. Brolin's better.
|
|
Kino
Published writer
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Kino on Feb 9, 2009 1:45:22 GMT
I kinda prefer a biopic like this. I'd rather have a film of this duration to be narrower in scope; thus, I like the focus on Milk the activist & politician rather than Milk the man. A much longer film, I'd like to see Milk the man & Milk the activist-politician.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Feb 9, 2009 1:50:31 GMT
Like I said, those political aspects interested me the most; I wanted more of them. They punctuate the narrative quite nicely, but are skirted over and are given little context.
The title of the film is significant, though, and betrays the (failed) intentions of the script.
Che offers a better balance, though I realise Soderbergh has running length on his side.
|
|
Kino
Published writer
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Kino on Feb 9, 2009 1:54:25 GMT
My post wasn't meant as a counter argument of sorts. I did read that you thought the political aspects interested you the most.
|
|
|
|
Post by svsg on Oct 27, 2009 18:36:49 GMT
I loved the film. It was inspiring to see the activism of that time, no doubt, aided greatly by the likable personality of Harvey Milk (or at least as portrayed by Penn).
|
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Oct 28, 2009 3:34:21 GMT
SPOILERS (though if you know anything about Milk's real life, they're not major) Disappointing, though Gus Van Sant returning to the mainstream with a biopic wasn't very promising in the first place. For a film named after Harvey Milk, it's woefully and fatally imbalanced with the activist stuff and Dan White - and what's more, those two factors were actually the most interesting. Essentially, whatever we're told about Milk as a person is reduced to a political filter: Milk running for Castro Mayor, Milk running for Supervisor, etc. And then Dan White, who isn't introduced until two thirds in. To end on the note that it does is of course true to actual events, but such an emphasis is given to White that he becomes the film's most interesting character - Van Sant suggests that Milk's final conclusive assassination by White is due to the latter's repressed homosexuality as much as the desperation with which he tries to get his job back. It might have been a better film to include White from the off and follow him; his inner psychological battle is much meatier than Milk's clearly more open activism. Or, at the very least, make it a film of two halves, following the pair in a double narrative shape. As it is, the intimate close-ups that drive the first half of the film seem a weak attempt at drawing us in. Where they should be warm and affectionate, they're claustrophobic and naive. Penn's good but doesn't have much to work with; it's a by-the-numbers biopic that neglects the actual person it's portraying. Brolin's better. If you view it as simply a biopic, then yeah you would be correct. Instead I saw as Van Saint a homosexual using a dramatic canvas, and historical context paints, in basically lecturing or educating his oppressed American brothers/sisters how to get organized politically in 2008. Hey this guy in the 1970s was able to do it, so can you! Notice the progress in the movie. Nobody does anything for those San Franciscos gays either out of prejudice or they just don't give a shit. Usually its both. Then Penn gets his locals organized and help the local union out during a strike, and thus they make themselves useful for the local politicians, i.e. make them pay attention to you and your problems. I liked that scene particiularly in the rhetoric Penn used to recruit Hirsch. I also liked the movie's showing of a maturing politician. From local businessman that got hassled on his own block to inspiring/organizing the local homosexuals to fight access to the power held by the non-responsive local Democratic Party machinery. Meanwhile he tries to appeal himself to the blue collar/working voters, usually hostile to his kind, by making jokes off the stereotypes. Or passing PR-friendly bills like the Pooper Scooper law. And by the end, after getting access finally to the table and influencing local politics direct or not as an Supervisor (unless I'm mistaken, his seat was basically safe), he became the de facto boss of the "gay vote." They have some actual power now. At least until he got his head blown off, and Josh Brolin got off with the Twinkie defense. Also inspired a pretty good Dead Kennedy's cover of "I Fought the Law." Saint really took pleasure in that scene when Penn really sticks it to the local rich "gay elite" in their handling and response to that whole Briggs Initiative. Its like Saint got a timely opportunity to stick it real good to the Human Rights Commission. Same ones who basically lost that Prop 8 vote in California last year. So no, I honestly don't think Saint had the intention of making a biopic per say as we usual expect: Extolling the success and failures of a great compelling historical figure. Well MILK has that shit too, but its an excuse to get on the soap box at a topical time like the dead title character. |
|
Boz
Published writer
Posts: 1,451 
|
Post by Boz on Nov 2, 2009 20:30:51 GMT
yea, this was good. van saint, nice freudian slip.
|
|
Omar
Global Moderator
Professione: reporter
Posts: 2,770
|
Post by Omar on Nov 2, 2009 22:35:50 GMT
Nice Boz slip!
|
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Nov 4, 2009 14:40:58 GMT
Good Omar Schuffle.
Whatever that means...
|
|
