I went into MILK with the impression I was about to see a film that was a typical Oscar candidate. Packed with acting talent and taking on a worthy topic and an interesting character as its subject, MILK reeked of another Hollywood-does-arthouse affair. When I came out of the cinema, I hadn’t let go of that viewpoint. The story was tight, the dialogue flowed comfortably but rarely pushed the boundaries, and all the big names put in strong performances that genuinely brought the characters to life. It was only after a few days that I really appreciated what a well-crafted and complete film this is.
The biography of Harvey Milk, gay rights activist and the first openly gay man to be elected to public office in California, is structured through a speech he recorded to be played only in the event of his death by assassination. This structural decision was superb because it instantly makes you conscious of the poignant fragility of the story as it unfolds. Each chapter is digested as a fleeting moment of a life cut short, and this is a dimension that I cannot overemphasize the importance of.
When we meet Harvey for the first time, as an insurance salesman meeting a lover for the first time, Sean Penn instantly turns on the boyish charm with alarming ease. It is impossible in that moment not to be won over as he playfully beguiles the object of his attention. From then on, as he decides to dump his mundane job and start living, Penn’s unwavering portrayal of kindness and warmth cannot fail to win over even the most cynical of audiences. The supporting cast in the gay community do an equally good job of alternating between angry indignation at the failure of the establishment to recognise their rights as human beings and exuberant pleasure at being able to act freely in the haven created in Castro. But the highlight comes with Josh Brolin’s role as Supervisor Dan White: a white catholic right-winger, a Board of Supervisors peer, and by far the most intriguing character on show. Brolin, who is on fire at the moment, delivers a performance that conveys the layers of tension both acting on and seething within his character in a remarkably small amount of screen time.
What’s more, the film looks great too. A while back I was moaning about RIVALS which, I maintain, ruined anything it had to offer by making the film a wholesale replica of a 70s cop film. In contrast MILK puts us in the same decade by getting the wardrobe spot on, carefully choosing the props, and liberally smattering the action with original news reports from the time – complete with Walter Cronkite. By not making the content of the era without stylising the medium itself as such (lower quality grain, different colour saturations etc) we live the period with the cast, without being constantly reminded that this is a period piece. A crucial balance that is reached perfectly here.
However, for all this praise I still have a personal issue with this kind of film. I’ll always recommend a movie with high production value, well thought out performances and worthy source material, but something rings a little hollow in it all. I like a film that packs a punch, says something amazing or really puts you through a powerful experience. A lovingly sculpted portrait like this is, for my money, better appreciated in an art gallery or a novel – where there is more time and space to digest the meaning than in a movie where it is easier for the art to overpower its subject. Ironically, to really get to the core of this interesting and important character and his time, the film would have benefited from adding some grit to the constant praise and positivity, a grounding reality to make the man whole. This would draw attention away from Sean Penn and onto ‘the real Harvey Milk’.
The bottom line: a beautifully crafted account of a truly important life that is acted with subtlety and flair, but the film itself overshadows the content and its message.
5 Comments
Hmmmm … I imagine you’re not gay, Michael.
I have personally known many gay Americans go through incredibly adverse situations like the ones depicted in MILK simply because they are attracted to the same sex. It is one of the last ridiculous forms of bigotry left raging uncontrolled in this world, and a shameful blight on the ideas extolled in the American Constitution. This film rings very true to the experiences of many people I have known, some of whom have needlessly died in shame.
Everything you say about the technical credits is superb; this is an amazing-looking film. It is also one of the best set of acting performances I have seen in a while. And what of the direction of Gus Van Sant, who surpasses himself here with a style that is more assured and yet more mainstream than we have yet seen from him.
But I will say that I disagree with your idea that the film is too saccharine or too sweet. Milk is portrayed here as a man who is a bit of a hypocrite, someone who is too willing to cut deals and enforce his own ideals through political power. It is also no love letter to the gay community, either, showing the promiscuity and drugs (although not nearly enough drugs are shown here) that (still) ravage it.
Your review reminds me of the reaction many straight people had to BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN … “it left me cold” or “The romance didn’t move me.” Perhaps there is no way around that obstacle. But I for one was deeply moved by the POLITICAL ideals coursing through this brilliant and amazing film.
Of course, the topic has been on my mind in recent weeks here in the good ol’ US:
http://therecshow.com/2008/11/05/heres-a-proposition-suck-my-dick-california/
You make some good points Ray. And although yes I’m straight, the film didn’t leave me cold, far from it. I say that a huge part of the charm comes in the boyish charm that comes with the unrestrained performances delivered by Penn when showing Harvey Milk with Scott and I never say the film is too sweet – that was just Matt in the headline (I’m not good at these ‘Mike says’ headlines and never do them).
What I was saying is that there is not enough realism coming through. I didn’t see any of the drugs and promiscuity you mention, nor did I get any of the ‘Milk is a hypocrite’ stuff. The film just didn’t want to go down that route. He didn’t cut deals, he looked like he might but then turned on Supervisor White because he felt he couldn’t back proposals he didn’t believe in. This might be made to look cynical or hypocritical, but really what it’s saying to the audience is ‘Milk is really an idealist, not a dealer’. So I completely disagree with your comments that I’m missing something but being straight, if anything I could identify more with his personal struggle than his political because that had more grit and realism (his relationship issues) than the his political life.
Very well written Mike! Enjoyable review.
WOW … you didn’t see the promiscuity of the characters?? How they hooked up in random places, and leapt from conquest to conquest? Hmmm …
And you didn’t see the hypocrisy of Milk using his political power to influence politicians to bend to his will, just like his so-called adversaries? In reality and in this move, Milk was someone who was a shrewd manipulator and someone not above cutting deals. He is definitely not completely portrayed as some naive idealist.
I absolutely agree with your assessment ofPenn’s performance, though. This might be his most winning and endearing performance since Spicoli.
They didn’t hook up in random places though did they? Characters rarely even kissed on screen. There was one scene that implied that – the bar. And there was no ‘conquest to conquest’, the only even remote indication of that was Milk’s SECOND relationship. Two people is hardly prmoiscuity.
Milk’s hypocrisy was maybe more prominent, just obviously intentionally hidden as thickly as possible under his overriding goodness and idealism.
One Trackback
[...] MILK (reviewed by OWF’s Chief Film critic Mike Edwards) [...]