At the height of the Proposition 8 protests, the producers of "Milk" - the screen bio on gay activist Harvey Milk - released their much-anticipated film in local Theatres.
Needless to say - the issue of "gay rights" - ended up front row center all over the landscape in the past few weeks.
Although "Milk" is a captivating tale that sweeps the audience up into its open arms, respected Gus Vant Sant's attempt to score a commercial Hollywood-style hit ended up splintering the gem.
In the opening scenes, the lens focuses on a Harvey Milk that seems so foreign to us.
Milk is not only slaving away in a mundane job he detests in New York City, but still in the closet sexually, and living a sort-of double life.
In the subway one night - a handsome young man catches his approving eye (played by actor James Franco), and before you can say promiscuous pre-A.I.D.S. days - the strange bedfellows end up in the sack and musing about the future.
Shortly thereafter, the twosome head off to San Francisco to seek a better lifestyle as live-in lovers.
When Milk and his boyfriend set up shop in the Castro area, they suddenly encounter a prejudice against "gays" all around them.
So, out of necessity, Mr. Milk is forced to take action to not only assert his own rights, but those of others around him.
When people think of Milk, they undoubtedly recall that the charming persuasive activist was the first openly gay man to land a post in the public political arena.
However, many are probably unaware of the fact that when Milk first made a couple of bids to run for office, he lost.
In fact - it was not until there was a rezoning of San Francisco neighborhoods (with the specific intent of ensuring diverse communities would have the opportunity to elect one of their "own" to represent their interests in the city politics) that Milk finally won.
Gus Van Sant takes an insightful in-depth foray into that political adventure with great success.
Disturbing footage of Anita Bryant - culled from old news reports and TV Talk show - also dredges up disturbing memories of yesteryear as the drama unfolds on the screen.
The lament of the day from religious fundamentalists?
"Homos are sick and they need to be cured."
"Give them their rights" - and next - "rapists, prostitutes and murderers" will be demanding theirs, too.
Shortly after Milk is elected to the Board of Supervisor, he ends up locking horns with another Supervisor on the Board - Dan White (played with great sensitivity by Josh Brolin) - who is obviously homophobic.
In fact, Milk's win at the polls grates on White's nerves because the gay lifestyle goes against his family values.
During a struggle for power and dominance - a conflict arises - and White ends up murdering Milk and Mayor Moscone.
When films are made about gays, the characterizations are stereotypical; as a result, the performances on screen often end up being quite stilted.
Here, the acting is natural and believable.
In fact, Emile Hirsch and James Franco turn in the most remarkable characterizations of their careers to date.
On the other hand, I found that Sean Penn's acting was a little forced in a couple of scenes.
In one prominent conversation with another character during the course of the film, Penn appeared to be "acting" gay.
Maybe it was just a misguided attempt to capture a Milk mannerism that fell flat.
But, for those of you who have seen photographs of Milk - or news footage of the man - it's obvious that when it comes to physicality, Sean and Harvey were cast from different moulds.
Yet, Penn manages to overcome that obstacle (and for the most part) turns in a stellar performance.
Gus Van Sant's approach was pretty much on the money, too.
Some may criticize the director's bold-faced recreation of a handful of events (and the subsequent "imagined" dialogue to breathe life into those scenes) that there were no eyewitnesses to.
For this reason, Van Sant wisely chose to incorporate shots of Milk recording a "journal" of his thoughts, if only to suggest the screenplay was loosely-based on some of that historic material.
However, I found the ending quite objectionable.
Just prior to the closing scenes - before the murder takes place - Van Sant shot a scene of "Milk" in conversation with his ex-lover on the telephone in which he chats about attending the Opera that night.
A few minutes later - when Dan White storms into Milk's office and shoots him down in cold blood - Van Sant proceeds to take wild artistic license.
For example, Van Sant's lens captures Milk falling forward towards an open window after he's been hit - at which point - a shot of a poster advertising the tragic Opera fills the screen for a split second or two.
Then, there is a close-up on Milk.
Now, it appears from the expression on Penn's face, that last thoughts are flashing through Milk's mind (what was/what could have been) before the supervisor finally succumbs to the wounds and drops to the floor.
Here, Mr. Van Sant has chosen to heighten the drama of the murder - interject some editorial comment of his own - and in the process has managed to deliver up a Hollywood-style ending to please the studios.
Shameful!
The Milk story has stood on its own as a great American tragedy for decades.
No sly maneuvering or fake props were ever needed to "milk" it along.
In my mind's eye, Van Sant's "poetic license" amounted to overkill.
"Overkill means pouring another pail of gasoline on a baby that's already burning nicely."
(unknown author)
Here, the acting is natural and believable.
In fact, Emile Hirsch and James Franco turn in the most remarkable characterizations of their careers to date.
On the other hand, I found that Sean Penn's acting was a little forced in a couple of scenes.
In one prominent conversation with another character during the course of the film, Penn appeared to be "acting" gay.
Maybe it was just a misguided attempt to capture a Milk mannerism that fell flat.
But, for those of you who have seen photographs of Milk - or news footage of the man - it's obvious that when it comes to physicality, Sean and Harvey were cast from different moulds.Yet, Penn manages to overcome that obstacle (and for the most part) turns in a stellar performance.
Gus Van Sant's approach was pretty much on the money, too.
Some may criticize the director's bold-faced recreation of a handful of events (and the subsequent "imagined" dialogue to breathe life into those scenes) that there were no eyewitnesses to.
For this reason, Van Sant wisely chose to incorporate shots of Milk recording a "journal" of his thoughts, if only to suggest the screenplay was loosely-based on some of that historic material.
However, I found the ending quite objectionable.
Just prior to the closing scenes - before the murder takes place - Van Sant shot a scene of "Milk" in conversation with his ex-lover on the telephone in which he chats about attending the Opera that night.
A few minutes later - when Dan White storms into Milk's office and shoots him down in cold blood - Van Sant proceeds to take wild artistic license.
For example, Van Sant's lens captures Milk falling forward towards an open window after he's been hit - at which point - a shot of a poster advertising the tragic Opera fills the screen for a split second or two.
Then, there is a close-up on Milk.
Now, it appears from the expression on Penn's face, that last thoughts are flashing through Milk's mind (what was/what could have been) before the supervisor finally succumbs to the wounds and drops to the floor.
Here, Mr. Van Sant has chosen to heighten the drama of the murder - interject some editorial comment of his own - and in the process has managed to deliver up a Hollywood-style ending to please the studios.
Shameful!
The Milk story has stood on its own as a great American tragedy for decades.
No sly maneuvering or fake props were ever needed to "milk" it along.
In my mind's eye, Van Sant's "poetic license" amounted to overkill.
"Overkill means pouring another pail of gasoline on a baby that's already burning nicely."
(unknown author)
Franco the ideal lover?
