Feb 05, 2009 7:29 PM GMT
NNJfitandbi saidI find biopics very frustrating, and Milk was no exception. Why did he become who he became? The movie never told us. A guy turns 40 and has a trick, and then suddenly he moves to San Francisco and becomes a hippie, soon to become a gay activist. Who was this guy? What made him tick?
He obviously was an amazingly talented man, given what he accomplished. He seemed to be able to connect the struggle for gay rights with the struggle of everyone; he was inclusive and caring.
But who was he?
We did't get enough of it from the film, in my view.
And the problem with showing the public Harvey Milk, at least as dramatized in this film, was that the guy was likeable, decent, brave, but not terribly eloquent.
It was a good movie. A story that should have been told a lot sooner, too.
Also, it felt to me a bit like an exercise in hagiography, rather than an assessment of a man who achieved great things.
Actually I personally think the movie do give us enough info about why he become a gay activist.The tick (in the movie) was they were attacked by the police and later one guy was killed and no one was willing to be the witness.
Also in all the speeches and debates he was very good,listing quite a few strong points.
Plus he was definitely no saint,I mean,sleeping with some guys you barely know,twice,in the movie.And there was this one night,when he purposely agitate the crowd for matching then stepped in to mediate...Also when the Anne Kronenberg`s character first showed up,you can clearly see that he`s losing temper.yelling at his crew(btw it was what happened when Anne met Milk for the first time in real life).I think the writer really did a wonderful job to humanize Milk,showing different sides of him.