MILK

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    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 movieicon_rolleyes.gif.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.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 05, 2009 7:35 PM GMT
    L0NEvvolf said
    never said i had a negitave opinion just not my type of movie and i dont see y every gay in the world is flipping out over it.


    We are excited that there is a major motion picture about a Gay civil rights leader!

    Its because of men like Harvey Milk who fought for Gay civil rights that allows you to be on a gay internet site with a face picture without fear of being jailed for being Gay or BI. It was not that long ago that some of the acts you describe on your profile could have landed you in jail.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 05, 2009 7:51 PM GMT
    There is another thing that I really like.Even with a quite heavy theme,they still manage to give us quite a few funny lines,and some very sweet/touching scenes.

    Oh another interesting twist,basically in the main cast,almost all the gay characters are played by straight actors(Sean Penn,Emile Hirsch,Josh Brolin if you consider Dan White as a closet case,Diego Luna,James Franco,Alison Pill,etc.),and the straight characters are played by gay man(Victor Garber,Denis O'Hare).Stephen Spinella could be the only exception(Being gay and played a gay character,if I`m not mistaken).I admit it is kinda interesting to see the openly gay Denis O'Hare playing a homophobe.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 05, 2009 8:14 PM GMT
    Dear Lone,

    When you say things like "stupid", and a "waste of time" when describing this film they are neg.

    What you fail to comprehend is that a lot of freedoms that you enjoy today are due to men and women during the Civil Rights & Gay Rights Era.

    This seems to be lost on you and that is truly tragic.

    I realize that you are very,very very young and maybe in time you will gain some wisdom.

    If it was a complete waste of your time then why did you sit through the entire movie?

    I don't get it.

    The movie Milk is to our Gay Community what.

    The MalcolmX is to the African American community. An important film that everyone should see. I'm a vital part of our history and it should not be look on as a waste of time or stupid.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 05, 2009 8:36 PM GMT
    GHoSTa said
    I study cinema , and as I see it it's an amazing movie, the structure and the shots .. the characters and places really take you there .. it's almost documentary, but there are lots of things that made it a great touching story ...

    Actually I think it's better than "Brokeback mountain", at least it made me cry while brokeback didn't ..



    Im right there with you. Broke back mountain was ok and didn't even come close to crying.

    MILK - It was an ok movie ( in general ) The Story was excellent, gave me goose bumps, made me cry and made me think, why dont we get up and protest anymore?

    As in acting - Not a big fan of Sean Penn but, the dude made an outstanding job. The rest of the Actors, look really fake or were trying to hard being fems. Im a huge fan of Diego Luna but, he looked unattractive in the movie, and again, he was trying to hard in being feminine.
  • groundcombat

    Posts: 945

    Feb 05, 2009 9:31 PM GMT
    GuerrillaSodomite said

    Really? The documentary was a retelling of his life and experiences as was the movie. Would you suggest that they change a few things around just to make them different? How can you rip off history?


    Well yes history is history but documentaries don't write themselves. They still involve editing, research, and other story-telling elements. After watching the documentary, I had to take some of the acclaim and praise I had for MILK and properly assign it to the documentary. It simply wasn't as originally written as I thought.

    As for the inclusion of personal information in the feature, I'll just respond that I believe it wasn't included in the documentary for a reason: it wasn't imporant. We meet his boyfriends and find a little bit about how he lived none of that really is important to the bigget story. It just kind of provides some standard cinematic elements.

    I personally prefer the doumentary although I enjoyed the feature. It's very hard to place a finger on how or why, but the gays in MILK came of as significantly ingenuine. Of course we know homos come in all forms of masculinity/femininity but I didn't feel like they nailed any of them. Everyone kind of seemed to be trying.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 05, 2009 9:52 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?

    There was that one scene in bed where he bemoans turning 40 and not having done anything with his life. That probably was supposed to be the clue that he had some restlessness and motivation to do bigger things in his life.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Feb 05, 2009 11:24 PM GMT
    never said i had a negitave opinion just not my type of movie and i dont see y every gay in the world is flipping out over it.

    I don't think it was the kind of movie to GO "flippin" out over
    It was the true story of a man who was an early trailblazer against homophobia in America
    Whether or not that was your kind of movie or subject matter is entirely up to you
    Was it well made? Yes it was
    Was it a true depiction of the times and the controversies? Yes
    and were the portrayals accurate? Very much so
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 06, 2009 1:53 AM GMT
    Maybe it`s just me,but I think all the main cast`s performance are very spot on.They obviously did their homework and for the supporting cast almost all of them got the chance to shine in at least one major scene,especially for Emile Hirsch,Diego Luna & Alison Pill in their first scenes.For Diego Luna,I think he is sorta cute in the movie,but the whole point is,his character wasn`t suppose to be very attractive.Jack Lira had a abusive father and he ran away,he`s a very damaged person and all of Milk friends didn`t like him for a reason.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 06, 2009 2:08 AM GMT
    vindog said
    vindog saidI hear you. I found it very interesting historically but I would have preferred to see the documentary. Personally I am just completely over Hollywood biopics as they are produced all the same formula. Ray, Walk the Line, Milk ,El Cantante, La Bamba.

    1) Humble beginnings
    2) Inspiring moment in life which causes change
    3) trying to succeed in what they want to do
    4) Failing
    5) Montage of them "getting their act together and really trying hard" or getting their big break
    6) Success
    7) Death of them or of a loved one
    8 ) Sad music with slow motion
    9) End


    I'm not sure how the film students here could not notice this. Plus, and I've said this before.....the musical score was overdone and completely formulaic crap. These two things turned the movie from awesome to good, IMO. I think the way these movies fail is that they try to tell the entire story of a person's life (or a lot of it) in 1.5 - 2.5 hours. Think it would be better to focus on a period in their life, instead of it all.


    And personally I think Van Sant peaked at Drugstore Cowboy, but most of his movies have been average or poor. Honorable mention goes to My Own Private Idaho and Good Will Hunting. I know its not "cool" to not adore him, but I don't.

    and for the record, I overall don't like smash-em-up explosion movies either.


    terryf saidWell Milk is acutally a bit longer than 2 hours...


    Fixed




    Sofia Coppola filmed Marie Antoinette focusing only on her life at Versailles and people bashed her for that. They were all like "Nothing happened! why wasn't her decapitation shown?" she was also bashed by the fact that she made it a satire

    In a narrative film things will be left out, but the point of period dramas is to stir the people, and make them take action. The film wants the audience to want to know more about the subject. Documentaries may do this too, but they are far too preachy at times. I agree that the soundtrack was formulaic but that is a stylistic choice, not the essence of the movie, and it did not threw me off of my experience.

    I watch a lot of these kind of films, and I understood the purpose of them all when I saw Frida. Right after I watch the film, I went to my book store and ordered a copy of her diary and several biographies. With Milk, it awakened me to care and feel proud about the gay community.




  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 06, 2009 2:32 AM GMT
    How in the hell can you compare "brokeback Mountain" to" Milk"
    One is a piece of fiction and the other is non fiction. The only cmommon demoninatorm (sp)is the director that's it.

    Other than they both having gay Theme that it. When I think of Broke back I don't think of milk and vice versa.

    Brokeback mountain is a SHORT STORY!


    What does "Broke Back Mountain have to do with "GAY CIVIL RIGHTS" Nothing!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 06, 2009 3:21 AM GMT
    I liked the film very much but I'm still waiting for someone to make a "crossover" gay film that doesn't end tragically.
  • vindog

    Posts: 1440

    Feb 06, 2009 4:53 PM GMT
    Sibey said
    vindog said
    vindog saidI hear you. I found it very interesting historically but I would have preferred to see the documentary. Personally I am just completely over Hollywood biopics as they are produced all the same formula. Ray, Walk the Line, Milk ,El Cantante, La Bamba.

    1) Humble beginnings
    2) Inspiring moment in life which causes change
    3) trying to succeed in what they want to do
    4) Failing
    5) Montage of them "getting their act together and really trying hard" or getting their big break
    6) Success
    7) Death of them or of a loved one
    8 ) Sad music with slow motion
    9) End


    I'm not sure how the film students here could not notice this. Plus, and I've said this before.....the musical score was overdone and completely formulaic crap. These two things turned the movie from awesome to good, IMO. I think the way these movies fail is that they try to tell the entire story of a person's life (or a lot of it) in 1.5 - 2.5 hours. Think it would be better to focus on a period in their life, instead of it all.


    And personally I think Van Sant peaked at Drugstore Cowboy, but most of his movies have been average or poor. Honorable mention goes to My Own Private Idaho and Good Will Hunting. I know its not "cool" to not adore him, but I don't.

    and for the record, I overall don't like smash-em-up explosion movies either.


    terryf saidWell Milk is acutally a bit longer than 2 hours...


    Fixed




    Sofia Coppola filmed Marie Antoinette focusing only on her life at Versailles and people bashed her for that. They were all like "Nothing happened! why wasn't her decapitation shown?" she was also bashed by the fact that she made it a satire

    In a narrative film things will be left out, but the point of period dramas is to stir the people, and make them take action. The film wants the audience to want to know more about the subject. Documentaries may do this too, but they are far too preachy at times. I agree that the soundtrack was formulaic but that is a stylistic choice, not the essence of the movie, and it did not threw me off of my experience.

    I watch a lot of these kind of films, and I understood the purpose of them all when I saw Frida. Right after I watch the film, I went to my book store and ordered a copy of her diary and several biographies. With Milk, it awakened me to care and feel proud about the gay community.






    I never heard that complaint about Marie Antoinette. People will always find something to bitch about, but if the movie was really awesome they wouldn't complain. But I don't think that is a good argument anyway as Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, The Motorcycle Diaries, Walk The Line, etc have gotten rave reviews and only told snippets of their lives. While I have mostly mixed feelings about all of them (FALILV was my fave of three mentioned), they took a smaller part of their life and then went more detailed in all of them

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 10, 2009 11:33 PM GMT
    I thought it was very well done. Presented Harvey Milk as an interesting, flawed and complicated person who managed to do some amazing things in a very short time frame. For young gay men it is an important history lesson on how far the gay "community" has come since the early 1970s. I can remember most of the events in the movie since I used to be a religious viewer of the CBS Evening News with Walter Cronkite. I can also remember the feelings of bewilderment when straight people compared gay men to child molestors who were out to "recruit" young men into their "perverted" lifestyle. It seems laughable now but that is how many people saw us in 1977.

    I don't know about anybody else, but Anita Bryant made my skin crawl, just like she did in 1977. Talking about a Stepford Wife. Scary stuff.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 11, 2009 12:18 AM GMT
    I guess, I will be waiting for the DVD.