Milk (Gus Van Sant, 2008)

[mfunk9786]

At first glance, it looks like it may deserve at least a nomination. Hopefully it lives up to that expectation. But if this is even close to as worthy of Best Picture as Brokeback Mountain was, it looks like we'll have a great film on our hands. The trailer is certainly spectacular, I hope the film follows through with that sort of vibe. Definately on my list of films I can't wait to see, and as this year has disappointed me so far (Synecdoche especially) I'm hoping this will be one of the films I end up going back to see again and again.

[Grand Illusion]

Caught a screening on Sunday.

It's a conventional, sentimental, and great film. Because of the lack of a few tropes, such as battling with the personal demons, the film felt to me more like a political tragedy, where Harvey Milk plays the protagonist, rather than a biopic.

I could've left out the device where Penn narrates into a tape recorder, and the jaded cineaste in me did roll my eyes at a few lines such as the "I'm proud of you" line right before the climax. Overall though, the film is expertly well done.

Penn's performance is gripping, showing Milk both as a sympathetic activist but also as a politician. He makes deals with unions, seniors, whomever he can, to get what he wants. The use of found footage is integrated very well, and the location shooting in San Francisco brought out a lot of character.

I don't know if I'd agree that Brolin's role was "underwritten." I'd like to see more about Dan White, but perhaps that deserves its own film.

Seeing some of Milk's staunchly religious opponents is chilling. It's impossible to ignore the similarities between California's Prop 6 in the film and California's Prop 8 in the now. There's not much grey either. You're either for civil rights or against them; Harvey Milk knew that and Gus van Sant knows that. The film does thrust you directly behind Harvey, dismissing the detached formalism of Last Days.

But even in getting behind the civil rights, Harvey had methods disagreeable to some. Do you phrase the issue as civil rights in general? Or do you highlight the specific group of homosexuals that are being denied rights. Howard Rosenman plays the complex role of David Goodstein, publisher of The Advocate, who wants the same things Harvey does but fears his methods. If picking sides on the issue is a no-brainer, Milk will still raise questions about how best to raise public awareness.

[Antoine Doinel]

Nathan Lee considers Milk as it relates to Van Sant's "death trilogy".

[Antoine Doinel]

Van Sant discusses the film here with Film In Focus, and reveals in early stages, he was planning to shoot the film entirely in 16mm.

[chaddoli]

This one really suffers from the biopic script syndrome - it's problem is the structure is just too damn conventional. It's well directed and shot and expertly acted. The screenplay falls short. Gus should have written it himself. It's no surprise that the best scene in the film was improvised by Josh Brolin (who gives the most dynamic, impressive, and complex performance in the film).

It's maybe the straightest film Van Sant's ever made.

[Matt]

If/when you see the film, don't see it at a Cinemark theater.

[Jeff]

If/when you see the film, don't see it at a Cinemark theater.

Yikes. Not only will I not see Milk at a Cinemark/Century theater. I will not be seeing anything at one of their theaters as long as Mr. Stock is CEO. It's a shame too, because one of my favorite mainstream multiplexes in Denver is a Century theater.

[Grand Illusion]

I can understand a full boycott, but boycotting only Milk? The only thing that would accomplish would be to ensure that Stock never has gay-themed films in his theaters again, since they'd inevitably be boycotted and lose money. A full boycott is another issue altogether.

[Tom Hagen]

It's maybe the straightest film Van Sant's ever made.

"Straight" as in narrative structure and thematic approach (e.g. Lynch's Straight Story), or "straight" as in sexual perspective and sensibility (as in, wow, that was a movie that seemed like it was made by a straight guy)?

Does anyone know if Van Sant does anything with Jim Jones and the Peoples Temple in the film? In reading about the 30th anniversary of the Jonestown mass suicide yesterday, I was reminded that the paths of Milk and the Peoples Temple crossed several times in San Francisco politics. From what I understand Milk had a pretty ambivalent relationship with them and recognized them as kooky, but still used their help in his campaigns.

[nsps]

It's maybe the straightest film Van Sant's ever made.

"Straight" as in narrative structure and thematic approach (e.g. Lynch's Straight Story), or "straight" as in sexual perspective and sensibility (as in, wow, that was a movie that seemed like it was made by a straight guy)?

Does anyone know if Van Sant does anything with Jim Jones and the Peoples Temple in the film? In reading about the 30th anniversary of the Jonestown mass suicide yesterday, I was reminded that the paths of Milk and the Peoples Temple crossed several times in San Francisco politics. From what I understand Milk had a pretty ambivalent relationship with them and recognized them as kooky, but still used their help in his campaigns.

The Times article cited earlier in the thread suggests that they didn't put too much of the Jones relationship in the film, as it would take too long to explain the context, and strayed from the main story.

[swo17]

Must be saving it for the sequel: Kool-Aid

[rs98762001]

Must be saving it for the sequel: Kool-Aid

It was Flavor-Aid, actually!

There's nothing about Jones in MILK. If I remember correctly, it was actually Moscone and Jerry Brown who had much deeper ties with Jim Jones. In fact, it is said that the elections of both Moscone and Brown were won in part because of the large number of Temple members who were told to vote for them.

[tavernier]

A.O. Scott's rave.

[Jeff]

At first glance, it looks like it may deserve at least a nomination. Hopefully it lives up to that expectation. But if this is even close to as worthy of Best Picture as Brokeback Mountain was, it looks like we'll have a great film on our hands.

It's a very good film, but it doesn't have half the energy of that well-cut trailer, so I wouldn't go in expecting that kind of vibe. I don't think that it's nearly the film that Brokeback was (biopic tropes, tape recorder - WTF?), but it will certainly get a nomination for best picture, and I wouldn't be terribly surprised at a win. I think it may even play fairly well with the mainstream crowd. The audience I saw it with was crying and applauding at the end. Barmy would be proud -- I think.

It's no surprise that the best scene in the film was improvised by Josh Brolin (who gives the most dynamic, impressive, and complex performance in the film).

Which scene was that?

[fiddlesticks]

If/when you see the film, don't see it at a Cinemark theater.

Crap. If and when Milk ever reaches my part of the backwoods, it will surely do so only at the local Cinemark movieplex.

[mfunk9786]

As of the moment of this post I still feel emotionally disabled since I saw Milk this afternoon. All my talk of loving the sharply edited trailer has been proven to be pointless, as the film was deliberate and calmly mannered and perfectly paced. I cried more during and after this film than I have for any film I've ever seen. In fact, sitting in the car on the way home from the theater, I had a lump in my throat that, if irritated by trying to speak, would have expanded into full-scale sobs. There's something about the way that Gus Van Sant made this film that has me mesmerized hours after seeing it. I was amazed by the typical Van Sant visual flourishes - grainy night scenes; reflections in windows, mirrors, metal (...still amazed by this); and the framing of every encounter between Harvey Milk and Dan White. This is coming from someone who still considers Last Days one of the worst films he has ever had the displeasure of sitting through. Milk managed to take Van Sant's unique style, and reign it in using one of the more rigid genres to script (the biopic) and by doing so, produce one of the all-time shining examples of said genre. No moment was wasted throughout this entire film - archival footage was used perfectly, and even mass crowd footage of protests (whether archival or re-imagined) was done so well that I felt inspired tears welling in my eyes rather than boredom welling in my tolerance for political biopic stereotypes. This film reaffirmed for me that Harvey Milk was one of the most inspiring figures of all time, while moving me like few films have been able to. Hell, how many films can make you start openly weeping during the pre-credits "where are the now" segment? When you're told just how Milk's ashes were scattered, try to keep a stiff lip. I dare you.

Best film of 2008, and it will take one hell of a film to surpass it.

[chaddoli]

It's no surprise that the best scene in the film was improvised by Josh Brolin (who gives the most dynamic, impressive, and complex performance in the film).

Which scene was that?

Spoiler

When White comes to wish Milk happy birthday. He bought him a bottle of Jack. Brolin was "bored with the scene" (he said this right in front of DL Black) and decided maybe White was nervous to go to this party, so he opened up the bottle on the way. So playing the scene drunk was his idea. Not only does it make the scene funnier and more lively, but there's a darkness and intimacy to it that wasn't there before.

I really think Brolin steals every scene he's in.

[Michael]

While shopping in San Francisco last Friday, I decided to take a detour to catch a screening of Milk at the Castro. The line was long, spiraling. It was a beautiful, memorable night - the film and all. The film's tone is strikingly different than Van Sant's previous films esp. from Gerry to Paranoid Park. His previous films are burdened by a sense of tremendous gloom while Milk bursts in colors and celebration. Milk is just as beautifully crafted and mesmerizing and emotional.

At first glance, Milk may come off as a conventional bio-pic, it's really a majestic step above just about all bio-pics, it actually feels more like a docudrama than a biopic. It can also been seen as a valentine to SF's 1970s days.Poetic images, some of them grippingly multi-layered, providing so much depth to the characters without having them explained to death in words. Its lovely artistry is what separates Milk from the recent glossy Oscar-adoring bio-pics, Walk the Line, Ray, Elizabeth, etc.

Comparing to the ridiculously controversial Brokeback Mountain from a few years ago, Milk is the one that should be celebrated as much or more. Van Sant opens the door to the gay community, showing us different facets, showing us what it is like to be living as a second-class citizen, doesn't hold back from showing us the boundless gay affection, something that Brokeback Mountain failed to succeed.

What a great blessing with a film like Milk to be spilling in the perfect time, following the passing of Prop. 9, Amendment 2, etc. If only Milk was alive to see how much has changed since 1970s...or not. A wonderful film but still not close to my Van Sant favorites. For me, there's nothing more transcendental and miraculous than finding a gay hero in a romantic liquor-store clerk.

I'm super curious about what david hare and David Ehrenstein have to say about this film.

[Oedipax]

Michael it doesn't open here until Jan 29.

Can people confirm the AR IS 1.85? And it looks like this was shot on Digital 2k HD and transferred to 35mm - a first for Harris Savides?

I'm not so sure about that. Most of the big name digital cinema cameras are still 1080p native (Genesis, F23/F35, Viper, etc). The Red One (used on Soderbergh's Che) is native 4K with options to "window in" for 2K and so on. In fact the only native 2K camera I'm aware of is the Silicon Imaging SI-2K, but I'm not sure how common its use is (Slumdog Millionaire is the only major film I'm aware of).

On top of which, since it's GVS and Savides, my bet would be it's film (Zodiac notwithstanding). The 2K listed in IMDB refers to the Digital Intermediate process where the negative is scanned at 2K resolution for post-production work (color correction, any effects work, etc). That in itself, while exceedingly common these days, is still a bit surprising since Savides has always struck me as a photochemical finish kind of guy (tales of baking film in an oven for Birth and so on). One recent (and stunning) exception to the DI-norm: Robert Elswit's old school work on There Will Be Blood.

[otis]

There's an interview with Savides about the film in the November issue of ICG Magazine.

[Haggai]

It's a conventional, sentimental, and great film. Because of the lack of a few tropes, such as battling with the personal demons, the film felt to me more like a political tragedy, where Harvey Milk plays the protagonist, rather than a biopic.

Just saw the film yesterday. I mostly agree with this characterization, and though I think it's a little shy of being great, it's definitely very well-done across the board. But there's one story element that felt out of place, or perhaps not very successful, because of this particular thing that GI mentions. I guess I'll spoilerize it:

Spoiler

The suicide of Jack, Diego Luna's character, seems to have nowhere to go, dramatically speaking. I wasn't surprised to find out online that it really happened that way, but were they maybe sticking *too* close to the facts here? As it plays out in the movie--as I assume it must have in real life--Harvey says he didn't really have any time to mourn Jack's death, since he had to get on with the business of fighting Prop 6. The movie sort of hints that the suicide was the price of Harvey's dedication to his job, as per his line about what might have happened if he had come home at 6 instead of 6:15, but...so what? After he says he had to move on from it, the film does as well, and we never hear about Jack again.

It's a tragic event, but to the extent that the film deals with any of Harvey's personal issues, it comes down on the side of arguing (convincingly, I think) that his devotion to his work was worth whatever personal sacrifices he made. The way the suicide plays out seems like it's going to go in the direction of "battling with personal demons," as GI says, but it doesn't, so...what's it doing there? The film doesn't really blame Harvey for Jack's death, and it only shows Harvey wondering whether he could have done more for about 10 seconds before moving on. It happened in real life, so they stuck with it, but if you were writing a fictionalization about a trailblazing gay political figure, you wouldn't include a suicide and then just drop it like that.

[Antoine Doinel]

An interview with Harry Savides.

[Michael]

After watching Milk, following it with Before Night Falls with Javier Bardem is very strongly recommended if you haven't seen it yet. Another wonderful film.

[TedW]

I though this was extremely well-done and very enjoyable. Some minor quibbles (not sure about Diego Luna's character/performance, but I suppose it had to be there; the moment of Milk's death seems a little heavy-handed) aside, this is really good. I wouldn't call it a "biopic," though, any more than I would call The Queen a biopic. Someone above said it was a docudrama and that feels about right. Van Sant got lucky here, really: this is a rare occasion when the actual story fits rather nicely into a movie narrative with a minimum of embellishment, unlike, well, just about every other recent historical drama, including a few that are on screen right now. I don't agree with the posters who deride the film for being too "conventional" -- that's not a minus to me, but then I tend to prefer films with strong narratives anyway (and of his three indie "death" movies, I like them in declining order of narrative strength, the order in which they were made: Gerry, Elephant, and Last Days, which you can almost toss as far as I'm concerned). Penn, Franco, Brolin, and others were excellent. Not much to complain about, really. A very satisfying night at the movies, and that's enough.

[Antoine Doinel]

This one really suffers from the biopic script syndrome - it's problem is the structure is just too damn conventional. It's well directed and shot and expertly acted. The screenplay falls short. Gus should have written it himself. It's no surprise that the best scene in the film was improvised by Josh Brolin (who gives the most dynamic, impressive, and complex performance in the film).

It's maybe the straightest film Van Sant's ever made.

Yeah, I pretty much agree (though, what Brolin scene are you talking about? The drunken encounter at the birthday party?). That said, Van Sant gets bravura performances from the pretty much everyone across the board, which still steps it up a small notch from other standard biopics. Also, Van Sant manages to slip in some great, if fleeting shots particularly the handheld shot at the beginning of the film in the subway where Franco and Penn meet in the subway and Franco stays out of the frame until the pickup succeeds. Also the medium shots from the waist up of Penn and Brolin's at the birthday and in city hall where they are devoured by the size of the rooms. But yeah, overall this is Van Sant in Hollywood mode.