criterionforum.org

Someone has actually gone to the trouble of graphing the daily movement of films on the IMDb Top 250?

I didn't know that John Podhoretz reviews movies. ](*,) :-k

It seems that Milk has been politicized to some degree by both sides, with the result being that its true worth as a film has not been fairly judged. Predictably, the hacks on the right have not been able to bring themselves to admit the positive aspects of the film in their rush to retroactively demonize the real Harvey Milk and, by extension, all gays, liberals, etc - the usual shit, there's no surprise there. But unfortunately I think the same disingenuity applies to some of the film's supporters, and those who are (quite rightly) moved by its cause and message are perhaps overlooking a number of its blatant flaws. I'm a straight guy, so perhaps if I personally had more connection with Milk's struggles I would have thought it a better movie. But that shouldn't really be the case. Even then, I doubt I would be able to overlook the heavy-handed framing device, the constant biopic cliches, the thinness of the characterizations, and especially the nausea-inducing, Oscar-baiting finale that wouldn't feel out of place in a Dickie Attenborough flick. It's ultimately a really conventional, somewhat dull and worthy film whose righteous message makes it seem a lot better than it really is. Gus has been cut way too much slack here.

I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't referring to Milk the person, but to "Milk" the movie. What I meant was that the reaction to the film has been politicized. And, no matter how political Milk himself was, my contention was that the film should not be viewed and judged primarily through that lens. You can agree with what the film is saying politically, yet still find it a bland and predictable movie. What I was wondering is whether those who are extremely emotional about the subject are perhaps viewing the film through rose-tinted glasses.

I've been surprised by the lack of outrage about the film here in the States.

That's probably from the fact most people didn't notice it. Wasn't a splash the same way Brokeback was. Now with the oscar noms out though, I haven't a clue.

Depressingly, the main Sunday evening screening at its first (and no doubt last) weekend in Worthing attracted a grand total of six people - my wife and I made up a third of the audience. I suspect it was a huge hit in nearby Brighton (gay capital of southern England) and our local cinema booked it without thinking "hang on a minute, how's this going to play in an overwhelmingly small-c conservative town whose average resident is aged about 70?"

Still, for once I can be absolutely certain that the entire audience enjoyed it, as I overheard the two other couples on the way out. And while I have a few quibbles about it (the tape-recorder framing device, Jack's subplot never really catching fire, the absurdly overwrought Tosca references at the end), it's a brave and necessary film - and the fact that I still feel compelled to use those adjectives thirty years on shows how much still needs to be done.

david hare wrote:But I'm the only person in the world who liked Gus' grace note of Michale Pitt's/Kurt Cobain's "spirit" taking flight in the death scene from Last Days.

You are absolutely not.

david hare wrote:Michael I believe queens revere Tosca FOR death scene with its invariablyfat soprano Phlumping off the parapet into spaces/matresses unknown. It always cracks me up, Vissi d'arte or not.

Metropolitan Opera to stage new production of Tosca in 2009-10 season, directed by Luc Bondy and starring Karita Mattila.

Peter G. Davis, reviewing [i]Salome [/i]in [u]New York Classical & Dance[/u] wrote:At 43, Mattila is in terrific shape—a brief glimpse of her body stripped bare at the end of the Dance of the Seven Veils reveals as much. She looks as fabulous in a clingy cocktail dress as she does in a Marlene Dietrich pantsuit while two attendants busily remove her fishnet stockings—with their teeth (yes, it’s an updated version of the opera).

I think Grand Illusion was correct when he said ‘Milk’ is a political tragedy rather than a biopic.

Van Sant maintains a distance from the subject: gay culture isn't really showcased but political culture is. Milk was a shrewd political mover as his deals with the unions indicate. He plays on the consumer clout of gays to earn acceptance and is willing to work the political system similarly. He joins ‘the machine’ but here rights don’t exist on their own merits but on their bargaining power. Ultimately, Milk was murdered by an imbalanced colleague over a perceived political grievance not by a homophobic maniac.

So for me the film isn’t really about gay rights or Milk as ‘the great man’. In fact when Van Sant touches upon this stuff it’s jarring and heavy-handed: the phone-call from the wheelchair bound teenager and the candle-lit procession. The procession would actually be ok but for the nauseating scene before it that improbably has his ex-boyfriend at a poorly attended city hall asking ‘does no one care?’ This feels tacked on to highlight the significance of Milk whereas the film had been more distant and focused on politics.

One thing I don’t think anyone has said about Penn yet is that the performance isn’t camp yet I totally accepted him as a gay man. Threading such lines isn’t easy – see, or don’t, I Am Sam. Also, (these are gushing words) there’s an infectious joy to Milk as played by Penn.

The heavy emotional-tugging aside, it’s an impressive, intelligent, and … powerful … movie.

I passionately hated Elephant (among others) but I’ll give Paranoid Park and Last Days a chance now.

Finally caught this today. It's much better than I feared, perhaps not as good as I had hoped. Overall, the quality of the filmmaking is very strong - this is certainly van Sant's first artistically successful foray into studio filmmaking. Penn is excellent, and I usually find his performances grating. Still, I could do well without the vomitous Elfman score and the script isn't as strong as it could be in places, eg. not sure I appreciated the device with the tape recorder. Still, this generally transcends the usual pitfalls of the biopic, save in the final scenes, from the murder on, which I found to be surprisingly poorly played and increasingly 'milked' for sentimentality, telling the audience what to think. By the time of the candlelight visual I was squirming a little... and thus the film leaves a slightly bitter taste in the mouth. Nevertheless, it is well worth watching, if not a patch of Paranoid Park or Last Days (I disliked Elephant too).

Bingo on the view of Milk as political tragedy.

The lack of real engagement with who he was as a person and why he drove himself so hard to save not only a community but also the people around him undermines the film's suggested nature as a biopic but if you treat Milk as a symbol (and so not needing inner motivations) then the film makes a lot more sense.

I got a very similar vibe from Che actually. Not much internal stuff but lots of "this guy is REALLY important", clearly setting up the guy's eventual murder.

EDIT : Also, I think the death scene serves to save the film from a cinematic point of view. Beyond that it's really quite pedestrian (with the possible exception of how cramped the East coast scenes seem... lots of close-ups with no real sense of a wider world beyond the two characters).

I disagree with those who see Milk as a "political tragedy" and nothing else. It's a human tragedy, not just political. Homophobia remains a social disease, still thriving strong in America today. Gus inserted many scenes in the film: the very heartbreaking opening with the newsreels showing gay guys getting arrested, getting thrown into police vans, with their hands hiding their faces in devastating shame. Gus also knitted into Milk a harrowing thread of a gay boy in a wheelchair, contemplating to kill himself. They are not in the film for nothing, Gus added them to show the cruel history that fueled the passion in Harvey Milk to make life better for gay folks. Gus shows different facets of the gay community. And also different facets of this country's homophobia. So much gay affections are on full display, the beautiful love story of Harvey and Scott (which is a lot more touching and makes a lot more sense than the story of Ennis and Jack in Brokeback Mountain) rippling throughout the whole film. It's not just a political tragedy, you're just not paying close attention or simply denying something.

I've briefly looked through the previous posts on this film, but I've yet to see anything mentioning Milk's opening credits. To me, they were an extremely important piece of the puzzle. Much has been made of the film's place in a post-Proposition 8 America... That it serves to link the movement for gay rights to the MLK/Rosa Parks/March on Washington civil rights movement of the 1950's and 1960's. As an aspiring social studies teacher, I can't help but wonder if my future students might associate the footage presented in the film's opening credits to the more commonly-shown footage of black youths at lunch counters throughout the American South.

As of now, the gay rights movement is completely absent from state history curriculum standards. Massachusetts's (a state in which I've logged quite a bit of time in the classroom) curriculum standards touch upon the aforementioned King/Parks/X movement and the Steinham/NOW women's movement. That's it. There is nothing on the Stonewall riots/GLF/etc... Sadly, I'm sure this doesn't come as a surprise to many.

Am I the only one here who viewed said credits as effective? Are there any of you who viewed them as being too much of a "sledgehammer" approach? I'm just trying to get a feel for what others thought...

Michael wrote:makes a lot more sense than the story of Ennis and Jack in Brokeback Mountain

I don't think you'd say that if you lived in a non-urban area. My podunk Pennsylvania has tons of married gay guys passing for straight & terrified of being found out. And we're talking some several decades after the timeframe of BROKEBACK. Just as homophobia is still alive and well, so is the closet.

HarryLong wrote:

Michael wrote:makes a lot more sense than the story of Ennis and Jack in Brokeback Mountain

I don't think you'd say that if you lived in a non-urban area. My podunk Pennsylvania has tons of married gay guys passing for straight & terrified of being found out. And we're talking some several decades after the timeframe of BROKEBACK. Just as homophobia is still alive and well, so is the closet.

This is not what I meant. (Hey, I grew up in the country in upstate NY, still visiting home every other month, still finding no differences between there and the very cosmo Orlando where I live now in regards to closeted men. Closets are everywhere, urban and country... but it's of my opinion that there is NO excuse to stay in the closet in this age where everything is very out in the open, the media and all everywhere in the US, including the Bible Belt and Utah.. half of my openly gay friends live in the country, so staying in the closet because the area is not urban is bullshit!)

What I meant in regards to the love story in Milk and Brokeback Mtn. is how it's handled, how it's directed. Unlike Brokeback Mtn, Milk's lovestory feels completely genuine and because of this, I found it more moving and compelling than the story of Ennis and Jack.

I see. I don't agree, but OK.
On the other hand I haven't yet caught up with MILK ... maybe I'll come round to your way of thinking.

Michael wrote:I disagree with those who see Milk as a "political tragedy" and nothing else. It's a human tragedy, not just political. Homophobia remains a social disease, still thriving strong in America today. Gus inserted many scenes in the film: the very heartbreaking opening with the newsreels showing gay guys getting arrested, getting thrown into police vans, with their hands hiding their faces in devastating shame. Gus also knitted into Milk a harrowing thread of a gay boy in a wheelchair, contemplating to kill himself. They are not in the film for nothing, Gus added them to show the cruel history that fueled the passion in Harvey Milk to make life better for gay folks. Gus shows different facets of the gay community. And also different facets of this country's homophobia. So much gay affections are on full display, the beautiful love story of Harvey and Scott (which is a lot more touching and makes a lot more sense than the story of Ennis and Jack in Brokeback Mountain) rippling throughout the whole film. It's not just a political tragedy, you're just not paying close attention or simply denying something.

I don't think anyone is saying it's just a political tragedy. As with any well-told story, which this is, Harvey Milk and his inner circle are developed characters. I initially described it as a political tragedy just to contrast it with the genre of biopic, since it shares more tropes with the former than the latter. It's definitely affecting and personal. Of course, the personal is the political, etc. etc.

As for the kid in a wheelchair--is there a better symbol for sympathy?-- and the newsreels, I think those are exactly the types of details a political tragedy has. Those are the details that make this a political issue that expands beyond the mere inner circle of the protagonist. Those are precisely what makes this larger in scope and, in turn, political.

Anyway, it's just a genre descriptor, which is never going to nail down everything about the film. Tape recorder-aside, the film does lack the cliches and feel of a biopic. In fact, the only personal demon he has to overcome is his beard. It's certainly not just a cold retelling of political machinations, but it does show them from the grassroots on up. Harvey's undoing, at least as shown in the film, is really not only directly attributable to homophobia. It's a political assassination. Describing this as a political tragedy, however, is not meant to take away from the humanism on display.

Perfectly said, Grand Illusion. I agree with you. I think I got this mixed up with a different forum or some comments elsewhere.

Here's how they managed the shot with the whistle, straight from the horse's mouth They also talk of other movies but I hardly think they are the best shots of the year, as claimed. Hell, they aren't even the best shots in the selected movies

Anhedionisiac wrote:Here's how they managed the shot with the whistle, straight from the horse's mouth They also talk of other movies but I hardly think they are the best shots of the year, as claimed. Hell, they aren't even the best shots in the selected movies

Stopped reading after seeing #9. Hilarious how people are still impressed by this "turn everything blue" bullshit which has pervaded Hollywood.

Binker wrote:

Anhedionisiac wrote:Here's how they managed the shot with the whistle, straight from the horse's mouth They also talk of other movies but I hardly think they are the best shots of the year, as claimed. Hell, they aren't even the best shots in the selected movies

Stopped reading after seeing #9. Hilarious how people are still impressed by this "turn everything blue" bullshit which has pervaded Hollywood.

99% of films are blue, orange, or cut between scenes of blue and orange. It's the nature of film since we started using color. It's the innate difference between daylight and tungsten. There are a few that try to break the mold, but that's the way it is for the most part.

Grand Illusion wrote:99% of films are blue, orange, or cut between scenes of blue and orange. It's the nature of film since we started using color. It's the innate difference between daylight and tungsten. There are a few that try to break the mold, but that's the way it is for the most part.

Too bad human ingenuity never came up with anything like color timing, white balance, or film stocks of varying sensitivity and color temperatures. Then we might have films that aren't blue or orange.

Matt wrote:

Grand Illusion wrote:99% of films are blue, orange, or cut between scenes of blue and orange. It's the nature of film since we started using color. It's the innate difference between daylight and tungsten. There are a few that try to break the mold, but that's the way it is for the most part.

Too bad human ingenuity never came up with anything like color timing, white balance, or film stocks of varying sensitivity and color temperatures. Then we might have films that aren't blue or orange.

Obviously those things exist. And some films use them wisely. Occasionally there's a Matrix that goes with green or a Diving Bell and the Butterfly that uses white beautifully. I'm just saying we're stuck in the same trends because it's the nature of lighting. Even "greying" a film ends up looking blue. And anything towards the red end of the spectrum ends up looking orange.

Milk Day
Do you think it will even get passed?