criterionforum.org

Dammit, that link gave away the end of the movie.

Saw this yesterday, they had a preview screening at the art museum here in Portland. Incredible. The audience was sobbing, laughing, and at some points even yelling at the screen! (Well, at stock footage of Anita Bryant.) I cannot overstate how profoundly moving this film is. Penn's performance is amazing, pitch-perfect. Van Sant's direction has never been more tender or humane, this is one of his greatest. (He was there, and also the kid from Paranoid Park!) It is really a triumphant accomplishment.

davidhare wrote:I really think three decades later openly gay politicians still have a tough time, yet in Australia and the UK, they don't. It only seems to be the US, in the West, which persecutes openly gay public figures, and then lets the closets off the hook. Cause they're married and Christians, etc. (Natch.)

About a year late...but are we really that tolerant in Australia? How many gay MPs are there?

I think it's a stupid title for a film though. I kept thinking of the 'Got Milk' campaign (damn, they have a lot of endorsers).

I'm dubious about this. Paranoid Park is my pick of '07, but Van Sant seems to be playing it very straight from the trailer and the presence of Focus Features would chime with this. It'll be hard to avoid the soapbox given the emotive subject matter, especially as this kind of approach will play well to certain audiences and is probably what Focus / Penn are looking for. Interesting (telling?), also, that they didn't open at Cannes or Venice. But... We'll see. It looks better than Finding Forrester, in any case.

I know James Schamus-head of Focus, writer for Ang Lee- I'm in one of his classes here @ Columbia, and he says it is Gus' masterpiece. And he's pretty objective when it comes to the films his company releases.

Nothing wrote:Interesting (telling?), also, that they didn't open at Cannes or Venice. But... We'll see. It looks better than Finding Forrester, in any case.

Well, considering filming only wrapped at the end of March, it wouldn't have been ready for Cannes. And as for Venice (or Toronto), they are populist in taste anyway, so I'm not sure what the absence of the film at those fests means (if anything at all). I would guess Focus is trying to keep marketing costs down by keeping the film out of the fests, as the audience for a drama about a gay politician, is still pretty small. Yes, the film does have a built in audience, but even with Sean Penn's inevitable Oscar nod, it will take a lot for the film to reach a Brokeback Mountain sized crowd.

Antoine Doinel wrote:I would guess Focus is trying to keep marketing costs down by keeping the film out of the fests, as the audience for a drama about a gay politician, is still pretty small.

But if it were a comedy starring one of the guys from Queer Eye called Mr. Fabulous Goes to Washington, that thing would go gangbusters.

How do people view Sean Penn? Seems a lot of folks don't think his presence in this film is sincere at all, but instead, just another shot at an Oscar. If indeed Van Sant has made a masterpiece, will it be discredited as a mere vehicle for its star?

Personally, I can't help but like Penn even though I can't deny that he seems to seek roles that are guranteed to highlight him over every other facet of the film. And when he does act in a more director-driven or ensemble-driven film, he has no problem bullying everyone else out of the way: his hammy as shit performance in De Palma's Casualties of War, for instance. I just hope he has enough respect for Van Sant (not to mention Harvey Milk himself) to keep things in check.

Highway 61 wrote:How do people view Sean Penn? Seems a lot of folks don't think his presence in this film is sincere at all, but instead, just another shot at an Oscar. If indeed Van Sant has made a masterpiece, will it be discredited as a mere vehicle for its star?

Personally, I can't help but like Penn even though I can't deny that he seems to seek roles that are guranteed to highlight him over every other facet of the film. And when he does act in a more director-driven or ensemble-driven film, he has no problem bullying everyone else out of the way: his hammy as shit performance in De Palma's Casualties of War, for instance. I just hope he has enough respect for Van Sant (not to mention Harvey Milk himself) to keep things in check.

I personally can't stand Penn for precisely the reason you mentioned. His turn in i am sam is particularly repugnant to me (though the film is awful beyond his own performance). I want to see the movie, and I'm going to see the movie, and hopefully when I see Penn up there I'll be able to view him as the character, rather than Sean Penn looking for an Oscar.

King Prendergast wrote:writer for Ang Lee

You say that as if it's a good thing....

King Prendergast wrote:He says it is Gus' masterpiece. And he's pretty objective when it comes to the films his company releases.

Oh come on...

Antoine Doinel wrote:I would guess Focus is trying to keep marketing costs down by keeping the film out of the fests

This looks like a far more commercial project than Van Sant's previous three - all of which premiered in Cannes. People are already talking about Milk as Oscar bait and it's the first since Finding Forrester that he didn't have a hand in writing, so it looks like "one for the studio" to me. I don't even mind one for the studio, as long as he goes back to work like Paranoid Park and Last Days afterwards.

As I say, i'm willing to wait and see, and wouldn't have posted in the first place if not for the studio shill post from the new member.

Nothing wrote:

King Prendergast wrote:writer for Ang Lee

You say that as if it's a good thing....

Yeah, you're right. Who would want to have a permanent opportunity for collaboration for one of the most internationally acclaimed filmmakers in the world right now. Only a real fag would want that job.

Unfortunately, Ang Lee has no idea how to shoot a film.

Well, clearly he has at least some idea. Or else he couldn't have made all of them films.

im going to see milk at a small society preview in november, really stoked about it. i got my poster and everything.

As I say, i'm willing to wait and see, and wouldn't have posted in the first place if not for the studio shill post from the new member.

I am not a studio shill. I came across this thread and joined the forum because I was excited to share my thoughts on the film. Douchebag.

Well, good afternoon everyone! In light of the film's subject, how about a little more of the spirit of Harvey Milk in this thread and a little less Dan White?

Nothing wrote:This looks like a far more commercial project than Van Sant's previous three - all of which premiered in Cannes. People are already talking about Milk as Oscar bait and it's the first since Finding Forrester that he didn't have a hand in writing, so it looks like "one for the studio" to me.

I don't think there has been any doubt that this film is "one for the studio", and obviously it has a bit more box office viability than Paranoid Park, but it's not like Van Sant is directing Transformers here (I'd love to see that though).

Good Will Hunting / Milk

Elephant / Paranoid Park

different films, but any loss of quality?

Not a very difficult comparison, but all good films regardless. I don't think we have anything to worry about as to the quality of this film even though it is more marketable than Paranoid Park for instance. Has Van Sant ever done wrong under studio supervision? Not really, he has held onto his artistic integrity in my opinion.

moviscop wrote:Has Van Sant ever done wrong under studio supervision? Not really, he has held onto his artistic integrity in my opinion.

Finding Forrester, anyone?

But I agree with the general consensus that this looks excellent, and Van Sant is always an interesting (if not always successful in my view) filmmaker. The one thing I love about some of his films is how good he is at generating tension. Films like Paranoid Park and Mala Noche grip me by the throat; the films themselves are languid, but its the characters that are anxious and scheming. Milk, as others have said, looks to be more by-the-numbers, and whatever tension is generated will probably adhere to that, but it has very worthwhile and dramatically fertile subject matter, and even if the structure is predictable, the film's performances look convincing and powerful.

I've seen the Milk trailer three times now, and it is easily the best trailer of the year. If the movie is anywhere near as gripping—and I expect good things from Van Sant—it will be a fitting tribute to Milk's life.

After 30 Years, a Film Returns to a Harrowing Time in San Francisco - NY Times profile.

Nothing wrote:It'll be hard to avoid the soapbox given the emotive subject matter.

after seeing the film, this is hilarious.

an absolutely fantastic film. it's not "one for the studio" in the way that good will hunting is as it is still very strange and very van sant. and it is beautifully shot by savides. just a great one, i can't wait to see it again.

kaujot wrote:I personally can't stand Penn for precisely the reason you mentioned. His turn in i am sam is particularly repugnant to me (though the film is awful beyond his own performance). I want to see the movie, and I'm going to see the movie, and hopefully when I see Penn up there I'll be able to view him as the character, rather than Sean Penn looking for an Oscar.

Bugger ... this point is off-topic. I agree on the whole (the majority of his performances), but he can still pull off great performances too.

I love his performance in Sweet and lowdown. Restrained and doesn't overpower the equally great Sam Morton or the other, smaller performances. Woody did a great job with that one. Very satisfying.

Getting back to Milk. Van Sant has had a run over the last 3 or 4 of (IMHO) really wonderful films. For that reason alone, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

I'm just looking for a really satisfying and well-crafted film that I'm quite happy to be 'Hollywood typical'. I wouldn't mind to to be 'well-crafted' in the best sense of the phrase--avoids sentimentality but allows room to be emotional. For example, what Eastwood did with Million Dollar Baby, but fell into the trap with the godawful Mystic River. Not that I'm saying I want Van Sant's film to resemble Eastwood's. I also hope it avoids being too austere , like what I found Brokeback Mountain to be.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I want it to be unpretentious.

I also just hope it avoids the pitfalls of most biopics; i.e. being too linear in story structure and the scriptwriter struggles to find too neat an ending to the film.

The story may be close to Van Sant's heart, but unfortunately the script is extremely pedestrian, and Gus' filmmaking here is far closer to Good Will Hunting than My Own Private Idaho. It's a deeply conventional movie - perfectly watchable, nicely done in parts, but very much along the standard bio-pic route (e.g. the predictable chronology; stirring music in all the right places; lines like "Harvey...you've made me proud" etc). Penn's pretty good in a role that certainly isn't stretching him, but Brolin's role is underwritten, and a couple of others, notably Emile Hirsch and Diego Luna are terrible (especially Luna, who seems to be unintentionally channeling Fez from "That 70's Show"). Ultimately, by the time it gets to the overwrought, desperate-for-an-Oscar climax, you could easily replace "gay martyr" with "black martyr" or "disabled martyr" and the results would pretty much be the same.

Is there any doubt that Oscar voters will try to atone both for Prop 8 and for not giving the statue to Brokeback by at least nominating this for Best Picture?