Eat Yer Peas, Drink Yer Milk
by Mike LongSurely many gay Americans have seen Gus Van Sant’s Milk through tears of joy because it marks a long-hoped-for arrival. For the first time in mainstream entertainment (at least, this is the picture that got all the fanfare), the history of the gay rights movement is presented as an elemental and welcome part of the story of the U.S., and not as a sidebar or novel supplement to the Great Historical Narrative.
Gays deserve equal rights. As a human being, that’s the only position I can possibly hold. However, you can be in complete solidarity with the cause of gay rights and not care much for Milk. (Whether you will be allowed to claim that distinction sincerely is yet another question. During the last election, Slate’s Jacob Weisberg wrote that the only reason you might oppose Obama is that you are a bigot. Is that the only reason one might dislike the similarly politically correct Milk?)
For most critics, their verdict on Milk—positive or negative—seems less their opinion of the picture than of gay rights. How else to explain a 93 percent rating on Rotten Tomatoes for what is essentially a well-produced, cause-driven movie of the week?
Milk often lapses into hagiography—the biography of a saint. A more compelling picture would have vigorously illustrated Harvey Milk’s fears and errors; the lack of much other than praise yields a cardboard cutout and not an individual of depth and doubt. Similarly, Harvey Milk’s assassain, Dan White, is presented as a cartoonish stand-in for all Christians. Yet there are gay Christians in this world—surely Harvey Milk himself knew some. Christians will be mightily offended to see their faith smeared under a single broad stroke—just as gays are sickened at movies and TV shows that reduce them to fey stereotype.
Which, ironically, seems to happen here. The hallmark of Sean Penn’s Harvey Milk is a collection of stereotypically mincing affectations which, had they been presented in a film not made by a gay director and aimed directly at gay sympathies, would have had studio executives begging forgiveness and burning the negatives.
Milk falls short in all those details as it falls short overall: Charged with the difficult task of infusing drama into ballot initiatives and minor campaigns for office, the picture often becomes a posed exchange of platitudes that no one says aloud outside of a high-school civics class.
(Oh–and what’s the deal with the over-the-top promotional campaign all last fall for mostly-unknown screenwriter Dustin Lance Black? Who’s that for? Weirdest thing I’ve ever seen in movie advertising, ever. Ever.)
Harvey Milk did some good and important things. Lest conservatives forget, his campaign against Proposition 6 was supported by no less a luminary than Ronald Reagan. Milk died far too young, and at the hands of an unstable, evil individual who got off with a slap on the wrist. Those are the facts, and they deserve consideration separate from the entertainment and artistic value of the picture that bears his name.
Milk the movie is valuable and important and necessary and, in a narrow way, interesting. Plumbing is necessary, too. Doesn’t mean I want to watch it for two hours.







Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
380 Comments
I'm am not in solidarity with the Gay rights agenda. Does that make me not a human Mike? I think sexualizing one's identity….is stupid and I think enshrining sexual identity into law is an abusive of government and an assault on the freedom of conscious.
I don't wish harm on anyone but I do not bow down or respect the "Noble Intentions" and "Purity of Goodness" attributed to homosexuals, their political aspirations. and their experiments with the law.
Screw everyone and their government enshrined "Sexual Rights" and public obsessions. :Big Middle Finger Up Arm Firmly Extended:
I'm seriously tired of queers, and I think if the truth were told about the way america feels about them, they would very willingly crawl back into their closets
Way to go on living up to those Republican stereotypes, Alexander.
I've read that Harvey Milk was a Republican.
You say that the Dan White character is presented as a cartoonish stand-in for all Christians. Say what? You note rightly that he was an unstable, evil individual but I do not see how his religion is shown as being emblematic of his actions. Would you expect the movie to write in a good Christian to balance it out? Wouldn't that action be politically correct? If you mean the movie shows White in chuch in one scene you should note that Harvey Milk was in that scene too because he was the only council member who showed up at the christening of White's child. So you needed that scene.
Cameron
Not homophobic are you? You represent 'America'?
"I'm am not in solidarity with the Gay rights agenda. Does that make me not a human Mike?"
If you believe that a dying man should not be allowed to see his partner before he dies, I question your humanity.
If you believe that a selfless, committed love between two people of the same gender is disgusting, I question your humanity.
If you believe it is perfectly fair for a majority to deprive a minority of a right, then attack the courts who exist to protect minority rights, I question your humanity.
If you believe that the actions of a few stupid, thoughtless, insensitive, and/or cruel individuals applies to a whole group, I question your humanity.
If you are willing to believe in calculated lies put forward by vicious bigots because they reinforce your deeply held but irrational fears, ignorance, and prejudices, I question your humanity.
If you are willing to destroy the institution of marriage in order to save it (which is what's happening in France), I question your humanity.
Middle finger extended right back at you and all the other heteros like you. Everything Mike Long said was spot on.
Don't forget that that thuggish commie hetero puke Sean Penn declared solidarity with antigay dictators like Hugo Chavez and Saddam Hussein. I'd rather gay couples raise kids than a combination of Sean Penn and any woman anywhere.
No, it may make you a bigot depending upon how you conduct yourself.All those laws do is to ensure that noone is punished because they are gay.(civil rights laws of the sixties were put in place to protect those of other races)Noone is asking you to "bow down",or bend over for that matter,just that you treat someone as a human being.
Oh,and the way you closed out your comment,please by all means,stay classy.
Well, I'm seriously tired of heterosexuals and if science could come up with a better way to reproduce you'd all be obsolete.
Cameron represents Iran and other homophobic theocracies.
Ben,
Let me make this clear. I do not deny dignity to every human being, but I don't have to agree with someone's publicly espoused sexual proclivities via the canard of an "Identity" and their determined agenda to make me accept it through law and pop culture trends. I get along with most and generally wish everyone well but, no, I do not worship at the altar of political correctness and the perceived stereotypes that you apparently worry about and cling too.
By the way, I'm Catholic, I'm not afraid to say so, I take my religion seriously, I too have a place in the public square, I refuse to be pushed out of the public square because I follow my religion, and I definitely refuse to be discredited by you or others for expressing my freedom of conscious and belief in the seriousness of sexual ethics.
P.S. I thought the Pet Shop Boys were cool for awhile…does that count for anything?
"I'm seriously tired of queers…"
Hey, it could be worse. You could be tired from them damn queers!
That could be painful.
Hey Attmay,
I don't deny a dying man anything, at all, and I would like you to provide the actual statistics of the apparent plague of dying gay men who are denied access to people they have shared their life with. Anyone who is dying should have access to those to whom they love and are their friends.
I'm curious Attmay are about billion or more people in the world "Bigots" because the follow the practices of their religious commitments? Am I a "Bigot" because even though my body chemistry as a man tells me to mate with every attractive woman on planet earth that may blink at me, I should do it than? Thus MYYYYYY "Sexual Identity" is "Naturally Promiscuous Male"…should I than tell my wife to shove it? And get with the program this is who I am and you better deal with it because I love you and I want you to accept me for who I am…and all the women I nail because its "My Right"…its MYYYY Identity? No…the issue on human sexuality is complex…Don't think so? Ask Ann Heche…she magically turned Heterosexual awhile ago. Go stare the actually people in the face who once were avowed homosexuals and now are not. Are they "Wrong"? Do they deserve ridicule because their not on "The Team"?
I do not deny people have real compulsions and urges of alll kinds and sorts….My position is enshrining your sexual urges into law is beyond abusive and childish. How about enshrining your sexuality into the privacy of your own home. And until I see the actual statistics and evidence…comparing the "Gay Plight" to the incredible historical struggles of Black Americans is such an affront I find it on par with those who deny the Holocaust.
Yes the most wealthy minority in America are horribly and unfairly oppressed and need JUSTICE!
If you believe any of the things you just said aren't question-begging, dishonest rhetorical devices, or closed-minded, biased, emotionally-charged, baseless cheap shots at a man's character, I question your sanity.
Unbelievably ignorant of religion. Though I am no friend of Islamic Militants and Terrorists that is for damn sure. Everyone should take note of someone like Attmay…the purity and militancy of the good and noble intentions of everything and anything homosexual trumps the foundational contributions of Judeo-Christian Philosophy and practice in its absolutely essential development of Western Civilization. It is all Bigotry….this is the problem with America right now. Everyone is a self-absorbed self-delusional brat…..I'm telling you….the wheels are coming off of America.
Spike don't fool yourself….If Catholic Adoption Agencies are being shut down by the state in Massachusets because they will not put children into the homes of gay couples…this is where it is going. Liberals can't leave well enough alone and you know it.
Regarding my final comment…take it as frustrated response to being barraged with the forces of political correctness and if you like…an insult to your fine and apparently very delicate sensibilities
Cameron…don't mistake me….I'm not advocating for "Lets all get the Homosexuals" very very far from it. Nor do I hope are you. I think America in general is growing tired of the sexualization of everything and men are particular growing tired of the metrosexualization of everything male that is part of gay and feminist pop culture influences in film and t.v. etc.
If you say so… who are you exactly now? And where did you get this perceived authority over me?
No,It is not all bigotry.Seems like it's all or nothing with you.The bible has one line in it adressing homosexuality.(a line taken quite literally it seems)But it goes into quite detail about how disobedient children should be killed,and those who toil on the sabbath should be stoned to death.We don't seem to follow those precepts…i guess we get to cherry pick as it seems convienient….We live in a secular society,we are not a theocracy.Frankly,people wonder how folks like jeneanne garafalo,or margret cho can say the hateful things they do about conservatives,you,and cameron are the reason why.
This is the stupid crap we get all the time…."The Shrimp Argument" or the variation you present..So I ask you, "Spike" is all of Judeo-Christian religion and thought is completely discredited now? Or just the rules on sexuality morality? So Thomas Aquinas was an idiot? Saint Augustine was a philosophical lightweight. Men for thousands of years who have compiled, studied the bible, documented, traced their lineages and tradtions back to Christ, etc, invented the hopsital, started the university system, civiilized the barabarian hordes that sacked rome. They are all wrong in their interpretations? They don't really "Get it" did they? The millions of scholars throughout the years were all ignorant were they? Because what? Because you in all your learned Theological Study and internet-assembled philosphies taken from Kos and Huffington have taken a good look at it and after 25 minutes of deep thought about the Divine, you decided to "Parrot" the same old nonsense one can find all over the web at the Democratic Underground? Kick over the old fence, demolish the old rules without asking why they are there? Screw you Spike! People like you run with the trends, safe and unprincipled…Yes I live in FEAR of the deep theological considerations of you, Jeneanne garfalo and emminent intellectual heavyweight Margeret Cho.
Sadly,Milk stats sean penn,I can usually put aside my distaste for certain celebrities public personna,and enjoy their performances.But sean penn,for some reason his personal deuchebaggery seems to come through again and again.
actually,I'm a regular at lgf,and ace of spades(so much for the moonbat label)You seem to like putting words in my mouth,I was making an example,I could repond that those same learned folks you mention fought and persecuted to keep a geo-centric universe the rule of science,how these learned men sold tithes and indulgences(kinda like algores carbon credit scam)which lead to the great scism.That st.augustine of hippo,was a hypocrite who blamed his lusts not on himself but on those horrible women creatures who tempted him so….but i won't,there is overwhelming good in the cristian faith.I do not defend ridiculous displays like the "up your alley festival(see zombietime.com)or "in your face" activism.The only thing I AM saying is that noone should be denied oportunies based soley on what they do,or who they do it with.(needless to say pedofiles do fall under this…they are one group who should be stoned….)
whoops,i meant to say pedofiles do NOT fall under this…gotta proofread a bit better
"By the way, I'm Catholic, I'm not afraid to say so, I take my religion seriously, I too have a place in the public square, I refuse to be pushed out of the public square because I follow my religion, and I definitely refuse to be discredited by you or others for expressing my freedom of conscious and belief in the seriousness of sexual ethics. "
——————————————————————–
I'm sure you work just as hard, in the public square, against the death penalty and against the war in Iraq, then, right? Being a Catholic and whatnot. (For the record, I'm a Catholic too, though more of the drunken-Graham-Greene school than of the cranky-old-Polish-lady school)
Anyhow I just came into this thread to say that I enjoyed this article and that, as an arch-liberal, I too was rather disappointed with "Milk," thanks to a host of issues (strong storytelling was never Van Sant's strong suit; he's ill-used directing a biopic).
Mr. Long and other interested in these issues should definitely watch the '84 documentary "The Times of Harvey Milk" if you really want to see how silly, shallow, and redundant "Milk" is.
"By the way, I'm Catholic, I'm not afraid to say so, I take my religion seriously, I too have a place in the public square, I refuse to be pushed out of the public square because I follow my religion, and I definitely refuse to be discredited by you or others for expressing my freedom of conscious and belief in the seriousness of sexual ethics. "
——————————————————————–
I'm sure you clamor just as loudly, in the public square, against the death penalty and against the war in Iraq, then, right? Being a Catholic and whatnot. (For the record, I'm a Catholic too, though more of the drunken-Graham-Greene school than of the cranky-old-Polish-lady school)
Anyhow I just came into this thread to say that I enjoyed this article and that, as an arch-liberal, I too was rather disappointed with "Milk," thanks to a host of issues (strong storytelling was never Van Sant's strong suit; he's ill-used directing a biopic).
Mr. Long and other interested in these issues should definitely watch the '84 documentary "The Times of Harvey Milk" if you really want to see how silly, shallow, and redundant "Milk" is.
Back to the movie in question. It is but a small slice of life from a time that many today do not remember. The recent Frost/Nixon movie was the same. A snapshot of its time; an answer to a question no-one is asking. Also, with Milk, 99% of the country have never heard of him, probably 60-70% of the population could care less about anything to do with San Francisco at all, and finally it stars Penn. A man who swans about with world leaders who would execute gay folks on sight. But , no one mentions that, or seems to mind. Why does every movie have to be perceived as so important, or mold breaking. Hollywood rarely is truly that brave. Ask Theo Van Gogh…oh wait, he's dead. Not even mentioned in that year's "In memoriam'" segment of the Oscars that year, so they tell me.
"By the way, I'm Catholic, I'm not afraid to say so, I take my religion seriously, I too have a place in the public square, I refuse to be pushed out of the public square because I follow my religion, and I definitely refuse to be discredited by you or others for expressing my freedom of conscious and belief in the seriousness of sexual ethics. "
——————————————————————–
I'm sure you clamor just as loudly, in the public square, against the death penalty and against the war in Iraq, then, right? Being a Catholic and whatnot. (For the record, I'm a Catholic too, though more of the drunken-Graham-Greene school than of the cranky-old-Polish-lady school from whence Alexander seems to hail.)
Anyhow I just came into this thread to say that I enjoyed this article and that, as an arch-liberal, I too was rather disappointed with "Milk," thanks to a host of issues (strong storytelling was never Van Sant's strong suit; he's ill-used directing a biopic).
Mr. Long and other interested in these issues should definitely watch the '84 documentary "The Times of Harvey Milk" if you really want to see how silly, shallow, and redundant "Milk" is.
"By the way, I'm Catholic, I'm not afraid to say so, I take my religion seriously, I too have a place in the public square, I refuse to be pushed out of the public square because I follow my religion, and I definitely refuse to be discredited by you or others for expressing my freedom of conscious and belief in the seriousness of sexual ethics. "
——————————————————————–
I'm sure you clamor just as loudly, in the public square, against the death penalty and against the war in Iraq, then, right? Being a Catholic and whatnot. (For the record, I'm a Catholic too, though more of the drunken-Graham-Greene school than of the cranky-old-Polish-lady school from whence Alexander seems to hail.)
Anyhow I just came into this thread to say that I enjoyed this article and that, as an arch-liberal, I too was rather disappointed with "Milk," thanks to a host of issues (strong storytelling was never Van Sant's strong suit; he's ill-used directing a biopic).
Mr. Long and othesr interested in these issues should definitely watch the '84 documentary "The Times of Harvey Milk" if you really want to see how silly, shallow, and redundant "Milk" is.
"By the way, I'm Catholic, I'm not afraid to say so, I take my religion seriously, I too have a place in the public square, I refuse to be pushed out of the public square because I follow my religion, and I definitely refuse to be discredited by you or others for expressing my freedom of conscious and belief in the seriousness of sexual ethics. "
——————————————————————–
I'm sure you clamor just as loudly, in the public square, against the death penalty and against the war in Iraq, then, right? Being a Catholic and whatnot. (For the record, I'm a Catholic too, though more of the drunken-Graham-Greene school than of the cranky-old-Polish-lady school from whence Alexander seems to hail.)
Anyhow I just came into this thread to say that I enjoyed this article and that, as a sexually permissive arch-liberal, I too was rather disappointed with "Milk," thanks to a host of issues (strong storytelling was never Van Sant's strong suit; he's ill-used directing a biopic).
Mr. Long and othesr interested in these issues should definitely watch the '84 documentary "The Times of Harvey Milk" if you really want to see how silly, shallow, and redundant "Milk" is.
I pretty much agree with you on everything except gay marriage, and please understand that by opposing gay marriage I don't hate you or anyone else. If gay marriage becomes the law in California, I'll live with it even if I don't like it.
I did live through the Harvey Milk era here in San Francisco, and frankly I had no respect for the man at all (ditto for George Moscone). It's too bad they were both personally loathsome, since the cause of equal rights for gays was, and remains an important one. Good cause, badly flawed leaders. But it came out OK.
And I agree heartily with you about Sean Penn. I find him so disgusting that I am simply unable to separate him from the roles he plays. Which means I won't be seeing "Milk," now or ever. But without seeing the movie, I get the impression Milk is played as some kind of a flawed saint. He was not. His recruiting of young gay kids and using them for personal sex was appalling, and his "anything goes" agenda played a major role in the deaths of thousands from AIDS. He was at best a politician who used his valid political position to satisfy his own out-of-control libido. I find heterosexuals who do the same thing equally appalling.
Spike said: "Cameron represents Iran and other homophobic theocracies."
I have no problem with you having this opinion at all. I agree with you(for probably very different reasons) that Iran and other Islamic countries are awful places that Islam is not helping. HOWEVER, I hope that you are not one of those people who demand "tolerance" for homosexuals, and preach "acceptance of differing opinion." That comment showed a non acceptance of the value of the views held by many millions of people living in other countries and cultures throughout the world that live in these "theocracies." I think those views are apparently backward, and miserably uneducated but I dont preach tolerance and find most people preaching tolerance show not the least bit of it anyway. Not practicing what you preach is Hypocrisy. Being unknowingly hypocritical is even better, because then you ARE what you HATE. The Irony is so delicious I could put it on my salads and sandwiches.
Clarification: By saying it came out OK, I meant that equal rights for gays became the law and the prevailing thought. I did NOT mean that the murder of Milk and Moscone were OK. I realized after I posted that what I said could be mis-interpreted. And after all my years of criminal defense practice, I am still mystified by that jury's acceptance of the "twinkie defense." PS: There was a made-for-TV movie about the assassination of Milk and Moscone which did a very good job on the entire subject. It starred Timothy Daly and Peter Coyote.
Homosexually inclined men have the same right as heterosexually inclined men, the right to marry a woman if you can find one that agrees. They also have the right to be secure in their persons (not to be beaten up).
As to the idea of creating a new right, I have to say two things. 1)If the Left thinks its a good idea, it probably isn't. 2) Andrew Sullivan is a major promoter of gay marriage, and then I'm reading him and he talks about gay marriage, but also how gays have 'complicated morality'. In other words, I want the marriage ceremony, and I want to sleep around too.
No and no and no some more. I was a little bit on the fence until I read Sullivan.
Marriage is already burdened enough, and taking a 'lets add one more straw to the camel's back' just to see what happens is indescribably reckless.
And thanks, Mr. Long for saying I'm not human. You're quite perceptive. I'm an alien holovid director from Betelgeuse, and you humans with your liberal ideas are the civilized galaxy's favorite sitcom.
Attmay said: "If you believe that a dying man should not be allowed to see his partner before he dies, I question your humanity."
I'm so sick of this canard. It doesn't happen except in the minds of homosexuals. When you're at the hospital, you can allow anyone you want to visit. As long as they do not endanger your health or others, no hospital staff will refuse them admittance.
And if you'd rather change that to, "If you believe that a man should not be able to make medical decisions for his dying partner" then you're still left with the fact that there exists a medical power of attorney in the U.S. And you can use it for whomever you want. And it's not any more difficult than trying to get married.
You have the legitimate right to believe whatever you want. You don't have the legitimate right to enforce your belief on others. When gay people get it in their heads that their god says heterosexuality is a sin and it must be discouraged and ridiculed whenever possible, then we'll have an equivocation between the legit rights they want and the illegitimate "rights" that bigots lay claim to. And should they come to believe something like that it'll be just as baseless and laughable as the claims of the millions who believe their magical guy in the sky has put a sacred taboo on guys getting it on with guys and girls going at it with girls. Whatever religious denomination you count yourself amongst, if you believe that harmless, consensual sexual activity between adults is wrong then yes, you are a bigot. You're dumb. And while you have every right to be, you really shouldn't enjoy it so much.
Attmay, now who's sick and should have their humanity questioned?
If you'd rather exist in a world where no one disagrees with you and yours, or where everyone MUST wholeheartedly accept everything you stand for…I question your humanity. And your sanity.
No,Spike did not say that.Another pposter did.
The logic of your views here is: "Since this movie is not about someone everyone knows and is not set in a place everyone cares about and does not star an actor everyone knows and loves then it is really not worth anyone's time."
Does the word, snob have a meaning to you? Or can we peasants be allowed to watch and enjoy movies that deal with what is actually a pretty large issue right now?
"You have the legitimate right to believe whatever you want. You don't have the legitimate right to enforce your belief on others."
That's rich. Exactly what would allowing gay marriage be then? Not forcing a belief set on others? The whole "can't legislate morality" argument is better left to the ignorant who can't come up with legitimate reasons why their belief system is better than the majorities.
Btw, my "magical guy in the sky" has put a sacred taboo on any person having sex with another person or nonperson outside the bonds of marriage. Period. Not to mention, the natural law of man that evolved from many different societies that practice a large number of different religions tends to agree with my "magical guy in the sky."
I don't see where allowing two people to enter into a "marrige"or "civil union" is forcing anyones beliefs on anyone else.Frankly, i don't see where it would be anyone buisness.Please explain how this would impact your life.
"If you don't have a horse in the race,you're probably better off not betting"
Can I try to make this simplified? It was a sucky Lifetime movie, there was already a tv movie made that was better, and Harvey Milk was not a great person, or even a good person, just because he was gay. He was a shallow, difficult person, who tried to shove his ideas down everyone's throat. He was sexually irresponsble, who advocated bathhouse risky type sex practices, who was ok with the idea of sex with boys. He was not a great moral human being. That said, he fought for his rights, and was elected to office. Most people are unaware of his relationship with Jim Jones, who he helped out by sending people to Jim's religious movement. He, along with the Mayor, made it easier for Jones to gain cult members. Anyway, long story short, the movie sucked. It was not a realistic account of Milk's life, and Penn, who is a decidedly an unlikeable human being, doesn't improve the film./
Joe, you're dumb.
Spike, you have the patience of a saint.
Sadly,hollwood does that little trick way too often.Instead of showing a real-life character warts and all,they are made into a messionic figure.I hear that someone is making a che' bio-pic….wonder if they'll show him bottlefeeding baby animals…as opposed to executing pesants for not showing the proper "revalutionary spirit"?
lol.Thanks jon.I try to debate using the best argument i can.We all may not agree,(It would be a boring world if we did)But,who knows we may all walk away learning a thing or two.
Everyone has "a horse in this race". Thankfully we(98%), outnumber you(2%)
Catholic Adoption Agencies aren't "being shut down by the state MA." That's inaccurate. The agencies are choosing to close, because they refuse to comply with state law. No one said they couldn't set up shop in Alabama.
Please,explain how?How would a same-sex union effect you personally?
"Just because everyone is screaming at you doesn't mean you're wrong"
The umpires credo
Spike, it would indeed be a boring world if we all agreed. And it'd be a smarter world if people didn't actually lump into the same category favorable biopics of a monster like Che Guevara and a civil rights activist like Harvey Milk. It'd serve public discourse so much better if such things weren't all lumped together as "LIBREL' HOMOATHEIST BIASS!!!!!1q"
(Not saying you do that, of course. It's just so many of the troglodytes infesting this place do, and after making a fair point I haven't the patience or drive to respond to a dumb answer as anything but.)
I hope i didn't offend you by that(having guevara and harvey milk in my comment).My point was.people are complex,hollywood shows them as either the pure,true hero,or the evil rotten bastard.Life is not that easy,it would be far more interesting to see people as they were,We are all flawed in some way or another,it adds to our charactor.
Dr. King argued not for group identities and group rights, but for individual rights REGARDLESS of group identity, one way or another. This is why Milk the movie is bad film-making, because it emphasizes group identity and politics over individualism. It's also poor drama in that Milk is shown representing "the Gay people" rather than his own self, and leaves the 96% of non-Gay men cold. Since straight men not obsessed with PC status wars don't really care about Gays one way or another.
As far as Milk the man and his political career goes, he was both the avatar of group identity and the symbol of collapse of the "Old San Francisco" and indeed California, replaced by the Gay Agenda of group rights and extremism in sexual exhibitionism and yuppie obsessions.
Let's be clear: the San Francisco of Milk is the San Francisco of rich white Yuppies, where Gays still only make up 14% of the population, but dominate politics beyond all proportion to their numbers. Replacing the White, Working Class, Straight White Male blue collar worker seen in films like "Dark Passage" [1947] to the Gay/Yuppie playground that is the San Francisco of the 1970's in "Milk."
Now, you might think it a good thing that San Francisco, like the Democratic Party and Media and much else of society, has pushed out the White Blue Collar working man, in favor of the class solidarity of Rich White Gays and Rich White Yuppies that characterizes Liberal politics and society of today, but it's still a remarkable change.
What is evasive and pathetic about the film is that it shies away from the reality of Milk's murder by the detestable Dan White — a symbol of the triumph of the Rich White Yuppies, Gay and Straight, that colonized what had been THE Working Class White Union Town of the West. As much as the odious Dan White murdered Milk and Moscone, the gentrifying forces behind the two murdered the "old" San Francisco, creating a "fabulous" place where only the very rich can afford to live, filled with decadent sexual exhibitionism (see "Zombie" and the photo-essay of the Folsom Street Fair).
Glossed over too was the rather icky, casual promiscuity, anonymous sex, and other less than appetizing aspects of the Gay culture Milk was part of (and exists today). Or in other words, no warts were shown at all in the portrait of Milk and the people he represented.
In short, this movie is for Gays only, it has nothing to say about the human condition that is universal or even interesting (unlike "Before Night Falls" about Gays facing jailing in Castro's Cuban "Paradise").
Vince,
Forcingpeople to choose between their religious beliefs and their livelihood is unconstitutional. They should move to Alabama??? You could move to europe.Or maybe Antarctica. That is just as reasonable. Try having your rights without taking away someone else's. Perhaps that common courtesy is above your pay grade. Be thankful you live in a country that doesn't chop off offending appendages (for now, at least). Your strawman argument doen't stand up to thedisinfecting light of day.
No no, I took no offense at all.
I don't think Milk paints its character as one dimensional though. He has at various points in the film doubt and guilt and alludes to a previous life of dishonesty about himself. I really thought they made the guy an engaging individual as opposed to a lionized saint.
Still, I have other issues with the film. It's certainly well done but I couldn't shake the feeling of how paint-by-numbers the whole thing felt. I expect better from Van Sant, but he gets a pass because of the sublime and overlooked Paranoid Park from a year go.
So… Milk's legacy as a civil rights activist is a fraudulent one because you think he paved the way for people in the street once a year having fun about their fetish for leather and bondage?
The Folsom Street Fair is ridiculous. It's not evil.
Jon,just testing my new account(intense debate)This place looks like it can be fun to hang around in,just out of curiousity,do you post anywhere else?
also,why does everyone mention things like folsom st.fair(admitidly not my thing)but make no mention of things like fantasy fest?
Spike: Nah, nowhere else. I just get a kick out of this place. It's fun arguing against the voice of the echo chamber, and there's often other interesting voices of the opposition, yourself being one.
"If you believe that a dying man should not be allowed to see his partner before he dies, I question your humanity. "
Who the hell wants to do this? That's a straw man.
"I'm seriously tired of queers"
A friend of mine once summed up things perfectly when a gal asked him if he was homophobic, and he replied "No, but I am homo-irritated".
You need to take a closer look before you start swinging. Ryan was responding to Attmay, not you (so he was actually defending you, not asserting authority over you). You can tell which post someone is responding to by the indents (which in this case shows his on the same level as yours, so you were both responding to the same post).
And yes, there are plenty of examples of people who were denied rights most of us would consider basic, due to their choice of partners. I do not doubt for a second that a large portion of homosexuality is hardwired (whether before birth, or in very young childhood), so to deny them rights that the rest of us would expect is fundamentally wrong (both on a human level and a Constitutional one). I don't consider marriage a "right," so can see why the issue can be handled the way California has done it, but their civil unions provided all the same legal protections that marriage does and I fully support that in every state.
I do agree that homosexuals trying to compare their plight to that of black people is patently ridiculous. They've had their struggles to achieve equality, but it's nothing compared to what has happened to other minorities in this country (especially Indians and Blacks). They've also been hurt by advocates going way over the line in the name of their cause.
Obviously you've never talked to one of my many ex-girlfriends. They'd assure you I'm already obsolete.
I've heard that documentary was a far superior depiction. Unfortunately, because of the ridiculous pandering of the movie reviewers (which if you believe them to be gospel, then Michael Moore is the greatest film maker in history), better movies get lost in the shuffle. Stories "based on real events" wind up being perceived as truth, when usually the truth is far more interesting, not to mention more important. Unfortunately, if you couldn't convince Gene Siskel that Star Wars was a good movie, you're pretty much out of luck trying to discuss anything of actual significance with these nitwits.
You're way out of touch if you think that "we" is actually 98%. There is no way to estimate the real number of gays in society (or even the breakdown of bisexuals), but it's easy to find polling of people who approve of civil unions and/or gay marriage. The only reason Prop 8 won in California (and gay marriage wasn't the law of the state today) is that Obama's voting block includes a large number of minorities who are more conservative in their views on the matter than whites (who voted against the initiative). In our lifetime, every state will have civil unions, and many of them will have legalized gay marriage. You're welcome to oppose it (I think more people should be involved in debating issues, not less), but it's pretty obvious where it's going in the near future.
Soderbergh made it and the reason you haven't heard more about it is because more people bought Nancy Pelosi's lame book than went to see the 4 1/2 hour snorefest. From the reviews here and elsewhere, Obama should use it as the new "harsh interrogation method" at GITMO, since he's so down on waterboarding.
I think you are wrong. This site has many different viewpoints. To label it as an echo chamber is dismissive and patently false. If you want to see an echo chamber, try Democrat Underground or Think Progress.
Hey Alexander- You've thought through the logical conclusions to a lot of this. Kudos to you!! Homosexuality is one maladaptation among many that is being forced on us through popular culture, The cancer of post-modernism and its belief in no objective truth has tried to neuter any intellectual argument that could be put forward against it.
"Gays deserve equal rights. As a human being, that’s the only position I can possibly hold."
I love the way this guy makes you think that gays don't currently have the same rights as the rest of America. I find it funny. As a human being, that's the only position I could possibly hold!
Alexander's obviously not a native speaker of English, so I don't think he's American, and therefore he's not a Republican. A member of the conservative party in his home country, probably, but not a Republican.
I was wondering when someone was going to mention the Jim Jones part. Milk and Moscone, along with the rest of the San Francisco left, were political allies of the People´s Temple. Moscone said once that the Temple was way too far out for him, but they needed the thousands of cultists that Jones could turn out at demonstrations and rallies.
All you have to do is check Wikipedia on this – it's all spelled out and sourced there in detail. One of the saddest parts of the whole Jonestown story is that Jones' victims were mostly poor black people of rural Southern origin with little education who felt a sense of empowerment as Temple members.
I agree with your assessment of the film. I think actually if they had made it about 20 minutes longer, some of the problems would have been solved. The movie spent an inordinate amount of time on the Diego Luna subplot while reducing Jess Franco's character to a cypher.
I couldn't help but think that Emile Hirsch's character was pretty interesting, and that the script gave him short shrift as well.
The whole point about bathhouses and AIDS isn't entirely relevant because Milk had died before the AIDS outbreak occurred, so we really have no idea how he would have reacted. Would he have been on the Randy Shilts side of the issue or not?
You're right. There are a variety of viewpoints. Far right AND Extremely Far Right
Sean Penn is a terrible actor. He hasn't been good since he played Spicoli. He uses his one good role to ram his radically leftist ideology down everyone's throats, much like Tim Robbins did with The Shawshank Redemption. The Academy, dominated by liberals, have been wanting to give Sean Penn an Oscar for a good decade. They finally found a movie that was "good" enough to merit a nomination.
Ummm…..you do realize that Penn won an Oscar five years ago in a Clint Eastwood film? Hey, come to think of it, Tim Robbins also won an Oscar in the SAME Clint Eastwood film.
Again, too many of you BH posters don't know jack about the movies.
What, pray tell, was the "leftist ideology" of the Shawshank Redemption?
I didn't say the movie was leftist. I said he used his success from the role to shove his opinions down our throats. Don't you know how to read?
You are right Des, what with the fertility rates of the Gay community the trend is inevitable.
Sure do, asshat. Considering Robbins' breakthrough role was Bull Durham and not Shawshank Redemption, do you know anything about the movies, loser? Obviously you don't because you didn't realize that Sean Penn already has an Oscar (in a Clint Eastwood movie)
And the beauty of this country is that Robbins has free speech and can say any damn thing he wants. I mean, I have the freedom to call you an uneducated loser who gets all of his world views from Rush Limbaugh.
The movie makes that point, because of his feelings about government not intruding on small businesses, which I thought was interesting. As the fact the movie actually mentioned Reagan not supporting Prop 6. I thought the movie was ok, but i wasn't digging the Milk-as-saint vibe and think Oscar folks are on-board just because of the subject matter. Penn was amazing, yes, but 2-dimensional.
OK, I forgot Mystic River, a movie I avoided because of Robbins and Penn. Still, Sean Penn will undoubtedly win the Oscar because liberals in Hollywood decide who wins, and those people are still pissed about Prop 8 passing.
I don't understand this review. The movie lapses into hagiography and "often becomes a posed exchange of platitudes that no one says aloud outside of a high-school civics class." The villain is a cartoon, and the hero is a "collection of stereotypically mincing affectations." So, why is this movie "valuable and important and necessary"? If this is the "first time in mainstream entertainment … [that] the history of the gay rights movement is presented as an elemental and welcome part of the story of the U.S.," why isn't the reviewer irritated that the director and the big-name star made such a bags of it? It was either a good movie that said something important in a unique and interesting way, or it was bad movie that relied on platitudes and stereotypes. ???
LOL. Just because I'm a Republican on a Republican website instead of a liberal who trolls such sites to "smack down" conservatives doesn't mean I get all my info from Rush Limbaugh. The only times I've ever heard him speak is in interviews (like his last one with Hannity.) I could easily say, from your nature of trolling, that you get all your news from the NYT, TYT, and MSNBC, but that's probably not true because you're more uninformed than Olbermann. Mystic River, while done by the libertarian Clint Eastwood, was the movie, which you didn't even know because you didn't include the title. I had forgotten Mystic River won those Oscars because I was 12 when they came out. I'm guessing you're like 15 or 35, in either case, you probably still live with your parents. How do you like that?
I didn't understand it much either. He flip flops on how the movie was. I personally thought that Sean Penn pushed the limits of tolerance with his flamboyant-ness as Milk. He is not what average gays are. All gays are not S&M slaves or Richard Simmons.
Arguing that one should not oppose same-sex marriage because it does not directly effect you is absurd. Rape and murder do not directly effect you so long as you are not the one being raped or murdered. The reason people care is because we recognize that as a society things like this harm us in ways that are not definite but still tangible. Opposition to same-sex marriage is about the redefining of society's institutions on the whims of a minority. If history has taught us anything it is that you mess with society's institutions and foundations at great peril. The foundation of our society is the two person, male-female, marriage. Are they perfect, no. Still that is not an argument to begin redefining marriage. Once you damage the foundation, the house is doomed to crumble.
If two gay men want to form a relationship that is their business. But it steps beyond the bounds of tolerance when they demand society accept their relationship and give it legal sanction. If gays want to get married they should persuade, not bully and litigate.
So in 2004 (when Mystic River came out) you were twelve? That would make you, what, 17? Oh, yeah…you clearly know what the hell you're talking about, fool. Get back in touch in a decade, when you've had a chance to see the way the world actually is, loser.
You should be happy that the Republicans lost, you're in the age group that would have been drafted if they had decided to invade Iran.
Of course you avoided it, nimrod. In your other post, you said that you were 12 when the film came out. You're getting your lies and your talking points mixed up, imbicile.
Reading between the lines, the reviewer probably actually really liked the film, but because he is a BH poster, he had to temper his enthusiasm so the knuckle-dragging gay-bashers who post here wouldn't be mean to him.
You know nothing about politics if you think the Republicans want to bring back the Draft. The only ones proposing it in Congress are Democrats. Turn off Olbermann and stop trolling conservative sites. Why do you continue to partake in things you do not enjoy?
LOL. Gay bashing? Just because we're not for gay marriage because it goes against our religious beliefs? Are you against Affirmative Action or for it? It you're for it, you're in the minority, seeing as only about 10-15% of blacks are even for it. Also, if you're for it, you're a racist.
The only way the US could fight a war in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran simultaneously would be to either completely drain our current military force or reinstitute the draft.
But since any invasion of Iran is off the table for at least 4 more years, I won't sweat the draft thing. But, you, at 17, ought to be concerned about the conservative fixation with solving all problems with military force. Eventually, the soldiers will have to come from somewhere. TEN-HUT!!!
Milk was pretty flamboyant. Watch the documentary the Mayor of Castro Street.
Wait a minute, dude, earlier you said that Sean Penn was a "terrible actor" and that you had avoided seeing Mystic River specifically since Penn was in it. So, why did you go see Milk then?
So if you are against gay marriage because of your religious beliefs (even though gay marriage isn't addressed ANYWHERE in the Bible), why did you go see Milk again?
Affirmative Action is not germane to this discussion. Save your talking point robotics for another day, loser.
How dense are you? I'm 19. Moron. I said in my last post I was 19. Mystic River came out in 2002.
What war-mongering history? JFK, FDR, LBJ, and Wilson started every war except the
Iraq War in the last 100 years. They were all Democrats. Are you that dense? At least I have the balls to call you out on what you really are: a troll. But you don't seem privy to answer that comment, do you?
Micah, until the late 1960's, one of the "foundations" of society was racial segregation. Hell, until 1967, in the US it was illegal in many states for people to even marry outside of their race. Those laws were rationalized by people under the same tired "foundation of society" argument you're making.
Considering the current HETEROSEXUAL divorce rate is over 50%, it takes a lot of stones to fret that gay marriage is the culprit in the decline of marriage/society. Again, please prove to me how you are personally harmed by gay marriage. Are you going to have to leave your spouse if two men get married?
There was a free showing of it. I wasn't going to pay to see it, but if was free, why not? It was terrible. It stretched the limits of tolerance.
" If history has taught us anything it is that you mess with society's institutions and foundations at great peril. The foundation of our society is the two person, male-female, marriage."
The foundation of our society is MONEY. Marriage is just one of the mechanisms we've either appropriated or invented in order to process money and move assetts around. And you get a cake.
It is NOT a canard. A woman in Florida was denied the right by the hospital to see her female partner who had just had a stroke. The woman died.
Did you not notice the smilie?
You homophobes are truly neanderthal.
Mystic River came out in the fall of 2003, Penn was awarded his Oscar in 2005.
Interesting that you left out Republican military actions in Grenada, Libya, Lebanon, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, Cambodia (that was Nixon). By the way, WWI was technically started by Austria-Hungary after Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated.
19? Hey, why haven't you signed up to fight in our noble wars? Don't you love your country? Or could you not get time off from pumping gas to go down to the recruiting office.
penn got his Oscar in 2004….sorry about the proofing
So what you're saying is that gays are perfectly free to enter SHAM MARRIAGES. That's monstrous.
So, even though you avoided all other Sean Penn movies, even Mystic River, you decided to break your boycott for Milk? My guess is that you didn't actually see it, because as a conservative, you naturally are a liar.
BEST POST OF THE DAY!!!!
I suppose that if we were able to convince enough people that the universe is actually run by a giant talking banana, that we'd get to dictate social policy in the name of our holy banana?
Cuba Gooding Jr. also has an Oscar
You must be logged in to post a comment.