A New York subway in the 70's. A fleeting bit of flirting ending with two people in bed with a birthday cake. Quite a glorious way to ring in 40 years of existence however unremarkable they may have been. This is the beginning of Gus Van Sant's unflinching look at the life and times of Harvey Milk. To classify Milk as a "gay" (I mean in terms of issues it deals with) movie would be akin to calling The Godfather a "mafia" movie. It is a film that is extremely aware of Milk's significance and its topical nature, but transcends those confines in its attention to detail.
And the subtexts are not esoteric.Fairly easy to spot are the personal travails of a man married to a cause larger than himself and the insinuation that his eventual assailant may have been a closeted gay man struggling with his own sexual identity. In fact the performances and the plainly visible subtexts are what will make this movie the populist success that it is destined to be. However there are a few fine details that keep the movie from turning into a hagiography and that elevated the movie in my eyes.
Harvey Milk starts off as a brazen idealist- one who expounds the faults of a system without means or power to effect any change. But he learns very quickly, from an opponent, that power and idealism are strange bedfellows. And by the time he wins the position he seeks by virtue of a series of fortunate coincidences, he is ready. He is plainly aware of the ground he is trying to break and is "willing to do what is necessary" (that eternal Faustian conundrum facing anyone in power) to achieve his ends. In making this narrative choice, Gus Van Sant lends his Milk an undeniable credibility in one's eyes. Another "sacred cow" pitfall is sidestepped by proving that while fighting in his own end of the human rights spectrum, Milk wasn't one to shy away from the odd racial epithet laced quip.
Opera makes a prominent appearance through the most intimate moments in the movie but hardly leaves an impact on the performances. No big stereotypical gay flourishes in this movie, not even from the patently unstable drama queen of a lover played by Diego Luna. Only appropriate in a movie that seems to underscore the similarities in the differences.
And the subtexts are not esoteric.Fairly easy to spot are the personal travails of a man married to a cause larger than himself and the insinuation that his eventual assailant may have been a closeted gay man struggling with his own sexual identity. In fact the performances and the plainly visible subtexts are what will make this movie the populist success that it is destined to be. However there are a few fine details that keep the movie from turning into a hagiography and that elevated the movie in my eyes.
Harvey Milk starts off as a brazen idealist- one who expounds the faults of a system without means or power to effect any change. But he learns very quickly, from an opponent, that power and idealism are strange bedfellows. And by the time he wins the position he seeks by virtue of a series of fortunate coincidences, he is ready. He is plainly aware of the ground he is trying to break and is "willing to do what is necessary" (that eternal Faustian conundrum facing anyone in power) to achieve his ends. In making this narrative choice, Gus Van Sant lends his Milk an undeniable credibility in one's eyes. Another "sacred cow" pitfall is sidestepped by proving that while fighting in his own end of the human rights spectrum, Milk wasn't one to shy away from the odd racial epithet laced quip.
Opera makes a prominent appearance through the most intimate moments in the movie but hardly leaves an impact on the performances. No big stereotypical gay flourishes in this movie, not even from the patently unstable drama queen of a lover played by Diego Luna. Only appropriate in a movie that seems to underscore the similarities in the differences.
