the film of Harvey Milk
Dec. 6th, 2008 07:42 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
calimacIt opened widely yesterday, so I went to see it. Because I could.
Great political leaders draw admiration far outside the groups they supposedly represent or embody. Harvey Milk's relationship with the gay community was different from Barack Obama's with the black community, but just as Obama has white admirers, Milk had or has straight admirers. In both cases I am one of those.
I lived quite near San Francisco during Milk's brief heyday as a politician, and I read the San Francisco papers when I could persuade their carriers to deliver them. I was sufficiently up on city politics that, when the city proposed district election of supervisors, my immediate reaction was the same as the consultant's in the film: "That means Harvey Milk can get elected to the board," I thought. What didn't occur to me is that it also meant that someone like Dan White could get elected.
What I liked Milk for was his approach to pursuing gay rights. He wasn't looking for entitlements: he framed his quest as a basic civil rights issue. Not hiding behind abstractions (there's a scene in the film where he denounces a mailing for not mentioning that gays are the people whose rights are being defended), he treated gays as an identifiable group who simply deserved the same rights as everybody else had to seek and hold employment, to live their lives in peace.
This is why he also pursued causes like public transit improvements and the pooper-scooper law. Because gays use public transit, and gays accidentally step in dog-do, just like everybody else. And anybody else who believed in civil liberties could support this with enthusiasm.
Harvey Milk's political career was a standing rebuke to those who criticize an "I'm as good as you" attitude. Blessedly, the film includes most of the peroration from Milk's greatest speech, the one where he reminds the bigots that America stands for freedom, and cleverly, wickedly concludes: "Love it or leave it."
The film captures Milk's approach. The problem with being in a group defined by its sexuality is that people tend to think of you in terms of your sexual behavior, because sex is sexy, in both senses of the word. Now, the film Milk doesn't hide gay sex. It doesn't treat gays as disembodied victims. Without explicit sex and with very little nudity, it nevertheless makes clear that these men (there are few women) are sexually and romantically attracted to each other. If that makes you uncomfortable, than damn well deal with it. But refreshingly, the film is not about gays as sexual beings, it's about gays as human beings within a political environment.
The balance, I think, is perfect. The acting, writing, and directing are outstanding across the board. (Gus Van Sant once made one of the most tedious films I ever saw, but this one sure ain't like that one.) Sean Penn has had trouble finding his inner extrovert before, but he got it this time. The story is clear, save only for some possible murkiness for uninformed viewers about why Dan White resigned. The period flavor is understated but good.
The film has subtleties and plays with your brain. Cleve Jones and Anne Kronenberg play around a bit at being a camp straight couple. I don't know if they did that in real life or not, but it's a nice touch.
And one personal favorite note: In just about every scene of Milk and his supporters sitting around having a political confab, there's an old man with a hat like mine. He was there at the time in real life (rather younger, of course). I know that man; I first met him just about then. His name is Frank M. Robinson, and he helped write that great speech. Here is what he has to say about himself and Harvey Milk. And here he tells about his part in making the film. Good going, Frank.
Great political leaders draw admiration far outside the groups they supposedly represent or embody. Harvey Milk's relationship with the gay community was different from Barack Obama's with the black community, but just as Obama has white admirers, Milk had or has straight admirers. In both cases I am one of those.
I lived quite near San Francisco during Milk's brief heyday as a politician, and I read the San Francisco papers when I could persuade their carriers to deliver them. I was sufficiently up on city politics that, when the city proposed district election of supervisors, my immediate reaction was the same as the consultant's in the film: "That means Harvey Milk can get elected to the board," I thought. What didn't occur to me is that it also meant that someone like Dan White could get elected.
What I liked Milk for was his approach to pursuing gay rights. He wasn't looking for entitlements: he framed his quest as a basic civil rights issue. Not hiding behind abstractions (there's a scene in the film where he denounces a mailing for not mentioning that gays are the people whose rights are being defended), he treated gays as an identifiable group who simply deserved the same rights as everybody else had to seek and hold employment, to live their lives in peace.
This is why he also pursued causes like public transit improvements and the pooper-scooper law. Because gays use public transit, and gays accidentally step in dog-do, just like everybody else. And anybody else who believed in civil liberties could support this with enthusiasm.
Harvey Milk's political career was a standing rebuke to those who criticize an "I'm as good as you" attitude. Blessedly, the film includes most of the peroration from Milk's greatest speech, the one where he reminds the bigots that America stands for freedom, and cleverly, wickedly concludes: "Love it or leave it."
The film captures Milk's approach. The problem with being in a group defined by its sexuality is that people tend to think of you in terms of your sexual behavior, because sex is sexy, in both senses of the word. Now, the film Milk doesn't hide gay sex. It doesn't treat gays as disembodied victims. Without explicit sex and with very little nudity, it nevertheless makes clear that these men (there are few women) are sexually and romantically attracted to each other. If that makes you uncomfortable, than damn well deal with it. But refreshingly, the film is not about gays as sexual beings, it's about gays as human beings within a political environment.
The balance, I think, is perfect. The acting, writing, and directing are outstanding across the board. (Gus Van Sant once made one of the most tedious films I ever saw, but this one sure ain't like that one.) Sean Penn has had trouble finding his inner extrovert before, but he got it this time. The story is clear, save only for some possible murkiness for uninformed viewers about why Dan White resigned. The period flavor is understated but good.
The film has subtleties and plays with your brain. Cleve Jones and Anne Kronenberg play around a bit at being a camp straight couple. I don't know if they did that in real life or not, but it's a nice touch.
And one personal favorite note: In just about every scene of Milk and his supporters sitting around having a political confab, there's an old man with a hat like mine. He was there at the time in real life (rather younger, of course). I know that man; I first met him just about then. His name is Frank M. Robinson, and he helped write that great speech. Here is what he has to say about himself and Harvey Milk. And here he tells about his part in making the film. Good going, Frank.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-12-06 04:58 pm (UTC)It was great seeing Frank! He doesn't look a day older than he did the last time I saw him, which was probably at least 5 or 6 years ago. Thanks much for the links to his commentary.
no subject
Date: 2008-12-06 05:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-12-06 08:26 pm (UTC)