Harvey Milk Deserved A Better Film Than Van Sant's Low-fat Biopic

Cross-posted from Daily Kos

Harvey Milk deserved a better film than this.

Director Gus Van Sant's hagiography remains true to the facts of its subject's life while backing away from invoking the full-on, living color injustice, violence, passion, nerve, and sheer scruffy grassroots rage that fueled Milk and the emerging post-Stonewall Gay liberation movement.

Not that it doesn't try, kind of. All the right things happen, plot-wise -- a formerly closeted Milk starts a new, out life in 70s-era San Francisco with his hunky younger boyfriend; the hostility of neighboring Irish businesses in the Castro district where they settle, plus the alternating bullying and neglect of the SF Police Department, stir Milk to run for office. There's the requisite hate crime scene, plus allusions to gay teens being forced out of their homes and into the streets of the nearest big city by homophobic parents and classmates.

Yet Milk is curiously placid and sterile, even prudish. We never see more than a tablespoon of blood at a time. The 10-second sex scene we only partially see in a dark bedroom between Milk and a boyfriend is all slap and tickle. And every character, including the runaway teen Milk befriends -- Cleve Jones, who survives by turning tricks on the notoriously seedy and dangerous (though never depicted) Polk Street -- looks freshly showered and dressed by the Gap.

Even violent scenes are gloved. Though the camera pulls back to a wide screen view when gays riot against police randomly raiding bars along Castro Street and beating patrons, we never see a cop actually strike anyone, just a lot of carefully choreographed wrestling followed by a scene of Milk dabbing at a small patch of blood on his boyfriend's head. Later, when Milk directs Jones to gather a mob and march them to City Hall after one of Anita Bryant's victories (so Milk can show up to act as peacemaker in front of the press), we get another distant shot of a faceless, strangely lethargic crowd. Even the candlelight march after Milk's assassination seems less mournful than bovine. (Van Sant ends his film before the White Night riots, where queers burned police cars after the lenient sentencing of Milk's murderer.)

Bitch, I've seen queers more fired up when Bed Bath & Beyond runs out of sale items. Where's the passion?

Was Van Sant afraid that audiences wouldn't be sympathetic if 70s-era gay activists were people who suffered, swore, fought back, and fucked like they meant it? If the street kids actually looked like dirty, starving, broke-ass teen hustlers?

Gay history -- unedited -- is ugly, angry, and violent. It's police dragging us out of cellar bars and down to the station to gang fuck the femmes and face-rape the butches, queens, and trannies. It's military witch hunts; suicides and "experimental therapies," from lobotomies and electro-shock to Christian boot camps. It's Stonewall, where we showered raiding police with bottles, locked them in the bar, and set it afire. It's ACT UP and chaining ourselves to pharmaceutical companies' fences to protest AIDS drugs price gouging.

Van Sant's gentrified Milk reflects gay activism's increasingly apologetic tone. We don't always need to be burning police cars to prove our cred, but we shouldn't be inviting homophobes to the table, then singing their praises if they don't spit on us. It's not about hugging Rick Warren and being satisfied that at least he's being nice about denying us our civil rights. Politeness has become homophobia's most popular mask.

Ultimately I'm glad that even this pasteurized, homogenized Milk is out there. Audiences need to see the film's opening sequence -- silent archival footage depicting police bar raids from the 40s, 50s, and 60s, with men shielding their faces from the cameras even as they are shoved into vans, handcuffed, or held in waiting rooms. I want fresh salt poured on the wounds of Proposition 8 so that queers will stop apologizing for being angry with the Mormon and Catholic Church, and for boycotting supporters. I want fresh rage directed at Barack Obama for thinking that including a gay marching band in his inauguration proceedings compensates for his having invited a notorious homophobe and anti-Semite to give the invocation.

But I'm not sure that this low-fat film will really help audience get Milk. And I'm sorry that Van Sant didn't think we could handle the truth.

Comments

[WyomingJack]

Nancy, you are more than welcome to make the film you want. Just go for it.

[politicalfilmmaker]

I think the criticism is way off mark by people who have no understanding of the film industry. When was the last time anyone saw protest movements in a Hollywood feature film? A feature film has to work on an emotional level, and this one did. People walked away feeling the incredible power of the person Harvey Milk, and for what he accomplished, and sadness at his death, and some understanding of the complexity of the forces behind his death. If you want the detailed info on Milk, rent the academy award winning doc - The Life and Times of Harvey Milk - otherwise quit beating down people who try to bring meaningful relevant stories to larger feature films.

[tlclay85]

part 2 (sorry I'm long winded lol)

It's simply not enough to say "at least we're being represented". I know I sure as hell was not represented in this film, nor in "Will and Grace", or other shows where queers are treated more as caricatures or have a hidden desire to be "straight". This is not to say that Hollywood, in any way, is to be responsible for educational content - it's job is to entertain, and that's what it does best. That fact should not exempt it from being held accountable for portraying some semblance of truth. Call me unhappy, angry, militant, whatever. I wouldn't be a responsible activist if I didn't hold this society to the high standards it purports. Hell, maybe I'll make my own film one day lol. I do commend Gus Van Sant for making this film. It's important for the pedagogy of LGBT history.

[tlclay85]

I'm glad someone wrote this article. Seeing the previews to this film didn't excite me because I knew it wouldn't do justice to Harvey Milk or the early gay rights movement. I feel as a member of that community it is our responsibility to critically examine how we're portrayed in the media to the predominant straight audience, which, I feel, this film was intended for. Simply put: it's 2009, f*** sensitivity and making people feel warm and gooey. No change will come if everyone can leave a movie and not self examine how THEY perpetuate the ills of this society. The only way any change will come is if EVERYONE is made to feel uncomfortable with the status quo, and how they live their lives. Straight people are going to watch this film, say "oh those poor gays", and go back to their lives without illiciting any change within themselves or on a global scale (the same can be argue about when white people see films about people of color). It's never about a single person; it's about the larger struggle at hand.

[judeiscareyou]

I agree that Milk left much wanting. The film was pretty white-washed, barely showing people of color at all. (The handling of Michael Wong, a.k.a Lotus Blossom, in particular, aggravated me, especially because they didn't address him or what he was doing now at the end of the film like everyone else.) And I'm sure it didn't completely capture the reality of the blood-drenched, riotous days of the early gay liberation movements. But I wouldn't completely throw away the value of the film.

I feel that Milk was meant to be a fiction, not quite the reality. It has been described as an opera and in truth, it was. It played up the emotion without giving you the complicated history because it had a pretty clear message and sometimes history can muddle that. It mythologizes Milk, and I think that myths/larger-than-life characters are an important component of building a movement, understanding ourselves and our culture, and for changing these ideologies. For a more realistic POV, perhaps documentary would be the best genre to handle.

I still feel that - for me, as a (sub)urban, relatively privileged queer - it gave me a taste of the oppression of that era ( as well as see the similarities today) and the passion that drove so many to fight back. It brought to light the complacency I've seen within our community today and challenged me to think about how we can bring the radical fight back.

[rochestah]

I happen to agree with some of this on some levels; it would be nice to one day finally see - and for the general public to see - the real, visceral, brutish reality of what the lgbt rights movement has fought through. Not all of it would make for provocative film-ops, the thousands of ruined lives carved up from the inside out in slow motion, but there has been plenty of cimema-worthy raw blood running in the streets, too.

Still, I don't fault this film too much, having to squeeze in so much so quickly. In the end, this column is simply more rage-mongering of the kind I wish our community and supporters would steer clear from. Would Milk have succeeded in becoming the leader he was if he'd played the hardcore rage card? That's just the wrong lesson learned from the far right, I'm afraid.....

-ed white, Knoxville, TN

[Busterbobby]

I think Nancy Goldstein's comments are sort of scattershot and unfocused. "Milk" isn't a movie about "the gay movement." It's a movie about a few years in Harvey Milk's life. It's irrelavant what gay hustlers in San Francisco looked like in general in the 1970's. The issue is what Cleve Jones in particular actually looked like. If he looked like he's depicted in the film, then Van Sant is right and Nancy is wrong.

[BobSF94117]

As the Brits say, spot on!

I suppose Milk had to be made, but it's a straight film, made by straight people, for straight people.

[unclesmedley]

If it were a gay film, made by gay people for gay people, then only gay people would watch it, and you'd be complaining about that...

[ProudLiberalDan]

The writer and the director are both gay.

[JohnBisceglia]

I think we can criticize a DOCUMENTARY for many of the reasons mentioned in the article and comments, but seriously - MILK is a FILM. One artist's 2008 vision within a few hours time limit; if anything, let's look forward to other artist's visions.....esp. the indi films.

I'm certain those who are familiar and lived through the actual history of JFK, or Nixon, left the theaters similarly disappointed about accuracies and selective story-telling, as well as the outright fabrications for dramatic effect. FILM.

Perhaps MILK will move other artists into creating other ART PRODUCTS (film, art, performance art, plays, music, dance) that capture snapshots of Harvey Milk and express THOSE artist's visions. Honestly, I'm just glad Gus took on this project; our lives are still largely UNKNOWN in the MSM.

.

[SuzyQ]

I saw the movie on Thanksgiving Day. I had just reread Randy Shilts book and it seemed to me that the book provided the script.

One thing I thought was underplayed was that Harvey's camera store was a place where gay and lesbian people could take their film with pictures showing same sex affection and know they would get it back without it's being censored.

As for the dress of Clive Jones "Polk Street" hustler. I was good friends with a boy much like Clive. He dressed the same sort of way to maintain a teenage boy look as long as he could since he wasn't very butch.

As for the seriousness of the politics. History of the 1960s and 70s politics have been as erased as history was erased under Stalin. We have been fed fictionalized history of that era's social movements.

I worked on the campaign against Prop 6. I was in LA at the time. My memories are that it brought the gay and lesbian communities back together after several years of acrimony. I photographed Harvey at a rally against prop 6 for the Lesbian Tide. In the next issue I photographed his memorial.

A single non documentary movie has about 2 hours to tell its story and it only has endnotes on the DVD not the theatrical release. There is a documentary "The Life and Times of Harvey Milk". I think it is out of release but would make an excellent companion film to Van Sants.

[AnObserver]

After seeing the film I too shared some of Nancy's frustration, for I was there, knew Harvey and experienced those times. The film is a romanticized version of Harvey's last years and the screenplay definitely off-target in it's portrayal of many facts and events. However, I later realized my disappointment was due to closeness to the events and that was preventing me from seeing the film for its value in presenting historical events otherwise unknown to the audience majority. I agree with Nancy that the film is long on entertainment value and somewhat short in accuracy. However, it's the entertainment value that gets it those rave reviews that serves the important purpose of letting folks know more about the LGBT community. Viewers who didn't live through those times will never know of the film's shortcomings - and I not certain it really matters. However, they will come away knowing more about our past struggles and perhaps gain a better understanding that our issue really is about the same equality and justice rights enjoyed by non-LGBT citizens.

[Qjersey]

Another example of how being gay is not like being black or latino.

An openly gay writer creates a screenplay based on actual interviews with people who were part of Harvey's story and an openly gay director then helms a mainstream hollywood production.

We have the documentary that shows the warts and all, we didn't need an independent edgy bloody film.

Gays just can't resist pissing all over each other.

Too often what passes as "editorial" or "commentary" in our community is nothing but bitching.

[unclesmedley]

Here, freaking here...!

[Feelingrandy]

Ms Goldstein is absolutely correct: this film, which I saw early in November at a screening lacked emotion and style. Hooray that the film got done, we all applaud that, but we gay mortals always seem to protect and coddle every instance of attention rather than looking at things as they are. And Happy New Year, there is proof: http://www.hulu.com/watch/49577/the-times-of-harvey-milk. The 1984 documentary can now be viewed free on your computer. It is violent, emotional and achieves an emotional connection that Van Sant's film lacked, and frankly after viewing it, I began to think of Penn's performance as having more caricature that fact. Harvey Milk in real life didn't come across quite so pixie-ish, and he far sexier, with a deeper voice than Penn's performance would suggest. If the concept was to make a film that was accessible to the masses, the exchange was unfair to Milk's legacy: he was a courageous man, this film was not.

[JohnBisceglia]

I will be excited to see MILK. RE; BLOOD> As an artist, I'm not going to blame one artist's rendering of a man for not including this OR that. Far too many variables could affect the vision, tone, emotional pacing....it is a story ultimately, focus, aesthetic (do I want the audience to hear it, see it, or just imagine it?), and blood would have shocked the clueless and created controversy.....I could see a gross-out "whatever" get ridiculously over-blown in the MSM. As I read earlier....this is ONE ARTIST'S vision.

As said before, if denying rights is oppression, then having months of very public campaigns against our families is outright persecution, specifically persecution BY "religious" groups, with the election sponsored by the Federal Govern-bank, I mean Government, I mean....

[edweird]

I love Nancy's writing and attitude in this opinion piece. We need to express our disagreements bodly and unapologetically, even if it upsets the heteros. I have to take issue with the nice guy who suggests that "we can't win over "mainstream america" by telling the real story." I don't want to "win over" "mainstream america" (whatever that is!). This is too big of a burden to put on gay and lesbian people. Mainstream America wants "will and grace" queers who either act like promiscuous clowns or gay uniques who really long to be with a woman. That's what "mainstream america" can handle.
I agree that "the vast majority of straight people are generally not interested in becoming students of gay culture, history, or community anyway." Here here!!