![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ivyficI watched Milk, which I'd been meanign to watch since it came out (five years ago! eek!).
It's a complicated movie. They could have just told the story of a member of a minority who stood up for his rights and fought the establishment--and won--before being martyred. But they let Harvey Milk be deeply unappealing in some ways.
Though as a public figure, he always has charisma and courage, when you look at how he treats the people closest to him, there is a selfish manipulation at times. Particularly in how he treats his lovers. There's Scott, who walks away from him when Harvey refuses to put the attention and effort into his relationship that Scott needs. Through the movie, it's clear that Scott is possibly the person Harvey cares about most, and the only person who could potentially be his partner. But it's also clear that it wasn't a mistake to break up. Maybe at the end we're supposed to read a potential for them to get back together, but I don't. It read to me like that ship sailed, and they now had the potential to become friends again.
And there's Jack. Jack who is clearly damaged, and for whom this relationship is clearly damaging. Harvey stays with Jack because he enjoys being so superior in his relationship--having someone fawn over him, who won't challenge him as Scott did. So watching that relationship play out is very uncomfortable. On the one hand you have a man devoting himself to the rights of all gays. But on the other you have someone deeply selfish in their personal life.
Then there's his treatment of Ron White, which could politely be called jerking him around. The movie skirts just shy of saying that Milk brought his murder on himself. Without getting more screentime on White's development, all we're left with for his motivation is Harvey's interaction with him, and Harvey was hardly an angel.
What I really did like about the movie was that is was filmed in San Francisco, in the exact locations it happened. They painstakingly recreated the facades of Castro Street. They had as many people who were involved in the actual events participate in the movie as possible. Not just as advisors, but on screen. In each of the protest marches in the film, there are hundreds of people who actually marched in those marches. There are interviews with them, talking about how moving it was to see the street as it was when they were 23, to remember what it was like to march, to remember the thousands of people who had marched that died of AIDS, and to see a new generation learn about Harvey Milk and what that time in history was like.
So I'd recommend the film, both as a very good historical drama, but also because it allows its subject to be complicated. It's a hero's film, but resists some of the pitfalls of that genre by showing Milk for what he accomplished, without glossing over his flaws.
It's a complicated movie. They could have just told the story of a member of a minority who stood up for his rights and fought the establishment--and won--before being martyred. But they let Harvey Milk be deeply unappealing in some ways.
Though as a public figure, he always has charisma and courage, when you look at how he treats the people closest to him, there is a selfish manipulation at times. Particularly in how he treats his lovers. There's Scott, who walks away from him when Harvey refuses to put the attention and effort into his relationship that Scott needs. Through the movie, it's clear that Scott is possibly the person Harvey cares about most, and the only person who could potentially be his partner. But it's also clear that it wasn't a mistake to break up. Maybe at the end we're supposed to read a potential for them to get back together, but I don't. It read to me like that ship sailed, and they now had the potential to become friends again.
And there's Jack. Jack who is clearly damaged, and for whom this relationship is clearly damaging. Harvey stays with Jack because he enjoys being so superior in his relationship--having someone fawn over him, who won't challenge him as Scott did. So watching that relationship play out is very uncomfortable. On the one hand you have a man devoting himself to the rights of all gays. But on the other you have someone deeply selfish in their personal life.
Then there's his treatment of Ron White, which could politely be called jerking him around. The movie skirts just shy of saying that Milk brought his murder on himself. Without getting more screentime on White's development, all we're left with for his motivation is Harvey's interaction with him, and Harvey was hardly an angel.
What I really did like about the movie was that is was filmed in San Francisco, in the exact locations it happened. They painstakingly recreated the facades of Castro Street. They had as many people who were involved in the actual events participate in the movie as possible. Not just as advisors, but on screen. In each of the protest marches in the film, there are hundreds of people who actually marched in those marches. There are interviews with them, talking about how moving it was to see the street as it was when they were 23, to remember what it was like to march, to remember the thousands of people who had marched that died of AIDS, and to see a new generation learn about Harvey Milk and what that time in history was like.
So I'd recommend the film, both as a very good historical drama, but also because it allows its subject to be complicated. It's a hero's film, but resists some of the pitfalls of that genre by showing Milk for what he accomplished, without glossing over his flaws.
no subject
Date: 2013-02-09 12:41 am (UTC)