MILK
Right off the bat, I knew that Sean Pennâs performance would be excellent. The first few minutes of the film after the credits show so much promise for the rest of the movie that it is hard not to like from that point on. Even the pre-credits footage of raids on gay bars and a woman announcing Harvey Milk and San Francisco mayor Mosconeâs assassinations do not hinder the excitement. Milk begins with Harvey Milkâs first encounter with Smith, who becomes his boyfriend. The two move to San Francisco into what will eventually become the highly gay neighborhood known as the Castro. Milk and Smith start the Castro Camera despite discrimination from other shop owners. Milk runs for office in 1973 and loses, but persists for two more elections in an attempt to obtain gay civil rights and a spot on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. While you know from the start that Milk will be killed, the movie does a great job of not letting you know which of the possible characters will murder him.
Hands down, Sean Penn is the star of the show. His acting is so precise; it is obvious that poring over the character and much rehearsal has been done. Whenever he talks, his arms seem to not know what to do, and his outgoing and light personality fit the gay stereotype all too well. His body language and smiley demeanor create a character that people tend to joke about, but there is know way this performance can be a laughing matter. Milkâs charisma made a gaping hole by the time he was assassinated, and left me in a state of shock. The acting is hard not to like, since almost all of the main characters are recognizable faces and already have steady careers under their belts. Emile Hirsch, James Franco, and Josh Brolin all have unique and critical roles in that film. Brolin does his conservative Catholic with so much anger and hidden hate that it is almost hard to enjoy his acting.
The content of the movie does become uncomfortable at times to watch. I found the love scenes Milk to have some hidden beauty in them. An emotional score accompanies most of the movie and always peaks during these scenes, thus creating all the more joy out of an otherwise made fun of concept. The somewhat shaky close ups deliver something close to a combination of eeriness and romance that cannot be ignored. Sure the scenes were awkward for me to watch, but I kept saying to myself and feeling âThis is art!â Gus Van Stantâs direction in these scenes and throughout the rest of the movie is good as far as I can tell (I am not knowledgeable enough to fully describe what I feel or even to feel all of what I should, but I sense some good things). The whole air of the movie made me leave the theater in that great âI want to change the world!â feeling, which I thought was temporary. I found myself wanting to talk about Milk frequently, because it had such a profound affect on me. Five days later I remember enough details to be writing a review, which I find pretty good. The whole film shines and will undoubtedly be celebrating Oscar nominations in a few weeks. I can see Best Actor, Best Supporting Actor, Best Screenplay, Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Original Score being on ads in papers next month.
Milk is consistently entertaining and honestly beautiful. I find it hard to name very many movies that bring about such an arty and hopeful feeling (although I am only 15). The movie seems to be in the same ballpark as Forrest Gump. The charm, acting, and humor seem similar but the amount of dollar success will not. In that regard, I encourage you to see the movie by paying for it in some way. $8 is worth the price, even in times like these. I donât think I have seen a better movie this year (yes, I just put down Batmanâ¦). The sheer pleasure of watching for the sake of art is all one needs as an excuse to see Milk. Please, please see this movie. Diamonds are very hard to find in haystacks.
5/5
