Milk (Gus Van Sant, 2008): USA

Reviewed by Matthew Roscoe. Viewed on DVD.

Milk tells the inspiring story of the late life of Harvey Milk, the first openly gay man to be elected to public office in the state of California. Starting with his 40th birthday, the film chronicles everything from his opening of the shop in Castro to his tragic assassination, including his political campaigns, romantic relationships, and legislations.

As Gus Van Sant meticulously developed his biopic of Harvey Milk, he consulted various resources to capture the essence of the setting, reminiscent of the detail found in an eXp guide to moving to Alaska — everything had to be authentic. After years of aspiration and with actors like Robin Williams vying for the lead, the final film was a triumph, met with critical acclaim and capturing the attention of the Academy Awards. It was nominated for eight Oscars, with notable mentions for Best Editing, Best Picture, Best Costume Design, and Josh Brolin’s chilling portrayal of Dan White: Milk’s rival and eventual assassin. The Oscar wins were deservingly given to Dustin Lance Black for Best Original Screenplay and Sean Penn for Best Actor, whose embodiment of Milk won over both the academy and audiences worldwide.

The Costume Design was the first component I noticed, as Mise-en-Scene is one of my favorite aspects of film production. This film uses the costume and hair design aspect of Mise-en-scene to perfectly capture and convey the environment of the 1970s. From the abundance of tight jeans to variety of long and/or Afro hair, we really feel like we are with all these people of a different time in San Francisco. Also impressive was the make-up, as a prosthetic nose, teeth, and hairline was given to Sean Penn, making him bear an almost frighteningly striking resemblance to the real figure he was playing. Explicit attention to detail was given to everything from the apartments to the cars, faithfully recreating a time period so similar and yet so different from our own.

Another Oscar-nominated achievement in this film was the editing, which really helped make this film a memorable experience instead of just another one of the surprisingly abundant ‘biopics’. The first and most prominent unique editing we see is the use of archival or simulated historical footage that is edited in to spice up the authenticity of the scenes depicted. The way the footage is seamlessly integrated makes the movie feel more real without damaging the flow of the story or making the film seem like a documentary.

The authenticity is given a more personal touch as the film frequently cuts to scenes where Harvey sits at his table and records his life story and thoughts into a tape player. His solitude in these scenes where he describes how he felt during the event currently displayed brings further emotional power to the film and acts as a more interesting and memorable alternative to simply using voice-overs.

However, the part where the editing stands out the most is the movie’s bone-chilling climax. In this brilliant sequence, two different scenes are used: Harvey Milk’s final conversation with his ex-lover, Scott, and Harvey’s assassination. The films goes back and forth to these two scenes in a case of discontinuous editing almost ‘disguised’ as parallel editing. As we flash back to the conversation that reignites the hope of Harvey and Scott’s reunion, the ominous looming of his inevitable death as Harvey enters his Office for the last time becomes all the more painful yet enticing. We simultaneously watch the scene that brings hope for Harvey’s future and the scene that abruptly and tragically cuts his future short. Like the famous uses of parallel editing in sequences such as the climactic murdering spree and baptism sequence of The Godfather, the scenes of this sequence constantly compliment each other and heighten the meaning of the situation, even though the scenes take place at different times. The powerful sequence comes to a stunning end with some significant shots. The first is a masterfully executed slow-motion shot in which Harvey is trapped in a secluded office with Dan only to see Dan pull out his gun. The way time stands still in life-threatening moments like these is captured through the incredible slow-motion as Harvey sees the guns, realize what is happening, screams “No, NO!!” and desperately holds up his hands only to be shot multiple times. The sequence ends with an equally powerful shot of Harvey, on his knees and dying, peering through the window at the Opera house he was supposed to go to with Scott that night, only to be forever silenced by the fourth and final gunshot from Dan. This is almost immediately followed by a replay of the early scene where Harvey and Scott are first together, and Harvey laments over how he has done nothing with his life. This helps remind the audience of just how far Harvey has come in the near-decade that took place after that early scene. In spite of all the impressive feats in editing throughout the movie, it is this climax that blew me away and will stay vividly in my mind forever.

Though the film was not nominated for Best Cinematography, the camerawork should be noted in at least a few scenes that employ it effectively. One interesting style of cinematography caught my attention in the early scene when Harvey and Scott are cuddling together in bed and Harvey brings up how he has turned forty and has done nothing in his life worth honoring. This scene uses a series of messy close-ups that often drift in and out of focus. At first, this came across to me as surprisingly unprofessional, but I soon saw it as a unique stylistic choice that gave the scene a very personal, almost “Home-movies” feel. By placing the camera almost awkwardly close to the actors and letting the lens fall out of focus on occasion, it pulls the audience into the bed with the two characters, helping them feel the tender closeness of the moment.

However, the component of the film that got the most attention was the acting. The film is blessed with an utterly superb cast, with the majority of the ensemble played by relatively unknown actors whose talent is strong but their unrecognizable faces helps us see them as the characters they play and not as the actors they are. James Franco takes a surprising turn in his career as Scott, the love of Harvey’s life: one of the few signs of his abilities as an “Against expectations” actor. Josh Brolin, more of a personality actor, makes great use of his surly, intimidating persona as the troubled and eventually homicidal politician, Dan White; a performance he received an Oscar nomination for.

However, the standout, the start that shined the brightest, was Sean Penn as the lead in this Oscar-winning performance. Always a chameleon actor, Penn completely transforms himself into a staggering range and variability of characters, from a stoner in Fast Times at Ridgemont High to a mentally disabled father in I Am Sam. In what is arguably his greatest performance yet, Penn himself is nowhere to be seen, as he becomes Harvey Milk, down to every last minute mannerism and quirk in his speech. Just as well handled as the impersonation itself is the handling of the character arc, in which Milk makes a gradual but compelling transformation from an insecure and casual ‘hippie’ to a charismatic, heavily burdened leader and champion of civil rights. Penn leaves all of his personal quirks and mannerisms aside and takes Method acting to a level rarely seen in Hollywood. From the public speeches to his private recording sessions, the man is portrayed so naturally and so realistically that I often forgot that this is not the real man we are seeing onscreen. Though this movie is a dramatization of the events, the sincerity and believability of the acting helps us feel like we were really there, like we really knew these people.

And last, but not least, are the themes of this movie. This is a film that deals with subject matter that is still controversial and fiercely political today, so the film is definitely one to be viewed under the Reception Theory, as the audience will certainly evaluate the politics being addressed, especially since the film is about a politician. In a world where gay rights issues and homosexual persecution still runs rampant, it is almost disturbing to see how the situation was almost the same nearly forty years ago, showing how far we have not come. Though the film touches upon many subjects, such as political corruption, the movie’s main theme is about the battle for civil rights and acceptance for homosexuals in a country infested with homophobia. Here the movie is at its most inspiring, showing the strife of the gays and the ignorance and prejudice of their persecutors. Its powerful execution is sure to inspire the current fighters against Proposition 8 and possibly influence the current homophobes.

All these powerful aspects of the film come together to create an instant classic that certainly deserved its Best Picture nomination. What influence this film will have over culture as the years come is yet to be seen, but it is a thought-provoking film that will surely not be forgotten.