Milk

[alaskabibear]

I just recently saw the movie MILK. I didn't find a thread regarding this movie, so thought I would ask if anyone here has seen it and has any thoughts. Also, did anyone live in San Francisco during that time? I thought it was a good movie and was actually surprised that the main stream media would produce something of this nature.

One of things I noted;

The movie seemed to depict Harvey Milk as the one who rejected the older gay movement attitude of "go along to get along". The predominant "power gay" prior to Harvey was portrayed as the publisher of Advent Mag (?), who thought the way forward should be for gays to stay in the closet, so to speak. However, Harvey was portrayed as the person who pushed many gays out of the closet and into the open.

Just curious as to other peoples thoughts on the movie.

 

[rwattsIII]

In general I liked the movie. Thought it was well done. Sean Penn's performance was absolutely outstanding.

I was in the area in the early 70's so, I missed Haight-Ashbury by a couple of years on one side and Harvey by a couple of years on the other. I'm a semi-closeted bi-sexual male. There are people who know and people who don't. I don't make it general knowledge. I often think that if I was freely out at that time, I could be dead. So, maybe there's a reason for everything.

Anyway, back to the movie. The movie was excellant. It was Harvey himself that I wasn't particularly in love with. (I have since ordered a documentary: The Times of Harvey Milk in hopes to understand him better.) I admire what he did, no doubt. I wasn't happy with him giving up the love of his life to take on a groupy. Also, and I suppose I'll get blasted for this and probably rightly so, but I hate the way some gays feel the need to always be slipping sexual innuendo into the conversation. During a television debate Harvey say, "Well, now that we're in bed together.... so to speak" and there were several others. My bais, but those two things made me enjoy Harvey less.

 

[Etoile]

The Times of Harvey Milk is an excellent, fantastic movie. I didn't really like Milk but I recognize that it has brought the man's life to the masses much more than The Times of Harvey Milk ever did.

By the way, you don't have to order it - you can watch it for free at Hulu:
http://www.hulu.com/watch/49577/the-times-of-harvey-milk

 

[alaskabibear]

In general I liked the movie. Thought it was well done. Sean Penn's performance was absolutely outstanding.

I was in the area in the early 70's so, I missed Haight-Ashbury by a couple of years on one side and Harvey by a couple of years on the other. I'm a semi-closeted bi-sexual male. There are people who know and people who don't. I don't make it general knowledge. I often think that if I was freely out at that time, I could be dead. So, maybe there's a reason for everything.

Anyway, back to the movie. The movie was excellant. It was Harvey himself that I wasn't particularly in love with. (I have since ordered a documentary: The Times of Harvey Milk in hopes to understand him better.) I admire what he did, no doubt. I wasn't happy with him giving up the love of his life to take on a groupy. Also, and I suppose I'll get blasted for this and probably rightly so, but I hate the way some gays feel the need to always be slipping sexual innuendo into the conversation. During a television debate Harvey say, "Well, now that we're in bed together.... so to speak" and there were several others. My bais, but those two things made me enjoy Harvey less.

I too was raised in that time period, but far removed from the San Francisco scene. So I didn't get a chance to see all of this either on a first had basis. I thought the movie was good in that it portrayed the difficulty gays faced in those days should they dare to "come out". Since I don't know much about him on a first hand basis, I'm reluctant to believe everything that the movie portrayed as being factual.

For example, I'm not sure if he actually did use sexual innuendo in his public speaking or if that was just something added by the movie writers, etc. I thought the "groupy" as you called him was also somewhat of an odd choice for a lover for a man of Harvey's maturity...but hey, who can predict who we'll be attracted to? I guess that's partly why I had asked if anyone was really there and could shine some light on the real events.

The Times of Harvey Milk is an excellent, fantastic movie. I didn't really like Milk but I recognize that it has brought the man's life to the masses much more than The Times of Harvey Milk ever did.

By the way, you don't have to order it - you can watch it for free at Hulu:
http://www.hulu.com/watch/49577/the-times-of-harvey-milk

Thanks for the link Etoile. Was there anything specific about the movie that caused you to not care for it? And ye-ah, it did bring not only Milk's life into view of the masses, but I think also the fact that glbt folk are real and have faced true hardship over the years was brought home to a lot of people too.

But I'm wondering if Harvey Milk deserves as much credit for bringing the gay rights movement into the light as the movie portrays. Not to take anything away from him (because I honestly don't know), but sometimes when a public figure is assassinated/murdered they become bigger and greater than they probably would have if they had lived. In other words, was he the instrumental mover of gay rights in that period or were there others who did as much (or more) but didn't get as much fame?

 

[Etoile]

I too was raised in that time period, but far removed from the San Francisco scene. So I didn't get a chance to see all of this either on a first had basis. I thought the movie was good in that it portrayed the difficulty gays faced in those days should they dare to "come out". Since I don't know much about him on a first hand basis, I'm reluctant to believe everything that the movie portrayed as being factual.

For example, I'm not sure if he actually did use sexual innuendo in his public speaking or if that was just something added by the movie writers, etc. I thought the "groupy" as you called him was also somewhat of an odd choice for a lover for a man of Harvey's maturity...but hey, who can predict who we'll be attracted to? I guess that's partly why I had asked if anyone was really there and could shine some light on the real events.

The only innuendo I remember from the movie is "I'm here to recruit you" - is that what you mean? That was indeed a famous quote of his. As for the groupie vs maturity, I think one of the things that was significant about Harvey is that he was fallible. He probably felt flattered by the attentions and that's why he was in that relationship.

Thanks for the link Etoile. Was there anything specific about the movie that caused you to not care for it? And ye-ah, it did bring not only Milk's life into view of the masses, but I think also the fact that glbt folk are real and have faced true hardship over the years was brought home to a lot of people too.

It felt very slow to me, and I felt Sean Penn didn't do justice to the man himself. Obviously many people disagree - Penn won an Oscar for the role - but that's how I felt. I walked out of the theater disappointed. Perhaps I had my hopes up too high, or perhaps if I saw it again I'd feel differently.

But I'm wondering if Harvey Milk deserves as much credit for bringing the gay rights movement into the light as the movie portrays. Not to take anything away from him (because I honestly don't know), but sometimes when a public figure is assassinated/murdered they become bigger and greater than they probably would have if they had lived. In other words, was he the instrumental mover of gay rights in that period or were there others who did as much (or more) but didn't get as much fame?

I'd say you're right that being a martyr gives someone more credit than if they're alive. But the movement probably needed a hero, and Harvey filled that role both before and after his death. Was there someone else? Maybe, maybe not. I think it was a combination of his charisma plus right-place-right-time that led him to become famous. The gay movement in SF had been building since WWII - that's really where modern gay history begins, not at Stonewall - so the city was certainly ripe for a breakout. And Harvey was probably just the man to do it...it all added up.

There were certainly earlier and concurrent historymakers - Mattachine Society leaders, Daughters of Bilitis founders - but I think the movement needed a hero and Harvey was it.

 

[alaskabibear]

The Times of Harvey Milk is an excellent, fantastic movie. I didn't really like Milk but I recognize that it has brought the man's life to the masses much more than The Times of Harvey Milk ever did.

By the way, you don't have to order it - you can watch it for free at Hulu:
http://www.hulu.com/watch/49577/the-times-of-harvey-milk

Just finished watching the documentary, and I agree with you about it being the better of the two. I thought it was more moving and informative than the movie 'Milk'. In my opinion it did a better job of portraying that Harvey was a multifaceted activist rather that just a gay activist (e.g. a gay man who was an activist for human rights as opposed to being simply a man who was an activist for gay rights) In general, the entire documentary did a better job of portraying gays and lesbians as average human beings than did the commercial movie which in comparison seems a bit stereotypical in it's portrayal.

Thanks for the link.