Video Blogs
TV Shows:
Find Articles On:
Who's onlineThere are currently 15 members and 772 guests online.
|
Review of Gus Van Sant's "Milk"Milk packs a lot into its 2-hour running time, covering Harvey's move to California from New York and his romances with both Smith and Jack Lira (Diego Luna), his numerous runs for office, his political battles, his cautious friendship with White, his eventual murder and, finally, his legacy. But thanks to the warm performances from the central cast, the film doesn't suffer from its brisk pace, although some viewers might leave the theater wanting to know more about Milk himself (we learn virtually nothing about the man pre-California). It's also worth noting that there are virtually no women present in this story. Aside from Kronenberg, a lesbian largely responsible for Harvey's eventual campaign success, the Castro is curiously devoid of women. While there may have been segregation in causes at the time and while Milk's close circle may well indeed have been mostly male, it does seem strange that there is so little visibility for women (particularly lesbian women) in the film. Van Sant clearly wants to immerse the audience in a community of not just gay citizens in general, but of gay men in particular, with all their particular shortcomings and virtues. As a gay man, not recommending Milk isn't really even up for discussion. The fact that a renowned filmmaker and cast have managed to bring the story of a gay civil rights hero to screen is staggering to begin with, but the fact that the film that they have created is so solidly rendered, so heartfelt and so accessible is more than a relief, it's a godsend. We have a gay movie about gay causes that shows the strength and resilience of the gay community without apologies, and that we can recommend without reservation. Will the movie change minds? Maybe not. Anyone rabidly anti-gay won't be seeing it to begin with. But what Milk might do is reenforce in the minds of those who are merely "tolerant" of gays or who don't fully appreciate the scope of the gay civil rights struggle that these are human issues, based around real people. Gay physical affection is presented as a matter of fact (there are love scenes and kisses abound), as is the hatred and bigotry directed at Harvey and his community. Some will be moved to tears by Harvey's story, others will be educated about a vital period in the gay rights movement, and still others will leave the theater furious at what is still happening in the world today when it comes to the civil liberties of gays and lesbians. I entered the film prepared to be disappointed; thankfully, I wasn't. But I was also prepared to be detached from a time and a struggle that I'm relatively familiar with, but that is decades in the past. However, within seconds of the film's opening there was one particular image that grabbed me by the throat and will probably stay with me for the rest of my life: During the title montage made up of news footage of gay bar raids, a group of gay men sit quietly with drinks at cafe tables surrounded by the harsh lights of camera crews, each with his face buried in his arms trying to hide from the cameras. Two hours later the film closes on the image of Harvey's community marching with candles through the streets of San Francisco, thousands strong. If Harvey's short legacy can teach us anything, it's that we cannot live in fear and that we have nothing to hide our faces from. And if that is Milk's lasting message, it's one that is excellently realized, and long overdue. Submitted by on Tue, 2008-11-25 00:22. |
 Recent Comments
Recent blog posts
|
Welcome to AfterElton.com!
- Login
- Join Now!
News, Reviews & Commentary on Gay and Bisexual Men in Entertainment and the Media
Thanksgiving Films
So nice to read yet another positive review. Not since Brokeback Mountain has a film been more on my "must see" list for the "Holiday" period. Kudo's to the screenwriter, director and cast. I will be there this weekend! So very important considering the Prop. 8 vote in November....
And then there is also Australia - huge romantic epic with Hugh Jackman as an "Aussie Cowboy". I cannot begin to tell you how many fantasies this satisfies....but perhaps that's personal.....(chuckles).
Looks to be a great weekend!!
i cannot wait for this
It's being released on 16th
See? What did I tell you? Isn't it Fabulous?
You're quite right about the gayness quotient. Didn't think about that until you brought it up. But beyond the drama of Harvey's story the very matter-of-fact way ordinary everyday gay life is dealt with in the film shoudl be an eye-opener to gay and straight alike.
GO SEE IT WITH YOUR PARENTS!!!!!!
cant wait
since i watched milk trailer i can hardly wait to watch this and since i got brokebackmountain movie 2 month before that year oscar i think i will watch it soon
i have a question here james franco plays as milk lover but harvey had others lover too?so what makes james francos rolle special?????????????
Great review!
Nice job Brian. You really captured the essence of the film.
What makes it so special --
is the acknowledgment that while Scott and Harvey broke up -- because Harvey's political career was oevrwhelming their life together -- Scott never stopped loving Harvey. This is hardly an uncommon phenom, and the film treats it very insightfully. Harvey isn't distresed when Scott finds other boyfriends and Scott isn't upset by Jack Lira either.
That's the way life is lived, folks!
Harvey Milk Lives on
I nominated Harvey Milk for AEs's Visibility Award because the man has never died, never gone away, and has never stopped affecting me. I still have the original No on 6 Poster that the late Michael Parish designed that become the icon of the no on 6 struggle. But most of all I remember being inspired by this man to finally deal with my own sexuality and to come out gay and proud.
I mached and canvased the streets of Los Angeles, I took my life by my bootstraps, marching through the years in Los Angles, New York, Washington, but nothing will be more seared in my mind than the night Harvey Milk died and I stood in tears on the steps of city hall in San Francisco and turned back to see in actual phyisical form that I was not alone and I was never going to be alone again. The gay movement is not empowered by disco music and sexual trysts. We will not only win but we will prevail.
We all of us owe a debt of gratitude to the heartbeat and bravery that was Harvey Milk.
Spoiler alert may be?
Spoiler alert may be?
Spoiler warnings
Right and Saddened
I think that you are completely right. There is no need to put a spoiler alert on this review. I think that as anyone living in the United States, you should know at the very least that Harvey Milk was the FIRST openly gay man elected to public office, and as a memebr of the Queer community, that should not even be a question.
I am saddened to some degree that many many queer people do not know who Harvey Milk is. I cannot understand why that is. Regardless of the fact that it is not taught in schools, it should be passed down within the queer community. I have Queer friends ranging from 60+ to 15, and we all talk about different things. Granted that the younger ones are facinated by people like Jeffree Star and Chris Crocker, but they are equally facinated when the elders speak about people like Harvey Milk. Maybe I just have a special group. Maybe some people in the queer community think that nothing exsists outside the local gay bar or club that they frequent. And I think that that is a shame and is one of the greatest hinderanced to the gay community.
Thanks for taking the time to read. Great review Michael!
NO ON 8!!!!! No to H8!!!!!!
Much Love, Brian
Check out my BLOGS at Bchin's Rants and Ask a Queer Questions.
It's told in flashback
Don't feel bad about your not knowing that Milk dies
S
P
o
i
l
e
r
You must be very young. I hardly heard about it myself when I was around at the time. Of course, Dan White's Twinkie Defense was also a joke, but the jury bought it. Ironically enough Marvel and DC Comics kept showing Hostess Twinkies as being the preferred snacks of super-villains for in comic-book ads for years afterward.
great....
TA-DAH!
http://www.laweekly.com/2008-11-27/film-tv/gus-van-sant-a-tale-of-two-movies/
Insulting to half the gay community
The reviewer wrote "the film might have the unintended effect of coalescing a gay rights movement that has lacked focus since the outbreak of AIDS."
ARE YOU CRAZY? On behalf of the 50% of the gay community and allied community that has actually bothered to be involved in the gay rights movement for decades, you have got to be kidding. The movement has been very focused and anyone involved knows it! Look at the gay community centers created around the country, look at the gay-straight alliances in all the major universities and colleges, and in thousands of high schools, look at PFLAG chapters across the country, and the statewide groups in 48 of the 50 states. Look at human rights legislation passed at local, county, and state levels. Look at policies passed at the corporate and labor union level. Believe it or not, the USA gay community has been very focused as part of the international movement for human rights protection for gay people - and trying to get as much of the USA to catch up with the dozens of countries that long surpassed the United States as human rights defenders.
It's not focus; it's participation at all that's the problem. The biggest problem is the other half of the gay and allied community that is too apathetic or arrogant to get into the trenches and help out. We all know people who drop $$ at the bars (yeah, you really need that 5th beer) but don't give crap to their local GLBT youth group. And then there are those who vacation regularly (and often in anti-gay locales of all places) but who cannot be troubled to spend an hour every six months helping their gay community center out. This leaves the rest of the community who do help out rightly angered about it. The people helping out ARE the movement, while the people sitting on the sidelines are NOT, until they bother getting involved.
A Thanksgiving Gift From The Courts
“Milk” prominently references Anita Bryant. Well, just in time for Thanksgiving comes a ruling from the Florida courts outlawing the ban on gay adoptions enacted in 1977 as a result of Bryant’s homophobic crusade. Here’s the NPR story about the ruling:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=97478955
Despite the passage of Prop 8, there is a lot for the LGBT community to be thankful for this Thanksgiving.
Personally, I'm thankful for all the gay people who fought so hard in the trenches over the years, going back to Stonewall and before. I'm thankful that millions of gay people have continued to pick up the torch and continue the fight. I'm thankful for the legacy of Harvey Milk, and the renewed inspiration he provides today. I'm thankful for the ever increasing understanding in the straight world that it's time for full equality for LGBT people. I'm thankful that we can truly see a day coming in the near future when those feelings will be the mainstream. I'm thankful for a younger generation that will obviously be more accepting than any before it. I'm thankful for every single gay person who has come out, and hopeful that millions more will follow in 2009. I'm thankful that our European brothers and sisters continue to show us Americans the way, whether it be with gay marriage or just their generalized full acceptance. I'm thankful for the truly epochal election of Barack Obama, with the hope that his Supreme Court appointments will lead to truly societally changing court rulings. And I'm thankful for many more things, while always mindful of the necessity of the fight ahead.
Happy Thanksgiving to all my LGBT brothers and sisters out there! Happy Thanksgiving to all AE editiors and staff, to fellow posters, and to fellow readers!
MILK Is An EVENT
I loved Sean Penn's performance
I saw "Milk" and loved it, but I think the 1985 documentary "The Times of Harvey Milk" packs a much bigger emotional wallop.
Why wasn't Sally Gearhart in the movie?
I was most impressed with the opening of the film, which has real film footage of gay men being humiliated and rounded up by police raiding gay bars in the 60's. It made me cry to see that footage.
That footage is our legacy
It was illegal for gay men to congregate in any way shape or form back in the day. Gay bars were run by the mob who paid off the cops. A nice litle racket.
Then Stonewall -- and the whole world changed.
harvey Milk comes along in the wake of that -- getting street activism o invade the political system.
I may have to bite the
Van Sant's Milk hits all the right notes. A+
I was especially impressed by Dustin Lance Black's script, especially after having read some of the many challenges that had stood in the way of previous attempts to bring a Milk project to the screen.
Early fans of Van Sant will appreciate an almost old school gay queer cinema vibe that he establishes in how he frames the first time that come together physically. The movie moves at a brisk pace, is funny, gay as all get-out, and I really did not want it to end. The material is so strong and Van Sant shows his faith in it by avoiding the tendency to over-dramatize in ways that actually take away from the stories being told. There are only a couple of scenes that were a little Forrest Gump-ish in trying to elicit emotion that was already on the screen, but they in no way affect how highly I recommend this story.
Side-bar: The movie delivered the weekend's best average thanks to an estimated $1.38M from only 36 theaters, which brings the average per screen to almost $40,000: second to none. Go see this movie and pass the word to friends and family.
Guillermo's Media Guillotine: Entertainment, journalism, politics, and popular culture.
http://springintoaction.typepad.com
sure to be great
James Franco, who plays a lover of Harvey Milk (Sean Penn), is interviewed by Kimmel and Letterman. Kimmel acts as if he has never heard of the movie, and Franco prefaces his story by saying that the original script called for one kiss between him and Penn, "I figure it's acting, I can get through with it." Apparently, Penn called for script changes which included more love scenes to be acted by himself and Franco. Franco wants to let us know that he is a self respecting straight man who wouldn't have signed onto this movie about Harvey Milk if he had any idea of the horrible fact that there would be not only more than one gay kiss but love scenes as well. He has made the ultimate sacrifice that any straight actor could possibly make: he kisses a man and pretends to make love to him. Anyone else get the sense that Kimmel is biting his tongue through the whole interview?
David letterman, what a pig, asks franco "Does anyone really want to be good at kissing a man?" "how drunk were you?"
I will answer that question for Franco, since he is unable to do that. Harvey Milk surely wanted to be good at kissing a man, and that's one of the reasons he was murdered. Franco should have walked off of Letterman's show at that point. But, it looked rehearsed, especially when Letterman leans over for a peck on the cheek. It's sad to think that Franco is in on the joke.
This is like Broakback Mountain all over again. The tragedy of our lives is played out for these ass-holes' sad attempts at humor. The same thing happened to Heath Ledger, and you could tell back then that he wasn't taking it well. Ledger was a true friend to this community.
And then there's Diego Luna, who plays another of Milk's lovers. "I did drink a few tequilas before doing the scene and that did help." "It was easy," he said, "because no one was watching." on the closed set. I mean, how embarrassing would it have been for Luna if he had been made to kiss Penn in front of say, 50 people? Luna explains what that was like, "at the end we were like, 'nobody noticed? Okay, don't tell anyone.'" Were they drunk at a frat party or making a fricken movie?
It is the most disgusting realization that our stories should be told by such cretins. And this may be one of the most important stories of our lives. Luna defends the love scenes with Penn with the "well, we were drunk" excuse. That is demeaning.
While the movie Milk brings gay rights to the consciousness, this one attitude by this actor brings being gay back down to the gutter of being something so terrible you need to be medicated before you can even attempt to portray it. (or tricked into it.) I have yet to see an interview with Penn; I wonder what his excuse will be now that all the good one's are taken.
When I watch this movie, I will be unable to imagine a love story of any kind. All I will be able to see is two drunk straight guys who will be taking a long, hot shower afterward in order to wash the stink of gay off.
Once again, in order to be recognized by the straight world and straight media and machismo actors and talk show hosts, we must sacrifice our pride. I want to know when, if not because of a movie that attempts to explain the beginnings of the Gay Pride Movement, when are we actually going to show some pride?
You had to get drunk first? Thanks for that image, Luna.
While I can't comment on the Franco and Letterman shtick...
Franco chased Van Sant down and nothing I've read gives any indication that he belongs to that group of straight actors who are so annoying getting their hetero labels out there. If you get around to seeing the movie, you might be surprised to find yourself caught in the spell of the love story of real people played by actors who are so amazing that it will more than offset what sound like typical stupid interchanges on late night TV. Most are lame.
On the other hand, when you see the character played by Luna, you might want to wring his neck as he plays the most annoying character in the movie. Coincidence? Luna did an amazing job in the sexuality explicit Y Tu Mama Tambien, but I know less about his story than I do about Franco.
I do agree with your general comments about straight actors playing gay and the late night dorks who try to appeal to the viewers who they think are watching with lame questions. If anything crossed any lines, all involved should be called on it as even Leno's idiotic bit with Ryan Philippe got attention and the doofus had to address it.
If Luna needed Tequila, it says more about him and his own comfort, as none of the major players or what is seen on screen shows anything but complete and absolute gay-centricity in the best of ways. It does not take away from what you saw; however you may want to let the movie do the talking and address these situations on a case by case basis as I see Franco and Penn as huge allies and I am not one to call crumbs a meal.
Guillermo's Media Guillotine: Entertainment, journalism, politics, and popular culture.
http://springintoaction.typepad.com
I skip Letterman, too
I agree with everything you said. If this had been a romantic comedy about two single dad's falling in love I would have done little but shrug my shoulders thinking that these actor's interviews were typical jock talk. But I can't pretend that I don't know what this movie is about and how important this story is to me.
This story doesn't have the same relevance to Franco and Luna, who were obviously gay for pay and seem to suggest that their image might be tarnished for what they just did. These guys are savvy enough to have excuses planned ahead of time. Luna's was to say he was drunk, Franco's was to suggest he was tricked into it. I don't call that being a friend or being grateful for having the chance to tell Milk's story. Believe me, there are many actors out there who would have been grateful for the opportunity to tell Milk's story, regardless of who was directing it or starring in it.
Friendship? There's the kind of straight friend who will admire your talent and even seek advice from you at work, but as soon as he's at the bar with his buddies he starts talking crap.
I have a couple of straight buddies who have kissed me full on lips in public for no apparent reason. I always thought it was because they were drunk. But what I figured out is that they were trying to protect me. We hang out at a very mixed bar, when some homophobe was talking crap about me behind my back, rather than drag me into it, they kissed be full on the lips in front of the bastard. Friends don't make excuses about hanging with you.
I still think it's disgusting, considering the story that they are telling, that Luna and Franco have to make excuses. It isn't the movie, this movie itself isn't crumbs, but are we terrified of calling them on it lest it damage the reputation of the project? Bullshit.
The Milk actors on the interview trail - Excuses? I don't agree
On the other hand, I think that it's important to not label all possible suspects based on trends or one exchange. I know that neither of us is a fan of OUT, but check out this Interview like piece between out Milk screenwriter Dustin Lance Black and James Franco.
http://out.com/detail.asp?id=24151
Franco sounds like an authentic guy and quite thankful for being able to be a part of this story. Even if one is suspicious of the candor shown by any person being interviewed, Franco is smart enough to know that at this stage of his career playing gay for Van Sant in a film like Milk can only enhance a career that has not satisfied him in the past. And check out Franco's comment about how into it Emile Hirsch was that he too may have added a certain scene that surprised many in the movie. I am not going to give it away, but it shows another actor in this movie (who whether straight or gay) is so all about finding good roles with great directors and not as much about their image. Check out Hirsch's interviews too as there is not even a hint of anything but pride.
My feeling is that all involved in this movie passed a screen test of sorts based on their body of work and that any frauds would have stood out like a sore thumb. There are also some high profile out and not so out gay actors in the film. I found it ironic that under another director during this film's eternal efforts to get made (Bryan Singer, Oliver Stone, Van Sant twice just to name a few), a certain actor named Tom Cruise was apparently offered the Milk role only not to ever hear from him again. It would have been hilarious to see how that chump would have handled his press.
I am taking a guess here, but I think that since what you say applies to most actors, seeing Luna and Franco's bits on late-night might via your initial research, may led to to think, here we go again. I think that you'd have this feeling even if the movie were not Milk and were about two single dads falling in love. Nukely shrugging shoulders? Hmmm.... ;-)
I Milk's story means as much to you as it seems to, I think you owe it to yourself to see it then address the movie and then take that leap into the Internet to do the research that you started when you ran into Luna. Maybe your perception will be proven right, but at the very least you'll likely find that (maybe because of who cast the movie) the actors don't seem to be the usual suspects.
After seeing the movie, you might also be thankful to those who partook in it, not due to some charitable contribution by those playing gay, but because they all appear to have been chosen because they were the best for their roles. As a side-bar, the only actor who did nothing for me was Luna, but I am not sure if it was due to the fact that he was playing a character who annoyed every one or because the actor failed to find that place to make the audience see what Milk saw in him. Totally subjective comment on my part.
I am not looking to usurp your perspective if you really think that what you saw qualifies these actors as making "excuses." If I had seen or heard something that was off-putting I too would be upset even if the actor gave the most believable performance in history in a many that I really liked.
One thing that does not resonate with me is your perception of these guys being so savvy and that their answers reflect that. If they were truly that savvy they would package their answers in ways that would make them stand out from their homophobic peers or at least send the "I am straight" message in such a subtle manner that it would appease all stakeholders. If one can see an "excuse" a mile away, then they obviously don't have the right handlers, script-writers, and might want rehearse their shtick before even agreeing to in interview.
While Franco has become a celebrity du jour due to a few back to back home runs, none of the actors in this movie has stayed away from the offbeat or in on the tween beat. I do think that all hosts are guilty of asking dumb questions and that there are ways of responding to make the hosts look silly while coming off smelling like a rose. If any actor in this movie did not do so in every single media appearance, then they failed themselves, the gay community, and ultimately their careers as fans of the types of movies that they make tend to be gay, progressive, and tired of the old guard. If you can see an "excuse" coming a mile away, the
Let's see how Jim Carrey, Ewan McGregor, and Rodrigo Santoro handle themselves when they gay-themed movie comes out. Hopefully they will not resort to the annoying short-hand of most of their peers, but as always I am skeptical of the project itself and how well a would-be leading man looking for a breakthrough project will manage a tired medium of celebrity interviews.
I think that those of us who are skeptics (including myself big time) sometimes might be better served by stepping back by jumping to absolute conclusions based on our prior experiences and when we see anything that seems to feed that.
I would never hold back on calling out anyone thinking that it would damage the reputation of a project as I am too militant AND selfish for that.
Guillermo's Media Guillotine: Entertainment, journalism, politics, and popular culture.
http://springintoaction.typepad.com
Thanks
Thanks for responding, and forgive me for skipping several of your points, but there are too many. Your points that I think are spurious, I rejected. I just want to say Milk isn't just a "gay theme" movie. This is perhaps the seminal gay film of a generation. That the straight actors playing in the film don't get that at first is understandable but inexcusable that they wouldn't pick that up at some point in the production.
Luna has stated that he has 6 hours of preparation before doing interviews. It is preposterous to think that they and their handlers, including the production company, have no idea what the actor is going to say to a question like: what was it like shooting a gay sex scene.
The Out interview? That seems to be what Franco says when he is talking while sitting beside his gay writer and talking to a gay magazine. He sounds patronizing at some points. I wouldn't have thought that before Letterman. He's like a Janus figure, looking around to see who's listening before he speaks. The interview with Letterman, that's what he says from the other side of his mouth when he is addressing a straight audience, he has to make excuses. He certainly isn't able to tell Letterman how honored he is to be telling Milk's story. Sure, he likes Van Sant's work. That's very clear. He said some very nice things to the gay community in the Out interview. Why couldn't he say the same kinds of things on Letterman if that's how he really felt? (Even if he only wanted to be radical, because that seems to be his reasoning.) To me that shows that he's ashamed to talk to the straight world in the same way he addresses the gay world.
In the Out interview, they italicize this line: "and I’m finally getting as close to being in My Own Private Idaho as I’m going to get, so I’ll do whatever." (bold mine) which means that the only reason that Franco did the sex scenes was to be close to a film he obsessed over as a kid, he wasn't doing it because it was the right thing to do and clearly not because he was telling an important story. It was because he wanted to be radical, and play a shocking role like gay Phoenix did. That's patronizing. But I do give him credit for being honest.
All Franco seems to want to talk about in his interviews is his fake dick, that's what Milk's life story comes down to for him.
He also admits to cringing while kissing Penn in public. These guys are suddenly gay activists because they cringe when they kiss in public then text message Madonna to be congratulated. I am sure that Milk felt the same way when he first kissed Scott in public, if there was text messaging, he would have liked to have asked Liza for congrats, except he didn't know her.
I am not talking about the movie. I'm talking about two actors in the movie and their responses in public to playing gay. I find their reactions to be dishonorable. That's it. If another straight actor in the movie apologises for his participation, I think that will be worthy of comment as well. I have already said that I believe there are many actors who would have been proud to play these parts because this is an important story. Not because they always wanted to play gay cool.
It seems like we're suggesting we should be throwing ourselves at the feet of these straight men because of the homage they have payed the gay community for having placed a gay hat on their very straight heads for these few moments in their terribly important careers. And no matter what they say afterwards, no matter which way they disparage their participation we must fore ever and a day hold them as icons and show our undying gratitude. Again, I say, bullshit.
To play gay then suggest afterward that there should be ANY shame attached to that is disrespectful. It becomes disgusting when you are telling the life of Harvey Milk. I know I am alone in this because many people see this Hollywood movie as being about one million times more important than Harvey Milks life or anything he stood for.
After hearing their interviews, it seems clear to me that the defining moment in our struggle may not be marriage rights, it may not be when a gay or lesbian is elected president, but perhaps it will be when an openly gay director is unafraid to hire openly gay actors to star in what will unarguably be the most import gay theme film of his career, rather than hire straight actors who throw the community under the bus as soon as the gig is over and they are interviewed in the straight press about their participation.
In his interview with Reuters Gus Van Sant foreshadows any controversy by suggesting why he might choose straight actors for the parts of gay men. It was money. Out gay actors "would be unknowns and that would be fine with me, but the money (financiers) would start to get nervous." Basically an intentional cop out. He is saying that it would have been impossible for him to make this movie using actors who would be proud and honored to do the project because it seems, for the money, he was unable to find straight actors who would be comfortable and proud to play those roles. It is sad to see that all Van Sant could find was Gay for Pay, rather than actors who did this movie because it was the right story to tell. Period!
I agree with most of what you say....
Nukely, it is such bull the way the publicity is skewed to provide comic relief. But, I can only give my interpretation based on what I see with regards to the actors. Actors are puppets. They are employees. They are manipulated by their management, the producers that use their talent, and by the media after the fact. Most actors are not very savvy when it comes to publicity, or their own image. (case in point- Tom Cruise thinks he's the sh*t- but the rest of us think he IS a sh*t) That is why they have agents that try to look after them. Very few actors are multi-tasking wizards. And the ones that are, don't get caught up in the crap because they are too busy writing and directing to bother with these stupid talk show spots.
It all falls down though, when they are being interviewed by someone that is far more famous and well known than they are. The real culprits here are the media, and the late night comics who should be relentlessly called out on their material. These guys think they are invincible and that they can get away with saying anything for a laugh. And for the most part, they do. Because everyone lets them. Guill...you are right, if they are interviewing someone smarter than they are, they can be made to look like fools for asking the dumbest and most exploitive questions. But for eveyone else, these guys win if they get an audience reaction of "yuck...ha ha". They need to be blasted when they do this.
I say we take the warning labels off everything and let nature take it's course.
Re: sure to be great
There's no comparisson
I don't remember a single interview with Ledger where he suggested that he had to be drunk in order to play gay. Please link me to that interview if you want to knock Ledger off his pedestal and place him next to Luna. There's no comparison
Nukely, why so many pissing contests over almost anything?
This thread began with reactions to Brian's movie review. Many including myself, have enthusiastic thumbs up to what they saw and to the review itself. You've not even seen the movie yet and have strong opinions about how you'll feel when you watch it and make strong indictments based on lots of emotional projections and cursory Internet research about interviews given in late night shows that you apparently don't even watch. It's almost like you were looking for something to allow you to go off on the subject of straight actor idolatry.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't put any straight or gay actors on a pedestal, and that includes Heath Ledger. The obvious commonalities between Milk and Brokeback is that they both center on gay characters and in my opinion, involved creative teams at the top of their respective games. I think that the actors in Milk did a killer job and that Van Sant made a movie that does Milk justice is it presents a flawed man who accomplished some great things that are are important today as they were when they happened.
If you enjoy disregarding anything that does not suit your neatly tied perceptions of how all straight actors are, even the best transcript is unlikely to change what you seem to feel all the way down to your bones. Since you bring up how Harvey Milk in your last post like many bring that of god, if you ever get around to seeing the movie or reading several books on the subject, you'll see that many his accomplishments are due to his being able to adapt how he addressed others, that he was not some self-less martyr, and how important it is to know when the push hard and sometimes not at all. And then there was the issue of re-districting, but that is neither here nor there. Hate away and feel free to continue thinking that you are the only person who says it like it is, while the rest are somehow these straight actor worshippers who are fawning over any little gay thing that they do.
Guillermo's Media Guillotine: Entertainment, journalism, politics, and popular culture.
http://springintoaction.typepad.com
You are right
It seems strange that after several postings yourself, that you would point out that this is the wrong thread to discuss this issue. I am sorry if I have hijacked Brians story. If you felt I was diviant, on your first post you could have started another thread on the forums to direct us to -and I would have followed. Instead you choose to post your posts then repremand me after you have made many posts yourself. If I'm guilty, you are as much to blame even where I don't see cause for blame.
.........
But what I really wanted to say is this, and then you guys can have your fricken movie stars:
I'm that kid. When Harvey was on TV and when I read what he wrote and when he spoke I was listening and I was acting. He activated something in me that I can't quite let go of. When he was murdered, I was devastated. Maybe I can't let go of that feeling.
This place, this time, 2008, is not mine. I know that. Silly of me to pretend that there is hope beyond politics and Hollywood. That there is real hope. I felt hope so intensely at one point of my life because of Harvey Milk. I hold my image of him, but that image doesn't hold up to the day to day workings of Hollywood.
This is a movie, nothing more. The actors, director, everyone are nothing more than incidentals. If I had written the story of Harvey's life I would have told a story of what is possible for mankind and I would have been excited to relate that story to everyone, not just gay people. I'm just out of the loop, because the actors who participated in this story see something else. I don't have a choice but to accept that because that is all we are being offered.
I need to go beat a pillow, now.
Totally OT but....
Don't just beat a pillow, Nukely. Go write a story. You are a very fine writer, you have passion that meets or beats anyone I've ever met. Write a story of what's possible for mankind. There are millions of untold stories. Write the ones that need to be told.
I say we take the warning labels off everything and let nature take it's course.
Diego Luna
I saw the Diego Luna interview and he's seemed completely comfortable with the same-sex sex thing.
Maybe his way of expressing himself is limited by the fact that English is not is first language but the interviewer seemed to be trying to get him to say he was uncomfortable in a way that he clearly wasn't and I don't hold him responsible for that.
The interviewer asked if he and SP laughed after the scene was over (clearly the interviewer things boys having sex with each other is funny) but there was no indication that Diego's response agreed with the interviewer's assumption.
It is possible we are assuming his nervoursness about the scene in general was about the fact that it was a "gay" love affair rather than just about having to film a sex scene. He never says anything about the same-sex aspect of it being uncomfortable for him because it was gay. He just said it was easy (repeatedly)
He seemed to be saying that the actual filmingof the scene was very easy but he was a nervous before hand (hence the tequilla) and a shy afterward (hence the whole "ok, nobody saw" comment)
Lots and actors and actresses have said something similar about sex scenes. Diane Lane I recall saying similar things about pretending the no one saw her (I think it might have been The View or Ellen, unfortunately I don't have a link)
If it's really intimate and involves a lot of nudity, it seems reasonable that an actor might want to pretend the whole crew hadn't just seen them getting it on completely starkers with someone (regardless of gender)
He also seemed to be nervous because it was Sean Penn (big movie star) that he was about to get naked with.
I haven't read a ton of interviews with Diego Luna but in the one posted on A.E., I thought he just seemed sweet and happy and proud of his work.
It would be interesting to see what he though about the sex scenes from "Y Tu Mama" .
Perhaps I'll enlighten myself.
"Heterosexuality is not normal, it's just common." (Dorothy Parker)
Pride?
It's irrational to ignor that what they are talking about is in fact a (capital G) Gay Love Scene. If they didn't make that perfectly clear, it's because they felt ashamed to even discuss it in the first place.
It is very common for actors to have nude love scenes in movies today. The only time it is topical is if a) the star is a virgin (i.e. a former Disney Starlette in her first adult role) b.) the dude actor is boffing the current sex symbol or c.) it's a gay love scene. Which of the three was this?
Love scenes, as I understand, are typically shot on a closed set, what is telling about Luna's comments is when he suggests that "we" were thinking like, "don't tell anybody," afterwards. Like it was a shameful thing that he did. Are you suggesting that if Luna had a scene with Pamela Anderson that afterward he'd be like, "don't tell anybody?" He'd be telling everybody.
Sorry, I didn't see pride, I saw shame in that interview.
James Franco and Diego Luna
I interviewed James Franco and Diego Luna for this website, and they spoke of the film, their roles, and the real life men they portrayed with nothing short of reverence. And to suggest Diego Luna's comments were "coached" or "rehearsed" is impossible in the face of how very slowly and haltingly he spoke throughout the interview. He was sincerely looking for the best words to convey his emotions.
More of the interview with Franco, as well as with Sean Penn, will be coming out week after next here on AfterElton.com, but I was sitting two feet away from these guys while I interviewed them, and NO ONE, not even Penn, is that good an actor. Whatever happened on these talk shows, I don't believe any of them had the slightest reservation about these roles. It's just not possible.
nice to know
Nice to know that when these actors are talking to the gay media they are on their best behavior. But when they talk to the straight media they seem to become flustered and apt to speak their mind.
Or are you suggesting they aren't believable actors? Oh wait, that is what you were suggesting, right? Or were you suggesting that you are the only person in the world that could tell when they are acting or not? Gosh, I didn't even want to get into this. You are a gay interviewer and therefore you are infallible on this subject.
Excuse me. Well, I didn't really mean to excuse me, I meat to take a second because I do judge the writers of this blog (AfterElton) differently than the peons, like myself, who just post here and don't have privy to the stars. When I am harsher toward you it is only because I expect more and right now I'm not seeing it. Forgive me, I'll go lay by my dish in a minute.
Luna has already admitted that he has 6 hours of coaching, or what ever you call it, before doing interviews. It's crazy to believe that other actors and participants in a project aren't well aware and prepared for the obvious questions. They come prepared with talking points or a story to tell. Are you pulling my leg or are you that naive as an interviewer?
P.S. I had expected that any response to my critique would ignore Luna who admitted he had to be drunk to play gay. Did you have a chance to interview him sober, and ask why being drunk helped him to play gay? I didn't think so.
You say you still have a couple of weeks before AfterElton publishes your interview, so I hope you spare us and delete any excuses for playing gay or patronizing responces that Luna and Franco have for the readers of AfterElton
I've been watching the straight media, because I think that is where these actors are showing their true colors. But I am glad for you that they can and do have something to say to us as well.
Man, there is no pleasing you. Are you just an attention seeker?
You seem to have this set in stone perspective that somehow all straight actors show their true colors in straight media. I don't think that many show their true colors anywhere, but that's not relevant. It seems to be very convenient for your perspective, but have you thought about the real possibility that the best way to judge anyone (if that is what interests you) is by the sum of their actions. If you want to go off on anyone, you may want to start with yourself as pointing the same finger at the same thing, without leaving room for anything else, seems like the kind of attitude that you'd find offensive and close-minded in others.
If Harvey Milk was a hero of yours and you'd like to be more like than man who inspired you, why not watch this movie first and see if the director and actors have done justice to the man. You may hate it, esp. if you carry all this baggage from some lame late night shows that are yesterday's news. I won't assume that you've not seen the Oscar-winning documentary on Milk or many books written about him, but my opinion is that the vast majority of his success was based on engaging people and giving them hope rather than crapping on everything and everyone. He become one savvy guy by blending activism, a strong ego, and opening himself to different people.
Not everyone is out to get you/us, and change is happening due to a combination of hard-core and a softer approach. Even a disaster like Prop. 8, might be the best thing to happen to gay rights as it may bring together even many post-gay types who are seeing that 1978 and 2008 still have much in common. Why all this generalized anger towards fellow posters/contributors/interviewers who don't agree with you or even care about an actors "method?"
If you are so repulsed by Luna, write to the guy and tell him to suck your _____ . Call for a boycott of his movies. Do something. There are many publications out there that are looking for writers with a voice. Heck you can even start your own blog free of charge in which you target all the bullshit that you see all around you. Check out Micahel Petrelis for example. Many rag on his ACT-UP methods, but he's doing his thing in 2008.
People are looking for different perspectives, esp. honest ones. You are already expecting a patronizing piece from the above contributor, so why not write your own fully formed piece and put yourself out there for cricism.
I won't pretend to know with certainty what motivates any of us, but I am guessing that your contributions seem more focused on feeding your ego than towards learning from others, sharing insight, or trying to make changes of magnitude in a world that does not measure up to your standards. Have you thought about whether you measure up to your own standards with any periodicity? I'll leave it at that as I have my own answer and feel that any more on this subject on my part is only rewarding the behavior. If only there were more than just anger and repetition of the same limited examples to support the anger.
Guillermo's Media Guillotine: Entertainment, journalism, politics, and popular culture.
http://springintoaction.typepad.com
full
I'm not going to kneel because I'm not a monster just because I speak my mind. I have been blessed with true straight friends who are unafraid to walk in my moccasins, so to speak. I would never say that I drew this out of people. I am saying that I am damn lucky to know gay, straight, black, white people who are indifferent to these issues while still being human. I am sorry that I feel a need to hold the actors who care to play (act) like they love Harvey Milk, up to the same standards that I know some straight people are capable of.
The sum of a multimillion dollar actors actions? I should weigh what they have paid their publicist's to tell them to tell me against any other asinine thing they have decided to say. Cute. There is one thing I never expected to see again, your recent defense against your loosing opinion: that is that you are telling me to shut up. Telling anyone to shut up is not only egotistical it is bad.
We have been through this once before. You disagree with me. I have absolutely no right to post here and I certainly have no right to post things that people here disagree with especially when my opinions deal with budding gay icons. I couldn't agree with you more. I don't do it to be an A-hole. I do it to be myself, you of all people should get that.
I did write my own piece, and you may not take credit for pushing me to do so, thank Goddess. You have made me think, right now. I Thank you for that. Like much of your writing, I am confused by the syntax in your last paragraph. That's probably just me. I really hate that an ego clash between you and me is a topic of discussion. Not that I am afraid of it, but that I think the readers here are looking for more and we would do best to bicker in PM's. I spent my day working on my piece. I posted it here. I hope you will be able to carry your bicker there, where only you and I will read it?
Thanks for projecting your concerns, but that's really all I got. I am like that old, old tortoise at the zoo, living in a time that doesn't belong to me. Please forgive me because I have turned into what I always feared becoming: a bitter old queen. (the raisin in the sun, more aptly put) I hope you will never know how humiliating it is for me to admit that. I can't fool you. I have been able to fool others; truth be told, like you suggest, I really don't belong here. I know that. You don't have to remind me. But if I have your permission, I will resume pretending like I do belong. But I have to warn you, that comes with my baggage, namely me being what I've become: a bitter old queen. Look at it and learn..
GUS VAN ZANT - hmmmmm
Milk…..Sean Penn . AMAZING. Emile Hirsch…AMAZING. Luna…God AWFUL..choice of SYLVESTER portrayal…UNFORGIVABLE!!! Gus Van Zant..[question] Will Gus Van Zant ever get out of his fascination with tragic young White men, and the Older white men who slobber over them. [another question] Will Gus Van Zant ever direct a movie with people of color in it (gay or straight)? Ugh…Loved the story and portrayal of the Life of Harvey Milk. But Gus' movies always leave me feeling left out somehow.
Peace
Brown Peter
Have you seen "Mala Noche"?
Mala Noche rocks!!!!
Guillermo's Media Guillotine: Entertainment, journalism, politics, and popular culture.
http://springintoaction.typepad.com
AFI Top 10 of 2008
Milk is one of AFI's Top 10 Movies of 2008!
Unfortunately, it's not playing in my area and it's a movie that'll be on my MUST SEE LIST!
Name the irony of Milk and Wonder Woman, another gay icon