Why Did “Milk” Go Sour?

. . .because it took forever to get into the theatres.

Period.

Done deal.

Well, I think the point is that BBM was a universal love story. Anyone could relate to that, gay, straight, bi, whatever. Everyone could relate, love has no boundries and of course people went to watch it.

Milk on the other hand doesn't have that same appeal, even with Prop 8. Being a gay rights movie and all, it mostly cater to gay people.

I just have to add, Milk is an amazing movie, probably even better than BBM. It just doesn't have the same appeal to straight people..

Harvey Milk: You gotta give 'em hope.

Like Brokeback Mountain, which the whole country knew was a "gay movie" thanks to Jay Leno's nightly jokes, Milk's adverts - even the ones airing here in Portland OR.... where, until recently, we had a respected gay mayor...and where the director lives... tell nothing about what the story is about. I couldn't guess the plot if I hadn't already seen it. Brokeback Mountain had a similar strategy, highlighting the non gay aspects of the story.

I don't recall The Birdcage having used this strategy.

But 30 million is a great gross for an art house movie; it's one of Gus Van Sant's highest grossers. Other edgy movies about uncomfortable subjects - such as Boogie Nights - maxed out at this level. I'm not disappointed.

I do agree that it should have gone wider earlier.

I think it was a timing issue.  The movie should have gone to more theaters much earlier.  Around the time of the election and prop 8 protests, I know a lot of people around here wanted to see it, but by the time it actually got here, most of the interest had died down.  I finally saw it myself just recently, and while I think it was flawed, it was the best movie I've seen this year.

EW (I think) recently did a poll asking people to rethink past Oscar wins and who should have won.  I wonder if this is the same situation going on here.  I haven't seen Slumdog Millionaire yet, but with all the hype and PR, it's clearly riding high.  We all know, of course, that publicity and box office returns have nothing to do with actual quality, although the Oscars tend to be a popularity contest in the end.  Will the movie hold up, or will people eventually decide that Milk (or another of the nominees) was the better picture?

I also think it was the timing and the limited release.

Milk is a great movie but its appeal is mainly to gays and lesbians because of the civil rights issue.  Brokeback Mountain was helped by the controversy (yet doomed at the Oscars because of it) because of the sensitive subject matter.  Personally, I don't see this film winning best picture.  I still think Penn has an outside shot at best actor and screenplay is still a good chance. 

I'm glad someone brought up Slumdog because it was a good movie but honestly, I thought Frost/Nixon was the superior film.  

Maybe it was the limited release, but maybe it was because it is a biopic about a person that a lot of people never heard of.  Almost everybody has heard of Johnny Cash or Ali.

Also, looking at the big Oscar-nominated movies this year, Slumdog Millionaire and Benjamin Button, it appears that movie audiences want a certain type of film.  They want the saccharine cliches wrapped up in showy cinematography and fantastical storylines.  A true story about some virtually-unknown political guy getting killed is just not going to rake them in as much as a movie that combines gorgeous views of India (including the slums), a beautiful pale-skinned damsel in distress, and a game show once obscenely popular in the U.S.

I think one aspect you missed about Milk's struggle at the box office is it is a political film.  If you look at the top 100 films at the box office in 2008, not one of them can be called political.  Milk will soon be the highest grossing political film of the year.  Currently, W is the top money making political film, with Milk less than half-a-million behind.  It certainly did much better than the other big political film of 2008, Frost/Nixon.

People in this country just do not go to talky political films, so for Milk to make as much as it has it a triumph not just for gay films but all intelligent films.

To call Milk " a standard movie biography" is idiotic. It's anything but.

The film is tanking because the public is STUPID BEYOND BELIEF!!!!!!!!

It prefers cute little doggies, Jennifer Aniston and Paul Blart: Mall Cop. 

Plus there are tons of theaters all across the country that have refused to book it.

And you know why.

Milk will do well overseas and on DVD. It will clearly break even and might well make a tidy profit. But not the big bucks of Batman sequel with the dead junkie.

As pointed out, this is a gay-themed, political drama--none of which have been high grossers in recent years.  The fact that it's doing as well as it is (especially considering the dirt-level grosses for "Frost/Nixon" "The Reader" and other Oscar bait) is considerable.

"Brokeback" became the buzz film because there'd been nothing like it before, and because the love story grabbed people in ways they weren't expecting, especially straight people (and especially women).  This year, unfortunately, "Slumdog" is gobbling up all the zeitgeist heat, and there's not much to do about that--it's all they talk about on "Today," "The View" etc.  It'd be nice if Sean Penn was out flogging the publicity circuit more, along with James Franco and Josh Brolin, but I haven't seen much of that. (Let's face facts: Brolin's remarkable performance has almost no chance at the Oscars opposite Heath Ledger's Joker.)  And Penn is hardly a high-grossing star, despite his brilliance--he's not someone who's going to pack theaters.

I know in Oregon weather was a factor--we saw "Milk" opening night in Beaverton right before a killer snowstorm came through and basically paralyzed Portland.  The movie was yanked after 2 weeks, along with other art-house fare like "The Boy In The Striped Pajamas."  Folks who could only get out for one or two movies were going with big crowd-pleasers (like "Marley and Me" or "Slumdog"), not heavy dramas.  (I don't think "Revolutionary Road" "The Reader" or "The Wrestler" are box-office hits, either, though they might be modest recoupers.) 

Finally, it just may be the times in which we live: people are desperate for upbeat, feel-good movies.  (How else to explain the blockbuster success of "Paul Bart, Mall Cop"?)  "Slumdog," despite its sordid first 3/4 and lots of tragic elements, manages to convince audiences that it's a feel-good fairy tale due to its last half-hour, and the audience comes out energized and euphoric, as long as they don't think too much about the lead-up (and the dead other character--but I digress).  "Milk," brilliant as it is, leaves an audience in tears and witnessing the aftermath of an assassination--tough sell for any movie (including "Malcolm X" and "The Assassination of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford," neither of which caught on).

If producers want to make gay themed films, my advice would be to hold off on "The Front Runner"--no matter how badly I want to see it get made--for a couple more years, and make "Take Me Out" or "The Dreyfuss Affair."  If those baseball comedies can make some serious money, then it'll help more gay-themed films.

I have noticed that even gay men have indicated a mixed response to Milk, so if the presumed target audience doesn't love the film, they aren't exactly going to talk it up to their friends and family.

Brokeback Mountain was an event, and was absolutely beloved by many audience members, who would drag others to go see it. Milk hasn't inspired that kind of response.

And, as the article notes, audiences in these dire economic times are flocking to uplifting fables: both Slumdog Millionaire and Paul Blart: Mall Cop are about zeros who manage to triumph through luck and perseverence. Though Milk has a great deal of humor, the promotion emphasizes the seriousness of the topic, which isn't attractive to audiences in these difficult times.

I do think, too, that the release strategy didn't work; it was too late, they should've put it out in October, at the height of the Prop 8 madness. But that's hindsight--who would've thought Prop 8 would pass?

And David, the "dead junkie" comment was too much.

afhickman

Why must a defense of one film entail a trashing of the other?  Both have touched our hearts (assuming we have hearts)--or at least the hearts of the majority of us.  If "Milk" doesn't draw audiences in the same numbers as the Batman franchise, or even BBM, why should that enrage us to the point that we start spitting venom at a tragic young actor who, while he may have had a troubled personal life, did so much for us when he was alive?  David, you sound like Christian Bale on a bad day (and we all have such days, I know).  As Ennis might say, "Let be, let be."

"The mountain has wings."

Brokeback Mountain got the most oscar nominations and won almost every major awards before oscar that year and the media made quite a fuss about it.The main cast even went on Oprah after the golden globes.But this year Slumdog Millionaire totally stole Milk`s spotlight.

Also Milk`s "gay scenes" are much more "in your face" than BBM.There were a lot of kissing and make out scenes,which could make some of the straight audience uncomfortable. Plus in BBM,gays are victims and powerless,but in Milk we stood up and fight for ourselves,the overall message is much stronger and powerful than BBM,which could be a major turn off for some of the straight people.To quote Milk himself in the movie:"Gay people with power,that`s scary huh?"

Btw.I HATE Slumdog Millionaire.One of the most overrated film I`ve ever seen.I was rolling my eyes all the time through the film.I just can not believe how bad this film is.The script was very weak,a lot of plot holes,and a lot of stuff don`t even make scene.The characters are very unlikeable,especially the main character Jamal.And the actors(maybe with the exception of those younger ones) are awful.I used to like Dev Patel when he`s in Skins,but this time his performance made me want to poke my eyes out.This film is not even half as good as some of the best bollywood films out there.Such a shame.

Milk`s oversea box office and DVD sale will more than make up for it,kinda like Kingkong 2005(hopefully). A lot of countries only started to show it very recently,some even haven`t started it.

A "feel good movie" about poverty really zings with the zeigeist. Cause we all may be in dire economic straits but at least we're not being tortured, right?

From the tone of the comments it seems that gay films are going to have to go back into the closet, lest we make those poor sensitive straights "uncomfortable." Lord knws we shouldn't do that, right?

Hey, maybe it should have ended with Harvey back from the dead to do a Bollywood dance numbers!

If we didn't have other Oscar contenders or nominees tanking, it would be one thing, but many of these films have not done well. Do we take from their failures that audiences don't want to see straight couples fighting, Republicans and British men talking, nude Nazis, British women speaking French, British women being annoying, Irish hitmen, etc.

So what if the straight guy was allegedly fidgeting in his seat during the kissing?!?! He went to see it when some straight men wouldn't, and perhaps he was fidgeting because James Franco and Diego Luna had to kiss Sean Penn. I know that made me uncomfortable. I saw the film in Cleveland back in early January, and straight couples made up most of the audience. There was no discomfort that I could see or hear, but I did see a lot of people (male and female) sniffling, wiping their eyes, taking off their glasses, etc. The film is still playing there, and Milk and Slumdog Millionaire continue to sell out. They were both sold out Sunday night. 

Focus botched the release. As states by others, it should have been released in early October to take advantage of the Prop 8 media coverage. The ad campaign was extremely confusing for those who had never heard of Harvey Milk. The poster was not  inviting. My sister (who had never heard of Harvey Milk) thought Penn was playing another mentally challenged man when she saw the poster. It had a star whose films tend to underperform at the box office. I like David's explanation: moviegoers on the whole are idiots.

Here's the thing -- I DO blame the fizzling box office on Focus, not on any straight male fidgeting...that's ridiculous.

But the thing is, MILK is a great film, but it is NOT the best picture of the year. If you go back and watch THE TIMES OF HARVEY MILK which already won an Academy Award, you are virtually watching the same movie - one documentary, one live-action biopic. Biopics traditionally do not do well at Oscar Time. In fact, NOT ONE SINGLE BIOPIC has won Best Picture. The most recent "kinda" biopic is The Last Emperor, and before that, Ghandi -- and neither of those can really be called biopics.  Before that, you have to go back to 1937 for The Life of Emile Zola for another. 

Biopics win Best Actor awards, they don't win Best Picture awards.

That being said, the movie was filmed like a blockbuster, but distributed like an arthouse film. Here in Ann Arbor, it showed in one theatre -- the big downtown art theatre where it is still playing in a 1000-seat house, no performance with more tha 50 people in the the audience. Meanwhile, it has never opened in any of the cineplex theatres, and quite frankly, the majority of Ann Arborites don't go downtown to see films, they flock to the multiplexes on the outskirts of town.

So not only did the film open in an arthouse theatre -- it never moved OUT of the arthouse theatres here in SE Michigan.  Those who wanted to see the film saw it the first week it came out.

Indicently, I was in SF last weekend -- it's only showing in two small arthouse theatres there too. You absolutely can not make money that way. In a Saturday night in SF at the Embarcadero, there were about 30 people in my showing of THe Reader, and it looked like about the equal number at MILK nextdoor. Far from a big draw for either film. 

BUt as someone else mentioned, the film was great, but once seen, there is nothing there to draw you back to see it again, or even recommend it to your friends. The only film I've been recommending to my friends has been SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE which I loved, and which I did go back to see a second time. 

Until you mentioned it, I hadn't seen how much Milk was similar to the documentary. But once you said it, it became blindingly obvious, so thank you for that. Also your point about biopics is well taken. Not sure I agree with you when it comes to Gandhi because all the Indians I know revere that film. Mind you, half of them (including my uncle) appeared as extras in it so they might be partisan. But again, your comment made me stop and think, so thank you again.

I agree that Milk isn't the Best Film up for the Oscars. Penn is very good and I hope against hopes that he beats Rourke to the podium on the night, but as a film, Milk has its problems. Weirdly, even though it's about a gay politician and it has lots of 'gay' scenes, I left the theatre thinking it was more of a political film or even (strangely, I agree) a thriller than a 'gay' film. Whereas Brokeback Mountain argued its case as a story about emotions using the metaphor of outsiders, Milk was more about the process by which outsiders become insiders and possibly suffer because of that process. Like you said, Milk is a great film, but it's not the best film.

There was buzz around this film in November.  Focus purposely kept it out of the festival circuit to avoid a "brokeback backlash" and "peaking too early".  It's not Brokeback - not even remotely similar.   The film should have gone wide when the buzz was there...not waiting for Oscar nominations to MAYBE boost viewership (there's never a guarantee on that one).

HUGE mistake keeping it away from the festival circuit to begin with.  I don't think "Milk" would have created the kind of huge early buzz that Brokeback did.  Where did the sleeper hit of the year come to life? The Telluride Film Festival - and then Toronto.  Personally, I detest "Slumdog Millionaire" - it's not my taste at all.  But there is no denying that it's Phoenix-like rise from direct-to-dvd ashes is pretty miraculous.

I know they liked the symbolism of releasing the film on the 30th anniversary of Harvey's assassination.  But it cost the film a wider audience by keeping it cloistered away until late January.

One more thing they didn't capitalize on as a constant tagline: "You gotta give 'em HOPE!" That should have been on every poster, every ad, everywhere.  "Never Blend In" doesn't tie in quite as neatly with the Obama election.  What were they thinking not using that line at every possible turn?

Sorry about the rant, but I am angry about the way this promotion and distribution has been botched.  It is a very fine film and should be a serious contender for a Best Picture Oscar - and it's not. The poor scheduling and publicity just killed any chance it had of really being seen by a broader (and more importantly - more diverse) audience. 

Milk is actually VERY different from The Times of Harvey Milk,if you really have watched both carefully.The 1984 documentary mainly focus on what some of Milk`s close friends and ally thought of Milk and the Milk in their memories,while in the film Milk both his political career and personal life were major part of it.If I remember correctly Scott Smith were only very briefly mentioned and Jack Lira didn`t came up at all in the documentary,yet in Milk these are both very important characters.

I`ve already seen Milk about 4~5 times and can not understand why some people say they won`t see it again.It is not until about the third time that I suddenly realized how good Dustin Lance Black`s work really is.He really did his homework,and somehow manage to cover a lot of material and hit some excellent points.

Amazon.com is listing Milk to be released on DVD (and Blu-ray) March 10, 2009.