Doesn't quite get into the man but does a great job or representing his importance and impact within a movement

Rating: Null/10 (9 March 2009)

I finally got round to seeing Milk after the Oscars gave it a bit of a publicity boost by virtue of Penn and the writer winning awards. It was not that I hadn't wanted to see the film (I had) but just that the cinemas had suddenly been overwhelmed with "award-worthy" films all trying to get publicity and eligibility at the same time. The film itself is best approached outside of all the hype and praise though, because it is not this perfect film that some would have you believe (although this is not to say that it is bad, just that all these films get talked-up far too much at this time of year).
Milk covers a lot of ground and it is to its credit that it does it in a way that has a good narrative flow to it and mixes the professional and personal Milk into the tale. Where I think the film works best though is in the way it manages to capture a movement and a time. Having been to the Castro a few years ago, it is hard to imagine the world as it was at the start of the film and yet this is made real and convincing thanks to the use of news footage and also an air or atmosphere or intolerance that is much more effective than having "big" moments (although it has those as well). Out of this, Milk's achievements and part of overall progress of the movement is clear and engaging. The slight downside of this is that the man himself is a little lost in the midst of this.
OK we do get some personal stuff in there but it is very much by-the-by and not as interesting as the bigger picture. Don't get me wrong though, this is not a major problem because I felt the mix was appropriate for what the film was doing and I did like the balance it struck  just I can see why some of those familiar with Milk (I wasn't) may feel like he as a person isn't that well done. This aspect is helped though by Penn being good in the title role. He brings determination and vision to the character and, at the risk of being overly blunt, he "does" a gay character without turning it into a caricature. Personally I don't think he was anywhere near as good as Rourke but the issues within this film had particular political importance in California in the year before these awards and this will have played in the film's favour Oscar-wise.
Van Sant's direction is very good. There are clever shots and movements but never to the point that feel done for the sake of it or that they distract. His direction is well folded in with news footage from the time and it is to the credit of the costume and set departments that the film feels very of its time  even when set alongside this actual footage. The supporting cast also includes some very good turns. It is not Brolin's film and his material is too limited to allow him to really impress but he does go very well with his character. Likewise Franco, who is much better than I expected him to be. These are the standouts but generally the cast are convincing, with only one or two weaker turns that I felt did get close to caricature or cliché.
Milk is not a perfect film and I can understand why those really familiar with the subject would have issues with the grand sweep of it and the lack of detail and perhaps development of Milk as a person. However it still works very well and accesses the importance of the man and the movement while also accurately capturing the sense of time and place. Perhaps not as emotionally impacting as a result, the film still does make a very good job of taking an important part of modern history and making it into a flowing and accessible piece of drama.