Milk: A Review.

Rating: 9/10 (31 January 2009)

It's a bitter irony that a major film about the iconic gay rights leader Harvey Milk should premiere in theaters across the country less than a month after Proposition 8 passed in California by voter referendum, thus barring gay marriage, for the moment. Similar laws were enacted in a number of other states in the country. One could imagine Milk may have been disheartened at such news, coming three decades after his efforts toward the civil rights struggles of a people. But, after seeing "Milk," the newest movie about his activism, politics and life, one could imagine that he and his sizable movement would be all the more determined to bring about equality for gays and lesbians.
Appropriately, the picture is shot, by Director of Photography Harris Savides, largely with a documentary-style aesthetic that is both no-nonsense and candid, frequently mixing footage from actual marches, television reports, newspaper layouts and the like, into the rest of the film in a way that is relatively seamless (thanks, in part, to fine editing by Elliot Graham). My only quip about this is that perhaps the new scenes made for this film could have had a more grainy aesthetic to more thoroughly blend with the archival footage. But it's only a minor issue in a movie that is visually well-presented. The handful of new black and white stills pictures that Harvey takes of his partner, Scott, are particularly intriguing.
The resemblance to a documentary style of film-making doesn't end there, of course. Since this drama is about real people and events, there's bound to be some aspect of it that feels like a documentary. "Docudrama"  with the emphasis on the first half of the word would be a convenient and apt description for this film, if one must categorize. In some ways this new film is a remake of "The Times of Harvey Milk," a first-rate documentary directed by Robert Epstein that appeared nearly twenty-five years ago. If there's any drawback to the current "Milk" it's that it covers so much of the same ground as the older film that those who have seen Epstein's project already know much of what will transpire in the new version. Aside from that, the newer "Milk" does delve more deeply and satisfactorily into its main subject's personal life and, because of its status as a docudrama, Van Sant is able to utilize the tools of creative and dramatic license at his disposal much more freely than Epstein could have, to greater emotional impact. We see more actual dialogue and relationships between Milk and his partners, friends, colleagues and others, something that wouldn't be likely with a regular documentary. In this way the subject at the center of attention of the new film seems more soulful, more human than he would otherwise. (That's not a criticism of Epstein's film.) So does everyone around him. The movie does a remarkable job at making all these people seem real.
The creative team captures the look and spirit of the Milk's time and place quite well, due in no small measure to Bill Groom's production design and Danny Glicker's clothing (and all that big hair). The actors look remarkably similar to the actual people they portray, with the centerpiece being the magnificent Sean Penn ("All the King's Men," "Mystic River") whose resemblance to his subject, Harvey Milk, is so uncannily close in appearance and voice one could mistake him for the actual person. It seems that Penn's looks did not have to be modified much as he looks much like Milk to begin with, though Milk's hair seems a bit curlier. The film is a treasure-trove of fine acting from its major players.
"Milk" will be remembered, in the very least, as one of the milestones in gay cinema. But, it deserves a higher honor: recognition as an important film about civil rights, and recognition as an important film, period.