Powerful film, but the director does a disservice to the movement

Rating: Null/10 (30 December 2017)

Up front, let me say that this is a good movie with excellent acting, a powerful message, and overall it's a credit to the art of filmmaking. Other reviewers have covered that better than I can; I just want to mention something that no one else seems to have brought up.
Director Gus Van Sant chose to focus on the personal life of the man Harvey Milk rather than the cause he championed. This wouldn't be a problem except that Van Sant gives us a highly airbrushed, family-friendly, almost Disney version of Harvey Milk, making me wonder: if this film isn't about the gay rights movement, and if it isn't about the real Harvey Milk, then what is it about?
If you dare to hear me out for 2 paragraphs, you might want to don your iconoclast flak jacket because I may shatter the lily white image of Milk that the director would have you believe. But I'm doing this to make a point that a good film would celebrate the ideals of an individual rather than the individual (or a fabcation of a perfect saint for us to idolize). But such is Hollywood, I guess.
The man real man Harvey Milk wasn't always the boyscout which director Gus Van Sant paints him to be. In reality, it may have been more accurate to say that Harvey was *interested in dating* boyscouts (boo hiss, I couldn't resist 1 tasteless joke, but the truth remains: at least one of Harvey's lovers, Jack McKinley, was 16 years old when Harvey, 33, ran away with him in 1963). Another sore spot, which the film exploits for a cheap emotional twist, is the suicide of a certain minor character. If you want to know the truth behind this subplot, google "Harvey Milk and the Boy from Minnesota" for an eye opening exposé which might make you wish they had omitted the whole episode from the film, rather than twist it into a tear jerker.
I understand that Harvey Milk is synonymous with gay rights in the 1970s, and certainly he deserves much praise for his amazing accomplishments. I just resent the way Gus Van Sant fabricated a glossy, flawless hero. I would've much preferred a fallible hero who does the right thing, much like the excellent film "Amadeus" accurately portrays Mozart as a stumbling drunk but a musical genius nonetheless. Give the audience credit for differentiating the human from the achievement.
Apologies if I ruined the illusion of Harvey Milk's perfect life, but isn't it better to honor the things he did? If anything, that's the legacy Harvey Milk wanted: for us to carry on the message rather than idolizing the messenger.