Review: Milk
Director: Gus Van Sant (Paranoid Park, Elephant, Good Will Hunting)
Writer: Dustin Lance Black
Producers: Bruce Cohen, Dan Jinks, Michael London
Starring: Sean Penn, Emile Hirsch, Josh Brolin, Diego Luna, James Franco, Victor Garber, Denis O’Hare, Stephen Spinella, Eric Stoltz
MPAA Rating: R
Running time: 128 min
There’s change in the air. The recent US elections certainly suggested that and what better way to celebrate change than by looking back at the individuals that stirred the pot beforehand.
In the late 70’s Harvey Milk made quite the impact in the US. The first openly gay individual to be voted into public office sparked a tidal wave of attention along with the gay rights movement in but what I find particularly appealing about his story is not so much his political fight but rather that of the man or at the very least, the man as painted by writer Dustin Lance Black and director Gus Van Sant in Milk.
With his long-time partner Scott Smith for support, Harvey Milk left behind his closeted New York like and moved to San Franciso where he opened a camera store on Castro Street. Almost immediately, it became apparent to Milk that the gay community was frowned upon and abused and that something needed to be done about it. Over the next few years he, unsuccessfully though each time gaining more support, ran for various offices until the day when he was voted into office as District Supervisor. By this point, Milk’s continued struggles to bring attention to gay rights had garnered him a lot of support within the community but also from outsiders who saw him not just as a beacon for change but as a man who could make a difference in their lives, regardless of sexual orientation. But, as with any story taken up by Hollywood, things would not end well.
I went into Milk with little knowledge of the events surrounding Harvey Milk’s life and work and reading through the extensive wikipedia entry, it’s clear that some liberties were taken but for the most part, the film stays true to the important milestones in Milk’s career from becoming known as the Mayor of Castro Street to his eventual defeat of the Briggs Initiative. Black’s script stays very close to Milk’s life and completely avoids some of the other major events going on at the time, most notably Jim Jones who had ties to both Milk and then Mayor George Moscone, and that is to the film’s advantage for I was more interested in Milk’s personal life and the inspirational effect he had on those around him than in any of the politics.
Van Sant does have a few trademarks that are on display in the film, most notably in the portrayal of Milk’s relationship with Scott Smith, and those were the moments I appreciated the most: the extreme close ups, the emotion captured on the faces, the shadows which permeate the scenes of their interactions; the rest of the film, though well shot, failed to impress me as much as those intimate scenes. Particularly memorable is the last telephone call Milk makes to Smith which is ominous in light of the events which unfold a short while later. It’s in these scenes that Van Sant shines and which showcase his ability to capture the best his actors have to offer and they have a lot to offer.
It will come as little surprise that once bad-boy turned Hollywood favourite Sean Penn is outstanding. I tend to dislike the actor’s turns, mostly because they always feel over the top but in this instance, the performance fits the character but it’s the supporting cast which really impresses. Emile Hirsch, who made quite a splash with his excellent portrayal of Chris McCandless in last year’s Into the Wild, continues to prove that he can’t just carry effects extravaganzas but can act his heart out as well. Up and comers Joseph Cross and Alison Pill shine in their small roles while Josh Brolin and Diego Luna continue their upward trek. It’s James Franco who really stands out in his small role as Milk’s lover Scott Smith. Mostly known for his good looks and appearances in romantic comedies/dramas, Franco finally gets over the hurdle of being cast as the weepy romantic lead to strut his stuff as a dramatic actor and though the role is small, it allows his character a bit of growth and Franco pulls it off beautifully. I’m hopeful that we’ll see more of him in these types of roles in the coming years.
Milk is better than the average biopic and though a solid film, I found it unremarkable in the canon of Van Sant. The mix of his Hollywood approach with his more experimental films is still fresh and with a few more outings will prove to be unstoppable but this is not the film to put him over the top. Milk, though enjoyable, is only memorable for the character it portrays and the performances.
Click “play” to see the trailer:
Links:
IMDb profile
Official Site
Flixster Profile for Milk
Comment by Andrew James — November 25, 2008
Comment by Ashley — November 25, 2008
I know what you meant, but sorry, that’s funny to me.
Comment by Andrew James — November 25, 2008
Comment by Ashley — November 25, 2008
No Scientific or respectable institution or authoritative body uses the word “gay” as a substitute for Homosexual!
The word Homosexual is both Scientific and grammatically correct, as is the only word that appropriately describes Homosexual practices, which is to say, that they ARE sexual in nature!
Less than 1% of American’s are homosexual, yet liberal media has over exaggerated their importance and influence. So you stick your dick in your friends ass? So what!?
Now you want “special rights”? Do Mets fans get “special” seating at Yankee games? Do Yankee fans get “special” protections when they visit Boston? No! Homosexual don’t deserve any “special” protection and they don’t have any standing to affect or effect laws, either!
Comment by David — November 25, 2008
Comment by Andrew James — November 25, 2008
Comment by Marina Antunes — November 25, 2008
I’m actually being quite benevolent on behalf of reason, logic, and truth! I never once expressed any “mean” or hateful comments that homosexuals aren’t human beings. However, like my sports analogy, sexual preference does not deserve any more attention or protection than ones preference of sports teams. Even you admitted to agreeing with this argument.
Nevertheless, homosexuals fervently wage their war and countless attacks on Families and Social Conservatives for NOT “bending over backwards” (or forward) when any minority (less than 1% of Americans) say’s things should be “different” and march around calling for “change.”
I attended a media seminar for the “gay” media in California back in the early 90’s, and the one thing I remember is a GLAD spokes person saying “if we can get them to call us ‘gay’, we will have won the war!”
Well, like the Bush administration calling the Invasion of Iraq the “Liberation of Iraq,” you know that something is wrong when someone has to change the language for you to agree with them; hence, referring to homosexual behavior as “gay activities.” It’s Propaganda at it’s core!
Comment by David — November 25, 2008
Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!
Black, Latinos, and Asians DID NOT CHOOSE to born as they are! To discriminate against someone for their race or gender, which they had no choice in the matter, is obviously wrong. The suffering from racism and sexism is unforgivable.
However, that fact remains that homosexuals and abrosexuals CHOOSE out of THEIR OWN FREE WILL to act on and behave in the manner they, again, CHOOSE. That can never be the same as discrimination against those that were born under certain and definite circumstances! That misunderstanding (or misdirection) is another product of the homosexual agenda.
I’ll say it again; Less than 1% of American’s are homosexual, yet liberal media has over exaggerated their importance and influence. So you stick your dick in your friends ass? So what!?
Now you want “special rights”? Do Mets fans get “special” seating at Yankee games? Do Yankee fans get “special” protections when they visit Boston? No! Homosexual don’t deserve any “special” protection and they don’t have any standing to affect or effect laws, either!
Comment by David — November 25, 2008
Last I checked, we had a government whose goal was to protect the minority versus the whims and prejudice of the majority. I don’t choose to be gay, any more than I choose to be a Twins fan — I was born into both conditions
Well, just teasing about the Twins fan thing — I admit, I did experiment with cheering for the Yankees in college!
But thanks for trivializing my striving for equal rights with sports analogies … Deja Vu all over again!
Comment by Labby — November 25, 2008
Now, if you’re talking about redefining the word “marriage,” then that’s a whole different ball of wax. A “civil rights issue” that I take a lot of interest in and enjoy hearing both sides of the argument… in a civil manner.
“So you stick your dick in your friend’s ass? So what!?”
See, this is condescending and accomplishes nothing. It just shows immaturity in a forum such as this.
Comment by Andrew James — November 25, 2008
Comment by Andrew James — November 25, 2008
Wrong, Wrong, Wrong again!
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution is one of the post-Civil War Reconstruction Amendments, first intended to secure the rights of former slaves. Again, the suffering from racism and sexism is unforgivable.
However, the amendment requires states to provide equal protection under the law to all persons within their jurisdictions. That is to say, that it ensure EQUAL protection and due process of the law for every INDIVIDUAL, and not necessarily for an ORGANIZED class, such as homosexuals. Ethnic minorities are NOT organized class.
However, homosexuals have already demonstrated, many times, they they are not willing to accept EQUAL protection and subjugation of the law, which is ALREADY extended to them as their Heterosexual counterparts. Homosexuals want SPECIAL recognition within the context of the law, placing them as a “protected” class. Not fair to everyone else.
If someone were Black, Hispanic, or Asian, it would be evident and one would have standing to file a lawsuit for racial discrimination, if the circumstance would allow. However, if homosexuals were allowed “special” protections, then who would be able to say whether someone is homosexual or not, and whether, due to “special” protections for homosexuals, they could file a (fraudulent) lawsuit. Think of the movie “Chuck and Larry.”
Sexual preference IS trivial and so limited to the individual that it does not garner any “special” standing or protection within the context of the law. Because how significant is your sexual preference that it should have any impact on your daily interaction with the world?
Is being homosexual relevant at the grocery store, the bank, or when filing your taxes? No, it isn’t and shouldn’t be a factor or matter of public display. Besides, why is it necessary for anyone else other than you and your family to be involved in your personal affairs? It isn’t! Therefore, homosexuals should keep to themselves, as heterosexuals do, and stop badgering others about their own life choices!
Yes, homosexuals have rights, but as human beings and NOT because of their sexual preference. The U.S. Constitution and U.N. recognize HUMAN RIGHTS as a matter of ethics and morale, and not because of VANITY or RADICAL political motivations. People are guaranteed EQUAL protection and due process WITHIN THE LAW and NOT with how your neighbors treat you! Anything beyond your interaction with the law is YOUR problem, not your neighbors!
Comment by David — November 25, 2008
If only it that were so, however, it is FAR from the truth!
Your sexuality should not be a concern to me, therefore, I would not be aware of your sexuality UNLESS you CHOOSE to make it a topic of discussion — which it should NOT, as it is a PERSONAL matter and not for public display. If that were the case, how would I have anything to “persecute” you by unless you make the matter of contention?
““So you stick your dick in your friend’s ass? So what!?”
See, this is condescending and accomplishes nothing. It just shows immaturity in a forum such as this.”
People need dramatic examples sometimes, and honestly, it’s that simple!
Thanks for reading!
Comment by David — November 25, 2008
Oh, and in terms the more highly specific subject of same-sex marriage, What’s up with that? I think Mets fans are allowed to marry in the US of A. at least last time I checked, Oh, oh, only provided it is male and female (in what 49 states?
No idea what the problem that half or more of the US population has with to people who wish to marry and have all the rights and responsibilities of marriage. Loads of folks get ‘civil marriages’ which has didly-squat to do with religion, so hmmm, I’m not understanding what the hubub is about.
And David, lots of specific groups wrangle and whine for control in the United States (gun lobbyists, dairy farmers, etc. etc.) why are you singling out homosexuals for you ’sit down and shut-up position?’? Just curious.
And what’s up with the Liberal Media? Where does Fox News factor into that?
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — November 25, 2008
“Sit Down And Shut Up” exaggerations are fine in stand up comedy acts (and, uh, Bill O’Reilly). Are you doing comedy, or do you have serious concerns? Seems like you are ranting without being very funny.
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — November 25, 2008
Exactly! Thank you for confessing that ‘civil marriages’ (or “civil unions”) are offer homosexuals ALL the same LEGAL rights and protections as Heterosexual couples. Therefore, why do homosexuals what the “title” of Marriage, itself!? It’s PROPAGANDA!
Like the use of the word “gay”, linking the word “Marriage” to homosexuals is an attempt to lend legitimacy to homosexual and abrosexual activities, when it is NOT. Have you ever asked yourself why the institution of Marriage was created? Well, it was for the control and safety of PROCREATION. It was established so that CHILDREN would have an appropriate and nurturing environment in which to thrive.
However, because homosexuals CAN NOT PROCREATE, the matter of MARRIAGE is irrelevant. Therefore, MARRIAGE is an institution for PROCREATION (and by extension of the law of BIOLOGY) between a MAN and a WOMEN!
I’m sorry but the truth will not be hidden!
“And David, lots of specific groups wrangle and whine for control in the United States (gun lobbyists, dairy farmers, etc. etc.)”
Perhaps, but gun lobbyists and dairy farmers want to LEFT ALONE to keep and own their guns, their farms, their profits, and their civil rights to self-defense and the free market — Constitutional protected rights!
They DON’T, however, want to dismantle, disrupt, and disband entire social institutions and deconstruct the language of the law towards their own RADICAL and SELFISH political means!
I’m sorry, but the truth will not be misinterpreted!
Comment by David — November 25, 2008
One could argue that talk radio balances this out, but that’s hardly main stream and hardly news. It’s punditry. Nope, liberals love to scream about Fox news and beg for fairness, when really, FNC is one voice out of many that just happens to have an opposing view point that differs from what haters think should be on television. Also, people who rip on Bill O usually haven’t actually watched the show or read his column. Usually they have seen some YouTube segment then join the masses in belittling him because it’s hip to do so. He’s very fair quite often and takes lots of hits from the crazed right on a daily basis. Try some Keith Olberman on for size if you want Jerk-off to the Nth degree.
Comment by Andrew James — November 25, 2008
David. Show’s my ignorance. Homosexuals can get a civil marriage down in the US and have all the rights and responsibilities as a church marriage? I was not aware of that.
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — November 25, 2008
You may want to check out a little documentary called “OUTFOXED”
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — November 25, 2008
Thank You!
“Also, people who rip on Bill O usually haven’t actually watched the show or read his column. Usually they have seen some YouTube segment then join the masses in belittling him because it’s hip to do so.”
Exactly! That’s also the same reason Michel Moore and other liberals thrive in the media: Novelty!
“Try some Keith Olberman on for size if you want Jerk-off to the Nth degree.”
The guy THINKS he’s a poet and even the offspring of Edward R Murrow! Sorry, but Mr. Murrow DIDN’T take his talking points from ANY political party!
Andrew James, I think your more of a rational and socially conservative person than you might think! Well, at least your honest!
Comment by David — November 25, 2008
I hope that is a joke. As a film fan or a documentary fan, I can’t believe you, YOU, take that film on any serious level do you? It is one of the shittiest made pieces of crap I’ve ever seen.
I can record 6000 straight hours of footage of ANY TV station (seriously pick one) and make it look like it has a serious slant in any direction I choose. Shit, I could almost make Hamlet out of that most likely.
Again, the bashers of Fox and Bill O rarely have actually watched the show. It’s funny that leftists love to scream about free speech, but ask them about Fox new and they most seriously think it should be banned. But should MSNBC be banned? Oh hell no. Because it speaks the truth! Lol.
Comment by Andrew James — November 25, 2008
By the way Labby, you’re a Twins fan? Where do you live?
Comment by Andrew James — November 25, 2008
Whoa! Now your contradicting yourself. A student of law, I have always restrained my focus within the context of the LAW and LEGAL processes. Which is the vehicle homosexuals are using to exploit a SOCIAL matter. Nevertheless, I stated that ‘civil marriages’ (or “civil unions”) offer homosexuals ALL the same LEGAL rights and protections as Heterosexual couples.
The operative word being “LEGAL”, as in marriages that are LEGALLY filed with the local governmental jurisdiction in which a couple residents. The United States government does not recognize ANY religious ceremony as a de facto method to any LEGAL process, such a registration for marriage.
In other words, a couple that Marries in a church (or a synagogue for that matter) is NOT automatically recognized by the U.S. government or local jurisdictions. Everyone has to file their paperwork, because everyone (in the context of the LAW) is EQUAL!
Comment by David — November 25, 2008
I think you meant they HAVEN’T watched the show?
Comment by David — November 25, 2008
Nor should it!
George Washington warned America about political parties as dangerous, and his words (like all of our Founding Fathers) have proven themselves time and time again!
The “Republican” party of George W. Bush, however, is FAR from CONSERVATIVE; and I will say what other so-called “conservatives” are hesitant to say: George Walker Bush BETRAYED Conservative Americans!
It’s Bush’s fault the Dem’s “won” (where handed over) this election! Real Conservatives should have NO RESERVATIONS in throwing Bush OVERBOARD and RECONSTRUCTING the Republican party!
Comment by David — November 25, 2008
Listen, I think Outfoxed is a pretty shitty doc for a number of reasons, but seriously. Defending FOX news AND trying to make MSNBC as the same version as the same thing…
is looney tunes. How many left wingers can you name who openly espouse their views as such who have their own shows? Maddow, Olbermann, I guess you could look at Cafferty maybe but thats just a segment. There may be tonnes of others but they’re merely pundits and talking head guests. I can look at the right however and name countless on every network, and on MSNBC you’ve got Joe Scarborough every morning, and Pat Buchanan populating just about every show. FOX has nothing like an Olbermann on any show whatsoever, and no, Colmes doesnt count and never has, and he’s leaving FOX apparently anyways.
Before Olbermann came along I saw the right complain about Michael Moore as the typical pundit leftist as if he populates the airwaves non stop, when really he shows up for a movie every couple years, whereas you’ve got a nutball like Sean Hannity or Glenn Beck on the air EVERY FREAKING DAY. I’m sorry, but as much as it can be true that people may overnitpick FOX or ignore biases towards their own person as ‘truth’ on other networks, the way FOX handled things like ACORN and lied about registration fraud vs. voter fraud, things like ‘terrorist fist jab’ and the ‘madrassa’, all these things pile up into this massive ball where defense of it is simply, well..
horseshit.
Meanwhile on MSNBC where there may be an overall leftist bias, I can assure you its only to be an alternative and try to make some money, but at the same time its a matter of actual fact that they downplayed Olbermann’s role during a number of election specials because they dont like being viewed as a leftist network, that historically they were the ones who canceled what was at the time the ONLY liberal pundit left on the networks, Phil Donahue… I mean come on, when Maddow has been on the air for only months and regularly brings on dissenting opinions, and Olbermann’s rise has only been for a couple of years, vs. 8+ years of non stop FOX bias that permeates through both regular news and every show with an actual opinion… the comparision simply astounds me. It’s lunacy.
Good night and good luck.
Comment by Goon — November 25, 2008
I mean, I shake when I see this. How much did you see about Obama character attacks this election, the non stop soundclips of Wright, peeping into Ayers, letting McCain’s attacks dominate every news cycle… and how much did they look into McCain’s Keating connections, or G. Gordon Liddy? When Wright was all the rage where was the talk about Rod Parsley or John Hagee?
On barely listened to liberal radio, occasionally on Olbermann in counter attacks, in occasional asides from campaign reps, and one mention from Letterman in his McCain interview. If the media was on Obama’s side they sure didn’t show it to me. They sure seemed to be on the side of whatever got ratings.
I’ve seen no overall liberal bias in the media whatsoever except in some social issues. Ever. Living in a country where we have all of our media and can see all of yours, whenever I see someone say ‘liberal media’ as if its some obvious scourge, I feel like I’m taking crazy pills. It’s like, I don’t think you know what any of the words you are saying actually mean.
Bonkers. Absolutely bonkers.
Comment by Goon — November 25, 2008
Comment by Goon — November 25, 2008
In other words, seperate but equal.
still sounds like bigotry to me. and yes, I mean that whether ‘civil unions only’ comes out of Palin’s, McCains, Obama’s, Bidens, or wheover’s, mouth.
Comment by Goon — November 25, 2008
This might be the gayest sentence ever written.
Not that there is anything wrong with that.
Comment by Matt Gamble — November 25, 2008
Andrew, I’m calling you out on strawman. I don’t know anyone who thinks FOX should be banned, and if you can find even one I assure you they are in the vast minority. I think cable companies have the right to listen to letters requesting it be taken off the air, or whatever pressure to sponsors. Likewise, O’Reilly has all the right to whine about Ludacris to Pepsi to get him fired.
I’ve listened to that bullshit so often, especially as an atheist, from Christians saying I want to ban christmas, or that if i had my way I’d ban religion. I care about secular values and separation of church and state, but I know aside from it being wrong to ban away belief, its impossible to lesislate away people from believing anything they want to. When I have seen censorship attempts, ironically its the far extremes of each end that seem to come together on so many of the same issues re: banning, despite having different beliefs.
Example, I know far left womens studies majors who want to ban pornography because they think it fuels violence towards women, that somehow out of sight will not produce these feelings, etc, who are working side by side to ban porn with far right wing conservatives who think if their kids see it they’ll go fuck everything that moves and stop being christians. Its because of this I’ve come to believe that in many cases the political spectrum is not a straight line, but a horseshoe, where you can become so left that you share as much if not more in common with the far right than the centre left, and vice versa.
Comment by Goon — November 25, 2008
Then lets take away the marriage liscenses of people who don’t have kids if tradition is so important. Hell, if tradition is so important, lets fucking ban divorce!
Marriage also was instituted as a means of bartering/dowry between families, for control of assets, and was often and still is often entirely devoid of love or affection. Strange what traditions we do honor and which we don’t. Gay love seems to matter less than Britney Spears lark of a wedding, or Bristol Palin’s shotgun wedding to control their unwanted ‘procreation’. Its funny that the Mormons funded the Prop 8 campaign given their polygamist stances. The talk of protectiong the ‘tradition’ and ’sanctity’ of marriage is a joke.
How many posts is that in a row now? 97?
Comment by Goon — November 25, 2008
“Black, Latinos, and Asians DID NOT CHOOSE to born as they are! To discriminate against someone for their race or gender, which they had no choice in the matter, is obviously wrong. The suffering from racism and sexism is unforgivable.”
I am assuming you’re saying that being gay is a choice. My sister is gay. She didn’t choose to come home from school every day in high school confused and sad and depressed about her secret and how she couldnt share it with anyone lest she be judged and ostracized from her friends. She hasn’t chosen to continue to keep it secret from my parents for fear of being ostracized (even though I think they’ll accept it) and put my parents in the awkward place among our very religious extended family who would give them shit to their dying day. She hasn’t even held more than a few brief relationships she didn’t get to share or talk about to many people. She isn’t living some la di da life of fun and sex and defiance of tradition. If anything, she’s the cleanest, most moral otherwise typically ’straight’ person in my entire extended family. But she knows she’s gay, I sure as shit know she’s gay, and pretty much all science I’ve ever seen gives me proof that being gay isn’t a choice, and the only thing speaking otherwise is religious text and bigotry.
So on behalf of my sister, I choose to rude or not, say ‘fuck you’ for for your assumptions, you asshole. People like you have made her life increasingly harder every day, and I’ll never forgive you for it.
Comment by Goon — November 25, 2008
You know, considering that the media realizes that gay people make up part of their audience and thus have decided not to alienate them and even actually have some programming catered towards them, its easy to see why some backward nitwits will therefore jump to the conclusion the media is ‘liberal’. I guess it wont be a ‘centrist’ media until the media carries a corporate economically stupid bigotry that aligns with your idea of what the ‘facts’ should be regarding other peoples rights. With this in mind I guess any pro-Lincoln endorsement back in the 1860s must have been the biased unreliable ‘nigger loving media’ to a very large number of people.
Comment by Goon — November 25, 2008
I want to watch Tekkonkinkreet.
Comment by Andrew James — November 25, 2008
If it isn’t very clear, I would suffer consider amount of torture on behalf of my sister, and the wrongs done to her out there by the blatant condescension and bigotry of people like David is something I can’t shut up about it and every word I would say directly to his face. I mean fuck, this “less than 1% of Americans are gay” besides being a lie, is fucking moot. I don’t care if they’re 1 or 100%, you’re still enforcing your will on the minority over something that harms no one. Its funny to think that if they believe there’s so few gay people that they somehow have the power to break up straight marriages… because you know, thats exactly what happened here in Canada, right? You’d think with all the pedophilia out there they’d actually want to trump up the numbers to keep all their finger waving moral bases covered.
I’m sorry, it just makes me sick Andrew. Maybe you don’t want to read because its too much, but its also possible some of this shit merely makes you uncomfortable, and that when it comes to gay rights, David’s attitude is flat out indefensible.
Comment by Goon — November 25, 2008
- I’m not defending Fox for anything. I’m not denying they are come from a right wing POV. But so what? Everyone knows it, they know it. Who cares? I just think it’s funny that as soon as someone mentions liberal media, the first thing out of a leftist mouth is FNC. Because that’s all there is.
- Don’t know anyone who thinks FNC should be banned? Are you kidding me? Listen to Air America for an hour or two. Check out This site.
- I don’t know about FNC as a whole (because I actually don’t watch it that much - just “The O Factor”), but Bill defended the hell out of Kerry against the swift boaters. He also tried unsuccessfully to defend Dan Rather after he doctored papers to bring down Bush during the election. There are countless examples of Bill not being a right wing loon like everyone has branded him as - again this comes from a bunch of people who never take the time to actually watch the show. He’ll state quite openly that he’s a “traditionalist.” He looks at things logically and tries to opine on them - you may not agree with his opinion, but usually it’s a pretty fair analysis (unlike someone like Hannity or Limbaugh).
- Lastly, I hope all the “fuck-you’s” were not directed at me. I don’t necessarily agree with all of David’s points. I DON’T think being Gay is a choice. I think it is genetic somehow. Which is actually pretty interesting because if the “gay gene” is ever discovered, I wonder how many gays will continue to be in favor of abortion on demand. - I just opened a whole new can of worms there didn’t I?
Comment by Andrew James — November 25, 2008
Comment by Andrew James — November 25, 2008
They get people mad because their motto is fair and balanced. I would also argue the right wing pundits on fox are far more right than the left wing pundits are left. Maddow is the only pundit, not even Olbermann, who dares use the word ‘liberal’ to describe themselves. And again, other than those two, how many actual talking heads have such an outward bias? The fact that every other liberal in the news out there, and sometimes you can tell who they are, either have to keep it quiet or work so hard to at least appear centrist, tells me everything I need to know. The conservative pundits can’t even make the effort towards objective analysis and mediation, and that earns quite a bit of scorn from me. The people who are working ABC, regular NBC, CBS, as you would name. I don’t know for sure what any of them actually believe. I’ve been in long email discussions with George Stephanopolous actually, and for a ‘liberal media’ guy I’d never buy it. The same guy who ran Clinton’s campaign has said some things to me that make my head spin.
“I just think it’s funny that as soon as someone mentions liberal media, the first thing out of a leftist mouth is FNC. Because that’s all there is.”
Again, nothing is as far left as FOX is far right, and the MSNBC comparison as I said, is a joke. Fox made Tori “Inadequate Black Male!” Christman a pundit for fucks sake. Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter and Pat Buchanan are regular talking heads where Michael Moore if he does appear somewhere, is the one who is embarrassingly swept away. No network embraces the left, kooky or not, the way the right wingers embrace and defend theirs. ABC, CBS, they don’t have their 24 hour cable stations to make an accurate comparison. However this MSNBC is to the left as FOX is to the right comparison is retarded, made only because relatively speaking, MSNBC could ONLY be seen as further left. The shit out of Buchanan’s mouth as a pundit alone this season makes half of FOX’s pundits look like right wing nutjob amateur hour.
“Don’t know anyone who thinks FNC should be banned? Are you kidding me? Listen to Air America for an hour or two. Check out This site.”
Prove it. I’ve listened to Air America and NOVA M at various times during this campaign season, i’ve seen making fun of, often over the top, but have NEVER heard calls for banning jack shit. I have never seen calls to ban on this site. So prove it, smart guy. I call thee strawman out.
“but Bill defended the hell out of Kerry against the swift boaters. He also tried unsuccessfully to defend Dan Rather after he doctored papers to bring down Bush during the election.”
Rather didn’t doctor shit, his sources did. But its funny Rather goes down but Sean Hannity, who aside having Jerome Corsi on his show all the time, continues forward. O’reilly’s not an idealogue, but he’s the same person who says Obama is a socialist (because the socialist agenda is to raise the tax on a certain class 3% apparently) and that DailyKos is a hate site. If you think O’Reilly is ‘fair’ and Olbermann is the bigger egotistical clown, thats just goofy in my eyes. Olbermann is a blowhard but he actually lives on this planet and thinks before he speaks. I don’t give O’Reilly extra credit for not being as much a toady as Limbaugh or Hannity.
“Lastly, I hope all the “fuck-you’s” were not directed at me.”
David’s, but if you held that belief well I suppose past or not, I’d feel strongly enough to throw it anywhere it fits. Listen, part of my sass back is on pure instinct and conviction and the other is in response to the tone David already set here regarding it. If that’s the flippant disrespectful ‘they just want X in their ass woo hoo pervs’ kind of shit he rolls with, I’ll sass it right back.
“I wonder how many gays will continue to be in favor of abortion on demand.”
I don’t know, it sounds nasty but there’s the opposite spin of the anti-choice crowd knowing their kid will be gay and having to go through with it. C’est la vie.
Comment by Goon — November 25, 2008
I understand your sentiment and agree it doesn’t necessarily improve relations amongst people, and in general on a movie site it isnt relevant. On a thread for “Milk” I don’t see too much problem, and seeing as David brought up ‘librul media hurr’ first i have no problem responding. I do try not to actually start these conversations and don’t specifically recall many, if any, times where I’ve been the political instigator.
Comment by Goon — November 25, 2008
Comment by Goon — November 25, 2008
That is ridiculous, as GENETIC traits correspond with BIOLOGICAL functions! That is a very elementary basis of genetics and biology as a whole. Therefore, as homosexual activity cannot procreate, and as the sexual organs were made to be received by the OPPOSITE sex (and as the anus WAS NOT made to receive, but to eject) it is OBVIOUS and SCIENTIFICALLY proven that homosexual behavior is not “genetic” by any means!
“I mean fuck, this “less than 1% of Americans are gay” besides being a lie, is fucking moot.”
That number was quoted from the Gay and Lesbian Medical Associations!
Admittedly, the posts made by “Goon” are obviously “personal” and therefore clouded by a sense of personal responsibility to a relative that has lost sight of what is healthy and safe sexual conduct.
I’m sorry that the girl is troubled by her circumstance, but basic elements of Biology, Chemistry, Genetics, and Psychology have determined that homosexual behavior is an unhealthy and unnatural choice.
This is exactly why judges and officials with relations to homosexuals are not allowed to make judgments or vote on legislature regarding homosexuals. It’s a clear conflict of interest. Politics must always be dispassionate in nature!
Comment by David — November 25, 2008
“I’m sorry that the girl is troubled by her circumstance.” PFFFT, everything you’ve said to date pretty much shows otherwise.
“This is exactly why judges and officials with relations to homosexuals are not allowed to make judgments or vote on legislature regarding homosexuals.”
Imagine if someone said judges and officials with relations to black people are not allowed to make judgments or vote on legislature regarding black people. I mean what a clear conflict of interest!
I suppose gay men choose to speak differently too, oh they’re just putting on airs to create a fake culture to fool Real America.
Comment by Goon — November 25, 2008
As for Milk, I have this one down as a ‘must-see’. I’ve seen the 1984 documentary, The Times of Harvey Milk (which is one I recommend), and from all appearances, I’d say Sean Penn really captured the man’s personality in this film (at least that’s the feeling I get from the trailer).
Comment by Dave — November 25, 2008
I have not read through this entire argument, because David, what I have read by you seems nothing short of bigotry. Perhaps you feel differently. Let me quote you (and I will pull out only one quote, because I don’t have time to write a dissertation here):
“sexual preference does not deserve any more attention or protection than ones preference of sports teams.”
This argument isn’t about special protection, David. This is about asinine prejudices that reflect our shadowy past as a nation of inequality despite our claim for being the freest, most equal country in the world. This has been one of the few constants in our nation. This isn’t about attention either. This is about the rights that people have as human beings. Does the thought of two men having sex gross me out? Yes. But to twist Voltaire’s words to match my point, I may not like what homosexuals do in the bedroom, but I will fight for their right to do it and not be treated as second class citizens because of it.
Just this week in Florida, a judge had to overturn a law because it is against Florida law for a homosexual couple to adopt a child. The state attorney general is appealing this. In other states it is against the law to adopt children as a couple if you are not married. Well gee, guess what? That means homosexual couples cannot adopt children, because there are many - dare I say a majority (something Mark Twain said comes to mind here: “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.”) - that feel only marriage can and should only be between a man and a woman.
Homosexuals are just people. They don’t want special treatment, they want equal treatment. They are just people looking for those unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that they are supposedly guaranteed in America - unless, of course, our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution are not taken into account.
But I understand that this is an argument of ideologies and beliefs, and it is nearly impossible to sway a person from their ideologies they have held onto their entire life and I do not expect to.
Comment by Jonathan B. — November 25, 2008
This. This is why I campaign against Scientific Realism Goon… because any fucking moron can feel a sense of entitlement abstracting established truisms to suit some political argument, disregarding the lack of a provable, discernible complete isomorphism between the information taken from Genetics, Chemistry, Psychology, and that funny fuzzy metaphysical term, um, Choice, or what philosophers like to call Free Will. What a perfect world David envisions where science has this complete ability to tell us how people behave, why people behave the way they do, a fan of Max Weber are we?
David, did you happen to comment on The Pagan Agenda a couple years ago, I am pretty sure your signature bullshit is something I have encountered before.
Comment by rot — November 25, 2008
that said, I doubt that would work either, because people like David don’t REALLY care about scientific arguments, they just like to have something to bolster their prejudices with to give the illusion that David is a reasonable guy.
Comment by rot — November 25, 2008
Also, I want to say “Well said” on a number of things above, Goon. I believe you are the spokesperson for sanity in these parts. I appreciate it.
This sort of sheer intolerance and a forcing of traditional ideals in a society that isn’t as backward as the 1960s (both Canada and America were still hanging people folks!). If two men or two women want to get married, then so be it. Done. You have their life, they have yours. Do your own thing. Your whining for Traditional issues is more shrill for those asking for EQUAL rights. Read that again David. EQUAL.
This issue and the shrill intolerance is part of the reason why America is a place for me to visit only, I’d not want to live there. Sorry.
Comment by kurt — November 25, 2008
The argument is a political argument though. An argument of what our government guarantees. You can try and twist the rights guaranteed by our government any way you would like and it isn’t possible to find a way to exclude someone based on sexual preference.
David thinks that the liberal media twists things? Look at the argument the state attorney general of Florida gives for seeking to uphold the ban on homosexuals adopting:
“The state argued that gays and lesbians have higher odds of suffering from depression, affective and anxiety disorders and substance abuse, and that their households are more unstable.”
You want to know why homosexuals have higher odds of suffering from depression and anxiety? Because of all these assholes.
That is like saying “African Americans are more likely to go to prison. Hispanics too. NO ADOPTING CHILDREN FOR THEM MWHAHAHA.” It is a ridiculous argument, as all people and couples wanting to adopt should be screened and evaluated on a case by case basis, not immediately denying people based on sexual preference - that is why the adoption process takes so long in the first place.
Yikes.
Comment by Jonathan B. — November 25, 2008
even if i were to pretend it were not, the fact of the matter is people are going to continue to be gay, have gay relationships, and no matter what kind of legislation people try to pass, lesbians can still bear children and will raise them. Gay being natural is clearly a massive threat to the belief system of a lot of conservatives, particularly Christians, but if thats how it is then tough shit. All that is happening now by opposing gays to such a degree is that it firstly makes their lives needlessly more difficult, makes a judgment that their love is less worthy than the love or even casual sexless relationships of straight people, and if children are involved stands in the way of anything resembling a normal family life. For conservatives with so called ‘family values’ to intervene in the way they do is hollow and pathetic, and increasingly a transparent front for unabashed bigotry.
Comment by Goon — November 25, 2008
no, David needs to admit he believes what he believes prior to any proofs or articulations, he believes it because something in him wants to believe it, but that want has no moral authority over any other want that another person has, there are no real hierarchy to the hunches we all possess, sheer force, or chance, or the art of politics moves one hunch above another in the social consciousness, the justifications come long after. You cannot beat David with your rhetoric, you can only reveal the flimsy nature of his own.
Comment by rot — November 25, 2008
rot, I don’t argue the flaw you point out, but I am basing what is an ethical argument on our political system and our country’s political documents and pointing out what they say is necessary to do this. The same has been done throughout America’s history for the argument against slavery, for women’s rights, for civil rights, and so forth - all ethical arguments.
Because it is a political argument right now. And while it does not “invent right or wrong” as you put it, it does justify whether a law is unconstitutional or not. Which, you know, is kind of a big deal.
EDIT: I hope you see that I am purposely and consciously approaching this argument with political ideologies.
Comment by Jonathan B. — November 25, 2008
Lets take that a step further then and say that gay people = jesus, suffering intolerance for our sins, and will one day return again to judge the living and the dead. Run for your life David!
anyways, i see your point but for me, the ‘common sense’ is simply that in the case of gay people, theres not really anything to be gained. theres no carrot other than finally being able to have sex with someone youre attracted to. I mean like anyone else, a good number of gay people are raised to believe they will go to hell for that ’sin’, so to me its another thing to pile on things most people wouldnt actively choose. with regard to christians and any other belief, they actually do have the carrot to justify their self-victimization.
I’d be willing to let the point go, but i mean also it would also be a matter of pretty much all gay people going through the rite of self victimization, and really only so many christians put themselves through too much torment, especially when they have so many other people to torment.
Kidding on the square.
“David needs to admit he believes what he believes prior to any proofs or articulations”
I get what you’re saying, but I don’t think most people who let preset beliefs corrupt or selectively choose/misrepresent their science ever do that. I think in the end rot, you maybe need to think less about whether or not we’re trying to show him specifically the error of his ways so much as exercise/hone our own arguments and convince the more reasonable person reading the thread who never posts that its your argument that is grounded in honesty, compassion and pragmatism (and yes, sometimes a bleeding heart) - and whatever way i can say ‘logic’ that wont get us into parsing words we dont agree the defintion of.
As much as I go on and on all the time about things, and as much as someone may see that as simply trying to drown out the other side with too much to dispute, I don’t try to debate people like someone is scoring - while I’ll try to show i’ve through through something thoroughly, there’s only so much you can do, and getting someone to admit they believe what they do prior to any ‘proofs or articulations’ pretty much requires uncharacteristic honesty from someone otherwise putting on a front, or simply getting the person talking long enough that they fuck up.
===========
I’m in my underwear and Spongebob slippers typing like a fancy boy about the nature of argument. Internetting is good.
Comment by Goon — November 25, 2008
Interesting.
Comment by Andrew James — November 25, 2008
Comment by Jonathan B. — November 25, 2008
Just look at post 8, its a real work of irony, how in his defense of coming across as condescending, he makes an even more condescending post. he came in attacking liberals and gays as a whole, and when he was disputed went into the line of ‘well you’re just brainwashed by the media’ spiel.
You’re asking us to placate him. So he wants to judge my sister in nicer terms than another person would. he’s still a bigot, and his bigotry still earns a ‘fuck you’ from me.
‘bonkers’ is a pretty lame thing to be upset about.
‘horse shit’? really? whats the difference between that and say, ‘hokum’ or ‘malarkey’?
Comment by Goon — November 25, 2008
“Interesting”
Whats the difference betwen the way I’m addressing him here and how I address anyone else? I ‘horse shit’ and ‘chrissake’ my way through everything. The only thing thats interesting is this time you’re acknowledging it
Comment by Goon — November 25, 2008
I’m guessing it was mostly my needless swearing. He might point to your ‘assholes’ in post 50 Jon, but I think it was well deserved and a spot on point. Why should you have to apologize for that?
Comment by Goon — November 25, 2008
/Baffling.
No, there are merely a bunch of people that are hip to hollow rhetoric in the name of imposing your beliefs on another group, out of tradition, religion, or other dogma that seems to run counter to one of the primary American documents of tolerance, acceptance and equality.
This argument/debate was entirely civil and this considering that David came out of the gate, somewhat shrill-ly in post #5 “Another propaganda mouthpiece for distorting realty and covering the truth!”
If anything, the can of worms (i.e. talking political/personal views in the ‘culture wars’) was opened by David, and many of the folks around here are not going to let that kind of thing go by without a response.
And shifting gears again to the so-called liberal media, my main issue with Fox News isn’t so much what or how they say things (although that is pretty bad at times), but rather what they think is news, and how they frame many arguments to the point where they are not technically lies, but really, not critical to the conversation, and they’ll harp on things over and over and over to ‘make an issue’ out of it. I use to have huge issues with how conservative and backwards CNN was, but Fox makes CNN look down right liberal indeed. In fact, all the media IS liberal compared to how far right Fox is, and if Fox (and radio equivalents Hannity/Limbaugh use it as a yard-stick, well, yea all the media is liberal by comparison, even the Wall Street Journal. But it is perspective.
I agree with Goon though that most folks (especially folks not in the United States) think the tagline “FAIR AND BALANCED” on the Fox News Channel is probably the most Orwellian piece of double-speak one can point to in the 21st century.
Comment by kurt — November 26, 2008
Someone doesn’t like the fact that people are gay and they’re not going to change. People see Fox and think it is the anti-christ of news channels - they’re not ever going to see anything different. I watch CNN and watch Wolf Blitzer damn near in tears in ‘04 and then almost tap dancing on this year’s election night. I see liberal bias there. Someone else doesn’t. Nothing is gained or is going to be resolved in a thread such as this because no one will ever look at things from a moderate standpoint. Therefore, I’m done with this thread and going back to movies.
Comment by Andrew James — November 26, 2008
I think this thread is pretty educational and worthy. And I think people talking about these things in a sane and articulate manner (which is actually present above) is healthy.
So I disagree. Movies in a vacuum, independent of life, believe, politics and personal growth is lame. The best film critics/reviewers/opinion-makers are those that live beyond simply ‘the movies’ and bring their own personal experiences into their commentary and don’t hide beneath so-called ‘just review the movie’ objectivity which doesn’t exist.
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — November 26, 2008
I am challenging epistemologically, Jonathan, politically, Goon, sort of pragmatic morality, I hope, Andrew, you do not construe this to be a liberal smear campaign or anything because despite some testy words there is some real meat to the arguments being posed, and while there are more people arguing from an apparently liberal perspective (though mine is not)that does not detract from the actual arguments being made. (Kurt, I dislike the very phrase fair and balanced, because balanced is misleading, I mean was Murrow ‘balanced’? No, he rightfully editorialized, and everybody should, so long as fairness comes into play its alright to have opinions).
And Goon, I was say David’s strength is his scientific support, anyone reading could think he has science on his side, and that the argument is won there. But he is wrong, for several reasons, chiefly being the metaphysical term of CHOICE or FREEWILL has no relationship with real science, its METAphysical for a reason, it goes beyond the boundaries of what physical quantifying can prove.
But let’s say that biological determinism was a convincing argument, how then, can David make an end point to where it controls us? He would like the determinism to end with sexuality, but we are talking genetic determining of behaviour, it seems strangely convenient to say it ends there and everything else is safe. Is our political disposition biologically determined, some argue god-fearing is biologically determined, whatever everything we do is determined? Legislating that does more harm to our humanity, to our sense of identity than anything a small subculture could ever do. The greater danger is Weber’s social science of reducing humanity to patterns and assuming thats all there is.
Science stands in awe of what it does not know, or what it cannot prove, so there can never be this fictitiuous line between determinism sexually and from everything else… that assumes you know that entire spectrum and see both sides of the division… science doesn’t work that way, speculative pseudo-science does.
CHOICE and FREEWILL are what make us human, you cannot partition it away…
so David, how about abortion?
Comment by rot — November 26, 2008
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — November 26, 2008
Comment by rot — November 26, 2008
A-fuckin-Men.
The one thing I would plead for people to do is embrace their personalities, do not try and edit them out… to not try and assume some safe objective distance from the film… We need to have opinions founded on real things, real feelings, attitudes, perspectives.
Comment by rot — November 26, 2008
Comment by Goon — November 26, 2008
What the fuck?
Comment by Goon — November 26, 2008
Andrew, I am not arguing personal politics and I don’t expect people to budge (although people’s ideologies do change over time - the more one experiences, the more one learns, the more educated on becomes will shift one’s ideologies and beliefs. When I was probably junior high age, I remember saying: “Why don’t we just put all of the gay men on one island and the lesbians on another island and come back in 100 years and see how they are doing?” - and that is just how some people’s minds work). I come from an area that is pretty conservative, a family that is 95% registered Republicans (I am not affiliated with any party, for the record). My one older brother was appalled and looked at me in disbelief when he discovered I voted for Obama. I tell you this because I couldn’t sway him or my family or even get most of them to understand my justifications for voting for Obama, so I don’t expect to sway David. What I am arguing here though is the unalienable rights guaranteed by the American government, the rights guaranteed to every human being. I am far more disgusted by the states that aren’t allowing homosexual couples to even adopt children (children that are desperately in need of love and a family) and coming up with ridiculous justifications for it. It is unconstitutional. It is discrimination. There is no argument against this. NONE. I don’t care who you are or what your personal beliefs are. Which, to give our state governments some credit, most states do let homosexual couples adopt - there is only Florida that blatantly doesn’t and then a handful of others that get around the wording with laws stating “only married couples can adopt.”
Anyway, this is going a bit off-topic, but more or less summarizes my feelings on much of the media. Of course, the man is Jon Stewart and the show is CNN’s Crossfire. This is an awesome video if you have 15 minutes to spare:
Comment by Jonathan B. — November 26, 2008
I’ve always been further left than the majority of my family, but I used to hold a more, not anarchistic, but ‘they’re all puppets’ Bill Hicks sort of semi-libertarian attitude. I’m embarrassed to say that at one point I believed some of those 9/11 conspiracies of which now I vehemently hate, those friggin Zeitgeist films. I used to be a bit religious. I’m actually pro gun rights to some degree while at the same time think gun ownership and fetishism is retarded. It’s not the kind of change my parents went through but ideas change, you just need time and/or the right argument.
Comment by Goon — November 26, 2008
Comment by Rusty James — November 27, 2008
Comment by Good — November 27, 2008
The only thing I will say, that hopefully we can all agree on is: Goon, your parents and your parents’ friends suck balls.
Comment by Henrik — November 29, 2008
I made no mention of my parents friends. They’d be completely fine with it. My parents’ and most of my extended family though, yeah, they’re awful.
Thanks for playing.
Comment by Goon — November 29, 2008
Comment by Goon — November 29, 2008
Comment by Henrik — November 29, 2008
My parents aren’t afraid of my sister. They’re just clueless that she’s gay. As for my sister, she’s not afraid of my parents, she actually still lives with them. But until she knows what they think for sure, she’s going to be scared. You’re not gay and neither am I, but every gay friend I know says regardless of how liberal or conservative their parents are, coming out was the scariest thing they ever had to do. I think she may do it over this Christmas, she knows I’ll be there to back her up and that may make her more comfortable.
So if you’re still judging my parents here, then get bent.
Comment by Goon — November 29, 2008
Comment by Henrik — November 29, 2008
Wow.
I guess every foible and anxiety of every child is the direct fault of the parent then.
And I dare you to go up to a gay person and tell them their sexual preference is ‘trivial’. Fuck Henrik, you have no idea how ignorant you’re being. it’s astounding.
Comment by Goon — November 29, 2008
Comment by Matt Gamble — November 29, 2008
And yes these a pearls of wisdom.
Comment by Henrik — November 29, 2008
Comment by Henrik — November 29, 2008
Thank you for your insight, Dr. Phil.
Except children almost always fear their parents. I’d even argue its human nature. Children fear disappointing their parents. They fear pissing them off. They fear what their parents think. Are they irrational fears? That is irrelevant.
Of course, you’ve made it clear that you defy human nature and are on an enlightened plane of existence. So you would not understand this.
Comment by Jonathan B. — November 29, 2008
This is all part of growing up. I realize not everybody gets there.
Comment by Henrik — November 29, 2008
Almost everything in the world revolves around sex. How is it trivial?
“Parents are just people who had a kid. You should approach them like you approach any other person, and if they cry when you tell them the truth, then that is what happens.”
Jesus. You are one disconnected dude.
I think Henrik is a robot.
Comment by Jonathan B. — November 29, 2008
Maybe their sexual preference is trivial to you, and if you said it that way to someone, it may be just fine. You’re a straight person in a straight dominated society, you don’t have to live with the ramifications of being straight every day. It’s the norm, its taken for granted, its the regular back of potato chips. For a minority, especially an oppressed one, it can be very much a part of an identity to be embraced so they can overcome the hardships of being the minority, and accepted to the point where they can feel just as normal and unaware of their race or sexuality as everyone else.
You really dont get it. They have Gay Pride parades for reasons other than dancing around in bicycle shorts and singing Abba songs, you know.
“So your dare is obsolete.”
That would have been amazingly awesome and weird to watch. It’s a crying shame nobody filmed it and then interviewed him directly afterward. Give me his email address then. I dare you
Comment by Goon — November 29, 2008
Comment by Henrik — November 29, 2008
I prefer to think of him and read his posts as if he’s Dieter from SNL.
Comment by Goon — November 29, 2008
Thank you for jumping to conclusions about me.
“You will grow beyond the fear of disappointing them and the fear of pissing them off, and see them as human beings rather than authority figures.”
It also has nothing to do with authority figures. The fear comes from them being two of the most important people in your life.
Comment by Jonathan B. — November 29, 2008
If your, how you say, parents are le worried about zeir child-ren, they should have nevair had les child-ren. Your parents, they are, how you say, le scum of zee earth.
Comment by Jean-Pierre le Goon — November 29, 2008
Comment by Henrik — November 29, 2008
Nah, he’s HAL.
Comment by Matt Gamble — November 29, 2008
Being too reliant on your parents approval is a problem, but its also completely natural. They raised you, spent countless amounts of money on you in the hopes you would do well, and sacrificed countless other life experiences for your benefit. If you don’t have any desire for your parents approval, and don’t have any fear about confronting them about certain things, then let me make my own snap judgments and say you’re an ungrateful child.
Comment by Jean-Pierre le Goon — November 29, 2008
In all honesty, the comments are not meant to address you personally, it is meant to adress every person in the world.
Comment by Henrik — November 29, 2008
Comment by rot — December 12, 2008
My favorite biopics don’t try to capture a full life, but instead a specific era, and the films exist as much to push the theme/lesson of that era as they do to make people finally see a historical person captured on screen. My two most immediate examples are the Queen and Capote, more so the latter. Capote is one of my favorite films of this decade, easily. I only thought it was so-so the first time, but on repeated viewings it is one of few films I dare say is perfect.
Comment by Goon — December 12, 2008
In other words, performances like Kim (Anne Hathaway) from Rachel Getting Married or Poppy (Happy Go Lucky) are so much more impressive because the actor made the character. With Ray, Walk the Line or Capote - it’s simply an impersonation. Not that it’s bad or unworthy of praise, it just isn’t the same as a fictional character.
Comment by Andrew James — December 12, 2008
Why is fictional harder? Non-fiction has implied expectations that must be met, if not exceeded, fictional has none.
Comment by Matt Gamble — December 12, 2008
Sculpting or drawing something is difficult. Sculpting or drawing something that already exists is a lot easier. In other words, not a chance in hell I could recreate the Mona Lisa. But if I was a semi-skilled painter, I could look at Mona Lisa and least do it some sort of justice. Coming up with the concept and look is something that could only have been done by DaVinci. - Wow. That’s a really extreme (not to mention poor) example. But you get what I mean.
The expectation thing might be there to a point, but re-creating a character has some leeway with audiences I think. Though in the case of Milk, it isn’t really impersonating a guy (because no one really knows him anyway), it is eliciting an emotion from the audience with the character and Penn does it brilliantly here. So basically I have no point.
Comment by Andrew James — December 12, 2008
Using Capote as an example, look at “Capote” and look at “Infamous” on Truman Capote performances alone. Toby Jones does an infinitely better impression, both in the way he speaks, and physically. Hoffman also had to make some sort of go at the voice, but he has so much more emotion and pain brimming underneath it, and the film itself is making a statement about how the pursuit of a story ruined his life. It doesn’t even really matter if Capote is real or not, the story speaks for itself. Infamous tried to tell the same story but ramped it up with unnecessary additional things about Truman, speculations to punctuate drama where it was failing otherwise, and those terrible talking head faux-doc style segments to explain who Truman is.
So sorry, I really do think in most cases that playing an actual person is more work, both for the person casting and the person performing. I can agree that its an easier road to an Oscar because people will pay more attention to how well you nailed it vs. how you normally act, and I can agree that when an actor can bring life into a new character it will 9/10 feel so much more special or personal, but that feeling and originality doesn’t undo the value of a top level biopic perfromance.
Helen Mirren blew the competition away with the Queen. She had the meatiest role, she had way more screen time to develop that character, and the movie’s themes of modern vs. tradition and specific timeframe to show it make it something beyond a condescending “but its a biopic” writeoff.
Comment by Goon — December 12, 2008
eh… I don’t think biopics are trying to recreate the Mona Lisa. A biopic isn’t about recreating a human being, its just telling the life story of an entertaining, allegorical or interesting figure, and a good performance is merely part of that equation.
It’s more to me like a good cover song. The ones that get recreated perfectly are a lot less special than the ones that do the original justice while at the same time putting their own spin onto it. A good cover song is actually a pretty difficult task. Hendrix’s version of “Watchtower” isn’t ridiculously removed from the original, but its a lot more special than a Bob Dylan soundalike would do, and in fact better than most of Hendrix’s original material.
Comment by Goon — December 12, 2008
I think most regular stories by the way, in the process of book/screenplay to director and their costumers, kind of get the persons look and dictate quite a bit of information to what the person is supposed to be, before the actor can really get their hands all over it. In most cases its the actors job to take what everyone has put on top of them and do the math, and if theres a decent director, they will continue to shape it from there. It’s not a single actors’ onus or acheivement when a new iconic performance occurs, it really is a team effort.
So to me when you’re pointing at a biopic performance, you still have all that weight and information fed to you before you start, but also have the pressure of most everyone in your audience knowing all of this backstory too, you don’t just have to make it feel right, you have to make them forget you’re an actor and disappear into who you are playing.
When they acheive it, the same thing that works to their disadvantage before people see them, will work to their advantage when it comes to word of mouth and awards. But we only talk about the latter. I think people need to dig more at the pre-release posts and articles and look again at the expectations they face.
And its not just established famous people, its established characters. Heath Ledger is praised for his Joker, but the advance expectations and criticism were certainly there. he had to go the extra mile and really sink into it to get such acclaim, and now that its awards time I have begun seeing people treat it like it was a biopic performance, that playing a familiar character like the Joker was a gimme and a cheap way to get noticed. I don’t see that.
Comment by Goon — December 12, 2008
With bio-pics and non-fiction films there is already a preordained set of rules and expectations that must be followed, which can be as much a hinderence as it is helpful. I think the same could be applied to adaptations to varying degrees as well. Heck, is the reason it is so difficult to make a decent video game movie adaptation because of the inherent degree of difficulty in doing so?
Though I really have no idea which I would label as harder to do for an actor, as I think depending on the role, the material and so on, the degree of difficulty can fluctuate pretty wildly.
Comment by Matt Gamble — December 12, 2008
So something like “I’m Not There” is WAY more interesting and in my opinion better than a typical biopic on Dylan would have been.
Now having said that, Blanchet’s performance was likely the best of the bunch (or Ledger) and she was the one doing the most obvious imitation. So yeah, it’s hard to say. I think this quote from Gamble is about right: “depending on the role, the material and so on, the degree of difficulty can fluctuate pretty wildly.”
Comment by Andrew James — December 12, 2008
I haven’t gotten around to that one yet for some reason. Anyways going completely radical doesn’t make your ‘cover’ way better anyways. Radiohead covering a Talking Heads song is going to be considerably less radical than Insane Clown Posse’s, that doesn’t mean ICP’s is more worthwhile than a relatively more ‘typical’ cover.
Comment by Goon — December 12, 2008
I’m not big on biopics, but I do always appreciate a good one.
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — December 12, 2008
BTW, “I’m Not There” is fab. If you’ve seen Scorsese’s “No Direction Home” you should really ‘get’ “I’m Not There”.
Comment by Andrew James — December 12, 2008
I’ve watched 1/4th of it, and that was around 3 or so years ago, whenever it came out. I feel bad about that, I own almost every Scorsese movie (save some of those documentaries) and am a big Dylan fan, but I’ve made 4 attempts to watch the doc and each time I fell asleep, something I dont know if i attribute to the movie itself or just bad luck.
That failure to finish certain movies has happened to me a couple times, most notoriously with the Good Bad and the Ugly. It took around 10 tries to finish it, each time starting from the beginning, over the course of 5 years. Finding the time for a 3 hour movie with the intent of watching it from the start isn’t the easiest task. When I finally did finish it, while I enjoyed it I actually found it to be my least favorite Leone film, and I’ll never know if I chock that up to my experiences trying to watch it, the hype, or what.
Comment by Goon — December 12, 2008
Comment by rot — December 12, 2008
Also I feel like if it relies on a lot of his life story, that I should watch the doc first. I dunno.
I’ve never seen a copy of Dont Look Back in stores, ever.
Comment by Goon — December 12, 2008
Comment by rot — December 12, 2008
Comment by Goon — December 12, 2008
Comment by rot — December 14, 2008
I still prefer Rourke’s Wrestler performance, but I wouldn’t be upset to see Penn take awards from him for this role.
Comment by Goon — January 7, 2009
Gays make up 1% of the American population. Lol
Your so far off with that stat…
Comment by 790 — January 19, 2009