Homosexuality, in my opinion, is always the strangest kind of human emotional activity - this "strangeness" does not come from my lack of understanding and acceptance of homosexual love, on the contrary, I should understand and accept that group very well ——This kind of "strangeness" stems from my confusion about discrimination against homosexuals, and my confusion about homosexuality being a "vulnerable group". Human emotions are complex, but only family and love can accompany each other for a lifetime and be immersed in all aspects of life. Needless to say, family affection, the bloodline inheritance that blood dissolves in water is indelible no matter what. But love is relatively special. Two people who are not inherently related can form a strong emotional bond. Therefore, love has become an eternal proposition in artistic creation. But there are many forbidden areas for human beings in love. There are not only physical forbidden areas in close kinship relationships, but also moral forbidden areas in mother-child relationships. However, whether it is a physical or moral level, the love between the same sex seems to be should not be included. Physically, although homosexual intercourse is one of the causes of "AIDS", it does not cause the next generation of physical pain like inbreeding; The chaos of family relations and social relations like the love between teachers and students - especially homosexual love is an innate emotional need that has existed since the beginning of human emotions. It is not, as many people understand it, a kind of human The distortion of emotion is a kind of destruction of human emotion.
But, no matter what, today's gay romance has indeed become a "vulnerable group" in emotional life, an underground group without the guarantee of rights consciousness. I don't know how realistic it is for "Milk" to be born at a time when the United States is proposing to legalize gay marriage, but "Milk" on its own almost downplays and eschews the depiction of gay relationships and takes aim at homosexuality. It is not difficult for us to imagine the intentions of director Santer in the struggle for rights. From the oppressive realism shown in the black and white images at the beginning of the film to the calmness and isolation of Milk when recording alone, it is difficult to find the romantic warmth and emotion that are common in "gay" movies. Struggling, the whole film has nothing to do with "love", and concentrates on the self-awakening and firm pursuit of an ideological consciousness. Sant's idea and the cracking of such a historical theme are relatively clever. He did not try to restore the entire historical process, nor did he express homosexual love, but focused on Milk himself, or in other words, focusing on For the presentation of Milk as an individual person, but this presentation has a regrettable lack.
Of course, it is understandable that Sant only used a very simple method to express the relationship between Milk and Smith. After all, the director did not intend to try to understand the causes of homosexuality or discuss the relationship between homosexuals in the film review. entanglement. But as a film that attempts to interpret and promote the collective outbreak of individual consciousness, there are at least two processes that are not perfect: one is how a small businessman like Milk, who likes photography, sprouts to fight for the rights of the gay community. The second is the process of awakening of consciousness, and the second is the process of conflict and struggle that Milk should have generated when facing the voices of support and rejection in the process of fighting for rights. I don't think that the romantic life between Milk and Smith, which is rarely seen throughout the film at the opening, was successful, because at least in the process of Milk's homosexuality-consciousness, he and Smith's relationship has not been devastated, and all the psychological motivations seem to be only foreign influences, not their own emotions and thoughts - which makes the contrast between romantic life and harsh reality weakened too much. In the film, it seems that the incident where the homosexual was beaten by the police was the key motivating point for Milk, but in that incident, Milk was only a bystander, at least not an absolute party. Maybe that's the way history is, but it's a bit abrupt when it suddenly turns to Milk and starts talking on the street. It is true that people's ideology will also mutate at a certain moment, and even change his life like Milk, but as a film that attempts to take care of an individual's "person", it shows a person's ideological fission in this way. The process of consciousness awakening is still too simplistic.
And after Milk embarked on that road of no return, I also didn't believe that Milk, as a "human", would be so firm and unshakable. I remember that Milk's shaking was not completely shown in the film, but even the inadequacy (inadequate presentation) based on the origin of Milk's thoughts also caused the inadequacy of the conflicting mental and emotional struggles in the process of shaking. The expansion of freedom consciousness is always accompanied by oppression, and the interaction process of this germination and oppression is always a process of ebb and flow. This process will not be a linear structure with a single arrow, especially in the psychology of the characters. The word "wei" of great people shows that they have firmness and persistence that ordinary people do not have, while the word "people" is to restore the hesitation and hesitation that they need to experience like ordinary people. Santer's mistake is not that he did not show the contradiction and hesitation about "people", but that the process of showing how to break through this contradiction and hesitation also seems to be simplified. After losing two (three) elections to Milk, he also had the idea of backing down, but it seemed that in an instant, he was back on his feet. As for Milk's group, he is a little too much like a leader - a leader like him, the greatness is not all in the correctness of his own choices, but also in the fact that he is in and well coordinated The leader of a great team - and in the end credits, after Milk's death, his great team is still continuing uncompeted careers. In the whole film, Milk, as a "person", is always in the core position of absolute ideology. The role of others is weakened, and it is only a supporting role. Such treatment is obviously not conducive to restoring Milk as an individual "person". expression.
Fortunately, Sant found Sean Penn, and it makes perfect sense for the Oscars to give this veteran actor the best actor, because it was Pan who saved Sant. When there was a lack of plot narration and video performance, Pan almost saved this regret with his own efforts. It would be an understatement to say that Sean is playing the role of Milk with every wrinkle on his face. The difficulty of a role like Milk should be said to be a relative extreme. The complexity of Milk, who appears as a politician, is self-evident. In addition, he is a homosexual, and he is a person in a social position. A member of the "vulnerable group" amplifies this complexity. Sean expresses Milk's tenderness and perseverance to the fullest, and between a frown and a smile, Pan manages the multiplicity of the restrained thoughts and emotions just right. The lack of motivation of external events is perfectly complemented by Sean's intense performance. Love at first sight is so real and credible, and several ideological contradictions and fission can also stand up to pondering. A lot of times you really cast aside the influence of external events, and just by watching Sean Penn's performance, you can appreciate the vast inner world. Here, Sean, who is a "human", and Milk, who is also a "human", are organically combined. The actor's humanistic care for the character is given by Pan as the best model.
In any case, today when this person's ideology is buried by money and material desires, it is still exciting that Sant once again sacrificed this event of consciousness eruption, although Sant did not go to the blood to promote and exaggerate that era, just I want people to look back and think in a more dispassionate way. Especially in response to the current situation in China, when Mr. Li Yinhe raised the issue of legalizing homosexuality many times, he was questioned and even abused by so many grassroots and mainstream discourses. As a metaphysical collective consciousness, we really need too much Milk to stand up firmly and go on resolutely.
View more about Milk reviews
