The film begins when Milk meets his first boyfriend, Scott, when he is 40, and tells the story of the last eight years of Milk's life. The film only captures these eight years and it feels like it represents the whole of Milk's life, because only this period is the stage when he discovers and recognizes his own value. The film's depiction of Milk's two birthdays before and after hints at this. The love life between Milk and her boyfriend is not the focus of the film, but the narratives of Milk's love up to the point are extremely exciting, which naturally outlines the real side of Milk's life, and also becomes the key to the development of the plot of the series. point. The film constantly cuts into some imitating 70s-style TV footage, newspaper clips, and black and white photos to make it feel like a documentary. This kind of processing is not artificial in Gus Van Sant's lens, but makes the film more smooth and smooth. fresh. At the end of the film, tens of thousands of people marched slowly and neatly in the icy night, candles in their hands forming a stream of hope, seeing off the former "Castro Street Boss" and accumulating strength for their own tomorrow. Their steps are quiet, sad, but heavy enough to shake the nerves of everyone in front of the screen. This scene is in sharp contrast to the conflicting scenes in every previous parade, and it became the most moving moment in this year's film work. Coupled with an emotional speech recorded by Milk before his death, even if you haven't watched the first hundred minutes of the film, it may be enough to make you cry.
Sean Penn's performance can be completely described as "brilliant". Personally, I think that the most successful criterion for acting is to get rid of oneself and break free from bondage, but the protagonists of biographical films must be restrained and grasp the basic framework of real characters. This irascible actor in reality perfectly completed the combination of these two points and became a strong contender for the next golden man. For James Franco and Josh Brolin, the two supporting roles that were favored before, the feeling was not outstanding. Maybe it's limited under Sean Penn's light. It's no surprise that they weren't nominated for the Golden Globes. It's also unlikely that Brolin will beat Ledger at the Oscars. What impressed me the most was Diego Luna, a Mexican actor who played Milk's second boyfriend, Jack. If sorted, he can only be regarded as male No. 5, but his unique temperament and superb performance are unforgettable.
The sad part about the film is that it doesn't seem to be fully portraying conservative forces. Several characters in the whole film have spent their whole lives fighting to break through the suppression of traditional forces, but the conservative forces that were supposed to be the absolute mainstream in that era were not strong enough in the film. The handling of the film is not like the new forces trying to break out of the siege of the old forces, but more like the new forces are beating the old forces around... This makes the overall shock of the film less.
The key word of the whole film is "hope". Milk's lifelong struggle is to give hope to those who are not recognized by society and to those who feel humbled. Thirty years after Milk's death, today, the devotion, sacrifice, tears, hope, and future still continue, but it doesn't seem to be approaching with the growth of human beings.
Same-sex marriage became a complete taboo in the United States after California's Bill 8 passed. Thirty years later, nothing seems to have changed. Those slogans in the film, "Civil Right's a Civil War", "Gay Rights Now" are even louder today. I don't know gays, blacks, Asians, which of them are the most discriminated against in the United States, but I understand that their voices, now, in the future, will always be in the minority. No matter how many Harvey Milks became part of the government, how many James Hoods were allowed to enroll in colleges, how many money Yongjian won the Nobel Prize, they would all be aliens in the eyes of other Americans.
Gay marriage is banned in the United States, which likes to talk about "human rights", and is banned in the United States, which longs for "freedom" and advocates "democracy", which makes many people feel very "weird". Although no one will use this topic to fight back when the US government is tossing with other governments on human rights issues, it is still confusing to most people...
In my opinion, the so-called democracy, but It's about giving everyone the right to vote. The purpose of voting is naturally to choose the will of the majority. The so-called human rights, simply put, is that the wishes of everyone participating in the vote should be respected, regardless of whether it contradicts the results of the vote. Therefore, it may be difficult to achieve both. When we want both "Mr. D" and "Mr. C", the problem will naturally be exposed. But to get the power of politics seems to be both complicated and simple. Because it only needs to use some "complex" methods, it is successful to get the approval of the vote. Once you get the power of politics, you can easily manipulate the world. Therefore, when Proposition 8 against same-sex marriage is proposed, there will be news of "tens of thousands of people demonstrating against the passage of Proposition 8" in a few days. It's just that the slogan of the brand has changed from "Move your religion away from my rights" thirty years ago to "No 8".
I respect homosexuals, but I can only say that this form of struggle may only mean more sacrifices. If same-sex marriage is allowed, should polygamy and even consanguineous marriage be allowed by the same local government? If homosexuals believe that their rights should be respected as a "minority among the majority", then those who support extramarital adultery and consanguineous marriages are also the minority among the majority, and their voices are also "Should" be taken seriously; if homosexuals think that they, as "the majority of the few", have enough power to demand that others take them seriously, then it goes against the beautiful original intention of fighting for the rights of the minority. After all, There are also a few among the few.
From the perspective of moral development, homosexuality may be the first among several non-traditional moral loves to be accepted with the advancement of society. In fact, more and more people, at least externally, are doing the same. Because the love expressed by homosexuals is pure, sincere, and even beyond the loyalty between men and women. But legally, it's hard to change because a Harvey Milk appears, leaves, or is instigated by a few marches. Because the law will always maintain not only the traditional order, but also the interests of the majority.
And even if the legalization of same-sex marriage has been passed or is about to pass in some Western countries, what about Asia? What about Africa? How long will the compatriots here and there have to wait for their Milk to appear? I believe that everyone hopes that they can see their ideals come true one day, instead of watching those great goals become a reason for others to continue to struggle after we have worked hard for them and even sacrificed our lives; no one wants to see them As a result, those lofty goals have gradually become a tool for politicians to pursue profits and become the fuse of endless accidents.
Legalizing same-sex marriage is a respectable goal, but in fact it may not be the only way to truly claim your rights. If this goal cannot be achieved in a short period of time, what about the rationalization of "homosexuality"? What about the groundification of "same-sex culture"? Rationalization is by no means encouragement or instigation, and groundification in no way represents mainstreaming of a contagious or compulsive nature. They are just more accessible, more temperamental, and more valued normal needs.
The mention of "rationalization" and "groundification" is always embarrassing, disturbing, nervous, and even terrifying. Yeah, if people are afraid to look up, how can the law nod?
The existence of non-mainstream is precisely because of the proliferation of mainstream, and perhaps this is the reason why those so-called "non-mainstream people" advertise themselves; the existence of laws is precisely to limit the spread of non-traditional morality, and this is also the reason why the proposal against gay marriage will be passed. s reason.
And if the faction is a "minority", then it should be the most gratifying to allow other "majorities" to truly respect different preferences and orientations from their hearts. If this goal is finally achieved, the "minority" will no longer be a discriminatory label, but can become a weapon to protect oneself, a gorgeous and sexy business card, and even a capital to show off oneself...
You know, in my eyes, two unmarried men living happily and comfortably together are always more enviable than a man and woman who are still barely enduring the pain of a broken relationship; a pure love that only consists of two women , is always much sweeter than a complicated marriage squeezed into two women and one man...
Each of us has the freedom to choose our own preferences, orientations, and goals. Forcing others to accept oneself will eventually be spurned, and longing for others to understand oneself is what everyone wants. After all, there must be a unified scale to serve as the scale between the two trays of the scale of justice.
And if this ruler is used as a thick rope in a tug-of-war competition and is pulled on both sides, the result will always be that the side with more people and more power will win a complete and overwhelming victory.
View more about Milk reviews
