Biopics are a funny thing. Sometimes they work, and when they do, they often feel like flashes in a pan and rarely stay in your memory bank. I wondered why I have forgotten most of even recent pictures that were well done, such as “Ray” and “Walk the Line”, and I think I understand why. When I watched both of those movies, all it made me want to do was listen to their music. Unfortunately it’s just not possible to give a life story of someone so dynamic and powerful only a two or two and a half hour snapshot.

“Milk” is the latest in this genre, and again, it is a very well made picture. I was impressed that Gus Van Sant could get out of the doldrums of “Elephant” and rediscover his masterful director abilities that he displayed in “Good Will Hunting” and “My Own Private Idaho”. I was also immensely impressed with Sean Penn’s brilliant portrayal of the charismatic, and important civil rights champion, Harvey Milk, on the Board of Supervisors of San Francisco, tragically assassinated along with Mayor George Moscone. Now, obviously because this film revolves around homosexuals and homosexual lifestyles, it was easy for the film to devolve into some kind of ad campaign for gays, or some other agenda that would’ve actually taken away from Milk’s real purpose.

But the film does not ever do that. It is cleverly quiet in its depiction of gays, and honest. Sure, you have the “drag queen” stereotypes–I mean, this was San Francisco in the 70′s after all. But the characters that are involved with the main story are not caricatures. They’re very smart and endearing people who help Harvey Milk go from being an unknown gay activist into one of the most prominent voices in California history. And his message was simple: You’ve got to give them hope.

The film opens with Milk recording a will, “in the event” of his death by assassination, and Milk recalls his days in New York of being a nobody, turning 40 and “not accomplishing anything” he’s proud of, and moving to San Francisco to start a store, and becoming a very important figure in The Castro, San Francisco. His rise is a slow one. He’s openly gay, and especially at that time with how much intolerance there was of homosexuality, he had no chance to win anybody over in public office.

But Milk wasn’t stupid. He played the political game and actually began running competently against his competition, and finally wins a spot on the Supervisors Board in San Francisco. He also meets a fateful friend who becomes foe, in Dan White, a stark contrast in personality, and in lifestyle.

Dan White is played very well by Josh Brolin, who has just come off a great performance of George W. Bush in “W.”, and delivers another one here. White is a jealous, meek, and frightened man who sees Milk as a threat after Milk doesn’t play ball with him on a few issues. The strength of these two performances lends so much creedence to what the film is about, as well: fear. Milk is unafraid, but he’s not flawless. But his flaws do not define him as a person, like they do with White. White promotes the picture of the “American family”, and yet he becomes the largest hypocrite when it comes to this.

There are a lot of scenes of footage of Anita Bryant, who was severely opposed to gays and gay rights, and pushed for Proposition 6, which would take more rights away from gays (including jobs in schools, if they are teachers, etc.) and this becomes a focal point in the film.

The ending of the film is quite touching, and because Van Sant and screenwriter Dustin Lance Black do such a good job giving Harvey Milk fair screen time, along with his friends and colleagues, that you really understand how important what he did was. And I think, ultimately, that’s all this film is trying to do. There’s no big agenda here. Milk is hardly mentioned when civil rights are brought up, and he is an important part of our growing more and more of social tolerance which unfortunately, still doesn’t exist the way it should–nor will it, probably ever.

But the film gets the job done very well, and even if you forget most of it like I’ve forgotten most of “Walk the Line” and whatnot, at least you remember who Harvey Milk is. And that’s why the film worked. It’s a snapshot that needed to be taken.

My rating:

Family value: Obviously this is not a kid’s movie. There are a few scenes of men kissing each other. There are some “hinted at” sexual situations. But the content of the film would be more appreciated by older teenagers at the very earliest of age. I think anyone of high school age, or even junior high, could handle it. As long as they have an open mind.

Ah, the movie event of the year! Well, sort of…Oliver Stone was originally going to do a film about the My Lai massacre, and it got scrapped. So, what is a 60+ year old conspiracy theorist director to do?

Why, make a movie about the current president of the United States, of course! And when you see Oliver Stone attached to something about a Republican president, all the right can do is roll their eyes, and the left licks their chops.

But, hold on a moment. Before jumping to a conclusion, let’s give Stone a chance. I mean, he had said before the movie was released that this was going to be more like “The Queen”; in that, Bush would be looked at from a personal standpoint, and not just the character assassination that Nixon got. Did he pull it off?

First, he can’t get over how much success his dad has had, and how much his dad admires his brother, Jeb. Second, he’s a booze hound who is more interested in partying and getting drunk than doing anything with his life. He is the essence of a spoiled brat. And his father resents that because he believes that the Bush name is about working hard for everything, and not being entitled to everything. “What do you think you are, a Kennedy?” he asks junior.

But, George has a change of lifestyle when he meets Laura Welch, played wonderfully by Elizabeth Banks, and eventually gives up drinking and takes up politics. Laura is great. She, too, was a drinker and a smoker–and a Democrat! Very open minded, she becomes a great supporter of her man, and is represented as a loving, fair minded individual, and very strong willed.

As George gets deeper into politics, he helps his father’s campaigns in ’88 and ’92, and decides to run for Governor of Texas in ’93. To everyone’s surprise, he wins, and becomes Governor in ’94. From then on, Bush enjoys some successes, and eventually of course wins (steals?) the 2000 Presidential election.

What’s interesting is that the movie does jump around a little in Bush’s life. We do see him in office in the early part of the film, and we get to see him with his conniving advisers, including Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld. The performances of all three of these guys are very good–with Dreyfuss being absolutely dead on as Cheney. He’s got the smug little smirk down perfect.

In fact, most everyone’s performances were very believable–the only one I disliked was Condy Rice. I don’t know if they were going for comic effect or just trying to make her as annoying as possible, but I’ve heard her speak…she’s not THIS bad. Distracted from the movie, and is the one pock mark on an otherwise pretty strong effort. Brolin shines as W., and deserves Oscar recognition.

The story itself revolves around Bush’s inability to really analyze anything and that does come back to haunt him in the Iraq invasion, and the film ends on the note that the Iraq war starts going downhill, and his popularity starts to dwindle. There’s an interesting running theme of Bush’s love of baseball being manifested in a recurring daydream he professes to his father in which he’s in center field, catching a fly ball. It’s his “happy place”, and he can always go there when things aren’t going well. For Bush, this happens often.

Stone’s take on Bush is a success, and deserves to be looked at fairly since his take on Bush is presented justly. You actually do kinda like W. by the end, and feel a bit sorry for him because he just can’t seem to get things right. In so many things in his life, he never tries to really do the right thing. In the case of Iraq, he really believed he was doing the right thing, and believed the wrong people. He’ll most likely go down in history as the worst president in our history.

But at least we’ll have this film to look at and say: but he wasn’t THAT bad of a guy…

My rating:

Family value: It depends on how much your kids are into politics, obviously. Not a lot of bad language (2 f-bombs), no nudity or anything. But there are some boozin’ scenes and whatnot. But overall, this is a movie that you don’t necessarily have to send the kids off to bed for. But they may send themselves off, if they hate politics as much as I did when I was that age.