Harvey Milk (2008)

Such an incredible movie, Sean was absolutely brilliant, especially in those romantic scenes🙏
And honestly, his boyfriend (Scott) was amazing too🤣

I noticed this is just another one of those propaganda pieces filled with woke nonsense they've been relentlessly shoving down our throats from the West lately. I didn't bother watching it, nor do I have any intention to.
I guess that's actually the best thing this movie did for me as a potential viewer—it reaffirmed my stance on how to spend my quality time...🙂

Jerry Martin19 said:Watched it last night and honestly, I think the movie is totally overrated. Where do I even start? Look... I can't stand it when films tackling discrimination don't offer an objective viewpoint, but instead try to "force" you to feel sympathy for the victims and give them a "shoulder to cry on." I just don't vibe with that kind of "morally pathetic" approach toward the audience. Second, which ties back to my first point, I hate it when a story is too one-sided—when the viewer is funneled into seeing things through exactly one lens, the one the writer dictates. I didn't feel any sense of freedom here; if anything, it felt like being coerced into looking at things from the specific angle "they" wanted me to see. And no, I'm not some homophobe, I just don't want this kind of author-to-viewer relationship. Given that the subject matter is literally about discrimination, having a biased narrative is the last thing this should be doing...

To be fair, it’s not all bad. There are some good parts. Mainly, the acting by Brilliant Sean Penn is nothing short of incredible. I was actually surprised by how well he controlled the character, keeping him grounded in reality even when it seemed like he might slip, though he's always been a great actor. Josh Brolin is also really solid, and as far as the rest of the cast goes, I think everyone hit their mark.

Bottom line: the movie is okay, but it could have been much better, much more open, and less one-sided... I think it would have worked way better if the film wasn't basically just targeted gay propaganda.

I have to say, I don't think what you've written makes much sense.
The central theme of the film is Harvey Milk's fight for gay rights. That is why the movie is titled "Milk," and why the poster features the actor playing Harvey Milk. Is it one-sided? Perhaps—but that is the entire concept and spirit of the film.
I'm curious, what kind of "objective" standpoint were you actually expecting? Did you expect that *your* subjective viewpoint would be represented? Or were you hoping that the opposing, homophobic views would be presented as equally valid or positive?

The discrimination that the gay community faced there (and everywhere else) was quite real and objective.
Again, I'm at a loss as to what you were looking for. If you wanted a thorough exploration of the other side—for instance, the bigots who fought against gay rights, like that crazy woman whose name escapes me—then that would be a topic for a completely different movie. The subject of this film is Harvey Milk and the people surrounding him; so, it might seem "subjective" to you, which, of course, it is, just like every other film ever made. 🙂

Ashley Young4 said:I have to say, I don't think what you've written makes much sense.
The central theme of the film is Harvey Milk's fight for gay rights. That is why the movie is titled "Milk," and why the poster features the actor playing Harvey Milk. Is it one-sided? Perhaps—but that is the entire concept and spirit of the film.
I'm curious, what kind of "objective" standpoint were you actually expecting? Did you expect that *your* subjective viewpoint would be represented? Or were you hoping that the opposing, homophobic views would be presented as equally valid or positive?

The discrimination that the gay community faced there (and everywhere else) was quite real and objective.
Again, I'm at a loss as to what you were looking for. If you wanted a thorough exploration of the other side—for instance, the bigots who fought against gay rights, like that crazy woman whose name escapes me—then that would be a topic for a completely different movie. The subject of this film is Harvey Milk and the people surrounding him; so, it might seem "subjective" to you, which, of course, it is, just like every other film ever made. 🙂

hm, I figured a movie titled Milk starring Harvey Milk would actually be a biopic first, and then maybe some secondary propaganda for his cause. But the movie doesn't really show that. It feels more like they used his name as a vehicle to push an agenda rather than actually projecting his life...

One-sided? Sure—but that’s the concept and the spirit of the film.
I have no clue what kind of "objective" viewpoint you were looking for. Did you expect *your* subjective view to be the one presented? Or were you expecting the opposing, homophobic side to be portrayed as correct or positive?

The discrimination the gay community faced there (and everywhere else) was pretty damn real and objective.
Again, I don't know what you wanted. If you wanted a deep dive into the other side—you know, the homophobes fighting against gay rights, like that crazy bitch whose name I can't remember—then that's a different movie entirely. This movie is about Milk and the people around him. So yeah, maybe it feels "subjective" to you, but that's how movies work...🙂

What objective viewpoint was I expecting? I already said this, but fine, I'll repeat it. They spend the whole time implying Harvey Milk was a fighter for everyone's equal rights. If they wanted to show him as a broad-minded liberal, fine, but they didn't quite pull it off—or rather, it wasn't in their interest to. They just wanted the audience to see him as this activist who understands everyone, using that persona as a mask to "sell" whatever fits their narrative best. Doesn't feel objective to me. I wouldn't have minded if they didn't constantly harp on how broad-minded they are, but they did, and without justification. If you aren't following me, sorry, I tried to be clear. Besides, did you even hear what the screenwriter said at the Oscar ceremony?

Jerry Martin19 said:hm, I figured a movie titled Milk starring Harvey Milk would actually be a biopic first, and then maybe some secondary propaganda for his cause. But the movie doesn't really show that. It feels more like they used his name as a vehicle to push an agenda rather than actually projecting his life...

One-sided? Sure—but that’s the concept and the spirit of the film.
I have no clue what kind of "objective" viewpoint you were looking for. Did you expect *your* subjective view to be the one presented? Or were you expecting the opposing, homophobic side to be portrayed as correct or positive?

The discrimination the gay community faced there (and everywhere else) was pretty damn real and objective.
Again, I don't know what you wanted. If you wanted a deep dive into the other side—you know, the homophobes fighting against gay rights, like that crazy bitch whose name I can't remember—then that's a different movie entirely. This movie is about Milk and the people around him. So yeah, maybe it feels "subjective" to you, but that's how movies work...🙂

What objective viewpoint was I expecting? I already said this, but fine, I'll repeat it. They spend the whole time implying Harvey Milk was a fighter for everyone's equal rights. If they wanted to show him as a broad-minded liberal, fine, but they didn't quite pull it off—or rather, it wasn't in their interest to. They just wanted the audience to see him as this activist who understands everyone, using that persona as a mask to "sell" whatever fits their narrative best. Doesn't feel objective to me. I wouldn't have minded if they didn't constantly harp on how broad-minded they are, but they did, and without justification. If you aren't following me, sorry, I tried to be clear. Besides, did you even hear what the screenwriter said at the Oscar ceremony?

Oh, give me a break... go sell newspapers or something. What kind of twisted logic is that? Honestly! You probably would have had a problem with > too...

I think it’s fair to say a huge part of who he was is defined precisely by the fact that he was gay. The greatest thing he ever achieved—the thing he’s likely most proud of and why anyone even knows his name—was his political impact fighting for human rights.

AND BEYOND THAT, there's a moment in the film where he HIMSELF admits that before he started fighting, he was absolutely nobody. Just a non-entity, a parasite, someone whose life lacked any real purpose. That clearly shows the screenwriter knew exactly what they were doing when they glossed over his earlier years.

Honestly, I think they portrayed Harvey Milk as this totally Machiavellian political shark. 🤷The only thing that set him apart from the other political vultures was that he claimed to be fighting for a "good cause." He wasn't out there fighting for universal equality; he was specifically focused on gay rights—everyone else already had their seat at the table, so he didn't bother with them.
btw, liberals use propaganda just as much as conservatives do, especially here in the States.
It’s pretty naive to expect anything less than propaganda from a group that spent years being oppressed and powerless, only to finally get their hands on some actual leverage. I mean, obviously you can see that the gay community is still fighting for full equality and will use every tool available to win. And Hollywood, acting as one of the main strongholds of American liberalism, is more than happy to back them up—in fact, Hollywood basically armed them. At the end of the day, I don't think they'll win this fight through Pride parades or movies like this, but hey, what do I know...

Sandra Campbell2 said:Oh, give me a break... go sell newspapers or something. What kind of twisted logic is that? Honestly! You probably would have had a problem with > too...

I think it’s fair to say a huge part of who he was is defined precisely by the fact that he was gay. The greatest thing he ever achieved—the thing he’s likely most proud of and why anyone even knows his name—was his political impact fighting for human rights.

AND BEYOND THAT, there's a moment in the film where he HIMSELF admits that before he started fighting, he was absolutely nobody. Just a non-entity, a parasite, someone whose life lacked any real purpose. That clearly shows the screenwriter knew exactly what they were doing when they glossed over his earlier years.

Your approach isn't great, but whatever. I'll ignore the attitude and just stick to the facts. So, it's fine if User A claims a movie titled Milk is supposed to be gay rights propaganda, but it's wrong if User B says it should follow the biographical setup it actually promised? I don't get it. Is a biopic about Charlton Heston supposed to be gun rights propaganda?...

I think they highlighted part of his identity by defining him through his sexuality. His biggest achievement—the thing he’s likely proudest of and why he's famous—was his political work fighting for human rights.

Right, because movies always explicitly preach about human rights struggles. Too bad you can't actually see that in this film.

AND ON TOP OF THAT, there's a part where he literally says that before he started fighting, he was nobody—just a parasite, that his life had no real meaning. It's pretty obvious the screenwriter knew exactly what they were doing by cutting out his earlier years.

If this isn't enough proof of the pro-gay rights messaging, then sorry.

@Emily Thomas3, I'm not surprised by the propaganda itself, just disappointed by how it hides behind the mask of broad liberalism...

Jerry Martin19 said:hm, I figured a movie titled Milk starring Harvey Milk would actually be a biopic first, and then maybe some secondary propaganda for his cause. But the movie doesn't really show that. It feels more like they used his name as a vehicle to push an agenda rather than actually projecting his life...

One-sided? Sure—but that’s the concept and the spirit of the film.
I have no clue what kind of "objective" viewpoint you were looking for. Did you expect *your* subjective view to be the one presented? Or were you expecting the opposing, homophobic side to be portrayed as correct or positive?

The discrimination the gay community faced there (and everywhere else) was pretty damn real and objective.
Again, I don't know what you wanted. If you wanted a deep dive into the other side—you know, the homophobes fighting against gay rights, like that crazy bitch whose name I can't remember—then that's a different movie entirely. This movie is about Milk and the people around him. So yeah, maybe it feels "subjective" to you, but that's how movies work...🙂

What objective viewpoint was I expecting? I already said this, but fine, I'll repeat it. They spend the whole time implying Harvey Milk was a fighter for everyone's equal rights. If they wanted to show him as a broad-minded liberal, fine, but they didn't quite pull it off—or rather, it wasn't in their interest to. They just wanted the audience to see him as this activist who understands everyone, using that persona as a mask to "sell" whatever fits their narrative best. Doesn't feel objective to me. I wouldn't have minded if they didn't constantly harp on how broad-minded they are, but they did, and without justification. If you aren't following me, sorry, I tried to be clear. Besides, did you even hear what the screenwriter said at the Oscar ceremony?

Isn't that exactly what defines a biopic? It’s all about narrowing the lens to focus specifically on those pivotal life moments. Of course.When you look at why Harvey Milk matters so much and how he truly cemented his place in history—specifically through his incredible activism—it really makes you think, doesn't it? Personally, I’m not quite sure I would have found it quite as engaging if the movie had spent half its runtime focusing on his childhood or his relationship with his mom, grandmother, father, or even just his interactions with peers and local shopkeepers. After all, a film can't go on forever, can it?

You have his meeting with the love of his life, his move to San Francisco, the deep development of their relationship, even that second romance... and so much more. So, really, isn't it clear that the film isn't solely focused on activism—which you so maliciously dismiss as mere "propaganda"?
Ultimately, Milk secured his place in history because of the very causes he championed—that "propaganda" everyone loves to debate—and the monumental strides he made in the fight for gay rights, rather than just the personal dynamics involving his family or employers. Isn't it interesting how, by some stroke of cinematic luck, the film chose to focus precisely on the legacy that defines him?

After all, can we really expect propaganda to work when they try to portray their "hero" as someone who is occasionally harsh or even a little bit shady? It just doesn't seem to go hand in hand, does it?

What kind of objective perspective was I actually expecting here? Even if I feel like I’ve already made my point, I suppose it bears repeating. Throughout the story, they constantly imply that Harvey Milk was this universal champion for everyone's rights. Now, if their intention was to portray him as a broad-minded liberal, that would be one thing, but they simply didn't succeed—or perhaps, more accurately, it wasn't in their best interest to do so. It feels as though they just wanted the audience to perceive him through that specific lens, seeing him as an activist with empathy for all, only to use that carefully crafted mask to sell whatever narrative serves them best. Doesn't that strike you as somewhat subjective? I wouldn't have minded at all if they hadn't spent so much time constantly insisting, "this is who we are." Is there anything more refreshing than encountering someone who truly possesses a broad-minded perspective on life? It feels as though we live in such polarized times, doesn't it, where everyone seems so quick to judge and even quicker to retreat into their own little bubbles? I find myself constantly wondering how much more peaceful our daily interactions might be if we all simply took a moment to consider the nuances instead of rushing to a conclusion. Wouldn't a bit more intellectual curiosity go a long way in bridging the gaps between us?But did they actually live up to the hype? If I didn't quite make my point clear the first time, please accept my apologies, as I truly did try to be more precise. Besides, have you happened to hear what the screenwriter had to say during the Oscar ceremony?

He doesn't exactly present himself as a champion for everyone's rights, does he? It’s quite evident from the film that he is primarily a gay activist, specifically fighting for the rights of the LGBTQ+ community. Perhaps you were a bit thrown when he mentioned at those public forums that everyone deserves equality—but honestly, isn't that just standard political rhetoric? Surely he wouldn't go out and say, "I only care about gay rights, and frankly, I couldn't care less about anyone else," would he?

The fact that he was an openly gay man who organized pride marches and constantly championed LGBTQ+ rights clearly places him in that specific category of politicians fighting for queer equality. It seems to me they were simply portraying him exactly as he lived his life. I didn't catch any scenes in the film where he was organizing civil rights marches for Black Americans or labor strikes for workers, but does that mean he wasn't interested in those causes? Of course not. Did he attempt to build coalitions and win over other minority groups and marginalized communities? He absolutely did.

I haven't actually sat down to watch the Oscars myself, though I did catch some of the commentary regarding what the screenwriter had to say. Honestly, what an absolute disaster; it seems the writer is gay and carries a deep emotional connection to the subject matter. Should we just go ahead and wipe the film from existence and re-shoot the whole thing with a straight screenwriter instead? 🙄

Didn't even get through the whole post before hitting those salty remarks. What exactly was malicious about what I said? Since when is calling out propaganda considered being malicious?

Since you can't actually point out what specific parts of that movie constitute propaganda, it really feels like your posts are just baseless, homophobic rhetoric.

Isn't it wonderful if a bigot watches a film and is forced to pause and wonder why they feel so much irrational hatred toward gay people? If that kind of self-reflection is what you're labeling as "propaganda," then I say let the propaganda win! Though, honestly, I highly doubt those types of people ever stop to ask themselves those kinds of questions...

Ashley Young4 said:Isn't that exactly what defines a biopic? It’s all about narrowing the lens to focus specifically on those pivotal life moments. Of course.When you look at why Harvey Milk matters so much and how he truly cemented his place in history—specifically through his incredible activism—it really makes you think, doesn't it? Personally, I’m not quite sure I would have found it quite as engaging if the movie had spent half its runtime focusing on his childhood or his relationship with his mom, grandmother, father, or even just his interactions with peers and local shopkeepers. After all, a film can't go on forever, can it?

You have his meeting with the love of his life, his move to San Francisco, the deep development of their relationship, even that second romance... and so much more. So, really, isn't it clear that the film isn't solely focused on activism—which you so maliciously dismiss as mere "propaganda"?
Ultimately, Milk secured his place in history because of the very causes he championed—that "propaganda" everyone loves to debate—and the monumental strides he made in the fight for gay rights, rather than just the personal dynamics involving his family or employers. Isn't it interesting how, by some stroke of cinematic luck, the film chose to focus precisely on the legacy that defines him?

After all, can we really expect propaganda to work when they try to portray their "hero" as someone who is occasionally harsh or even a little bit shady? It just doesn't seem to go hand in hand, does it?

What kind of objective perspective was I actually expecting here? Even if I feel like I’ve already made my point, I suppose it bears repeating. Throughout the story, they constantly imply that Harvey Milk was this universal champion for everyone's rights. Now, if their intention was to portray him as a broad-minded liberal, that would be one thing, but they simply didn't succeed—or perhaps, more accurately, it wasn't in their best interest to do so. It feels as though they just wanted the audience to perceive him through that specific lens, seeing him as an activist with empathy for all, only to use that carefully crafted mask to sell whatever narrative serves them best. Doesn't that strike you as somewhat subjective? I wouldn't have minded at all if they hadn't spent so much time constantly insisting, "this is who we are." Is there anything more refreshing than encountering someone who truly possesses a broad-minded perspective on life? It feels as though we live in such polarized times, doesn't it, where everyone seems so quick to judge and even quicker to retreat into their own little bubbles? I find myself constantly wondering how much more peaceful our daily interactions might be if we all simply took a moment to consider the nuances instead of rushing to a conclusion. Wouldn't a bit more intellectual curiosity go a long way in bridging the gaps between us?But did they actually live up to the hype? If I didn't quite make my point clear the first time, please accept my apologies, as I truly did try to be more precise. Besides, have you happened to hear what the screenwriter had to say during the Oscar ceremony?

He doesn't exactly present himself as a champion for everyone's rights, does he? It’s quite evident from the film that he is primarily a gay activist, specifically fighting for the rights of the LGBTQ+ community. Perhaps you were a bit thrown when he mentioned at those public forums that everyone deserves equality—but honestly, isn't that just standard political rhetoric? Surely he wouldn't go out and say, "I only care about gay rights, and frankly, I couldn't care less about anyone else," would he?

The fact that he was an openly gay man who organized pride marches and constantly championed LGBTQ+ rights clearly places him in that specific category of politicians fighting for queer equality. It seems to me they were simply portraying him exactly as he lived his life. I didn't catch any scenes in the film where he was organizing civil rights marches for Black Americans or labor strikes for workers, but does that mean he wasn't interested in those causes? Of course not. Did he attempt to build coalitions and win over other minority groups and marginalized communities? He absolutely did.

I haven't actually sat down to watch the Oscars myself, though I did catch some of the commentary regarding what the screenwriter had to say. Honestly, what an absolute disaster; it seems the writer is gay and carries a deep emotional connection to the subject matter. Should we just go ahead and wipe the film from existence and re-shoot the whole thing with a straight screenwriter instead? 🙄

yeah, they really leaned into that life theme. felt like they just threw in those personal relationships to say "hey, we're all human too." correct me if i'm wrong 🙂

He's not portrayed as fighting for everyone's rights everywhere. He's a gay activist, and that's clear through the film. Translation: he fights for gay rights. Maybe you got tripped up because he said at a few public forums that everyone should be equal (what's the big deal there?)—but that's just standard political talk. It's not like he's gonna say: "I only care about gay rights, everyone else can go screw themselves."

if i recall, in one or two interviews he did mention he fights for everyone's rights.

No, I haven't seen the Oscar, but I read part of what the screenwriter said. Wow, what a tragedy—the writer is gay and emotionally connected to the subject. Let's just scrap the movie and reshoot it with a straight writer immediately. 🙄

okay, now you're just poking the bear. i don't care if the writer is gay. let them be whoever they want. I sent you the link earlier; if it's not clear enough for you, that's on you. tell me this: should a biopic about Charlton Heston be considered gun propaganda?

Ashley Young4 said:Since you can't actually point out what specific parts of that movie constitute propaganda, it really feels like your posts are just baseless, homophobic rhetoric.

Isn't it wonderful if a bigot watches a film and is forced to pause and wonder why they feel so much irrational hatred toward gay people? If that kind of self-reflection is what you're labeling as "propaganda," then I say let the propaganda win! Though, honestly, I highly doubt those types of people ever stop to ask themselves those kinds of questions...

Looks like you’ve already lost your cool and started throwing insults. Just so we're clear, I'm neither stupid nor homophobic. Honestly, if anything, I'm more on the gay side than the homophobic side...

So you think I can't argue? Honestly, it seems more like you just can't wrap your head around a point or actually accept one... 🙂

Jerry Martin19 said:yeah, they really leaned into that life theme. felt like they just threw in those personal relationships to say "hey, we're all human too." correct me if i'm wrong 🙂

He's not portrayed as fighting for everyone's rights everywhere. He's a gay activist, and that's clear through the film. Translation: he fights for gay rights. Maybe you got tripped up because he said at a few public forums that everyone should be equal (what's the big deal there?)—but that's just standard political talk. It's not like he's gonna say: "I only care about gay rights, everyone else can go screw themselves."

if i recall, in one or two interviews he did mention he fights for everyone's rights.

No, I haven't seen the Oscar, but I read part of what the screenwriter said. Wow, what a tragedy—the writer is gay and emotionally connected to the subject. Let's just scrap the movie and reshoot it with a straight writer immediately. 🙄

okay, now you're just poking the bear. i don't care if the writer is gay. let them be whoever they want. I sent you the link earlier; if it's not clear enough for you, that's on you. tell me this: should a biopic about Charlton Heston be considered gun propaganda?

Looks like you’ve already lost your cool and started throwing insults. Just so we're clear, I'm neither stupid nor homophobic. Honestly, if anything, I'm more on the gay side than the homophobic side...

So you think I can't argue? Honestly, it seems more like you just can't wrap your head around a point or actually accept one... 🙂

I didn't get that impression at all. And look, I don't feel the need to prove anything to you; that’s simply your own subjective take on it.

If I recall correctly, he mentioned in one or two interviews that he fights for everyone's rights.

Well, and? Is it really such a shock that he might actually care about people having equal rights?

Okay, now you're starting to provoke me a little. It doesn't bother me one bit that the screenwriter is gay; people should be free to be whoever they want. I provided the link earlier showing what he said, and if that isn't clear enough for you, that’s not my issue. Let me ask you this: should a biopic about Charlton Heston be nothing more than a campaign for gun rights?

Actually, I went ahead and watched that clip. What can I say... the man seems deeply invested in this project on a very personal level. I don't think that's a bad thing; perhaps it allowed him to channel certain emotions more effectively rather than just treating them with a sterile, clinical detachment.

As for what the film *should* be about—isn't that more for the screenwriter to decide? While I'm not particularly interested in the man himself, if his legacy is tied so closely to gun advocacy, wouldn't it be perfectly natural for the film to address that aspect of his life?
But if you are attempting—and I do sense an attempt here—to draw a parallel between gay activism and gun advocacy... then I'm afraid you're quite confused, Jerry Martin19.

You've clearly lost your patience and have started resorting to insults. Just let me clarify that I am neither stupid nor homophobic. In fact, I'm more gay than I am homophobic. 🙂

The point isn't whether you are an auto-homophobic gay man or a homophobe. The point is that you are labeling the depiction of the struggle for gay rights as "propaganda."

P.S. That comment regarding the "stupid homophobe" who goes to see the film and potentially changes their mind wasn't directed at you. I'm not sure why you felt targeted by it.

@ Ashley Young4: activism is activism, but making a movie about it? That’s just propaganda. If a film's whole goal is to flip some bigoted person into a tolerant one, it’s propaganda through and through—even if you think the outcome is a good thing (though "good" really depends on which side of the fence you're on). Jerry Martin19 makes a fair point, though: propaganda movies, regardless of the message, rarely hit the same artistic heights as films without an agenda. We can debate that all day, but I get why he's feeling let down.

Emily Thomas3 said:@ Ashley Young4: activism is activism, but making a movie about it? That’s just propaganda. If a film's whole goal is to flip some bigoted person into a tolerant one, it’s propaganda through and through—even if you think the outcome is a good thing (though "good" really depends on which side of the fence you're on). Jerry Martin19 makes a fair point, though: propaganda movies, regardless of the message, rarely hit the same artistic heights as films without an agenda. We can debate that all day, but I get why he's feeling let down.

Well then, how exactly would a film about Milka need to be structured to avoid being labeled "propaganda"? I mean, how could one possibly film a story about Milka while maintaining the "artistic value" found in non-propagandistic works?

(Propaganda is defined as a systematic attempt to shape perception and cognition, manipulating individual behavior to elicit a specific response desired by the propagandists.)

And surely, a film cannot simply "convert" a bigoted person. Isn't there a bit of a paradox in claiming a film is propaganda when the target audience is completely immune to its message? If they won't listen, what is the actual purpose of the film? 😉

Jerry Martin19, I honestly can't wrap my head around what you're actually fighting against. Is it the promotion of the gay community—which, let’s be real, is definitely facing discrimination today—or is it just the struggle for basic human rights? I'm guessing you'll claim it's neither. I get it, though; your main gripe is probably that instead of getting those classic, cookie-cutter biographies, we were sold a movie focused on some current global issue that people are tired of hearing about. Especially if you're a conservative believer, and let's face it, that's the majority. That's a fair point. But that doesn't change the reality that there are massive communities of people out there who still don't have the same rights we do. People dealing with discomfort every single day in places where they shouldn't have to. So, I really don't see what the big deal is, and I certainly don't see anything wrong with them fighting tooth and nail to achieve the status they deserve—the status of equality.

I watched the Oscars, saw the live broadcast, and I'll say it again: I don't see anything wrong with the speech. Look, draw a parallel to the Civil Rights movement—it's the exact same issue, just a different foundation. Would you call a film about Martin Luther King Jr. "propaganda for Black people"? Or take that Will Smith movie about Muhammad Ali—would you call that "propaganda for Islam" or "propaganda for Christianity"? You simply can't judge movies like that. Whether intentional or not, every single film has a bias; at the end of the day, they're made by flesh-and-blood human beings.

And to wrap this up, I just wanted to share something I realized a long time ago, something that makes me damn proud of myself. It's this: we're all just like balls in a lottery machine. You never know which one is going to pop out. The moment you realize that, and start building your life around that truth, is the moment you stop being a slave to social hypocrisy.

Sandra Campbell2 is such a wonderful guy. 🙂

Ashley Young4 Asks:
Alright, so how should a movie about this actually look? MilkaBut what if we skip the "propaganda" angle? I mean, how do you even make a movie about Harvey Milk that actually holds artistic weight without it feeling like a lecture?

It’s really more about his inner world—how he actually processed everything and fought those personal battles. It's all those tiny, quiet moments that truly make up our lives.
Get this—what really bugs me about the gay community is that there’s this huge feeling that being gay is their entire identity. Like, the fact that they're into men is the only thing that defines them. As if being gay is the whole point of their existence and the absolute core of who they are, which honestly just seems incredibly stupid to me.
I personally know a few gay guys and I’ve never really gotten that vibe—like they're just "gay." One is a total cinephile, another lives for politics and traveling, one's a huge foodie, and another is obsessed with sports. At the end of the day, they're just people, just like the rest of us.

Honestly, instead of showing that gay people are just regular folks with their own hobbies, favorite foods, and music tastes, activists tend to make sexual orientation their entire identity. They push for equality by highlighting how different they are rather than focusing on common ground, which—from a political standpoint—is just a really ineffective strategy.

Look, I’m not saying there's anything wrong with someone standing in the middle of Times Square and shouting that they're gay, but I just don't see the point. The whole idea is supposed to be about that guy standing there making a scene so everyone goes, "Oh, look, he's gay." But at the end of the day, he's a human being first, and that's how he should have been portrayed in the movie.

Just to be clear, I think the movie is actually great. Penn is super convincing, Franco is awesome, and Gus Van Sant’s directing is top-notch. At the same time, I totally get where Jerry Martin19 is coming from—I agree that the film leans a bit too hard into propaganda. It doesn't personally bother me, though; I just don't see the point in all that.

not quote-ing anyone in particular.

I've got nothing against fighting for rights. People should be able to do whatever they want as long as they aren't hurting anyone else, so what gay activists are asking for doesn't bother me one bit, even if I personally wouldn't want to get involved in it. electro cute mentioned where he thinks the movie misses the mark, and I wanted to add my two cents. What would a movie about Milka actually need to look like to avoid feeling like propaganda? It’s not even about propaganda, really—it's about balance, and in this case, there isn't any. That definitely drags down the quality. Pushing the same thing in the viewer's face the whole time doesn't connect with anything; it just feels like those "Buy now!" commercials that make sitting in front of the TV such a chore. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the movie is infuriating—it's not (at least for me)—but relying solely on one angle just kills the quality. A movie should be a story, not a commercial or a lecture.

@Charlly, there's no such thing as a "template biography." A biography is just a portrait of someone's life, plain and simple. This movie just uses her traits to serve a different agenda.

@Wanderer, it's funny how you claim you weren't calling me out while writing "The point isn't even whether you're an auto-homophobic gay or just homophobic.". Okay, so what are my other "options"? Am I supposed to choose between being an auto-homophobic gay or a homophobe? I thought you were against discrimination 🙂

p.s. For the record, I'm neither. I'm just trying to talk about the movie objectively. If it were about a different topic, I'd be saying the exact same thing.

Gotta say, I’d also give a shoutout to the cast (Penna was especially good) and the directing. The whole performance was high-quality, at the very least...

Ashley Young4 said:Sandra Campbell2 is such a wonderful guy. 🙂

hehehe, at 21, we're both still figuring things out, I guess. ^^