Oscar season as begun in full (meaning now is when the serious Oscar contenders are to be released). Both of these films are probably going to be brought up once or twice in the conversation for best picture as well as a number of other awards. While neither will likely win the award for best picture they definitely deserve to be in the conversation.
Milk is a story about Harvey Milk who was the first openly gay man elected to public office in California (possibly in the country but I’m not entirely sure though). The film follows his life from day prior to his 40th Birthday to him and his significant other moving to the Castro Distract, to his election on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, to his last day in office. As clichéd as it sounds, Harvey Milk’s story is definitely a story of triumph and tragedy. He went from being a virtual nobody in New York to being one of the most visible people in the Gay Rights movement living in San Francisco. I found out that recently that it took years to get this film off the ground but it seems especially poignant now with Gay Rights being pushed to the forefront recently.
The strength of the film relies mainly in it performances as the story being told is a moderately straight forward one, which biopics tend to be more often than not, unless it happens to be about Bob Dylan. This is far from a bad thing because it leaves the narrative clear for the actors to shine and for their emotion to drive the film. Sean Penn in particular does an outstanding job as the titular character. His turn as Harvey Milk is so strong that it’s hard to imagine another actor portraying Milk (Penn having similar features to Milk certainly does help as well). For better or worse Penn is the focal point of the film and while that detracts from the film slightly at time, but he’s captivating enough that it doesn’t really matter. In other words, I think he’s the clear shoe in at this point for Best Actor.
Now, because the film focuses so entirely on Harvey Milk, he’s the only character that we’re allowed access to and it detracts from a few of the other principle characters. Although this works fine for a character like Cleve Jones, who wears his emotions on his sleeve but also is very much in line with Milk from his second appearance on (Emile Hirsch is excellent none the less), it leaves Scott Smith, Dan White, and Jack Lira searching for direction. With Scott and Jack, this is relatively minor because you’re still privy to their thoughts because their around Harvey a lot. There are times though when their actions seem under developed, specifically when they both exit Harvey’s life. The character it really ends up hurting is Dan White. His actions at the end of the film, while not necessarily confusing (and if you’re aware of Harvey Milk’s life, then you know exactly what happens) but it does leave you scratching your head a little bit because it feels like he took everything about five steps too far. Part of the problem is that you’re not aware of Dan’s life until he crossed paths with Harvey, so you’re never quite sure what driving Dan and why he’s so frustrated with Harvey’s rise to power (the explanation that’s offered in the film by Harvey and his compatriots is very much a low point in the film and rather insulting to boot).
Those flaws are ultimately minor in grand scheme of the film though. What this film set out to do was to examine the life of Harvey Milk. It succeeds mightily and translates what exactly made Harvey Milk so fascinating and unique during his life.
While Milk was very much a character study, Doubt is nothing but character. Doubt deals with the convictions one holds when faced with overwhelming evidence that the opposite may in fact be true. The film is about a battle of principles between Father Flynn, the head of the St. Nicholas Church and Sister Aloysius, the nun who runs the school that works in conjunction with the Church. Their battle specifically centers on the accusations made against Father Flynn that he may have taken advantage of one of the students of the school, accusations that Sister Aloysius whole heartedly believes and caught in the middle of it all is the young nun, Sister James.
There really isn’t much to comment on as far as the story, it’s fairly straight forward. Father Flynn is accused and Sister Aloysius attempts to prove that wrong doing has taken place. Both of them use their respective forums to convince the other and the audience of either Father Flynn’s innocence or his guilt. There are some great bits between both Phillip Seymour Hoffman (Father Flynn) and Meryl Streep (Sister Aloysius) where they both launch convincing arguments and it’s to the credit of the film that the actual wrong doing is left in total doubt.
Through all of this you get a clear sense of each of these characters, even though there are only a few. Sister Aloysius is certainly from a different age. She cares about the students but not so much in who they are but that she wants them to be contributing members of society when they leave her watchful eye. On the other hand there’s Father Flynn. He cares just as much for the children of the school, but it’s on a much more personal level. This is why it’s easy to believe his wrong doing depending on how easily you accept the preconceived notions of priests. You will have an opinion of his innocence or guilt when the hammer’s dropped early in the film.
Of course the emotional core of the film is Amy Adam’s Sister James. Hoffman and Streep turn in their usual great performances but the real standout in the film is Amy Adams (which at this point really shouldn’t come as a surprise really). While superficially the movie revolves around the accusations against Father Flynn, underneath the film is about the soul of Sister James. At the start of the film she’s a young nun who is as idealistic as they come. Slowly, as the film wears on, she is torn between that idealism and hard reality that is impressed upon her by Sister Aloysius. And it really becomes a question whether she is going to turn into a clone of Sister Aloysius or if she’s going to remain true to herself but not a naïve deer in headlights that will believe the goodness in everyone. Her story arc is about whether she can find a peaceful middle ground between the two concepts.
Ultimately what this film lacks in content, it more than makes up for in subtle character development, which is thanks to what is a great cast. So while you may wish there was more story the fill, you will more than likely be to fixated on the twists the characters take to really notice.
Milk is a story about Harvey Milk who was the first openly gay man elected to public office in California (possibly in the country but I’m not entirely sure though). The film follows his life from day prior to his 40th Birthday to him and his significant other moving to the Castro Distract, to his election on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, to his last day in office. As clichéd as it sounds, Harvey Milk’s story is definitely a story of triumph and tragedy. He went from being a virtual nobody in New York to being one of the most visible people in the Gay Rights movement living in San Francisco. I found out that recently that it took years to get this film off the ground but it seems especially poignant now with Gay Rights being pushed to the forefront recently.
The strength of the film relies mainly in it performances as the story being told is a moderately straight forward one, which biopics tend to be more often than not, unless it happens to be about Bob Dylan. This is far from a bad thing because it leaves the narrative clear for the actors to shine and for their emotion to drive the film. Sean Penn in particular does an outstanding job as the titular character. His turn as Harvey Milk is so strong that it’s hard to imagine another actor portraying Milk (Penn having similar features to Milk certainly does help as well). For better or worse Penn is the focal point of the film and while that detracts from the film slightly at time, but he’s captivating enough that it doesn’t really matter. In other words, I think he’s the clear shoe in at this point for Best Actor.
Now, because the film focuses so entirely on Harvey Milk, he’s the only character that we’re allowed access to and it detracts from a few of the other principle characters. Although this works fine for a character like Cleve Jones, who wears his emotions on his sleeve but also is very much in line with Milk from his second appearance on (Emile Hirsch is excellent none the less), it leaves Scott Smith, Dan White, and Jack Lira searching for direction. With Scott and Jack, this is relatively minor because you’re still privy to their thoughts because their around Harvey a lot. There are times though when their actions seem under developed, specifically when they both exit Harvey’s life. The character it really ends up hurting is Dan White. His actions at the end of the film, while not necessarily confusing (and if you’re aware of Harvey Milk’s life, then you know exactly what happens) but it does leave you scratching your head a little bit because it feels like he took everything about five steps too far. Part of the problem is that you’re not aware of Dan’s life until he crossed paths with Harvey, so you’re never quite sure what driving Dan and why he’s so frustrated with Harvey’s rise to power (the explanation that’s offered in the film by Harvey and his compatriots is very much a low point in the film and rather insulting to boot).
Those flaws are ultimately minor in grand scheme of the film though. What this film set out to do was to examine the life of Harvey Milk. It succeeds mightily and translates what exactly made Harvey Milk so fascinating and unique during his life.
While Milk was very much a character study, Doubt is nothing but character. Doubt deals with the convictions one holds when faced with overwhelming evidence that the opposite may in fact be true. The film is about a battle of principles between Father Flynn, the head of the St. Nicholas Church and Sister Aloysius, the nun who runs the school that works in conjunction with the Church. Their battle specifically centers on the accusations made against Father Flynn that he may have taken advantage of one of the students of the school, accusations that Sister Aloysius whole heartedly believes and caught in the middle of it all is the young nun, Sister James.
There really isn’t much to comment on as far as the story, it’s fairly straight forward. Father Flynn is accused and Sister Aloysius attempts to prove that wrong doing has taken place. Both of them use their respective forums to convince the other and the audience of either Father Flynn’s innocence or his guilt. There are some great bits between both Phillip Seymour Hoffman (Father Flynn) and Meryl Streep (Sister Aloysius) where they both launch convincing arguments and it’s to the credit of the film that the actual wrong doing is left in total doubt.
Through all of this you get a clear sense of each of these characters, even though there are only a few. Sister Aloysius is certainly from a different age. She cares about the students but not so much in who they are but that she wants them to be contributing members of society when they leave her watchful eye. On the other hand there’s Father Flynn. He cares just as much for the children of the school, but it’s on a much more personal level. This is why it’s easy to believe his wrong doing depending on how easily you accept the preconceived notions of priests. You will have an opinion of his innocence or guilt when the hammer’s dropped early in the film.
Of course the emotional core of the film is Amy Adam’s Sister James. Hoffman and Streep turn in their usual great performances but the real standout in the film is Amy Adams (which at this point really shouldn’t come as a surprise really). While superficially the movie revolves around the accusations against Father Flynn, underneath the film is about the soul of Sister James. At the start of the film she’s a young nun who is as idealistic as they come. Slowly, as the film wears on, she is torn between that idealism and hard reality that is impressed upon her by Sister Aloysius. And it really becomes a question whether she is going to turn into a clone of Sister Aloysius or if she’s going to remain true to herself but not a naïve deer in headlights that will believe the goodness in everyone. Her story arc is about whether she can find a peaceful middle ground between the two concepts.
Ultimately what this film lacks in content, it more than makes up for in subtle character development, which is thanks to what is a great cast. So while you may wish there was more story the fill, you will more than likely be to fixated on the twists the characters take to really notice.
No comments:
Post a Comment