Help yourself to a tall glass of 'Milk.'

Now that I'm completely stuffed with enough turkey and potato salad to feed a small country, it's back to the movies...or as much as I can write before the food coma sets in.

First off, I apologize for the title of the post but I was too lazy to think of anything less cheesy. Secondly, I recall posting a few entries ago about how there are certain directors whom one can safely namedrop around film students without falling victim to judgment and Gus van Sant was one such director. His newest film 'Milk' is further proof as to exactly why this man is considered a moviemaking genius.

'Milk' is one of those films that manages to be powerful and emotional without seeming preachy or heavy-handed. One that manages to bring a smile to your face, a chuckle to your lips but also tears to your eyes. It is a film that is still so socially and politically relevant today that I had almost wished it had been released just a little bit sooner. It is a film that inspires and enlightens and moves you so deeply that the minute it ends you wish you had the time to just sit in the theater and wait for it to start all over again. It is a film that exceeded my already high expectations and it's been too long since a film has done just that.

Based on a true story, 'Milk' recounts the personal and political life of Harvey Milk (Sean Penn), from his struggle to become California's first openly gay elected official during the tumultuous times of the 1970s to his assassination by San Francisco Supervisor Dan White (Josh Brolin). Van Sant adds real archived footage from the time period throughout his film which not only serves to make the whole experience more realistic but also shows us that he's not exaggerating some of these characters...not shoving caricatures of people down our throats. Anti-gay activist Anita Bryant, for example, was portrayed entirely through archived footage.

This film has Oscar contender written all over it, and I have no doubt Sean Penn will be nominated. Of course never having known the real Harvey Milk, I can't say if Penn's portrayal of him is accurate, but I can say that his portrayal of a man struggling to find his voice and give one to a group of people desperately searching for a leader is flawless. He is not just a gay man facing a homophobic society but a man discovering his purpose in life at 45-years-old and risking everything to pursue it. Not to mention...I don't think I've seen Penn smile so much in a role since Fast Times at Ridgemont High which was what...25 years ago??

James Franco gives an admirable performance as Scottie Smith (probably his best in a dramatic role), Milk's lover during the early 1970s. Though any impressive acting was generally overshadowed by all the making-out he had to do with Sean Penn which one could consider to be more impressive. I also appreciated Van Sant and Josh Brolin's efforts to portray San Francisco Supervisor Dan White as a complex individual plagued by self-doubt and insecurities and not just a homophobic psychopath. It is very clear in 'Milk' that White's motivation for killing Milk (and Mayor Boscome played by Victor Garber) was the loss of his position and respect among his peers and not because of any real homophobic feelings. My favorite character, however, had to be Emile Hirsch's Cleve Jones, hustler turned gay activist, who worked alongside Milk for years. His sassy quips, witty remarks, and overall general attitude of childish naivete and excitement mixed with the jaded world view of someone who has had to grow up way too fast was absolutely adorable and completely lovable (not to mention he has the most amazingly funky dance moves).

A large part of the film deals with Milk's struggle to repeal California's Proposition 6 in 1978 which would've banned any homosexual and anyone who supported gay rights from working in CA public schools. I wish this film had been released a few weeks ago before the passing of CA's Prop 8. It is hard for me to imagine anyone watching this film and voting yes to Prop 8. It is hard for me to imagine anyone watching this film and not being inspired by this story. Not being filled with hope.

This wasn't merely a story about gay rights but human rights. It is something people of all ethnicities, races, genders and sexual orientations can enjoy and be inspired by. I know that when the photographs of the real Harvey Milk and his "crew" flashed across the screen before the credits...I couldn't help but wonder...where have all the good men gone?

dubya flubya.

Sooo this post is coming a week late, but I've been busy (and by busy I mean waking up after noon, catching up on tv shows and eating all the time). Anyway, I may or may not get yelled at for saying this, but Oliver Stone is getting senile. For all the controversy generated by his recent choice of film topics, his films are becoming relatively...soft. tame. dull (for lack of better words). I look back on classics like Wall Street, Born of the Fourth of July and (my favorite) Natural Born Killers, and I can't believe it's the same director who did Alexander, World Trade Center and now...W. Then again, I haven't seen JFK or Nixon so I don't know how Stone has tackled presidents in the past. Therefore, it's quite possible I have no idea what I'm talking about. Feel free to read on anyway.

This is the first time a film has been made about a president still in office and it has some people's panties all in a twist (and by some people I mean conservatives of course) since it doesn't depict the president in a particularly good light. I have no idea what the problem is though cause it doesn't seem like Stone depicts W. in a particularly bad light either. The film focuses primarily on the events surrounding the Iraq War with flashbacks piecing together Bush Jr.'s younger years from the boozing and the partying to the Laura wooing days and his first foray into politics.

So I'm not gonna lie, but I thought the film was going to end like 5 scenes before it actually did and maybe...it should have. I couldn't tell what Stone was trying to do. When I first viewed the trailer and promotional material, I thought this was going to be a satirical, funny and overall negative look at W's presidency (and judging by the outroar from the right, I'd say I wasn't alone on this one). The brief funny moments in the film weren't so much a critique by Stone, but just a reenactment of actual events. There are a few funny and ridiculous moments, but they're things Pres Bush has actually said or done. No exaggeration or satire here.

Like I said before, conservatives/Republicans/McCain camp really don't have to worry about this film at all impacting the election. Stone managed to do something I never thought possible (especially from someone who works out of a neighborhood as liberal as Hollywood) and that is make me sympathize for poor Bush Jr. He comes off like a boy desperately seeking his father's approval, doing what he believes to be best for the country, but being manipulated by his cabinet into making mistakes. His only flaw is that he's too dumb and goofy to realize what is actually happening and how to make it work. Yes, I know there are plenty of people out there who believe this is really the case, but I personally hate to believe that the people of this country managed to elect someone so sad and pathetic and naive into the most powerful position of authority in this country. I have to believe he is a little more calculating. A little more manipulative. And generally more aware of the consequences of his actions than he was made out to be. But who knows. Maybe Stone got it right.

While I did appreciate the palpable tension Stone created between Bush Jr. and Sr., nothing else about this film resonated with me. Not even the acting chops of Josh Brolin and James Cromwell could save it for me. Brolin did show an uncanny resemblance to Bush Jr. in speech, mannerisms and overall demeanor, but so does Will Farrell on SNL so who knows what that means (since Will Farrell generally annoys the shit out of me in any film). Props to Thandie Newton for maintaining a pinched facial expression throughout the entire film in an attempt to pass for Condie (that could not have been easy). But Elizabeth Banks as Laura Bush?? Um...what? Words cannot describe how this did not work so I'm going to have to rely on pictures for this one. I mean they made Bush grey and wrinkly, couldn't they do the same to Liz? Maybe they were relying on the eye candy for viewers. Who knows.


Anyway, for all the hype surrounding this one, I was expecting more. This film was a definite letdown. Then again, the same might be said for the presidency it was based on.

Art imitating Life imitating Art...wait what?

There are a small group of people in the film industry you can safely namedrop around film students without being judged (Gus van Sant, P.T. Anderson, Kubrick, Godard...to name a few), and then there is an even smaller number of people where the mere mention of their name triggers exclamations of adulation and in depth discussions about the quality of their films. Charlie Kaufman is one such person. As the bff so eloquently put it..."film students masturbate to Charlie Kaufman." Well film students...get ready to rub one out with the release of Kaufman's newest film (and directorial debut) - Synecdoche, New York.

Set for limited release (NY, LA) on Oct. 24th, I got a sneak peek of the film at the cast and crew screening Tuesday night. No, I was not cast or crew, but the bff was and invited me to be his plus one. And although I had a lab report due the next morning that I hadn't even started, I decided I could not pass up the chance to meet the wet dream of so many film students. (And by "meet," I mean awkwardly sidle up next to and stare. Yes, that is what happened.)

Needless to say, Synecdoche, New York is Kaufman to the tee. Maybe a little too much. Quirky. Funny. Deep. Convoluted. Beautiful. Essentially, this film is Kaufman's stream of consciousness and as writer and director, there was just no one there to edit his mind. And you know the mind behind films such as Being John Malkovich, Adaptation and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, while brilliant, is probably not the most coherent and easiest to follow (you know the saying about how there's a thin line between insanity and genius? yea...) Of course this makes it nearly impossible to adequately summarize this film in a couple sentences, but I'll do my best.

Philip Seymour Hoffman plays theater director Caden Cotard (apparently the name comes from Cotard syndrome which is having delusions of already being dead) who is struggling with his health, all the women in his life and his desire to create the ultimate play- a life-size replica of New York City and the people who reside there, including himself. I guess you can say it's the ultimate example of art imitating life (see title of post) except much more complex.

It is impossible to take this film literally and to try would mean missing the beauty of it. The plot skips rapidly through Cotard's earlier years but slows down dramatically in the end as he nears death - an event he spends most of his life fearing. It is packed with ideas and metaphors (some seeming obvious, others much more subtle and up for interpretation). Unfortunately, the pacing makes the film difficult to follow at times (wait...his daughter is how old now? his wife is where now? he's married to who now? he's working on what now?), but eventually you realize it's not the actual events that are important but how the characters interact and cope with each situation. Or more importantly, how you, as a viewer, react to every setback, achievement, loss or failure. It's forcing you to face your own mortality. The inevitability of death. The unrelenting desire to leave your mark on the world before you are no longer a part of it. The futile quest to understand the meaning of your life. Finally discovering how to do it all and realizing it might be too late. Or is it?

Supposedly, Kaufman wanted to make a movie with all his favorite actors so just kept writing in roles, assembling an amazing cast. It probably helps that actors see a Kaufman script and their eyes glaze over with little dancing Oscars. Philip Seymour Hoffman. Catherine Keener. Samantha Morton. Michelle Williams. Emily Watson. Dianne Wiest. Hope Davis. Jennifer Jason Leigh. All provide stellar performances and to go into each one would probably be incredibly boring, even for the nonexistent reader. But in my eyes, Phil Hoffman can do no wrong, I would swing the other way for Catherine Keener, and I don't know where Samantha Morton has been hiding all this time, but I'm definitely welcoming her back with open arms.

Ultimately, I have to believe that what Kaufman intends from his viewers is a visceral, emotional response rather than a logical analysis of the plot events. Everything being up for interpretation. Although filled with moments of dark humor, I cannot in good sense call this film light by any means. Be prepared for something intense (I've been told I use this word wrong but I swear it's appropriate in this case) and thought-provoking. Love it or hate it, it's the kind of film film students love to discuss to no end. But not being a film student, I'm just going to call it quits right....now.