In what was surely an unexpected surprise for many, Sean Penn took the Oscar for Best Leading Actor from Mickey Rourke at the 2009 Academy Awards. Biopics are always a tricky beast to bring to the screen: they either ardently stick to the historical content and risk giving birth to a dull movie, or they cut the story some slack to make it more palatable and then have the director or producer slagged off for taking too much artistic license; it’s the Catch-22 of historically-based movies. History can be hugely interesting, but that doesn’t mean it makes a great movie altogether. The story about the San Francisco-based and openly gay politician Harvey Milk clearly falls into the first category and could therefore not rock my filmsocks too much. But what an impressive story it is!

I did not know much about Harvey Milk and his struggle for gay rights in the seventies, and although I cannot judge whether Penn portrayed a lifelike Milk, I was thoroughly impressed with the figure of Harvey Milk. That said, Penn seemed solid in his role although he might have been overdoing it sometimes. In many ways the story was reminiscent of the struggle of the blacks during the sixties and seventies and the dedication of Milk, despite professional and personal tragedy, was genuinely inspiring. It was almost inevitable that Gus van Sant was to be at the helm of this movie and that might have also been the problem with it; Van Sant has always been an avid spokesman for gay rights and in my opinion he sacrificed the movie too much to tell this notable tale.

Milk’s personal life appears to be as interesting as his political achievements – and could therefore explain more about the man’s solemn dedication – but Van Sant opts to focus solely on the historical context and mentions his personal tragedy as mere sidelines in the story. He seems intent on cramming all the correct facts into the movie, but forgets to paint a larger picture of society as it was then and what caused all those feelings of hate and bigotry. Feelings that regrettably haven’t subsided with time even now, regardless of race, creed or sexual orientation. I’m surprised the story didn’t make the transition to today, to show that bigotry and hate towards gay people is still prevalent in many parts of the US and the rest of the world. A missed opportunity in my view.

So, as a movie I thought it was mostly bland and staccato, with lead and supporting actors being completely sacrificed to the story. As a historic and political manifest it was hugely interesting and impressive, but I just wish Van Sant had given us more context and depth. After the Summer of Love and the hippie movement, the gay movement of the seventies surely gave Frisco a lot of spice and importance. Therefore, I was pretty disappointed when I saw the vibrant atmosphere of San Francisco’s once hot boroughs in this movie, when compared to their dreary echoes of today when I walked through Haight and Castro some time ago. They’re still nice places to walk around, but the fake hippies and sell-out attitude are spoiling the memory.