Introduction
Ever since Van Sant’s 2008 film Milk was released to the movie theaters, it never ceased being referred to as a rather controversial cinematic piece (Dumas 162). In its turn, this can be explained by the film’s graphic portrayal of the lifestyle of gays, which many people believe stands in a striking opposition to the provisions of conventional (religion-based) morality.
Nevertheless, after having watched this movie, many analytically minded viewers will inevitably come to conclude that Milk is not quite about promoting the cause of tolerance, as much as it is about diverting people’s attention from social issues that really do matter, such as the rapidly widening gap between the rich and poor in America.
The reason for this is apparent – Milk deliberately portrays social dynamics in the U.S. during the seventies, as essentially ‘classless’, with the main character’s (Harvey Milk) political stance having been solely concerned with his intention to fight against the oppression of Bible-thumpers in this country. This, of course, ultimately relates Van Sant’s film to the concept of class struggle.
By representing America’s gay-community as being essentially apolitical, the director (either intentionally or unintentionally) affiliated himself with the main agenda of the country’s rich and powerful. This agenda is concerned with encouraging citizens to turn a blind eye on the fact that it is specifically the continual existence of class-related social antagonisms within American society, which define this society’s qualitative dynamics more than anything else does.
Thus, Milk is indeed controversial, but rather in the sense of hypertrophying the socio-political significance of the fact that, due to the particulars of their ‘mental wiring’, some men happen to be sexually attracted to each other.
The film’s another true controversy is concerned with the fact that, despite emanating the strongly defined spirit of political correctness, it contains scenes that contradict the politically correct assumption that one’s gender has very little to do with the innermost quality of his or her existential mode.
Moreover, it actually promotes the idea that, within the context of two individuals pursuing the homosexual relationship with each other, they inevitably assume the stance of either ‘passive’ (female) or ‘active’ (male) sex-partner. In its turn, this confirms the validity of the idea that, contrary to what the advocates of political correctness would like people to believe, the notion of gender is not merely a social construct.
Finally, Van Sant’s film is being controversial in the sense of implying that a person’s likelihood to end up choosing in favor of the homosexual lifestyle is being reflective of the specifics of his or her racial affiliation. The validity of this claim can be confirmed, in regards to the visually observably racial makeup of the majority of gay-rights activists, featured in the movie.
In this paper, I will aim to substantiate the soundness of the above-mentioned suggestions at length, while promoting the idea that the watching of Milk should indeed come in handy for just about anyone who strives to gain an in-depth insight into what American society really is.
Critical Argument
As it was pointed out in the Introduction, the film Milk does strive to downplay the importance of the notion of class in a variety of different ways. Probably the most notable of them has to do with the fact that the gay-residents of San-Francisco are being represented solely concerned with celebrating their ‘sexual uniqueness’ and with claiming it to be their constitutionally guaranteed right, just as if the economic recession of the seventies did not have any effect on them, whatsoever.
To illustrate the validity of this suggestion, we can refer to one of the film’s initial scenes, in which Harvey and his lover Scott are exchanging some remarks of social relevance: “Scott: I cashed my last unemployment check yesterday. Harvey: I hope you did something useful with it. Scott: I bought an ounce of pot” (00.09.24).
Given the sheer calmness with which Scott uttered his second remark, we can conclude that he was the least concerned with the prospect of facing starvation, as a result of having decided to buy drugs with his welfare money, instead of buying food. In its turn, this creates the impression that, during the course of the seventies, the members of San-Francisco gay-community were ‘poverty-proof’ by the very virtue of their emotional comfortableness with the idea of having homosexual sex with each other – something that could have been more or less plausible, had they not been the fully integrated members of the society.
Another notable scene that deserves to be mentioned, in this respect, is the one in which Dan White wonders whether the issues of socio-economic importance concern Harvey even slightly: “Introduce pay-raisers, because I can’t take care of my family on our salaries. You don’t have this problem, do you?” (01.24.06).
Because in the film Harvey represents gay-community, and because he leaves this question unanswered, viewers are being encouraged to assume that, as a whole, gays are indeed capable of enjoining life, without having to bother about earning money, in order to be able to sustain their sexually frivolous lifestyle.
This once again establishes Milk as a film that aims to convince viewers that they should not be overly concerned with trying to ensure their material well-being (which may result in them becoming class-conscious), as money literally fall from out of the sky for particularly ‘open-minded’ individuals, such as gay-rights activists. After all, as it can be inferred from the film, most of Harvey’s associates were not quite socially prominent (or even employed).
Yet, they did not seem to have had any other priorities in their lives, but to spend time contributing to his election campaign. Miraculously enough, this campaign never experienced the lack of funds, as well. Despite being socially underprivileged and despite suffering from police brutality, gays of San Francisco are shown having been capable of pumping millions and millions of dollars in Harvey (as their candidate), throughout the entirety of his quest to make this city a much more tolerant place to live.
It is understood, of course, that this undermines the film’s discursive plausibility rather substantially. After all, it has been proven long time ago that there is always a ‘third party’ behind the organization of just about every seemingly spontaneous ‘people’s movement’ – the recent outbreaks of the so-called ‘orange revolutions’ throughout the world prove the legitimacy of this suggestion.
In fact, the watching of Milk makes possible to identify the actual sponsors of the gay-rights movement in California through the seventies – enormously rich Jewish lawyers, closely affiliated with the economy’s banking sector (Rogow 77). Had it not been the case, the director would have refrained from coming up with the clumsy attempt to disprove the validity of this idea in the scene where one of such lawyers (David Goodstein) complains about homophobia in the U.S., while refusing to provide Harvey with much needed financial and legal assistance (00.25.28).
Thus, there can be only a few doubts about the fact that Milk is in essence a politically indoctrinated/biased film, which aims to encourage people to assess the surrounding socio-political reality in terms of ‘good vs. evil’, rather in terms of ‘class struggle’ – something that correlates well with the interests of this country’s rich and powerful.
The film’s another notable aspect is the manner, in which it explores the notion of gender, in general, and the notion of homosexual relationship, in particular. Formally speaking, Milk is concerned with advancing the idea that, for as long as two individuals feel attracted towards each other, it matters very little whether they happen to belong to the same sex or not.
In fact, as it can be seen in the film, this used to be the main message that Harvey would deliver to people during his public speeches. At the same time, however, Van Sant’s film leaves only a few doubts as to the fact that, in order for the sexual relationship between two individuals to be enjoyable and long lasting, the amount of perceptual masculinity/femininity in them must be healthily counter-balanced – even if both of the individuals in question are affiliated with the same gender.
In this regard, the relationship between Harvey and Scott is rather exemplary. After all, throughout the film’s entirety Harvey exhibits the indications of being emotionally dependent on Scott, which in turn suggests that the mentioned relationship had to do with Harvey playing the role of a ‘woman’ (passive homosexual partner) and with Scott assuming the responsibilities of a ‘man’ (active homosexual partner).
For example, Harvey never misses the chance to appease Scott in just about any way he could think of, with the behavior of the former being clearly affected in the presence of the latter. Moreover, while in the company of Scott, Harvey did not seem to have had any objections against presenting himself as a person who makes emotionally driven decisions – something that resembles the act of a woman who pursues the heterosexual relationship with a man.
Scott, on the other hand, seems to have been perfectly aware of the fact that, despite his comparatively young age, he had what it takes to ‘lead’ the relationship in question. The observation’s validity can be confirmed even further, in regards to one of the film’s scenes, in which, after have not seen Scott for quite some time, Harvey gets to meet him again – Scott’s newly grown and ‘manly’ looking mustache appears to have excited the city’s first openly gay Supervisor rather considerably (01.26.33).
Essentially the same line of argumentation can be used to describe the qualitative characteristics of the homosexual relationship between Harvey and Jack Lira. The reason for this is quite apparent – this relationship’s integrity was predetermined by the deep-seated psychological compatibility between the two, as a ‘man’ (Harvey) and a ‘woman’ (Jack).
The fact that this indeed has been the case can be illustrated, in regards to Harvey’s tendency to treat Jack as nothing short of a child, who is unaware of what the notion of a social responsibility stands and who is obsessed with the thoughts of instant gratification. Apparently, Harvey could not help perceiving the mentioned mental traits, on the part of Jack, as having been essentially feminine – something that hints that the former must have been endowed with the heterosexual anxieties all along.
There is the memorable scene in the film, where Jack expresses his frustration with Harvey’s prolonged absence in the manner similar to the way in which jealous wives tend to address the suspected marital disloyalty, on the part of their husbands: “Who were you with, Scott? The new boy you’re trying to save?” (01.07.49).
The discursive implication of these scenes is quite clear – regardless of whether the relationship between two persons happened to be homosexual or heterosexual, in order for it to last, the affiliated participants must be emotionally comfortable with either the ‘womanly’ or ‘manly’ existential virtues.
As Weininger (one of the world-famous theoreticians of sexuality) noted: “In the relations of two homosexual men one always plays the physical and psychical role of the man, and in cases of prolonged intercourse retains his male first-name… whilst the other plays the part of the woman” (47).
In its turn, this suggests that gender is not merely a physiological category, which has very little to do with the workings of one’s psyche. Rather, it is something that can be best discussed in terms of a metaphysical substance – every man and woman has a varying amount of ‘masculinity’ or ‘femininity’ in him or her, which defines the specifics of the concerned person’s stance in life.
The more there is ‘femininity’ in a particular man, the higher are the chances for him to end up siding with gays. Alternatively, the more there is ‘masculinity’ in a woman, the more likely it will be for her to realize herself a lesbian. Nevertheless, just as it is being the case with the relationship of heterosexuals, the relationship of homosexuals is quintessentially about masculinity and femininity being drawn to each other, in the similar manner with polarized magnets.
This, of course, implies is that contrary to the provisions of political correctness; gender is nothing short of a ‘thing in itself’. Consequently, the ongoing implementation of the policy of ‘asexualization’ in the West, concerned with its advocates’ strive to reduce the rate of gender differentiation within the society , cannot be considered even slightly appropriate (“France Set to Ban” par. 3).
In the aftermath of having watched the film Milk, one will naturally come to this conclusion – given, of course, that he or she is able to read messages that are hidden ‘between the lines’.
This brings us to discuss the film’s yet another ‘hidden message’, ultimately related to the notion of race. After all, this film represents the activists of the gay-rights movement in California during the seventies, as having been overwhelmingly White. Moreover, it portrays them as people who genuinely believed in the innate essence of their homosexual anxieties.
However, as biologists are well aware of, even though homosexuality is far from being considered ‘unnatural’ or ‘immoral’ (as Bible-thumpers believe), it would be equally wrong to refer to it as anything but instrumental. The reason for this is apparent. In the absence of the representatives of the opposite sex, mammals are naturally driven to turn ‘homosexual’ – something that can be illustrated, in regards to the behavioral patterns of animals and to the qualitative aspects of the relationship between inmates of just about every jail.
Therefore, the trend of more and more Whites becoming increasingly ‘open-minded’ towards homosexuality, without being prompted to act in such a manner circumstantially, cannot be interpreted as anything else but the indication of these people growing increasingly degenerate/decadent, which makes it only the matter of time before they face the prospect of extinction – pure and simple. The objective laws of nature predetermine such an eventual scenario.
Apparently, there is nothing purely incidental about the positive correlation between the rising popularity of the ‘sexually alternative’ lifestyles among Whites, on one hand, and the rapidly declining rate of fertility among them, on the other (Ma 2285). Therefore, Dan White’s rhetorical question “Can two men reproduce?” (01.23.33) is not quite as arrogant, as it may initially appear to the ‘intellectually advanced’ audiences. This alone allows us to conclude that the watching of Milk should indeed help people to gain a better understanding of many race-related issues.
Conclusion
I believed that the deployed line of argumentation, as to what should be considered the discursive significance of how Van Sant’s film addresses the issues of class, gender and race, is thoroughly consistent with the paper’s initial thesis.
Even though the director’s agenda of encouraging people to think of homosexuality as the form of political activism can hardly be considered fully appropriate, there are only a few doubts that Milk does contain a number of insights into what causes present-day America to grow increasingly incapable of maintaining its geopolitical dominance on the planet.
Works Cited
Dumas, Chris. “New Queer Cinema: The Director’s Cut.” Cinema Journal 53.2 (2014): 160-164. Print.
France Set to Ban the Words ‘Mother’ and ‘Father’ from Official Documents. 2012.
Ma, Sai. “Paternal Race/Ethnicity and Birth Outcomes.” American Journal Of Public Health 98.12 (2008): 2285-2292. Print.
Milk. Dir. Gus Van Sant. Perf. Sean Penn, Emile Hirsch, and Josh Brolin. Axon Films, 2008. Film.
Rogow, Faith. “Speaking the Unspeakable: Gays, Jews and Historical Inquiry.”
Twice Blessed: On being Lesbian or Gay and Jewish. Ed. Christie Balka and Andy Rose. Boston: Beacon Press, 1989. 72-84. Print.
Weininger, Otto. Sex & Character. 1906. PDF file. Web.