MovieChat Forums > Milk (2009) Discussion > Pretentiousness Incarnate?

Pretentiousness Incarnate?

posted 13 years ago by scraps992
7 replies | jump to latest

I've seen Milk, not once but twice, and I have to say that it isn't that good of a film and it seems to have a very irrelevant political agenda. I realize homophobia is an issue, but will it ever not be? It's just like somebody making a movie about how bad death is. People are always going to die just as there are always going to be some gay people in society and people are going to condemn them for it. So is there really a point in making a film like this other than to curry favor with certain factions of society and to get a nice plaque in terms of political lessons? Not really. Sure, one could argue that this is a film just educating the viewer about the most important period in a historical figure's life. Just like Lawrence of Arabia, or Ghandi, or (on a more recent note) The King's Speech. To people who would bring that point up, I ask: Have you seen this movie? They will usually say yes, but they're just trying to make up excuses. When I thought about it, I realized that their arguments can't be taken seriously because the film is just so pretentious it's a miracle if even the most film-illiterate viewer doesn't notice it.

So it goes back to my point: Is the sole purpose of this movie political? Just so the filmmakers can say, "We opened people's eyes to the discrimination of homosexuals." Even though, they know they didn't. Seriously, is this a likely scenario? A hardcore homophobe watches this movie and rethinks his beliefs regarding the subject? It won't happen. It won't happen now, it won't happen in the future, it will never happen.

This film is so pretentious, it actually has Sean Penn playing it. Sean Penn: One of the most arrogant, self-righteous, bleeding-hearts ever to graze the Hollywood Walk of Fame. Any movie with Sean Penn in it is a warning sign that the movie is undoubtedly going to be drowning me with lessons or some other nonsense that I already know about. And I can't even say his performance was all that great either. It wasn't bad. But is it Oscar-worthy? Hell no. I know I'm just kind of on a generic bandwagon when I say this, but especially against Rourke's performance it was undeserving. But The Wrestler wasn't "gripping" on a political level, so the Academy wouldn't waste its time with it beyond what is absolutely essential (like nominating the two leads). It was just gripping and relevant on an emotional and more relevant level than Milk ever was. A guy addicted to fame. Chasing the dragon. Aspiring for something lost beyond repair. Those things are more of an issue now than they've ever been. But that movie wasn't up its own @ss with political nonsense, so it of course wasn't going to be nominated for best picture. And Rourke didn't play someone who reflects our political problems so of course wasn't going to win.

It's simply ridiculous. I'm tired of seeing movies that try to drown me in lessons I already know about. I suggest a movie concerning that issue gets made. That would be relevant for a change.

As a disclaimer (because I know I'm going to catch heat for what I just said): I'm not a homophobe. I have nothing against gays. I am not a hardcore right-winger. I'm a centrist.

But you can use this against me: I did not like this movie. It wasn't enjoyable or entertaining even when I did try to look past the pretentiousness it radiates with.

[–] hadmatter 13 years ago

I've seen Milk, not once but twice, and I have to say that it isn't that good of a film and it seems to have a very irrelevant political agenda. I realize homophobia is an issue, but will it ever not be? It's just like somebody making a movie about how bad death is. People are always going to die just as there are always going to be some gay people in society and people are going to condemn them for it.

Your analogy is ridiculous. Death is a natural process. Bigotry is a DECISION. Perhaps there always WILL be people who condemn homosexuals, but there doesn't always HAVE to be.

Sure, one could argue that this is a film just educating the viewer about the most important period in a historical figure's life. Just like Lawrence of Arabia, or Ghandi, or (on a more recent note) The King's Speech. To people who would bring that point up, I ask: Have you seen this movie? They will usually say yes, but they're just trying to make up excuses. When I thought about it, I realized that their arguments can't be taken seriously because the film is just so pretentious it's a miracle if even the most film-illiterate viewer doesn't notice it.

Great, then all you have to do is demonstrate that this is NOT a film about the most important period of Harvey Milk's life. Pretentiousness is irrelevant to the argument you're making. If pretentiousness is ALL you care about, then support THAT argument, don't bring up even MORE points you can't support.

This film is so pretentious, it actually has Sean Penn playing it. Sean Penn: One of the most arrogant, self-righteous, bleeding-hearts ever to graze the Hollywood Walk of Fame. Any movie with Sean Penn in it is a warning sign that the movie is undoubtedly going to be drowning me with lessons or some other nonsense that I already know about. And I can't even say his performance was all that great either.

So you hate Sean Penn. Good for you. Thus far, in a thread called "PRETENTIOUSNESS INCARNATE?", the presence of Sean Penn is the ONLY evidence you have offered, and since you are far from objective on the topic of Sean Penn, it is not a particularly compelling piece.

It's simply ridiculous. I'm tired of seeing movies that try to drown me in lessons I already know about. I suggest a movie concerning that issue gets made. That would be relevant for a change.

Then quite watching them. Twice. Seriously, if you don't care about politics, and you don't care about gay rights, and you hate Sean Penn, you really only have yourself to blame.

So, were you ever going to actually provide us with an argument about what makes this movie so pretentious, or should I just assume that it's pretentious because it stars an actor that you believe to be pretentious?

I am the sod-off shotgun.

[–] hadmatter 13 years ago

So I just got this HILARIOUS private message from scraps.

My God.
by scraps992 on Sat Apr 7 2012 23:52:42

You know, you're one of the dumbest trolls I have ever run across on this website. I hope you feel good about yourself. Your stupidity is borderline intolerable.

It's better to burn out than to fade away!

Here is my response to him:

I assume you are referring to my post on the MILK board, since a look through your posting history indicates that this is the ONLY interaction we have ever shared.

I think it's adorable that you are too cowardly to actually respond to me on the thread. When presented with valid points, are you seriously so incapable of replying?

YOU are the one who called the film 'pretentiousness incarnate'. All I asked was that you support your position. Thank you for admitting that you can't.

***************

I really do find it interesting that in his initial post, Scraps does not even make ONE ATTEMPT to support his thesis (that the film is pretentious). Not one, unless you count the fact that he cited Sean Penn as an actor in the movie. Which I suppose means that "Fast Times at Ridgemont High" is also 'pretentiousness incarnate'?

Try as I might, I can figure out what his point was supposed to be. He lambasts the film for a host of supposed crimes, none of which bolster his argument that the movie is pretentious, and none of which are given any more support than his initial gripe.

I am the sod-off shotgun.

[–] rrb 13 years ago

He doesn't need a point. He'a a garden-variety homophobe - the type who inevitably insists "I am not a homophobe."

[–] jstang411 13 years ago

scraps992 -- I just ran into by pure chance a few minutes ago your lengthy castigation of Highlander, another one of my favorites (even for quite different reasons). Guess, even as divergent as mine are, our tastes don't match up.

And sure, the movie triumphed its hero's beliefs; isn't that pretty much the way it works in epics? I think we are suppose to buy into that Spartacus, Norma Rae, Patton and Luke Skywalker are doing the right thing as well.

As it is, I find the movie inspiring...even political message aside. It is a gripping good versus evil context with a capable, passionate and sometimes conflicted leader/protagonist who meets a tragic and early end. And I thought the writing, acting and cinematography superb.

And yes I've seen the movie. Own it actually.

[–] samuri5 12 years ago

"pretentious"

You keep using that word. I do not think that word means what you think it means. - Inigo Montoya

Open the pod bay doors, Hal.

[–] snoho 12 years ago

Bigotry will always be an issue.

You know what really pisses people off about these films? It's for the fact that it paints a picture of who the real bad ones are. Where I come from it's actually socially unacceptable to be racist/bigoted. It has nothing to do with any bulls|hit you may blabber on about it's just plain old common decency.

Hatred belongs to the beholder.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]