Kristopher Tapley at In Contention:
"And I can't help but wonder what Milk might have meant for today's cause, if anything, had it landed in the marketplace last month.
"Some of the film's most inspiring and, indeed, captivating moments come during the sequence that details the Prop 6 fight. Consistently, Harvey Milk (Sean Penn's career-best portrayal) makes the point, to paraphrase, 'We have to make them understand that they know us.' That message, I think, might have carried a lot of heft if voters had made it to the polls four weeks later."
***
I doubt that >Milk itself would have had any impact on the Prop. 8 vote. That said, I believe that if an early >Milk release had been surrounded by loads of publicity, at least some voters would have understood that just like California didn't go under after the anti-gay Prop. 6 was defeated back in 1978 it wouldn't go under if the anti-gay Prop. 8 got defeated as well.
In fact, I can't understand why Focus Features, which is releasing Milk on November 26, didn't open the film in September or October, when the Prop. 8 debate became quite heated not only in California but elsewhere in the United States as well. That would have meant lots of free publicity for their film, which they hope will be a contender for the 2009 Academy Awards.
And sticking to the anti-gay subject of this post, here's wondering if Mickey Rourke's chances for an Oscar for his performance as a has-been professional wrestler in The Wrestler would have gone up in smoke had he used a, say, black or Jewish slur instead of a gay one while being pursued by paparazzi in the dark streets of Los Angeles. In this video, Rourke can be clearly heard saying, "And tell that faggot [apparently the Perez Hilton guy] who said all that shit in the paper [about his The Wrestler co-star Evan Rachel Wood] I'd like to break his fucking legs."
And you'd thought that the whole circus surrounding Isaiah Washington and gay slurs would have had much of an effect on the way celebrities (publicly) referred to gay people, huh?
Also on Prop. 8: See Jesse McKinley's "Back to the Ramparts in California" in the New York Times.
Mickey was the guy the William Hurt consulted about the bomb in that movie. The are a lot of great character actors in that film like any good noir flick. He doesn't even look like the same guy. People forget Ted Danson was in that movie too.
I believe you meant that those who went to see MILK would not be the people who voted FOR Prop. 8.
Unfortunately, I'm afraid the film being released earlier wouldn't have any effect on prop 8. The people who would pay to see that film are probably not the same people who voted against the prop.
Hey, Marcus,
I've never liked Mickey Rourke in anything. Can't remember him in "Body Heat" — even though I did like that movie.
I'm curious about "The Wrestler," but because of Marisa Tomei. Wish she had the lead in that. Oh, well…
Hey, Boyd,
This is from Reuters, Oct. 28:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/entertainmentNews/idUKTRE49R11K20081028
"Admittedly, the election is a major distraction. But Focus also is doing something deliberate: It's eschewing publicity for the Sean Penn vehicle, keeping it out of the high-profile fall film festivals and heavily restricting media screenings."
…
The article adds that Focus is planning on selling "Milk" as a love story — leaving politics aside. Even though the film *is* about politics — political matters that are, unfortunately, still quite relevant.
I meant "silly" because Mickey Rourke is silly. And Mickey Rourke is so over and has been for years I am shicked that anyone even bothered to report anything he said at all. It's sad that any news about him has been reduced to this, the few minutes had had onscreen in BODY HEAT are far more worth seeing than anything he has done in the last 10 or 15 years. It's a shame because he really did have a promising career.
The simple reason Focus didn't release Milk earlier is because it wasn't finished yet. Venice, which takes place in early September, was dying to have it, but it simply wasn't ready yet.
Hey, Marcus,
I wouldn't call Rourke's remarks "silly," but in any case, he has an issued an apology:
"I want to sincerely apologize for the derogatory word I used. It was insensitive and inappropriate of me and I am deeply sorry that I may have offended anyone."
The statement was reportedly given to E!'s Marc Malkin.
As for Perez Hilton and all the other stench-filled — and highly popular — nasty-gossipy blogs, the least said about them the better.
Mickey Who? As unfortunate as his comment was Perez Hilton helps perpetuate negative images and stereotypes of gays in the media. I'm not excusing Mickey Rourke but the media and especially the gay media meeds to be very careful about the people they choose to focus upon and elevate. Perez Hilton is as negative for gay people in America as Mickey Rourke's silly comments. Both of them should just plain be ignored.