Delayed Reaction: The Times of Harvey Milk

Premise: A documentary about the life and death of Harvey Milk.

I'm not sure why I didn't think watching this would infuriate me. I know the Harvey Milk story. I know how it ends. I know the fallout. It's all so tragic and maddening. The Twinkie Defense though. Fuck that. It's still shocking (but sadly not surprising) that Dan White got off so easy for a premeditated double-murder of high-ranking city officials in a clear act of aggression. I haven't looked into his story too much, but I wonder if this documentary, which won the Documentary Feature Oscar, played a part in his suicide a year later?

Even taking Dan White out of it, this movie is a sobering reminder of the times. It starts with the announcement of Harvey Milk's death and follows that up with a message he left if he was assassinated. I feel that needs repeating: he actually saw a need to prepare for his assassination: because he was gay. Granted, some of that is leftover panic from the 60s when assassinations were shockingly common, but the fact that someone of the city Board of Supervisors had to prepare for his own murder is insane.

This movie is a sad reminder of how things were for the gay community back then. I mean, it's still not great now. Gay marriage was legalized only a few years ago after all. At the same time though, a homosexual mayor of a decent sized city did just do pretty well in a presidential bid, and the biggest knocks I heard on him were about his experience and stances, not that fact that he was gay. In 1978, getting a city council position was enough to endanger Harvey Milk's life. So... progress.

As a piece of filmmaking, this is pretty straight-forward. Harvey Fierstein's narration is measured and heartfelt. The storytelling is also linear and direct. They collected all the footage that I assume was available. The interviews were good, although it was missing any "I can't believe they got them" people. This is just good, solid documentary filmmaking.

So, I often break documentaries down to 'Explorations' and 'Theses'. Explorations are "Here's a topic. Let's learn about it". Theses are "Here's a point I want to make. Here's my defense of it". Explorations are hard to mess up. Theses are easy to mess up by making an argument that is overly slanted one way. The Times of Harvey Milk is a Thesis documentary and it's pretty slanted. I don't mind it as much though, because it's not really a two-sided argument, and over the years, its stance has only become more indisputable*. If I'm being nit-picky, maybe it beatifies Harvey Milk a little much. Also, I've only ever heard one perspective on Dan White's ridiculous manslaughter verdict. Did it really just come down to a corrupt system and a prejudice against the gay community, or were there other technicalities that allowed him to get a lighter sentence? It wouldn't change my opinion of how awful Dan White was, but I'm curious about the legal argument.

*By that, I mean public support has grown, not that the gay community had less of an argument for equal rights then vs. now.

Anyway, this is a good documentary that holds up, tells a good story, and is quite informative for the unacquainted. It doesn't offer as much for anyone already familiar with the Harvey Milk story, but that's hardly something to hold against it.

Verdict: Strongly Recommend