Tonight was the opening nite at the Castro theater for the first commercial showing of "Milk", the story of Harvey Milk and his contribution to the gay civil rights movement. The film was nearly 2.5 hours in length, and when I entered the theater my biggest fear was that the film would be nothing more than a docu-drama. I was more than pleasently surprised.

The film opens with a series of vignettes chronicalling Harvey's road to political office. Then gives way to the story of how Harvey actually used his position to make a difference to gay civil rights nationwide, and ultimately how this led to his assasination on Nov 27, 1978. It definitely leaves you wondering what might have happened had he not been assasinated.

I found it very interesting that so much time was spent at the beginning of the movie on who Harvey was, but then as I looked around at the audience I realized more than half of the people in the audience weren't old enough to remember these events. It's even more striking to think that this one film was likely the first time many of them had ever heard of Harvey Milk! I find it quite sad to think that gay history has to be presented in the form of popular film, while other civil rights struggles are part of everyday classroom cirriculum in schools across the nation.

Sean Penn gave a remarkable and unexpected performance, portraying with great attention to detail the man that Harvey Milk was. I found him to be totally believable, and right from the beginning I completely forgot I was watching Sean Penn and was drawn in to the story. It was really interesting at the end during the credits to see Sean Penn's portrayal side by side with live footage of Harvey Milk. This was actually done for each actor, showing footage of the real person along with the actor in context of the movie.

I was also relieved that the film did not sensationalize the 70's, but rather portrayed life in Castro in a very "matter of fact" way. While there are references to sex, its not used to carry the story, nor is it used to tell the story. There was a lot of "to-do" when the movie crews moved into the Castro and turned back the clock by restoring the old facades and reworking the interiors of the shops to do their filming. For a four week period, it was like stepping back 30 years in Castro and people were definitely reviving the 70's on the streets. It seemed as though the hedonism of the wanna-be extras on the streets of the Castro might spill over into the film, making it feel more like a 70's revival nostalgia piece. That certainly didn't happen in the final cut.

I also felt that there was a balanced presentation regarding the animosity between Dan White and Harvey Milk. It was presented in a way that demonstrated the very real human pressures of the time on Dan White, but also at the same time it didn't try to excuse him of the crime he comitted. There was actually no reference at all to the "twinky defense" except in the closing of the film. There was no build up at all indicating that Dan White was in any distressed state of mind when he comitted murder. The only thing I found a little disturbing is the implication that the SF Police department in some way was complicit with the assasination, which seems to be conveyed with Dan White having a "closed door" meeting with members of the police force the day before he kills Harvey Milk and Mayor Moscone. I'm not sure how factual that scene is - but I presume that this film attempts to recount events closely with reality.

Of course, all the "boo and hiss" moments are present in the film. Every time Anita Bryant or Senator Briggs was on the screen I couldn't hear the audio because of the audience participation factor. It was interesting to watch protrayal of the Briggs/Milk debate that was staged in Fullerton, an event I actually remember.

I would strongly recommend this film as the "do not miss" film of 2008. I think it is required educational material for gay men and women under 30 who have no recollection of these events. I think it is required viewing for those of us who were too young to participate in the political activism that was happening at that time. I think required viewing for those who actually lived through these events and need to find their activist voice again. I think it is required viewing for any who support the gay civil rights movement.

I would caution that this was an extremely emotional and inciteful movie. For many, the film will touch on some very painful memories of the time it portrays. It is definitely a film that will bring a tear to your eye, and a film that I hope will help bring some renewed energy to the continued fight for gay civil rights.