seeing white: part 2

*spoiler alert*

I don’t remember what it was that got me thinking about Harvey Milk for the second time, but sometime between college and grad school, I rented a documentary called The Times of Harvey Milk. The documentary, released in 1984, chronicles Milk’s activism as a community organizer and politician in the Castro in the 70’s. The film is particularly adept at revealing the amount that Milk was able to accomplish in his short time in the Castro and in his even shorter time as a politician. What the film fails to show is the progressive nature and hopes of the time. We see a community brought together by a single man, and at the end of the film, when Dan White is awarded the minimum sentence, we see the riots break out and the community ruptured. Without Milk it seems as though the movement is quick to turn to violence. Now, it’s been a while since I saw the film, but I believe that after the riots, it moves on to quickly chronicle the last few years of Dan White’s life, from his short time in prison to his move back to San Francisco, and finally to his suicide by carbon monoxide poisoning. The initial reaction to Milk’s death was the candlelight march through San Francisco and up to City Hall. We hear the interviewees say how much Milk would have enjoyed this moment. It becomes, then, an act done for Harvey Milk. The riot, on the other hand, is an event that is depicted as independent of Milk, and shows very little other than the anger that the gay community felt at the sentence received by Dan White. This sequence in the documentary is, as I remember it, as follows: Milk is assassinated; candlelight vigil; sentence declared; riots ensue. We interpret the vigil as something caused by Milk and the riots as something caused by the sentence meted out by the jury. Neither, we see, were of the audience's doing.
Gus Van Sant’s film sends a new message, one that is reverent of Milk and what he was able to do, but also casts the net a lot wider. Through “Milk,” we see Harvey Milk as a strong and influential catalyst, but by no means the only one. We see the work and the skills of a variety of individuals put together that made the movement. An individual does no act alone unless that act is misguided, destructive, and caustic. What we see as productive acts are all done by a community. In Van Sant’s film, for instance, the assassination of Milk and Moscone is brought up at the beginning. We know what is going to happen and we sense that Dan White will be the one who does it as we watch him grow more and more unstable throughout the film. When Milk is killed we see Milk’s friends Anne Kronenberg and Scott Smith wondering why no one came to city hall. As they leave the building dejected, they are suddenly confronted by thousands of people walking the streets holding candles in memory of Milk and Moscone. It is not an act of one person, or for one person, but instead an act by a community, for the community. It serves to hold the people together in this time of great loss. Additionally, the riots are never shown, only told, through screen text. This telling, not showing, is significant. It does not leave us with an image of violence. Instead, it says that after the riots, despite the massive amounts of destruction, no arrests were made. In the documentary we see the violence as an effect of the outcome of the trial. In Van Sant’s film, however, we see the violence as a communal catharsis sanctioned by the city through the lack of response from city officials. Earlier in the film we see state sanctioned violence against homosexuals in the form of arrests and police brutality. At this moment, when violence is greatest and committed against the state, the fact that the state does nothing to reprimand the protesters suggests that even if the state doesn’t stand with the protesters, it does not stand against them.
There is, I think, much more to talk about in this film but for the moment I will stop and suggest a discussion if anyone would like. I am interested in violence against the state and how/when it is affective and effective. I might post one more entry about “Milk.” If I do it will deal with Dan White, how he was portrayed, and the role of absurdity and individual action in the film. I thoroughly enjoyed the film. It was directed towards a sympathetic audience and might not read as strongly to an opponent of gay rights and I’m glad that it eschewed this larger (or so I’m led to believe) audience. It’s purpose was to send a message of hope, and I thought it did this quite well. To watch an individual change a community is one thing, but to watch a community come together and try to make the world a better world for everyone is another thing entirely. Van Sant’s film shows one aspect of what a community acting together can accomplish and the necessity of such acts.