Nat writes an Ode To Sean

By November 28, 2008Nat-news

I always enjoy it when Natalie releases something written and today she wrote a review, of Sean Penn’s performance in Milk, for Variety. Defamer seem quite impressed and I have to agree. Nicely written and a great sentiment.

“They only need to know one of us,” Harvey Milk explains to his campaign team in the film “Milk.” Sean Penn’s performance as Harvey does exactly that: You learn one man’s story, and his pains and triumphs become your own. It showed me how a great performance can also be a humanitarian act. When we know one character, one story, we recognize him as being of our own flesh and blood. When we understand his feelings, we put ourselves in his position.

Not only is Sean’s performance honestly and lovingly humane, but it is also virtuosic — every note is so subtly tuned that the work behind it is never visible. He infuses Harvey’s courage with cowardice and his sexual prowess with hesitation. Sean’s Harvey is a cocky and charismatic orator, but always weighted by the foreboding dread of knowing his own tragedy. When the antigay Prop. 6 is unexpectedly voted down, surprise, elation and horror at the very existence of the referendum all rage in the blood beneath his skin. Sean Penn so inhabits Harvey Milk that I left the theater feeling the need to march against our frighteningly similar Prop. 8 to honor this man I now know.

Prop 8 is the real blight on the otherwise great election news and a lot of people feel this film should have possibly been released earlier. I’m not so sure it would have changed the outcome but it couldn’t have hurt.

Somewhat related, here is Nat and Sean Penn in an np.comic from earlier this year.


Author Dazza

More posts by Dazza

Join the discussion 13 Comments

  • omgzrachel says:

    Great article.

  • eatpaste says:

    Yeah, it,s a “blight” the way the majority voiced their opinion, in a fair and democratic vote and decided not to agree with you.

  • omgzrachel says:

    I would classify denying people equal rights as a “blight.”

  • eatpaste says:

    I don’t have the right to gay marry either…so it actually is equal…

    It just so happens the majority don’t want that “right”. That may change some day. Why anyone would get mad that democracy worked is ridiculous.

  • Lanie says:

    In the US, marriage is defined as a man and a woman as it is a religious establishment; it is not a fundamental right. The statute is Baker v Nelson (1971). The Supreme Court treats this as statute on the issue; they won’t touch it with a ten foot pole.

    If there was a prop about civil partnership no one would be up in arms about it; Prop 8 is because a judge decided to overturn something the public voted on and it pissed people off since it was extremely unethical and not in his jurisdiction as a judge. It should be a state law or something, not placed in the State Constitution. I hope that’s what happens so we can shut everyone up on both sides. Churches can marry if they want without fear of losing tax-exempt status and such if they say no, and everyone gets civil partnerships anyways, problem solved!

    I step off my poli sci BA soapbox. 🙂

  • omgzrachel says:

    I love it when people hide their bigotry behind their religion.

  • Lanie says:

    How is it hiding bigotry behind religion? If your religion says you shouldn’t do something/God doesn’t like it/etc, you need to follow the rules.

    I’m a religious person but I don’t consider myself a bigot, mostly because I have plenty of gay friends, I do not run around saying Obama is the anti-Christ, etc. Yeah, I’m conservative, but I don’t have my faith really dictate how I vote (unlike a lot of people).

  • omgzrachel says:

    Whatever helps you sleep better at night, I guess.

  • Jenski says:

    It’s a civil liberties issue, and therefor should not be decided by civilian votes. Sorry. The “majority” have often times been against equality. It shouldn’t be a state-by-state call. Either all men and women in this country are equal or they’re not. The politicians in this country lack the courage to do the right thing and stop treating gays and lesbians like second-class citizens.

  • plop says:

    Religions can be paradoxicals… I am a beleiver, but actually, Jesus in the Gospels inverted -pun relatively intended- so many concepts of His time, that it is hard to say what is faith and what is institutional…

    On the other hand, there is something funny. What to think about democracy, when the decision of the majority isn’t democratical? 😉

  • robot says:

    If God wanted gays to marry he would have given them a 24-hour themed chapel in Las Vegas to do it in, you guys!!

    Being “okay” with gay marriage but only if it’s called a civil partnership is ridiculous to me.

    I don’t think churches should be forced to perform a gay marriage, but to go out there and try to deny the right to marry to couples because you don’t agree with them? Sorry, no. That’s not trying to protect marriage, it’s just trying to hold down people you don’t like.

    If I can get married without stepping foot in a church, why does any religion’s view on homosexuality matter?

  • omgzrachel says:

    ia, robot. “Because Jesus said so” is not a valid argument. Marriage has as much to do with religion as Santa Claus does with Baby Jesus. If marriage is a solely religious institution, then does that annul the marriages of atheists? Couples who weren’t married by the church? That’s bullshit.

  • eatpaste says:

    Marriage is only a societal institution when it comes to taxes and divorce settlements.