to be honest not much. Van Sant has always been a commercial director, and hes never made any such claim to the contrary. Thus why should it be surprising if he does what you term “mainstream” films? The man’s gotta get paid somehow.
Also I haven’t seen Milk, but from what I know of it, I don’t see why it should be a problem. I mean…did you have a problem with Finding Forrestor for example?
Boy, if bodies of work died when a director misfired, we’d be in some trouble!
A. Is Milk not a worthy film subject?
B. Would his story work in the style of say, Last Days?
C. This is a silly post.
“you people”?
the title of this post was kinda misleading as i woke up this morning, checked this sight and saw the headline about the death of gus van sant…damn near gave me a heart-attack, and momentarily filled me with great sadness.
happy to hear it was an opinion of his work…and not an actual obituary.
gus rules!
Surely one could’ve made this argument with his shot-for-shot remake of Psycho?
@Daniel
Haha, exactly what I came to post. WTF was that remake for?
I agree with Crap Monster, he probably went somewhat out of pocket to make Gerry, Elephant and Last Days so doing Milk was a better way to get paid, I’m sure he had no problem with the material, with the whole Gay rights thing.
To answer your question Vellaem, according to the DVD commentary on why he re-made psycho shot for shot was A) To make it a contemporary film for younger audiences B) Because it had never been done before and he thought it would be an interesting experiment.
I wish I knew Vellaem! 99% of the time the remake is a terrible, terrible thing.
“You people!”
Ah, thanks for the info Andre!
“the whole Gay rights thing”
Spoken like a True (ie. Terminally Clueless) Heterosexual.
Based on culturally important events of the past, with an audience having the clear knowledge up front that eventually you’ll be watching the main subject walk to their untimely death…
Yes, Milk is actually a direct continuation of his Death Trilogy, but taken to a big budget, Hollywood biopic level. Not only that, but this has been Van Sant’s modus operandi for his entire career. Big budget studio pictures, smaller personal projects, back to Hollywood, back to the personal projects, and so on.
Not to mention the fact that he’s been wanting to make a film about Harvey Milk for years, and the poem-like Paranoid Park was released in the US the same year as Milk, which should show you that the man hasn’t betrayed any aspect of his past, but has continued on the exact same path.
Let’s not get so melodramatic with thread titles, please. I read “The Death of Gus Van Sant” and my heart almost stopped thinking he had really died!
Milk is a great film. He deserves his Academy Award nomination, and I hope he wins (though he won’t). If he stumbled anywhere, it was in the wake of River Phoenix’s death, when he seemed to lose some of his enthusiasm and sense of direction, and ended up making such films as To Die For and Psycho. Now he’s fully back on track and on a winning streak. More power to him.
GVS goes mainstream when he wants to and independent when he wants to. I don’t think that there’s anything wrong with this, as I believe if you can make a quality film then you should get as many people to see it as possible. I don’t think directors make films just so people like you and me can watch them; that’s just inevitably what happens. Commercially, he’s brought us Milk and Good Will Hunting, both great films, as well as Finding Forrester, which I personally enjoy a lot. If you are trying to say that none of his work is independent, then you must be crazy. Are you trying to tell me that Paranoid Park, Last Days, Gerry, and Elephant were all commercial? I didn’t find out about any of these until I was looking at his filmography one day on IMDB. They are all excellent films, but were all limited release.
In the end, Van Sant just does what he wants.
Coronel X – Can you, and this goes for everyone with this viewpoint, tell me what is wrong with a director like Van Sandt making a mainstream film? Why is it so bad that directors with an aptitude like Van Sandt’s venture into mainstream film once in awhile. I think it’s an actual blessing for mainstream film. He directed Good Will Hunting, Finding Forester, To Die For and, of course, Milk, all of which cannot be considered inferior films by any sense of the word. We should judge films by how well they hold up over time – how well the stories resonate with the public, the development of the characters and cinematography, and not just blindly dismiss them because they’re “mainstream.” I think it’s a rather juvenile mentality. But I’m willing to be convinced otherwise.
To phrase it in Mr. King’s way,
A. Given the whole debacle of Prop 8, Milk is a very relevant subject.
B. Maybe, but whos not to say it wouldn’t work in its current style? I personally don’t know since I have yet to see it but I’m not going to judge prematurely.
C. Yes, that it is.
Im curious now, Coronel X, have you even seen the movie? Or are you simply upset at what you think it is?
I’m glad and interested in all opinions on this subject, just trying to express mine.
Joe Nelson and everyone:
I see this last Van Sant project as a disaster not because it is supose to be mainstreem, that’s the word to resume the bad aspects in this case of a man who directed the death trilogy and came back or whatever to do a hollywood biopic in the form of a gay-panflet, clearly i’m not underline thinking here that he’s betraying his previos last films that seemed like an incredible evolution to a man like him, an evolution to austere and naturalistic cinema that trascended mainstreem of art film or whatever.
i mean please there’s gotta be somebody there who agrees with me with the fact that you CAN’T make a film like Last Days and then one like Milk, it’s like changing form left to right, yes he made Finding Forrester and Good Will Hunting so David Fincher made Madonna’s videos but everybody starts somewer, i always thought of those films as easy money to make his real films, i guess i was wrong… and apparently his death trilogy was some art film prestige complex.
maybe my point of view is a little radical mostly cause as you see for me Gus Van Sant was the trilogy and Paranoid Park not so much his previous.
and to the “You People” responds i’m sorry, english is not my first language and that’s the way it came out, i wasn’t implying anything.
I thought I had missed something in the paper today, thread title is quite misleading.
The question remains unanswered, Coronel. Have you seen MILK yet? And calling it a “hollywood biopic in the form of a gay panflet” does kind of imply that you are in fact implying stuff.
When you’ve bothered to see the movie you can start to whine about Van Sant maybe selling out.
Coronel X – I see where you’re coming from, I just don’t agree. Artists should not be gauged by what they produce, but by the quality of what they produce. There are many people (including myself) who feel Van Sandt’s death triology was a flawed experiment, but film for art’s sake is neccessary, and subject to one’s own personal tastes. If someone’s favorite genre is science fiction, does that mean they shouldn’t partake in comedies and dramas? If a writer produces a sweeping epic love story, does that mean they can’t write a good mystery? If Van Sandt does My Own Private Idaho, Drugstore Cowboy and Mala Noche, does that mean he shouldn’t do Good Will Hunting or Milk if he finds the material to be worthy of his talent? Absolutely not. As I said, it’s a blessing. I’d rather have Van Sandt do Milk than Barry Levinson.
silly post.
dude artists gotta pay the bills too…
Honestly your comparison to David Fincher fails in its logic because he still does music videos. And really, have you seen Milk or not?
i’m sorry if im being radical but i’m never going to see Milk, the trailer was enough. it’s a hollywood gay panlfet and there’s nothing to add. that’s just not my kind of cinema, and has nothing to do with the gay-ness just in case i get attacked. Tropical Malady is one of my favourite films.
I don’t see the diference in Milk and any trash by Michael Moore and that’s quite sad to say about the guy who did Elephant instead of Bowling For Columbine… but please try to undertsand what i’m talking about it’s not a matter o gayness or mainstreem it’s the ideology of behind the film that it’s just something totally oposite to his previous films, you can pay your bills and try to make an easyer film without betraying yourself, he just thinks he’s still being honest because it’s his gayer film but the escence in the form of the expressing that biography is what’s very doubtfull.
and with all due respect we clearly are not going anywere if you say his death trilogy is a failed experiment… maybe Jonny is right and this is a silly post.
Harvey Milk was a social figure worth memorializing in film.
Finding forester…..not my favorite
How could you compare ‘Milk’ to anything by Moore when you haven’t even seen the film?
what’s a gay panlfet
Van Sant is in a coveted position, jumping in and out of the mainstream. He can pass on Hollywood and then dip back in. Seems like a rare gift. The guy tries many different things, and they don’t always work, but he is prolific, experimental, and then safe when he needs the cash. That’s quite an admirable talent: a businessman capable of making art, or an artist who does some good business. Rare.
There’s a quick cameo in “Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back” where Van Sant is counting his cash and laughing about the mainstream. He, Ben Affleck, and Matt Damon are giggling about “Goodwill Hunting.” This entire thread reminded me of that cameo.
@Andre Rehal
Thanks for the info on “Psycho.” Fitting, I think. Also, about “Gerry,” I get the sense that Van Sant, Affleck, and Damon wanted a long vacation in Argentina, but they also wanted to make something. Hence, the dreamy, relaxed looseness of it all.
first off, as pointed out in a recent edition of film comment, milk fits in well with van sant’s recent “march toward death” cycle.
secondly, i am currently reading a book called independent visions by donald lyons which chronicles the american independent cinema boom of the late 80’s early 90’s and it is amazing in retrospect how many of these “new voices” have been quieted in less than 15 years. it seems as if the filmmakers of this mindset had three choices: 1. go mainstream a la spike lee 2. become marginalized in the sense of a mass audience a la hal hartley/greg araki or 3. practically disappear altogether a la leslie harris/matty rich.
the fact that gus van sant has found a way to not just survive, but thrive on the margins seems attributable to his ability to occasionally produce mainstream pictures for mass consumption. the fact that his more mainstream films are some of the best coming from the mainstream is beside the point.
third, trailers are not an adequate barometer of the depths of a complete motion picture. milk is well worth the time and effort it takes to watch it.
don’t hate…appreciate.
@ Vellaem,
what’s the info on Psycho? I can’t find it in Andre Rehal’s post.
Absolutely he has leveraged the mainstream and more power to him. Good Will Hunting not only made careers for him, Damon, and Ben Affleck, but it opened the door for Elliott Smith and Casey Affleck. That’s a lot to accomplish with one film.
X.A. Coronel
The day he decided to make Milk is for me the day he died, he was one of my favourite auteurs and to see him returning to mainstreem cinema in a Milky way like this just seemed like he throw all his previous work out the window… at least i’m sure he got rid of his Bela Tarr’s Collection. What do you people who respect his death trilogy feel about this?