On a third viewing of “Milk”, one of the best films of they year and a major accomplishment for director Gus Van Sant, I was again struck, no, blown away by the brilliance, the joy, the remarkably loving work of Sean Penn as the doomed politician. Penn has been my pick for Best Actor since seeing the film last fall, and though I share the love for Mickey Rourke (and others do as well, judging by today’s sidebar poll), I still think Penn will take the Oscar on Sunday.
This is a major performance, one destined to be discussed for decades to come from one of the greatest actors to ever grace the screen. What sets it apart from Rourke’s work is that Penn had less from his life to draw on, and both being method actors, this is why I believe that Penn’s is the greater accomplishment. Now saying that is right away going to get the folks in Mickey’s camp thinking I am dissing his work…NOT AT ALL. It is a brilliant performance that signals the return of a great actor.
It all begins with words on a page. The actor reads those words and begins to create his character, perhaps after discussing it with his director, perhaps not. And from those words come magic. There are no directions as to how a character is be be portrayed in any screenplays I have ever read. The actor brings that to the table, which makes some of the great acting works all the more impressive. Where did Johnny Depp find Captain Jack Sparrow? Where did Heath Ledger find the Joker? Where did Marlon Brando find Terry Malloy so long ago? They make decisions about how they are going to say a line, or take a beat, or a pause, and mesh these things together to create, and then throw that energy out at another actor and maybe the work gets better.
I am not going into the argument that “playing gay” is tough. That’s somewhat insulting commentary. But playing against your own persona so believably, when you have so much baggage around who you are, that is tough.
We know a great deal about Sean Penn and having interviewed him I can say he is one of the surliest yet most fascinating actors I have ever met. He does not suffer fools. I liked him because there was a sense of no bullshit about him. We clicked because he had been told by his publicist or the film’s publicist that I had a background in acting, having studied and directed in the theater. That work quickly became a topic of conversation, especially when Penn realized I had directed most of the great Post-War American drama.
Here was a man deadly serious about his craft as an actor, perhaps more so about his work as a director. It seemed to take the Academy a long time to nominate him, the first coming for Best Actor in “Dead Man Walking” in 1995, a full 13 years after his hysterically funny work in “Fast Times at Ridgemunt High,” which should have earned him a first nod if you ask me.
He had been brilliant in the years in between, most notably in “At Close Range,” “The Falcon and the Snowman,” “Carlito’s Way” and “State of Grace,” but his off-screen antics seemed to draw more press than his work on screen. For his performance in “Milk” he has been nominated for the fifth time.
In his astonishing transformation, Penn embraced the amount of love and joy Harvey had in his world, starting with love of self. Milk had accepted his homosexuality at a later age, but when he did so, he threw himself into it. He enjoyed being a gay man and naturally, he disdained persecution against gay men and women he saw all around him. In any news footage I have seen of Milk, I see a man smiling, comfortable with who he is, a man seeking to bring the same joy to others he seemed to enjoy in his own life…or so we often thought.
In Van Sant’s “Milk,” we see Harvey’s life was not always happy, that he went through painful break-ups and his own share of pain, but he put on that smile almost as armor and went out among the people to do his work. He overcame the troubles in his life and found the joy, choosing to celebrate the good moments. Penn found that. I cannot remember a film where this actor was like a ray of sunshine throughout, where he all but beamed in the movie, spreading and embracing joy until the moment of his death. For a man who usually portrays dark characters, rarely attempting comedy or love stories, this was a major departure (not that Milk is a comedy, mind you) and an accomplishment most worthy of celebration.
In a certain sense, watching his performance here reminded me of something Spike Lee once said to me when I challenged him on being born into a life of wealth and that he never lived the life he portrayed in so many of his films. In many ways his life was not so different from my own. “You’re right to a point,” he said, “but you never walked into a classroom or down the street or into a school yard with the threat that anyone could call you a nigger…right?” And I certainly doubt Penn knows what it’s like to be slammed with any number of derogatory homosexual slurs.
So yes, as much as I like Rourke’s performance, I believe Penn’s to be the greater accomplishment because I see more of an evolution within the actor to his role. Rourke drew on his own life, no mean feat either, but I will bet there was less transformation involved, I feel, and that is less impressive to me at the end of the day.
Comments
25 responses to “Penn’s performance for the ages”
Thank you so much John,
I am so glad someone else appreciated and loved the performance Sean Penn gave in “Milk”. And I know there is a lot of love on this site for Mickey Rourke, which I completely understand.
But to me it’s Penn’s performance that stayed in my mind after watching the film, once…twice…three time. I hope on Sunday the Academy gives the oscar to Sean Penn.
As Kris stated in another post, this and the original screenplay categories are the most exciting. For Best Actor, we have five great performances, and among those, two amazing ones. Both Penn and Rourke deserve the Oscar.
Uh, I think imitating a real life person is easier than doing a fictional character, even if that fictional character endures many of the same problems that the actor himself has dealt with in his own life (Rourke). The other difficult thing about Rourke’s performance is that it’s bound to be difficult to open up when the character’s story parallels your own. I would be gunshy if I were Rourke. I wouldn’t be willing to go in front of a camera and re-enact my own life problems.
Love the article but I don’t really know that racial slurs and sexual slurs are the same in this case. I’ll bet Penn has had several homosexual slurs directed at him. I have. As a straight man I obviously have no idea what kind of pain can be inflicted based on the prejudices of others against gay people, but I do have experience with rumors. It feels pretty damn bad when even your friends make derogatory references to you based on your sexuality. Eye opening really
I just can’t decide between these two. I know that the chances of a tie are virtually none but I would forgive the Academy all of the ridiculous bullshit they have pulled this year if somehow that happened.
That’s right, the true Best Actor of 2008. And we’ll always know that. :)
John,
I agree in that Sean Penn was absolutely brilliant, but I also am a hardcore Mickey Rourke fan.
I alo agree with what you talked about in that the words on a script come to life through the actor – “Where did Johnny Depp find Captain Jack Sparrow? Where did Heath Ledger find the Joker?”
However, Captain Jack Sparrow and The Joker are fictional characters that the actor has created. Harvey Milk is a real-life person, and Sean Penn’s aim would have been to simply portray that person as realistic as possible.
So you can’t compare his work to Johnny Depp’s or Heath Ledger’s. Penn’s performance style is similar to any other bio-pic actor. He had the material, and in a way, he only brought it ‘back to life’.
As a life-long student of drama, creating a character – real or fictional – is hard work.
Yes, with a real character one has certain source material to rely upon, but for many real characters portrayed on film we (the audience) may not be aware of who the actual person was/is – how many people knew who John Nash was before “A Beautiful Mind?” Also, if the real character is known, we have a certain expectation of what the character should be, thus giving the actor the conflict of doing what he wants for the character versus doing what the character would really do.
And yes, creating a character from just the written word is a struggle as well, but at least with this route the actor chooses how to portray the character – there are no expectations that one has to live up to.
But another piece to this argument is if the actor portraying a character based upon another source media. If the script is based on a novel what responsibility does the actor have then? He isn’t playing a real person, but yet his character is fully fledged and at the same time he isn’t truly creating a character.
This is why I only judge the performance given, ignoring whether the character was real or not – that’s not what sticks with me. And this year I liked Sean Penn.
Much as I admired Rourke’s performance it’s not surprising that he could play that role in The Wrestler. I never thought Penn could play a role like Harvey Milk. That’s why I prefer his performance.
As I said on the Best Actor post, Sean Penn is one of my 2 or 3 favorite actors, but I don’t think Harvey Milk is even his best. I’d go so far as to venture to say that it doesn’t even crack his top 3.
I admire his transformation, but it didn’t have the poignancy or weight of Rourke’s character. I really want Rourke to win, but I also wouldn’t be upset with any of the other nominees winning (except Pitt).
The same uneducated and tired argument, albeit spruced up, that playing someone close to yourself is easier than any other role. Total nonsense.
I agree that it’s nonsense to discredit Rourke’s performance in any way because of the similarities between him and his character… but I’d also argue that Penn deserves some credit for playing somebody whose personality is so obviously very, very different from his own. I’m not saying that makes his performance better, but it’s still a pretty significant accomplishment.
Penn is off the hook in Casualties of War. same goes for MJFox. not so much for John C. Reilly.
Zan: I actually agree that Penn’s performance in “Milk” — while as superb as one would expect from the actor — doesn’t quite rank as his best for me. I know this is a very unpopular opinion, but I actually think he’s already won for even better work.
Douglas — you can compare, because Penn I promise would not be interested in an imitation, therefore decides how HIS Milk will be portrayed.
And Chad…poor Chad….
What I felt his performance in “Mystic River” captured that Harvey Milk didn’t was an intense emotional appeal, one that’s hard to shake as a viewer. As I saw a reviewer (don’t remember which) shrewdly point out, the performance seemed to canonize Harvey Milk more than it humanized him.
As far as Penn’s best performance, I realize I’m on my own island when I say “The Assassination of Richard Nixon” and Penn’s Sam Bicke was a display for the ages and the best work I’ve seen out of the talented actor.
Chad, admittedly that “uneducated” comment got under my skin — for the record, I am not as you seem to think uneducated — so again, university educated, Method Acting specialist, have directed more than forty plays, lectured on Method and the art of acting. Director of the Toronto Film School where I lecture on film history, film genre and the study of directors — once in a while I will do a lecture on the art of acting when offered the chance — so again, not uneducated — I am not stating that playing yourself or someone close to yourself is easy, not at all, but certainly am stating Rourke had much more to draw on personally than Penn did which even you must see (My God…) — does that make what Rourke did easy??? Not all I cannot imagine the demons he had to exorise for the film…but stand by the fact Penn gave the stronger performance…look at his body of work, look at Rourke’s…study the range, and what each has accomplsihed (or not) —
Mr. Foote, thank you for putting my thoughts into words, far more eloquently than I could have done.
Coming from the Bay Area, I have strong memories of Harvey Milk, though not as vivid as some of my gay friends. For years, we heard that Robin Williams was going to play the Mayor of Castro Street – not unwelcomed, as Williams has lived in SF for decades. But the news that Sean Penn would play – formidable as he is – was greeted with great skepticism. Well, he certainly proved us wrong.
You hit the nail on the head. The word I use to sum up Penn’s performance is “luminous.” On screen, he looks far younger – and joyous – than in real life. Not since Jeff Spicoli has the actor seemed so lit from within.
Messrs. Van Sant and Black wisely chose to focus on Milk’s hope, courage and humor. I was not alone in my unease about seeing this film. Though straight, I’ve yet to shake that tragic day, falling just over a week after the horror of Jonestown. It’s fair to say that fortnight in November brought the worst to San Francisco that did not involve an earthquake. I expected to weep throughout the film. Instead, Harvey Milk and his crew inspired me yet again.
Sorry that my frustration turned to rudeness. I have no doubt that you are thoroughly educated and I’ve read all your contributions and your website so no need to list your bio. I just think you may have been educated in the wrong things. Does that make me an arrogant prick? Possibly. But someone has to speak up for the arrogant pricks around here.
Fair enough Chad, I have been known to be an arrogant prick myself from time to time – just not all the time. Thanks.
Zan:
I’m joining you on that “The Assassination of Richard Nixon” island – simply superb.
I agree with you entirely! I hope Sean Penn wins too. Thanks for such a good article.
Zan — indeed, he was incredible in “The Assassination of Richard Nixon” — shades of Travis Bickle, you know — and yet as disturbed as he was, Penn made us feel for him, as though the world was taking everything he held dear to him away — brilliant
I prefer fictional characterizations, generally. But they’re both great. I liked Penn’s finesse. He never tried to overact, which I feel he did a bit in Mystic River.
I am glad you weren’t my teacher Mr.Foote, if that’s how you teach acting. Deciding how to say a line? Where to put a pause? Ugh.
At any rate…I always found it more difficult to play a character close to myself. More exposure and more pain. Nothing to hide behind.
Either of these two could win and I would be happy. Penn is an amazing technician. Mickey tore open his chest.