No mention of Milk being a Jim Jones supporter
-
EmilMuzz — 11 years ago(June 26, 2014 12:06 AM)
The entire first half of the movie was about Milk trying to get elected. Totally omitting the People's Temple's role in getting Milk elected does seem a bit off. Every documentary made about Harvey Milk and Jim Jones all seem to discuss that it was a pretty significant role in Milk's final election.
- or so the Germans would have us believe
-
jstang411 — 11 years ago(June 26, 2014 02:58 PM)
Every documentary made about Harvey Milk and Jim Jones all seem to discuss that it was a pretty significant role in Milk's final election.
There were connections for sure, but isn't a politician supposed to build them? I'm sure he had the support of other groups that weren't mentioned in the film. And except for the later tragedy..would this even be a topic to discuss? -
BlackJack296 — 11 years ago(September 30, 2014 09:43 AM)
"would this even be a topic to discuss?"
Yes, since it is commonly recognized now that Jones and his group perpetrated voter fraud on a large enough scale to swing elections in the area. How is that not a relevant piece of information? I guess it isn't if you want to paint a certain portrait of a guy without acknowledging he was in bed with someone who ended up being one of the most notorious individuals in our country's recent history.
-Hey yo, listen here, Bey. You come at the King, you best not miss. -
BlackJack296 — 11 years ago(January 27, 2015 09:30 AM)
"BlackJack296 I meant in terms of what was and was not in the movie. Do you really think that but for what Jim Jones became infamous for the topic would even hit this board?"
Ummm.yes. Because he did become famous for that. Along the way, he helped Milk and others get elected. If I changed history as you did, and Jones and PT helped get Milk/Moscone's opponents elected instead, would that be noteworthy? I think so.
And there were plenty of warning signs along the way (easier to see in retrospect, granted, but things like the rehearsals took place years before). If you're going to paint a portrait of a man, do the entire thing. Show the kinds of people he consorted with. However, it's the director's right to include what he wants to include in his own film. But I believe it is an incomplete portrayal.
-Hey yo, listen here, Bey. You come at the King, you best not miss. -
jstang411 — 11 years ago(February 09, 2015 10:10 AM)
If I changed history as you did
Please explain how I changed history?
I asked you a question that acknowledged that Jim Jones did hit the public eye. Say it is not relevant in the conversation because he did, but that leaves you with explaining how I changed history..which is a literal and factual assertion on your part. -
BlackJack296 — 11 years ago(February 25, 2015 06:42 AM)
Please explain how I changed history?
You're right, poor choice of phrasing on my part and I apologize to you. One of my biggest pet peeves is when someone says "take away X, and then" to frame a perspective on something. I think that practice is manipulative, but I digress.
What I am trying to say is that perhaps it was unthinkable JJ would be capable of doing what he did. But, there were plenty of warning signs along the way in addition to plenty of accusations, yet Milk was still supportive. JJ was engaged in plenty of illegal activities prior to leaving the country that would have either ended with him in jail or completely disgraced. Bottom line, given who he was and what he did, Jones was going to get nailed and exposed for something, which obviously would have reflected poorly on Milk given his support and would still warrant discussion.
-Hey yo, listen here, Bey. You come at the King, you best not miss. -
jstang411 — 11 years ago(March 01, 2015 08:39 AM)
Thanks for being so readily correcting..a rare act on IMDb.
You obviously know more than me on Milk and Jones. At the same time, if a similar movie was made about JFK, I could forgive if they did not include that he cheated on his wife. And, if anything, that is a bigger insight into his character. Maybe a better example would be his actions that got the US involved in Vietnam, and that includes "the we know how it turned out later" factor. -
ebettman-1 — 11 years ago(November 08, 2014 07:25 PM)
..and Politicians is "there are some things that we Will NOT Do!" Now Jim Jones was a Maniacal Hypocritical SOB who, BTW, would have died of Cancer in a few months, had he not done so by the Kool Aid (and AK47) Death Orgy. But there IS religious freedom, and they were sort of persecuted OUT of San Francisco into a place where they were more difficult to Control. Hell, I hate ALL Fanatics, starting with the Anita Bryants of the World.
-
etherman23 — 11 years ago(March 16, 2015 06:41 PM)
I was going to ask about this so I'm glad you brought this up. This is exactly why Hollywood can't be trusted. Apparently the truth takes a back seat to the narrative. Had he been a Republican there's no way they wouldn't have mentioned the connection to Jim Jones.
-
jstang411 — 11 years ago(March 17, 2015 02:41 PM)
Harvey Milk lived a lot of years. Seems the main focus of the movie was "the gay agenda", if you will. And I have no problem with thatit was about both that and a character study of him.
How do you see whatever his interaction with Jim Jones as relevant? I'm sure he was in favor of some building projects that weren't mentioned too. -
MrHooba — 10 years ago(April 09, 2015 05:48 PM)
I'm a big liberal and supporter of gay rights. I think the film should have mentioned Jim Jones and his connection with Harvey Milk in San Francisco. It is relevant to the story. Jones was a signficant ally for Harvey to get elected. Without Jones' support, Milk and Moscone don't win. I bet the screenwriter suppressed it because he thought it would have made Milk look bad. Wrong call. And Mickey Rourke should have won the Oscar instead of Penn.
-
Brandos_Bitch — 10 years ago(May 07, 2015 11:07 AM)
I agree. I dont think vouching for Jim Jones (pre Jonestown, obvs) should damage Milks reputation. Alot of people trusted and were thrown off guard by him (though at the same time Im surprised someone as smart as Milk didnt see the warning sings), but I do think it would have made the movie interesting just to touch upon it, since they did touch upon San Francisco, late 1970s progressive politics, and that would have added another interesting layer.
"When life presents you with lemons, squeeze out the juice and squirt it in your enemies eyes." -
-
Gabe1972 — 9 years ago(May 05, 2016 04:18 PM)
There's no mention of him liking or not liking chocolate ice cream, either. Who cares? You can't have every aspect of the main person in a film, no matter what is deemed most important to the viewer.
Watch it for what it is and quit complaining about what it isn't.
Make your own film if it bothers you so much. I'm sure it would be grand.
I have dreamed a dream, but now that dream has gone from me.