1

Considering Modern Martyrdom through “Milk”

Brian Hack

[]Campus

LAS 36673: Teaching Through Film

Professor []

June 2, 2021
 2
While most people tend to back down and wait for a person to rally around regarding

oppression for those differing from a perceived majority of society, how do we portray the life of

those that become our real-life superheros? The movie “Milk” by Black & Sant (2008) does a

wonderful job of presenting various dramatic parts of the life of Harvey Milk who chose, and

became, the first openly elected gay official in California. Usually, people will wait until they

know a huge network of people in order to rise up and protest perceived and actual oppression,

marching in the streets and being vile towards those that talk back to them or become obstacles

to their progress. With Milk, however, he immediately refuses to back down to the disgust

expressed by the tenant shopkeeper neighboring his camera store. Though he wanted to live in

the new fabric of society he was helping to transform, the filmmakers used a recording in-the-

case-of-assassination to narrate and frame the story as it unfolded.

The biggest issue with becoming a hero is how does one return to society once one’s

name is spread around as a benevolent proponent of rights? All of these people that could have

stepped up for themselves and others, but did not, now are praising you everywhere you go. May

as well move to a new location and change one’s name in order to return to a normal life which

we cannot operate without. It would be preferable to become a martyr than a hero, since society

tends to accept slavery and oppression more readily than it would if the afflicted individuals

would have stood up for themselves long before the hero comes along. This turns any life of the

hero into a lifeless husk of praise and hidden scorn, particularly if their opposition are

fundamentalists and were not reasoned with in a manner that helps them accept change which

will take a generation to completely smooth out. If transforming the fabric of society is done

head on without consideration of living as a hero and working against the vices of fame, then the
 3
hero will either be smited by their defeated opposition or by themselves when reality is no longer

allowed to reach them and humble them.

Would one rather fight and die on a hill that stands up for rights, live with one’s rights

being violated, or be ignorant about one’s hill seeming to be for rights and instead be realized

later as the wrong thing to do? In the year 2020, there have been a variety of hills fought on with

references back to rights movements around the 1970s: while we may be seeing soon that these

past hills could have been avoided, given the arguments of their opposition and not identifying

their arguments’ fallacies, there became nothing that could be done regarding fundamentalist

opposition except by overpowering them through voting. Typically, fundamentalism is based on

a simple concept which does not correspond with a big or small picture view of how society

functions well; merely citing an authority such as a public official or a document like the Bible is

not grounds for a rational argument. However, when fundamentalism has a comprehensive

reasoning behind it and rational debate fails, we should be looking at which side is trying to have

or are listening to rational argumentation. In the 70s, ignorant fundamentalism was opposed by

those who were being neglected by the ignorance of the fundamentalists. In 2020, ignorant

fundamentalism projected their ignorance onto their opposition based on characteristics shared

with fundamentalists in the 70s yet neglected to realize these opposition fundamentalists were

rational in their worldview, concerned about their fellow man to the point they assumed first that

they were the antagonists. Instead of being the antagonists, they ended up in the same position as

those fighting for their right to exist back in the 70s.

Life is not meant to be anything except the obvious replication of itself, as such would a

good life not be one that strives to keep active peace than constantly be fighting? Those like Milk

tend to be striving to keep an active peace where debate and disagreement may occur. However,
 4
given the numerous mash-up of grievances by those led by Milk, after Milk’s death these people

were likely crystalized into a stance of always needing to fight to gain their freedom. Maybe they

were shocked and taken aback by Milk’s death? Either way, given that rational argumentation

and negotiation were not necessarily achieved, it should not be a surprise that in 2020 much

protesting was to be had regarding slogans that ended up being backed up by mobilized

protesting. The goal was to shove their agendas into the public debate, regardless of the logical

implication of their slogans. People yelled that the police should be defunded, which ended up

happening, and now, because of spiking crime rates, policy is shifting towards refunding the

police. A lot of hatred is being expressed against those labeled -phobic, without convincing

evidence to show how their targets truly are -phobic or why it matters; if a person is inclined

against gays yet allows people to live their private lives as well as have public displays, is that

person truly -phobic in a manner which is as harmful as what Milk was stopping? And is it

-phobic if one points out that a sex change is merely cosmetic, like plastic surgery which is seen

as okay or expected in South Korea or for examples of extremes such as burn victims, and does

not change the underlying XX or XY chromosomes? Just because people are fighting for a cause,

does not mean that the fighting is justified when peace is not even being attempted by those

fighting. One side is sought out right now while living their life and being tarred and feathered.

Repression, whether by others or by ourselves, should not be a chronic issue or

eventually extremes shall be found with one peaceful outcome compared to two violent

outcomes. Seeing and accepting ambiguity while working to resolve the conflict or, acting on the

immediate assumptions of right and wrong and charging the first hill that is seen without regard

for those that inhabit that hill. What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable

object? Per current scientific knowledge, the two sides go through each other without affect.
 5
References

Benshoff, H. M., & Griffin, S. (2009). America on film: representing race, gender and sexuality

at the movies. Wiley-Blackwell.

Black, D. L. (Writer), & Sant, G. V. (2008). Milk [Film]. Focus Features; Axon Films;

Groundswell Productions; Jinks/Cohen Company; Cinema Vehicle Services.