Samoa bans Oscar-winning movie Milk

Samoa's censors aren't revealing why they banned the Oscar-winning movie Milk which stars Sean Penn.

Apr 09, 2009
Censors in the South Pacific island state of Samoa banned the movie Milk, based on the life of gay activist Harvey Milk, which won a best actor Oscar for Sean Penn, according to a report from the capital, Apia.

Principal Censor Leiataua Niuapu Faaui confirmed the board had rejected an application for DVDs of Milk to be distributed in movie stores but refused to give a reason, the New Zealand Herald reported on its website.

"There are rules and guidelines for these things," he said.

The report quoted Ken Moala, a well-known human rights activist in Samoa, as saying, "I do not think it should be banned. It is basically a documentary about the human endeavour to conquer something that people tend to discriminate against."

"It's about vulnerable groups, how they are often marginalised, and they have every right to be part of society, especially in becoming public servants or figure heads in society," Moala said.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=799925

It always slays me, how individuals and groups/nations think banning something is an effective way to stop whatever it is they're banning.
It's a not-so-subtle form of hatred; Samoa is free to do as it wishes as a Sovereign nation. But, what they've done is illogical, and humiliating to all of us.
Btw, has BBM made it, underground, to El Salvador yet?

Does it really matter? No one went to see "Milk" in the U.S. and now the DVD isn't selling that well either, despite the Oscar wins. With that said, Samoa may as well ban "The Reader," too.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: DoubleD,

Milk was not a big grosser, but it was seen by around 5 million ticket-buying movie customers in the US. It's wrong to say "no one" saw it, and I am also bothered by the idea that in any event that is supposed to rationalize a backward censor board's actions.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: seanflynn,

quote:

Originally posted by DoubleD:
Does it really matter?

Yes, it matters.

Sometimes, it's stupid actions like banning that helps sell a product even more. There are so many historical examples. Better to just leave something alone and let it remain insignificant.

quote:

Originally posted by Vinny:
Sometimes, it's stupid actions like banning that helps sell a product even more. There are so many historical examples. Better to just leave something alone and let it remain insignificant.

Thank you Governor Palin. We appreciate your insight into the suppression of "subversive" materials.

Seriously, just how is the film Milk "insignificant"?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Pucifer,

So far I cant find anything that states why

Pucifer, i can't believe your knee-jerk response. I was not in anyway saying that Milk is an insignificant film. I was only suggesting that any material that is banned will only create more interest in it, which is opposed to the intentions of those who are trying to subdue it. The word "something" in my last sentence was not meant to refer to the movie Milk but rather to anything in general that is being banned. (I have the greatest respect for Harvey Milk and Dustin Lance Black, by the way.) And the word insignificant was not meant to belittle whatever is being banned; my idea was more of "low profile" or "under the radar". Anyway, i am sorry i unintentionally ruffled your feathers.

I love it how some topics people become so touchy about ......

"Milk" is insignificant.

quote:

Originally posted by Brilliance inmorbid:
"Milk" is insignificant.

Umm, maybe to you. BTW, your homophobia is ugly and really nothing to be proud of.

quote:

Originally posted by Pucifer:

quote:

Originally posted by Brilliance inmorbid:
"Milk" is insignificant.

Umm, maybe to you. BTW, your homophobia is ugly and really nothing to be proud of.

How you blatantly thrash and put down anyone who doesn't agree with you and those who esp. don't have the same feelings for your beloved "Brokeback Mountain" and "Milk" is nothing to be proud of.

And how exactly is "Milk" significant? It didn't break through at the box-office or culturally and was a disappointment to many on this board. It was nothing more than a thin bio-pic with some dudes kissing. It would have been significant if this was fifteen years ago.

quote:

. It was nothing more than a thin bio-pic with some dudes kissing.

I don't think you're homophobic, but lines like that open you up for the charge - it's at least a bit myopic.

This gay man thought Milk was less interesting than Van Sant's other recent work, didn't really advance beyond the documentary The Times of Harvey Milk, but it had some depth, some solid craft to it, several very fine performances and clearly did emotionally affect a core group of people.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: seanflynn,

The documentary titled The Times of Harvey Milk is a masterpiece, but today little-seen outside of an occasional PBS broadcast, and then only in select, gay-friendly, metropolitan areas. Dustin Lance Black, Gus Van Sant, Sean Penn, and the cast and crew of Milk are to be commended for raising the public's knowledge of and interest in the gay revolutionary and martyr Harvey Milk worldwide. Penn's win for best actor means the film will never be forgotten. Today you can see copies of Milk on sale at places like WalMart and Target, and for this I am grateful.

I liked "Milk" in general. I thought the performances were strong and it was definitely watchable. However, the straightforwardness and traditional biopic feel of it didn't really catch my interest, and there were some cheesy spots that turned me off (the wheelchair kid? wtf?). The techs were good, but I don't think its any better than, say, Good Will Hunting. Van Sant has done far more interesting stuff in his experiments than in his mainstream movies. Also, the film's depiction of the gay sexual scene really bothered me - yes, I think we have a tendency to be more promiscuous than, say, straight women, but that's a stereotype that I don't think really needs to be focused on, especially in a mainstream gay-themed film that a lot of straight people are going to see. It was for this reason that I was kind of bothered/offended by scenes such as the Hirsch/Cross BJ scene and the scene where Penn meets Franco in the subway.

Harvey Milk was a very sexual man, if anything, the film toned it down, way down.

Between this and the unnecessary shower scene in "Elephant", Gus Van Sant hasn't really convinced me that he isn't a lech.

The point being that gay sex is nothing to be ashamed of. How many films depict straight sex with nary a qualm?

quote:

Originally posted by Pucifer:
The point being that gay sex is nothing to be ashamed of. How many films depict straight sex with nary a qualm?

This is going to be one of those handful of times I agree with Pucifer. Straight couples in movies have sex on their first date, or upon just meeting, all the time. There is nothing inherently dirtier about it when a gay couple does the same thing.