Scorsese and DiCaprio back together again with 'Killers of the Flower Moon'.

Jason Isbell was great in this

I'm relieved Scorsese and co-writer Eric Roth didn't focus on the Bureau of Investigation procedural stuff. THAT would've been tiresome.

not a leo fan but liked him in this, although it got tougher for me in the last third or so when he's given less & less to do other than just squint and make that one face that he always makes

― waste of compute (One Eye Open),

His crying scene in the last 25 minutes was, against every one of my expectations, the most convincing I've seen from a major American star in years. It felt earned.

armond unsurprisingly not a fan

I won't give him the click. Does he denounce Scorsese for surrendering to #woke by showing In-juns?

Close. For surrendering to #woke by hating America

But the goddamn Bureau of Investigation look like heroes for the first time in forever.

"Bah, big gov't, blah blah blah"

I won't give him the click. Does he denounce Scorsese for surrendering to #woke by showing In-juns?

― hat trick of trashiness (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, October 24, 2023 4:17 PM (forty-seven minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

one of the great things about letterboxd is his reviews are pasted there

Odd definition of "great," but that's true, Armond's barely coherent, clearly never-edited reviews are indeed posted on Letterboxd by someone, albeit more sporadically these days

Devery Jacobs (of Reservation Dogs goes IN:

Being Native, watching this movie was fucking hellfire. Imagine the worst atrocities committed against yr ancestors, then having to sit thru a movie explicitly filled w/ them, w/ the only respite being 30min long scenes of murderous white guys talking about/planning the killings ... It must be noted that Lily Gladstone is a an absolute legend & carried Mollie w/ tremendous grace. All the incredible Indigenous actors were the only redeeming factors of this film. Give Lily her goddamn Oscar ... But while all of the performances were strong, if you look proportionally, each of the Osage characters felt painfully underwritten, while the white men were given way more courtesy and depth ... Now, I can understand that Martin Scorsese’s technical direction is compelling & seeing $200mil on screen is a sight to behold. I get the goal of this violence is to add brutal shock value that forces people to understand the real horrors that happened to this community, BUT—I don’t feel that these very real people were shown honor or dignity in the horrific portrayal of their deaths. Contrarily, I believe that by showing more murdered Native women on screen, it normalizes the violence committed against us and further dehumanizes our people ... (And to top it off; to see the way that film nerds are celebrating and eating this shit up? It makes my stomach hurt.) I can’t believe it needs to be said, but Indig ppl exist beyond our grief, trauma & atrocities. Our pride for being Native, our languages, cultures, joy & love are way more interesting & humanizing than showing the horrors white men inflicted on us ... This is the issue when non-Native directors are given the liberty to tell our stories; they center the white perspective and focus on Native people’s pain ... For the Osage communities involved in creating this film; I can imagine how cathartic it is to have these stories and histories finally acknowledged, especially on such a prestigious platform like this film. There was beautiful work done by so many Wazhazhe on this film ... But admittedly, I would prefer to see a $200 million movie from an Osage filmmaker telling this history, any day of the week ... —and I’m sorry, but Scorsese choosing to end on a shot of Ilonshka dances and drumming? It doesn’t absolve the film from painting Native folks as helpless victims without agency ... RIP to Mollie, Anna, Minnie, Rita, & all the other very real Osage folks who were murdered over greed. Tobacco down for the countless Osage folks today, whose family histories have been marked by these atrocities. The pain is real & isn’t limited to the film’s 3hrs and 26 mins ... And a massive Fuck You to the real life, white Oklahomans, who still carry and benefit from these blood-stained headrights ... All in all, after 100 years of the way Indigenous communities have been portrayed in film, is this really the representation we needed #KillersOfTheFlowerMoon.

damn go off

I thought the film was great, but I always thought Scorsese's greatest strength as a filmmaker was the way his films explored human pathology, whether it's individual or societal. Some of the recent criticisms that he just handles masculine toxicity is misguided and inaccurate because a lot of what he's explored goes far beyond that. And that's the biggest impression I got from this one.

There's a heartbreaking shot somewhat early in the film where it's the first time King (De Niro) is shown addressing the Osage. It's already suggested earlier that he's done his research of their culture and history, but it's remarkable to hear him so fluent and comfortable speaking their language. The camera then pulls out, allowing the image of King to retreat into a packed and festive sight of Osage and white Americans celebrating side-by-side, appropriately for the marriage that involves both sides.
In effect, we're left with the harmonious sight of two different cultures knowing full well it's deceptive, part of a genocidal campaign by a man who's grown to know these people not out of kinship but out of unrepentant hatred with the intent to annihilate them. Given Scorsese's well-known love for The Searchers, it's likely he saw a parallel between King and Ethan Edwards's own familiarity with the Comanches - it's a fully realized idea in both films, but it has a bigger role here and becomes all the more impactful. I couldn't shake the feeling that it reflected the worst fears of any age-old conflict between two cultures, particularly of the most uncompromising individuals who argue for nihilistic actions because of their belief that peace and harmony is impossible.

I do believe that there should be films, hopefully great films, above Native American cultures that have the benefit of the experiences and perspectives of a Native American, it's a gaping hole in cinema as far as I'm concerned, but that's not something I'd use to criticize Scorsese's film, partly because this film is primarily about pathology - it's an ugly side of life and American culture, and as unpleasant as it may be, it's something that should be engaged with. You want to understand the world better and what it does to people, you have to be willing to explore the ugliness and messiness, and there aren't many (maybe any) filmmakers who do it as well as Scorsese. It also feels strange to criticize anyone for telling this particular story when it's something - as pointed out in the film - that was buried in history, a willful attempt to wipe away its memory as if to deny this wrong ever happened, that white Americans were still capable of this wrong decades after their conflict with Native Americans was ostensibly over.

That brings me to another thing I loved about the film - the ending, an artistic risk that worked extremely well IMHO. There's no getting around that this is still a commercial, Hollywood production made by an outsider to Native American culture, and Scorsese owns that fact, not only for himself but for film culture in general.

Also, I did not have an issue with DiCaprio as Ernest, far from it. I haven't seen his films in a long while so I came into this with a faint memory of whatever baggage he might have, and this is the best I've seen him outside of a charismatic "star" turn (in that category, my favorite is probably Catch Me If You Can). His physical and behavioral transformation seemed complete without coming off as forced or unnatural, and all of the shortcomings of his character (especially moral) were wholly convincing to me.

And Robbie Robertson's score was great, the best new music I've heard him make in a long while - I'm guessing he handled guitar (heard often at the start). But there were moments where I thought it would've been better to take out any scoring, like the first time Ernest enters Mollie's home.

*about Native American cultures

I believe that by showing more murdered Native women on screen, it normalizes the violence committed against us and further dehumanizes our people .

At the risk of trivializing the excellent points, this has been a complaint against film since its origins. I don't think Scorsese does -- most of the violence here is discreet and discrete. On the contrary: showing the gradual deterioration of Mollie under the insulin regimen registers the violence done to her by Hale, scientists, and the federal government ostensibly there to protect her.

The brilliancy of the ending is how he tacitly admitsd the subject deserves other films

great post, birdistheword

thanks k3vin!

Scorsese compares Hale to Ethan Edwards in a recent and very good interview in Sight And Sound.

On the contrary: showing the gradual deterioration of Mollie under the insulin regimen

idk if they’ve changed the formula between then and epipens becoming common but I took it as the poison or sedative or w/e added to every dose that was the problem, not the insulin

Not made clear.

I thought it was very clear; different vials, Ernest having that moment of putting the seperate poison vial in his drink out of guilt, the insulin coming at the start when Mollie needed to stay alive and the poison coming afterwards when they’d sorted out the rest of the family.

it did seem clear to me that providing the insulin itself wasn’t presented as intended to be harmful — but then again one wonders why hale would have helped arrange that in the first place, given his motives

Because a huge part of his motive is appearing the benevolent mediator between the Osage and white-world.

it did seem clear to me that providing the insulin itself wasn’t presented as intended to be harmful — but then again one wonders why hale would have helped arrange that in the first place, given his motives

because mollie needs to be the last surviving family member for the money to flow hale's way

Scorsese compares Hale to Ethan Edwards in a recent and very good interview in Sight And Sound.

Thanks! I just read it - there's even a line I totally missed where King quotes Edwards - "As sure as the turning of the earth, we’ll find them."

Saw this today, thought it very good. Strong performances. And really didn't feel long, it moves the story along well without ever seeming rushed. In re Devery Jacobs' concerns, I think all of that is true but also she's basically talking about a completely different movie. This one is really about its white characters, even though it's set in the midst of Osage culture.

I'd say it's best thought of as a portrait of white supremacy and what it does. It's about a specific set of people and actions, but more than that it's about the way racial/ethnic power and economic power reinforce and corrupt each other.

a small thing that made me irrationally distracted - did anyone catch that scorsese has two different cameos in this? his onscreen bit in the final scene, but also as the offscreen voice of the photographer taking the group photo in washington dc yelling "hold that pose president coolidge" or whatever he says? unless i'm mistaken? really threw me for a second. i know he likes to play with the form but imo you cant have two cameos as two different characters marty, its just too much.

it's a throwback move! he has a cameo as a guy watching Betsy walk past when we first see her in Taxi Driver, as well as his cameo as the deranged backseat passenger.

He’s done a few cameos as photographers/cameramen. At a club in ‘After Hours’ and as a portrait photographer in ‘Hugo’ and ‘The Age of Innocence’.

Must admit I didn’t spot his first cameo as the photographer taking President Coolidge’s photo.

I noticed that too. A conspicuous voiceover and he does have a pretty unique voice.

Me when Scorsese cameoed for the second time in Killers of the Flower Moon

https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/mobile/000/033/487/rick.jpg

I haven't read anything about this movie yet, not a single review, no aggregated quote sites, not this thread, but I didn't particularly like it. I thought it was pretty dramatically inert, even repetitive, at least until Jesse Plemons showed up (two hours in?) and the investigation kicked off, but even that momentum proved pretty short lived, imo, since the movie quickly settles into the dull afterthought grind of the courtroom stuff. I especially disliked the casting of De Niro, who I found endlessly distracting, since all I could think of was Jimmy at the end of "GoodFellas."

That said, I didn't think it was *bad*, just that I kept wondering what someone like Spielberg would have done with it, or even, I dunno, Spike Lee. That ending seemed like something Spike Lee might have done.

Going to see it this weekend, even though it’s gonna be a tough sit.

Huh I thought DeNiro was good — the most fully fleshed out performance I've seen from him in a long time. (NB I haven't seen The Irishman.) I sort of get the "inert" complaint, but I didn't really feel that. It never stopped moving and advancing the plot. I thought of it as procedural, in a true crime way — it reminded me to some degree of the approach Fincher took with Zodiac (a better movie obviously), there was a just-the-facts vibe to the whole thing which I thought was intentionally kind of understated. He didn't want to hit you over the head with what was going on, just kind of lay it out piece by piece. It's also why I think complaints about the lack of interior life of the characters are just kind of wanting a totally different movie — there's nothing very interior about any of the characters, they're pretty much all seen from the outside.

I agree it was intentionally understated, which I felt at odds with its run time, imo. At first I was excited, like, OK, this is going to be Scorsese doing Malick or something, but then my enthusiasm faded. I did appreciate the evil in plain sight aspect of it, but I felt that was pushed pretty far; after the fifth or sixth paternalistic but menacing De Niro speech gives to Leo, I started to lose interest. That said, I don't think De Niro was bad, either, just distracting. When he was getting Leo to sign that document, I just kept thinking of Jimmy in "GoodFellas" beckoning Bracco down that alley. "Come on, just do it, it'll be fine." Except in "GoodFellas" that underscores the shifting relationships and paranoia. Because Scorsese lays the cards on the table from the start, there's just nowhere for the dynamic to go, because there *is* no dynamic. Maybe a different actor in the De Niro role not imbued with so much baggage might have been more effective.

Weirdly enough I kept thinking of Hitchcock, specifically "Shadow of a Doubt," I don't really know why. Maybe something about the banality of evil? I also kept thinking of Cukor's "Gaslight," for more obvious reasons.

As a character I found Isbell's most fascinating. We might not get a clear glimpse of his interior life, either, but I at least wondered what was going on in his mind.

I do believe that there should be films, hopefully great films, above Native American cultures that have the benefit of the experiences and perspectives of a Native American, it's a gaping hole in cinema as far as I'm concerned, but that's not something I'd use to criticize Scorsese's film, partly because this film is primarily about pathology

I think all of that is true but also she's basically talking about a completely different movie. This one is really about its white characters

Yes sure that's all true but for a group that's not exactly used to seeing itself prominently portrayed onscreen and with all the to-do Scorsese and co. made about working with the Osage and trying to be respectful towards their stories, rejigging the script to be more about them, I don't think "well, it's about the white characters" is a convincing rebuttal. Sometimes it's legit to criticise a film for what it's not rather than what it is.

I think DiCaprio was good enough to give a convincing portrayal of a sniveling worm, but not good enough to make you feel empathy for that worm as you would with De Niro in The Irishman. Speaking of, I thought he was good, and it's perhaps the first time I've seen him in something where I think of him as the character more than I think of him as actor Robert De Niro. Brendan Fraser was atrocious. Lily Gladstone easily the runs away with the film though, just absolutely magnetic.

Shifting the whodunit procedural to the second half was imo the crucial decision. Insofar as the film is "about" anything it's the complex and often deadly interaction b/w whites and Osages.

haven’t read the thread yet, but this movie was so. good. Indelible performance by Lily Gladstone.

haven’t read the thread yet, but this movie was so. good. Indelible performance by Lily Gladstone.

not good enough to make you feel empathy for that worm as you would with De Niro in The Irishman

True but also the facts of the case are so bad that I would be suspicious of a film that did make you feel much empathy for that character. Which of course is the import of the final scene between him and Mollie, where he ultimately won't come completely clean even with her and she knows for sure there's no way to reconcile his alleged love for her with his actions.

tipsy, I am probably guilty of letting the author's statements overly influence my viewing. In the S&S interview Scorsese is very explicit that when he talked to ppl who lived through this period amongst the Osage, one thing they were adamant about is that, despite everything else, Ernest and Mollie truly loved each other. So I was watching it through that lens, and I don't think DiCaprio pulls off making me believe he truly does. I'll admit it's a gargantuan task for an actor considering everything the character is doing.

I forgot that DeNiro and DiCaprio first worked together 30 years ago!

https://images.jdmagicbox.com/comp/jd_social/news/2018aug04/image-189757-4nwr7xf0z3.jpg
https://media.vanityfair.com/photos/64a580e891601d9e135bb1e6/master/w_2560%2Cc_limit/Killers_Of_The_Flower_Moon__Photo_0103.jpg

love that movie

Do you see him here in this courtroom? Will you point him out for the jury?

https://phildellio.tripod.com/gladstone.jpg

No implied comment here or in the last post; just images that jumped out at me.

https://phildellio.tripod.com/plemon.jpg

In my home! In my bedroom, were my wife sleeps! Where my children come and play with their toys. In my home.

https://i.postimg.cc/6pcC6DRx/window.jpg

(Not Scorsese x 2, but it did cross my mind.)

Not much to add about this movie, other than I enjoyed it and it didn't feel like it was three and a half hours long. Did anyone else think that the "meta" radio-show ending was a nod to Wes Anderson?

In case you haven't got three and a half hours, apparently Buster Keaton told the same story in 1922:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3E6pVHuoiU

Now you tell me