|
Post by stephen on Oct 24, 2023 2:28:49 GMT
Having seen it, I greatly admire the perspective the movie took and feel it is the better one, at least in terms of interrogating the themes that Scorsese is exploring. Having the movie from Mollie's perspective would invite audience identification with her. But this isn't about having white people relate to and feel sorry for Indigenous peoples (almost certainly while thinking "well, I am not those bad white people" or "at least it's not like that anymore"), this is about exploring how willing people are to be complicit with evil when they think it'll benefit them. It's all about the stranglehold of white supremacy and an inversion of the Cowboys vs. Indians Westerns that Scorsese grew up watching and loves. Funnily enough, I actually saw a tweet just a few moments ago that said pretty much this exact same thing, almost verbatim, so you're not alone in this respect. That said, I really don't know if I can agree with the idea that this is the "better" way to handle it, at least in comparing it against a movie from the perspective of the victimized people. Yeah, on paper it invites an indictment against white people to have to look at themselves in the mirror and realize how complicit they are . . . but that doesn't excuse the filmmakers from doing the same thing by obfuscating the Osages' story to make that point. And because of how DiCaprio plays him and how he's written, Ernest is just not sympathetic enough to make an audience face their own complicity; he's a dumbass that audiences can look down upon (and did, at least in my screening) and not have to think about how they'd do the same in their situation, and they can look at someone like Tom White as someone they'd would think themselves as acting like in that position. Furthermore, the movie just utterly immobilizes the Osage, making them helpless even when they were taking action. Even Mollie's quest to Washington is met with obstinate bureaucratic dismissal, and we never see the machinations that actually motivate the Bureau to send Tom White down there in the first place, because Scorsese is too focused on a character whose internal conflict doesn't merit anything more than not wanting to directly kill anyone.
|
|
|
Post by Billy_Costigan on Oct 24, 2023 3:28:09 GMT
Having seen it, I greatly admire the perspective the movie took and feel it is the better one, at least in terms of interrogating the themes that Scorsese is exploring. Having the movie from Mollie's perspective would invite audience identification with her. But this isn't about having white people relate to and feel sorry for Indigenous peoples (almost certainly while thinking "well, I am not those bad white people" or "at least it's not like that anymore"), this is about exploring how willing people are to be complicit with evil when they think it'll benefit them. It's all about the stranglehold of white supremacy and an inversion of the Cowboys vs. Indians Westerns that Scorsese grew up watching and loves. Funnily enough, I actually saw a tweet just a few moments ago that said pretty much this exact same thing, almost verbatim, so you're not alone in this respect. That said, I really don't know if I can agree with the idea that this is the "better" way to handle it, at least in comparing it against a movie from the perspective of the victimized people. Furthermore, the movie just utterly immobilizes the Osage, making them helpless even when they were taking action. Even Mollie's quest to Washington is met with obstinate bureaucratic dismissal, and we never see the machinations that actually motivate the Bureau to send Tom White down there in the first place, because Scorsese is too focused on a character whose internal conflict doesn't merit anything more than not wanting to directly kill anyone. It seems like most of your complaints are about the actual history. Mollie has a very limited role on the book. The Osage were helpless. I would have liked them to do more but this isn't a Tarantino revenge film. I realize the characters motives were murky and confusing but this is what happened. I imagine Scorsese thought straying too far from the real events would have been disrespectful. Scorsese's perspective was about how systematic racism and white greed led to murder for profit. It's not just about Mollie. The entire town was in on it and benefited from it. The official FBI count was 24 murders but Grann's book says the unaccounted for number might reach the 100s.
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Oct 24, 2023 4:38:45 GMT
Having seen it, I greatly admire the perspective the movie took and feel it is the better one, at least in terms of interrogating the themes that Scorsese is exploring. Having the movie from Mollie's perspective would invite audience identification with her. But this isn't about having white people relate to and feel sorry for Indigenous peoples (almost certainly while thinking "well, I am not those bad white people" or "at least it's not like that anymore"), this is about exploring how willing people are to be complicit with evil when they think it'll benefit them. It's all about the stranglehold of white supremacy and an inversion of the Cowboys vs. Indians Westerns that Scorsese grew up watching and loves. Funnily enough, I actually saw a tweet just a few moments ago that said pretty much this exact same thing, almost verbatim, so you're not alone in this respect. That said, I really don't know if I can agree with the idea that this is the "better" way to handle it, at least in comparing it against a movie from the perspective of the victimized people. Yeah, on paper it invites an indictment against white people to have to look at themselves in the mirror and realize how complicit they are . . . but that doesn't excuse the filmmakers from doing the same thing by obfuscating the Osages' story to make that point. And because of how DiCaprio plays him and how he's written, Ernest is just not sympathetic enough to make an audience face their own complicity; he's a dumbass that audiences can look down upon (and did, at least in my screening) and not have to think about how they'd do the same in their situation, and they can look at someone like Tom White as someone they'd would think themselves as acting like in that position. Furthermore, the movie just utterly immobilizes the Osage, making them helpless even when they were taking action. Even Mollie's quest to Washington is met with obstinate bureaucratic dismissal, and we never see the machinations that actually motivate the Bureau to send Tom White down there in the first place, because Scorsese is too focused on a character whose internal conflict doesn't merit anything more than not wanting to directly kill anyone. As I said before, I think it's "better" in terms of getting into the meat of what Scorsese wanted to explore: white supremacy. The unfortunate thing of the history is that the Osage were indeed rather helpless, with most of their efforts to get an investigation going privately or publicly proving futile to the grander conspiracy - I do want to note that the movie having Mollie go to Washington is a creative liberty, supplying her agency that was robbed of her in real life by her poisoning and guardianship under her husband (plus given the BOI shows up soon after that suggests it at least wasn't met with complete dismissal). The systemic dismantling of the community is the story, and it's a story where the active agents are the greedy white men. To supply the Osage with more agency than the historical record suggests would be akin to saying they could have prevented their fates, but short of staging their own counter-murdering spree of every white person they saw just in case they were part of the conspiracy there wasn't anything they could do that they didn't try. Not to mention a white filmmaker not only getting the opportunity to tell an Indigenous story, but using that opportunity to then make it about how their people did things wrong just grosses me out and no doubt would have been horrific optics. I also don't think Ernest needs to be sympathetic for us to explore our own complicity. I've discussed before how I feel The Wolf of Wall Street explores our own complicity with the American mindset on greed and post-Reagan capitalism and I wouldn't say Belfort is the least bit sympathetic. No, what I think Ernest needed to be was in some way understandable, and I'd say he is. He doesn't make an active choice to slide into evil as many Scorsese characters do but instead goes along with the devil on his shoulder (his uncle) at every turn, blindly thinking they'll get away with it and either ignorant or in denial to its logical conclusion (his wife and children dying). This isn't quite Goodfellas to me, we don't need to be seduced into the viewpoint, we need to know how it works and use that to self-reflect upon the story. We've seen very recently plenty of people willing to turn a blind eye to white supremacy if they see their taxes go down and right now we're seeing people be okay with if not outright cheer genocide because they feel the strong side is more like us. It's not always smart, it's not always sympathetic, but it's always out of self-interest and always fraught with contradiction.
|
|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Oct 24, 2023 13:27:43 GMT
Not looking forward to the online discourse around this film around Oscar voting season.
Anyways, I echo those that really loved this. It’s not without its flaws and I found DiCaprio’s performance very uneven, but none of that took away enough from the overall film to leave a lasting negative impact.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Oct 25, 2023 11:33:32 GMT
Random thought:A lot of good points and great ones.......some interesting takes.........but some of the discussons about this movie - some of it, not all .......and not just in this thread - but across other threads............... are - to me - like that scene where her hand is either rising to slap Bobby D, choke him or be held -.....I'm a little like "wtf" - at some of the discusson around this movie........ ...and that's after Bobby D says something that is also unknowable to me ...........in a language I don't comprehend, that may not be happening, in a drug induced haze .........so that makes our MAR discussion - at least - doubly or more unknowable / baffling It's also like when Bobby D. has on the driving goggles and tells DiCap "Look at me like this makes sense" ........very enjoyable takes in a literal and / or absurdist, head-scratching way .......
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Oct 26, 2023 1:56:17 GMT
8/10ish
Not quite great, but very good. After sitting on it a couple days, I think I’d put it near the bottom of Scorsese’s top 10. Didn’t really need to be 3.5 hours because it gets to be a little repetitive after a while (The Irishman definitely felt more precise in its length). The second hour in particular could have been cut down... and then once the investigation starts, it becomes, perhaps inevitably, a bit more ordinary. Still, by the end it has a kind of undeniable cumulative power, leaving you chilled and haunted.
Somewhat mixed on Leo’s performance, but he plays a character that’s fascinatingly despicable with the way he’s able to compartmentalize his actions. Contrary to what some may argue, I think it’s a performance that’s interestingly lacking in vanity because of Leo’s willingness to play someone as weak and cowardly as Ernest in a high-profile role like this.
Really liked Gladstone, especially early on where she conveys a sort of wryly amused serenity (“You talk too much”) and when she’s surveying Leo at the dinner table after she first invites him in, trying to size him up. Overall though, I was most impressed with Bobby D, who just instantly feels like a classic villain performance. Damn, aren’t we lucky to still be getting great De Niro performances in Scorsese movies at this stage of his career...
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Oct 26, 2023 4:45:50 GMT
And in her final confrontation with DiCaprio, when you expect to see her inner tensions rising up to the surface, nothing happens. She’s been dead too long, dramatically and otherwise. I actually thought that was one of her most interesting scenes – the way she doesn’t play it as outraged or hurt, but instead as someone who’s deadened by a kind of resigned acceptance, as if she’s thinking to herself that she should have expected all of this from the beginning...
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Oct 26, 2023 4:59:57 GMT
the very ending is more worthy of Spike Lee than Scorsese tbh............unnecessarily didactic What about it felt didactic to you? Was it the radio show concept as a whole or specifically Scorsese’s cameo? Sorry for all the questions haha, just now catching up on all the discussion...
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Oct 26, 2023 5:45:01 GMT
the very ending is more worthy of Spike Lee than Scorsese tbh............unnecessarily didactic What about it felt didactic to you? It is the great curse of this era in movies - this absurd "I'm commenting on my work of Art - outside of the work! - so you have something to refer to ...............in my work of Art!" This is the Bo Burnham schtick - "you can't criticize my film because I've offered my own running critique already - so too bad - see how smart I am"! This is the kind of thing that is a DVD supplement - leave it out of the movie...........I loathe this meta trend which is also weirdly in screenplays now (Barbie - which I called yesterday "the Fascist Doll Movie" - +1 pacinoyes) ........makes me think of homework .........shudder
|
|
|
Post by FallenWarrior on Oct 26, 2023 6:11:41 GMT
What about it felt didactic to you? It is the great curse of this era in movies - this absurd "I'm commenting on my work of Art - outside of the work! - so you have something to refer to ...............in my work of Art!" This is the Bo Burnham schtick - "you can't criticize my film because I've offered my own running critique already - so too bad - see how smart I am"! This is the kind of thing that is a DVD supplement - leave it out of the movie...........I loathe this meta trend which is also weirdly in screenplays now (Barbie - which I called yesterday "the Fascist Doll Movie" - +1 pacinoyes) ........makes me think of homework .........shudder Haven't Scorsese's film always been meta to some degree?
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Oct 26, 2023 6:19:54 GMT
It is the great curse of this era in movies - this absurd "I'm commenting on my work of Art - outside of the work! - so you have something to refer to ...............in my work of Art!" This is the Bo Burnham schtick - "you can't criticize my film because I've offered my own running critique already - so too bad - see how smart I am"! This is the kind of thing that is a DVD supplement - leave it out of the movie...........I loathe this meta trend which is also weirdly in screenplays now (Barbie - which I called yesterday "the Fascist Doll Movie" - +1 pacinoyes) ........makes me think of homework .........shudder Haven't Scorsese's film always been meta to some degree? Good point .............. I usually dislike it when he does it in any pronounced way and this is more unnatural imo ......... I also hate it when Ray Liotta gets down off the stand and speaks into the camera in Goodfellas for example...........
|
|
|
Post by ibbi on Oct 26, 2023 9:49:41 GMT
It is the great curse of this era in movies - this absurd "I'm commenting on my work of Art - outside of the work! - so you have something to refer to ...............in my work of Art!" This is the Bo Burnham schtick - "you can't criticize my film because I've offered my own running critique already - so too bad - see how smart I am"! This is the kind of thing that is a DVD supplement - leave it out of the movie...........I loathe this meta trend which is also weirdly in screenplays now (Barbie - which I called yesterday "the Fascist Doll Movie" - +1 pacinoyes) ........makes me think of homework .........shudder Haven't Scorsese's film always been meta to some degree? Not like THAT. The end of Goodfellas is the obvious comparison, but that worked better because he has literally narrated the entire movie to you so it has been set up perfectly stylistically. The other closest comparison (it's not that close) might be the rat at the end of The Departed, which I think literally ever single person hated (except me). I didn't hate this, it was a creative way to do the postscript at the end of the movie that adds to the thematic intent of the entire thing, but the director delivering those final lines basically right into the camera was a bit much. It was about a half step away from being this:
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Oct 30, 2023 11:23:17 GMT
Just sticking this here - because I think it's really well written at least even if you disagree - and the "real" reason that KotFM won't win BP - but also maybe might not age well as a film - or as well as we might think in Scorsese's pantheon (?) ...........also Gleiberman says Mean Streets might be Scorsese's best film which he might be right about....... at least he agrees with me (my #2 between Taxi Diver and The Irishman .........but is often my personal "favorite" anyway) Goes deep into what is the actor able to convey, what is the writer able to write........etc. Beneath his terrible actions, though, who is Ernest Burkhart? As we watch “Killers of the Flower Moon,” what is it in him we’re being asked to identify with? What’s his desire, his journey, his relationship to the darkness?
I’ve seen the film twice, and I’m still trying to suss that one out.variety.com/2023/film/columns/killers-of-the-flower-moon-leonardo-dicaprio-martin-scorsese-1235772356/
|
|
|
Post by Pavan on Nov 1, 2023 15:25:35 GMT
Sweeping in scale and systematic in approach the film paces itself in accordance with its subject matter that unravels as it progresses but yeah it didn't need to three and half hours long. Not Scorsese's peak hour but a pretty solid detour from his usual crime pics. DeNiro gave his best performance in ages. Gladstone is pretty good, and Leo is alright.
|
|
|
Post by wallsofjericho on Nov 1, 2023 21:00:14 GMT
Just sticking this here - because I think it's really well written at least even if you disagree - and the "real" reason that KotFM won't win BP - but also maybe might not age well as a film - or as well as we might think in Scorsese's pantheon (?) ...........also Gleiberman says Mean Streets might be Scorsese's best film which he might be right about....... at least he agrees with me (my #2 between Taxi Diver and The Irishman .........but is often my personal "favorite" anyway) Goes deep into what is the actor able to convey, what is the writer able to write........etc. Beneath his terrible actions, though, who is Ernest Burkhart? As we watch “Killers of the Flower Moon,” what is it in him we’re being asked to identify with? What’s his desire, his journey, his relationship to the darkness?
I’ve seen the film twice, and I’m still trying to suss that one out.variety.com/2023/film/columns/killers-of-the-flower-moon-leonardo-dicaprio-martin-scorsese-1235772356/A little of topic but I can imagine John Cazale in the 70s crushing a role like Ernest.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Nov 1, 2023 21:33:48 GMT
Just sticking this here - because I think it's really well written at least even if you disagree - and the "real" reason that KotFM won't win BP - but also maybe might not age well as a film - or as well as we might think in Scorsese's pantheon (?) ...........also Gleiberman says Mean Streets might be Scorsese's best film which he might be right about....... at least he agrees with me (my #2 between Taxi Diver and The Irishman .........but is often my personal "favorite" anyway) Goes deep into what is the actor able to convey, what is the writer able to write........etc. Beneath his terrible actions, though, who is Ernest Burkhart? As we watch “Killers of the Flower Moon,” what is it in him we’re being asked to identify with? What’s his desire, his journey, his relationship to the darkness?
I’ve seen the film twice, and I’m still trying to suss that one out.variety.com/2023/film/columns/killers-of-the-flower-moon-leonardo-dicaprio-martin-scorsese-1235772356/A little of topic but I can imagine John Cazale in the 70s crushing a role like Ernest. Yes, absolutely - the great short documentary I Knew It Was You (link below, btw) does a marvelous job of talking abut how Cazale could play "weak" - or dumb - almost how he defined it in a way in his era........ which is odd for actors to play (it's also like self-loathing whch I talk about a lot - very rarely played at all - in fact actors will eliminate it because it makes them lose their focus) It's even tougher for "movie stars" to do those things - because as a star you usually work a certain direct path in your acting - it's usually called a "brand" but I hate that term.........the fact that DiCaprio played the role makes it more difficult than just the role itself is...........it's a very challenging role - but it's even more so for an established star - the biggest star in the world.......and the biggest star in the world sought the role out......really interestng actor-ish things to talk about .........
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Nov 2, 2023 12:12:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Nov 2, 2023 12:14:06 GMT
Just sticking this here - because I think it's really well written at least even if you disagree - and the "real" reason that KotFM won't win BP - but also maybe might not age well as a film - or as well as we might think in Scorsese's pantheon (?) ...........also Gleiberman says Mean Streets might be Scorsese's best film which he might be right about....... at least he agrees with me (my #2 between Taxi Diver and The Irishman .........but is often my personal "favorite" anyway) Goes deep into what is the actor able to convey, what is the writer able to write........etc. Beneath his terrible actions, though, who is Ernest Burkhart? As we watch “Killers of the Flower Moon,” what is it in him we’re being asked to identify with? What’s his desire, his journey, his relationship to the darkness?
I’ve seen the film twice, and I’m still trying to suss that one out.variety.com/2023/film/columns/killers-of-the-flower-moon-leonardo-dicaprio-martin-scorsese-1235772356/A little of topic but I can imagine John Cazale in the 70s crushing a role like Ernest. I mean, Ernest is pretty much the Fredo of the family so that's a good shout. Now I'm here imagining what if Coppola had ventured west instead of to New York and Sicily, and instead of making the Godfather films had instead made the story of the Osage in an epic two-film saga, one from the Hales' perspective and one from Mollie's, all intertwined.
|
|
BlackCaesar21
New Member
You're barking up the wrong acorn!
Posts: 144
Likes: 104
|
Post by BlackCaesar21 on Nov 19, 2023 21:35:43 GMT
The real Mollie and Earnest_
|
|
Nikan
Based
Posts: 3,212
Likes: 1,595
|
Post by Nikan on Nov 20, 2023 10:50:12 GMT
This belongs here.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan_MYeah on Nov 28, 2023 3:17:27 GMT
So, I never got around to my thoughts on this, but a month late is better than never.
I think it’s a terrific film, and Marty is working at his apex once again. While I feel like it merits time shaved off, I can honestly say I was never bored by this movie. And the cast is terrific all across the board, especially Gladstone who’d be a more than worthy winner in either Leading or Supporting.
I just can’t decide which one to put her in. On the one hand, she commands the movie when she is onscreen, and her emotional anchor is heartbreaking one. On the other hand, she does spend a good chunk of the movie bedridden and sidelined.
|
|
Film Socialism
Based
99.9999% of rock is crap
Posts: 2,557
Likes: 1,389
|
Post by Film Socialism on Nov 28, 2023 20:29:57 GMT
dumbfounded that this is actually really great; has basically none of the annoying scorsese-isms that i hate and is paced perfectly. his best movie in decades
|
|
BlackCaesar21
New Member
You're barking up the wrong acorn!
Posts: 144
Likes: 104
|
Post by BlackCaesar21 on Nov 29, 2023 21:54:38 GMT
I really want Lily Gladstone to work with Marty again. Sweet Jesus she's excellent
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Dec 6, 2023 15:47:27 GMT
This is quite unlike anything else Scorsese's made, and not just because he chose an important (or, some could even say, baity) subject this time - it's because of how stark and somber his approach to it is (in hindsight, The Wolf of Wall Street really does feel like one last big adieu to the exuberant Marty of old). Obviously, Scorsese never endorsed the dubious lifestyles he depicted in his other films but he always tested us by making sure we could still be seduced by them. The situation with this film is entirely different though, even if we're once again invited to take a deep dive into the world of criminals making their way through life by taking advantage of others. You'd have to be a psychopath to feel attracted to the pursuits and methods of this particular lot of monsters, and there's nothing in Scorsese's portrayal of them that suggests enjoyment or entertainment. If anything, Killers of the Flower Moon is closer to a slow-burn horror film which gradually gets under your skin and has a few moments of genuine shock. I don't think I've seen anything scarier in Scorsese's filmography than the scene showing the aftermath of the house explosion with Reta's head literally falling apart as her corpse is lifted from the ground, after which we cut to an absolutely eerie tracking shot through Mollie's and Ernest's house with kids' screams in the background. It's also a very sprawling piece, liberated of many rules regarding traditional story structure and pacing. Scorsese uses his humungous running time not to cram in as many events as possible but to let the film breathe and to establish a real sense of the place he's showing. The film seems similar to Heaven's Gate in that regard, although in this case the material is vastly superior. We don't just follow a narrative, we practically live there alongside the doomed and the damned. It's hard to believe that a 2023 Hollywood movie with a budget this huge can operate on a level of such freedom and yet here we are. I'm incredibly grateful for this approach, even if it doesn't necessarily lead to a pitch-perfect cinematic construction. Some bits might've been trimmed, some might've arguably even been cut without too much detriment to the overall piece, and yet I love that it's a film to settle into. There probably could've been a tighter and more familiarly suspenseful cinematic version of this story but I don't think that's the movie Scorsese intended to make at all - he consciously avoids falling into genre trappings and more than anything wants us to feel the people, feel the land and feel the death, continuing the more subdued approach he employed in Silence and The Irishman. All of this leads to an absolutely amazing ending which both finds a great way to do away with the standard title cards telling us what happened later and serves as a truly powerful reminder that it's not enough for us - the audience - to just consume whatever true stories we're presented. We must understand that these are actual lives and fates. We must look at ourselves. We must remember.
The brilliant final shot further accentuates that point - the higher the camera goes, the more the figures of the dancing Osage start to resemble petals swirling amidst the grass, forming one big flower. The flower has been killed but the memory should and does live on. The film is magnificently put together with Rodrigo Prieto doing some of his very finest work (second only to Marty's own Silence) and the period being portrayed with staggering detail by Jack Fisk and Jacqueline West. The cast is uniformly great too with the main trio being as stupendous as promised. My MVP is DiCaprio who gives the second best performance of his career (just behind Rick Dalton). It's immensely colorful, fully immersive character work that astonished me, especially because DiCaprio actually made me pity Ernest in certain scenes despite the character being quite despicable. It's a classic Scorsese lead - complex, self-serving, self-destructive - and I can absolutely see why he gravitated towards him as the main focus of the piece. Incidentally, I have no problem with that fact as I think a movie, especially such an abundant one, can hold several ideas and viewpoints at once. To me Killers of the Flower Moon worked wonderfully as a tribute (or even an elegy) to the Osage while also being a great character study of a deeply questionable man, coming to the place as an outsider and proceeding to crawl his way in but also genuinely falling in love. The film doesn't provide any easy answers and conclusions which is exactly what'll likely make it one to return to and to be haunted by. Especially if one thinks about it in the context of Scorsese's career. To me it almost serves as an answer to Gangs of New York - both movies are about the foundations of America as a country but this one consciously bids farewell to the genre-ness and the pulp of GONY and shows us what the hands that built America actually looked like.
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Dec 9, 2023 0:36:13 GMT
A little detail that stuck with me: I love how right at the beginning, during his first meeting with Hale, Ernest says that his gut burst during the war. He literally announces himself as a gutless man. A title which he then proceeds to repeatedly prove.
|
|