|
Post by pupdurcs on Oct 18, 2023 1:58:11 GMT
Guess you called it correct. I do wonder if this discourse that DiCaprio's character of Burkhart is too romanticised/sympathetic might end up costing him what seemed like an inevitable nomination. Eh *Citation needed*. This outrage may get trade "think pieces" and twitter/X going but when has such outrage truly changed the Oscar race? Green Book still won. Affleck still won. Maybe you can argue that it cost La La Land the win, but you could as easily argue that it burned out early due to the Globes sweep leading to backlash. Things that can be used against a movie/performance can always make a difference in a race (nominations or wins). It doesn't always have to be "outrage". It can just be a rumbling of discontent. I agree with Stephen that DiCaprio is probably safe for the nomination. But I do see this being a film that gets a lot of nominations with very few wins (to be fair, Scorsese has a few films like that anyway)
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Oct 18, 2023 2:10:59 GMT
Eh *Citation needed*. This outrage may get trade "think pieces" and twitter/X going but when has such outrage truly changed the Oscar race? Green Book still won. Affleck still won. Maybe you can argue that it cost La La Land the win, but you could as easily argue that it burned out early due to the Globes sweep leading to backlash. But I do see this being a film that gets a lot of nominations with very few wins (to be fair, Scorsese has a few films like that anyway)That's par for the course with Scorsese, especially now. Problem is, he's up against two or three other films likely to maximize at double nominations, and by winless filmmakers at that. I've said before that the "Scorsese is overdue" narrative won't pan out again because they already did that in 2006, and that he would have to be well and truly undeniable to get his second. He may yet win because the quality of the filmmaking is by all accounts top-notch, but he's up against a juggernaut in Nolan, and then there's potential dark horses like Lanthimos in the hunt. DiCaprio similarly won his Oscar on a huge "it's his time" narrative, and while he is still young enough that he can still win a second, again, it'd have to be undeniable, and he's got some tough competition, especially from Bradley Cooper who has racked up a slew of nominations in a decade, now playing his baitiest role yet. Killers's biggest win equity is in Best Actress, ironically enough -- the category that people criticized Scorsese for not really affording opportunities to (Ellen Burstyn notwithstanding) -- and it sounds like Gladstone has the goods to pull it off, but she's got tough competition and it sounds like she still has to deal with marginalization within her own film, which could impact her winning chances. Not that I think she cares about that; the nomination in lead is her aim, and anything after that would just be icing on the cake. I don't think the outrage will amount to much when it comes to the difference between a win or a nomination, but it is worth discussing when talking about the film's impact and its legacy. Did Scorsese go far enough in restructuring this story? Was it a reluctance to steer the story too far away from its bankable leading man, or a lack of faith in their abilities to rely on the story itself?
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Oct 18, 2023 3:33:30 GMT
I don't think the outrage will amount to much when it comes to the difference between a win or a nomination, but it is worth discussing when talking about the film's impact and its legacy. Did Scorsese go far enough in restructuring this story? Was it a reluctance to steer the story too far away from its bankable leading man, or a lack of faith in their abilities to rely on the story itself?I think it might just be that Scorsese simply wanted to restructure the story according to what he thought was most interesting dramatically. Even without further context, your description of Leo’s character as “a conflicted enabler of violence and murder” does make him sound like a logical focal point to shape your movie around since a character’s internal conflict is pretty much always a reliable source of drama to sustain a film (especially one of this length). In this case, that kind of intuitive dramatic choice seems to have involved sacrificing more thorough representation of a marginalized group’s perspective, which is unfortunate. I don’t necessarily blame Scorsese for probably wanting to tell what he thought was the most dramatically interesting version of this story by centering a character’s internal conflict, but it sounds like there could have been more balance in terms of how much emphasis to give to the different perspectives.
|
|
|
Post by mhynson27 on Oct 18, 2023 8:36:41 GMT
I've seen the film and yeah...was kind of surprised that Gladstone felt fully supporting to me.
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Oct 18, 2023 9:33:26 GMT
I don't think the outrage will amount to much when it comes to the difference between a win or a nomination, but it is worth discussing when talking about the film's impact and its legacy. Did Scorsese go far enough in restructuring this story? Was it a reluctance to steer the story too far away from its bankable leading man, or a lack of faith in their abilities to rely on the story itself?I think it might just be that Scorsese simply wanted to restructure the story according to what he thought was most interesting dramatically. Even without further context, your description of Leo’s character as “a conflicted enabler of violence and murder” does make him sound like a logical focal point to shape your movie around since a character’s internal conflict is pretty much always a reliable source of drama to sustain a film (especially one of this length). Not only that, it also sounds like a quintessential Scorsese character - he loves to zero in on these morally dubious or even morally reprehensible people so I completely understand why he pivoted to Ernest.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Oct 18, 2023 9:58:11 GMT
If Martin Scorsese made this movie in 1978 - would he have made it that long (doubt it, and also unlike The Irishman which needed to be really long, you could argue against it anyway here moreso)........would it be told even more in this POV ........would it have been a better movie.......a less "sensitive" movie? A better acted movie? Would it have had "masterpiece" slapped on it before anybody saw a second of it?
Did he need to live 145 years to get to the place where he could actually make "this" movie? Can this movie only be made by a white guy who has his clout and freedom and experience to even make it anyway?
I dunno - I'm a simple man and not attuned to the complexities of the Osage - or whether an Osage should have "made" the movie (yeah ok, sure) but I'm sure I'll be asking myself such questions when I see it........instead of wondering for one second about the thoughts of some dude I never heard of and pretending to care about his POV on it .....
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Oct 18, 2023 10:58:43 GMT
I don't think the outrage will amount to much when it comes to the difference between a win or a nomination, but it is worth discussing when talking about the film's impact and its legacy. Did Scorsese go far enough in restructuring this story? Was it a reluctance to steer the story too far away from its bankable leading man, or a lack of faith in their abilities to rely on the story itself?I think it might just be that Scorsese simply wanted to restructure the story according to what he thought was most interesting dramatically. Even without further context, your description of Leo’s character as “a conflicted enabler of violence and murder” does make him sound like a logical focal point to shape your movie around since a character’s internal conflict is pretty much always a reliable source of drama to sustain a film (especially one of this length). In this case, that kind of intuitive dramatic choice seems to have involved sacrificing more thorough representation of a marginalized group’s perspective, which is unfortunate. I don’t necessarily blame Scorsese for probably wanting to tell what he thought was the most dramatically interesting version of this story by centering a character’s internal conflict, but it sounds like there could have been more balance in terms of how much emphasis to give to the different perspectives. Obviously Ernest is a more dramatically interesting character because he is riddled with conflict . . . but you know who else would be? A woman caught between love for her people who are being systematically oppressed and murdered, and love for her husband who is complicit in that oppression and murder. It would be a fascinating exploration not just into the woman as an individual, but exploring themes of assimilation and cultural identity. I don't have an issue with them restructuring the story to focus on Ernest. What I do have an issue with is them talking about how the original story paid lip service to the Osage and they reworked it to give them more of a presence in the story. But by the sounds of it, they didn't go nearly so far enough. But they keep advertising like they did this great groundbreaking thing, and that's leaving quite a sour taste in my mouth.
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Oct 18, 2023 13:49:44 GMT
1. No way DiCaprio doesn't get a nomination, lots of critics and people consider it another career-high, if not his greatest performance ever.
2. In an interview the filmmakers spoke how during their research they found out Mollie and Ernest actually loved each other for real, so the betrayal and murder is even more wicked and twisted. I guess the consultant wasn't so well informed about Mollie and Ernest's relationship, and yet he judged the portrayal of it. 3. He hasn't even said the movie is bad, he underlined how well Scorsese represented the Osage people. This interview won't hinder the reception of the movie or the true, honest intentions of the filmmakers and actors. I can't even say it's a jab at the movie, you are all making it bigger than it is.
4. This would have never happened without the Actors's strike, they would have never given so much spotlight to this guy, nor this guy would have found the courage to say this in the presence of DiCaprio and DeNiro.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Oct 18, 2023 13:56:43 GMT
I guess the consultant wasn't so well informed about Mollie and Ernest's relationship, and yet he judged the portrayal of it. The consultant is fully aware of Mollie and Ernest's relationship. He is Osage and spent a lot of time working on the project, and the murders are part of Osage lore. He's critical because the film focuses on the story from Ernest's perspective, and in doing so sidelines and marginalizes Mollie and the Osage at large. Regardless of whether Ernest loved Mollie in real life, that's still not the best tack to take for this story, and if you're a representative of the culture being depicted seeing the story of your people being viewed through the lens of a white man despite the filmmakers acknowledging the original story was a white saviour narrative and took pains to change it, that's a fair grievance.
|
|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Oct 18, 2023 14:10:12 GMT
This all sounds like Twitter discourse which only exists in a bubble and will have zero bearing on anything.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Oct 18, 2023 20:57:04 GMT
Just dropping this here for comparison after it opens - I don't think I'm seeing it this weekend but maybe...... deadline.com/2023/10/taylor-swift-the-eras-tour-killers-of-the-flower-moon-box-office-opening-1235576918/Apple Original Films’ big splash into a wide theatrical release with Paramount on Martin Scorsese’s Killers of the Flower Moon has been looking at a $20M-$25M opening with tracking for a while. That would be mind-blowing for a 3 hour, 26-minute western drama that’s getting released in the midst of the actors strike, which has prevented stars from tubthumping their pics. Such conceived tentpoles as New Regency/20th Century Studios/Disney’s $80M The Creator were impacted greatly by the strike; that pic’s promotion was hamstrung sans an awesome San Diego Comic-Con and fall film festival launch, ultimately opening to $14M and currently at a running cume of $33.4M. Another adult-skewing title, 20th/Disney’s A Haunting in Venice, also took a hit with a $14.2M opening.
|
|
|
Post by quetee on Oct 18, 2023 21:09:50 GMT
That's the power of Leo.
|
|
|
Post by franklin on Oct 18, 2023 23:02:15 GMT
I'm hoping it reaches 30 Million.
|
|
|
Post by Billy_Costigan on Oct 19, 2023 3:15:28 GMT
This whole thing feels overblown. It's a no win situation.
If makes a movie based on the book, it's a white savior story. When he changes the perspective, he doesn't go far enough. If he makes it completely from the Osage perspective, people would also question if a white man from NY is the right person to tell the story.
The truth is, the movie and the story probably never get told if they shifted the perspective even more. Paramount already wanted to drop out after they decided Leo wouldn't play Tom White. Apple is not shelling out the money if they aren't getting a prestige film from Marty and Leo. It's an important story about white people taking advantage of a marginalized group. It's an American story and I trust the greatest filmmaker to tell it in a way he saw fit.
From all accounts, he treated the Osage perspective with great honesty and respect. That's all you can ask for. I'm glad people are paying attention and they got a chance to shine a light on this moment in history.
To be fair, one of the criticisms of Oppenheimer is that it doesn't show the Japanese perspective. That's why I don't think this will hurt its awards prospects. The biggest contender "suffers" from the same issue.
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Oct 19, 2023 3:53:57 GMT
The consultant's feelings are legitimate, but I feel more nuanced than is being given credit here. He noted that while he wishes as an Osage the film had been from Mollie's perspective, the film being from Ernest's perspective invites a wider audience to consider their own complacency in a system of oppression. That the movie is asking these questions and doing so through the perspective that best invites that. It's more than understandable why he wishes it had been from Mollie's perspective or the film had at least not been sympathetic to the love that Ernest expresses for her as he is helping to wipe out her family, but I don't think this is some smoking gun "Scorsese didn't do enough" that it's been characterized as.
|
|
|
Post by Billy_Costigan on Oct 19, 2023 5:13:21 GMT
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Oct 19, 2023 10:28:20 GMT
If Martin Scorsese made this movie in 1978 - would he have made it that long (doubt it, and also unlike The Irishman which needed to be really long, you could argue against it anyway here moreso)........would it be told even more in this POV ........would it have been a better movie.......a less "sensitive" movie? A better acted movie? Would it have had "masterpiece" slapped on it before anybody saw a second of it? Did he need to live 145 years to get to the place where he could actually make "this" movie? Can this movie only be made by a white guy who has his clout and freedom and experience to even make it anyway? I dunno - I'm a simple man and not attuned to the complexities of the Osage - or whether an Osage should have "made" the movie (yeah ok, sure) but I'm sure I'll be asking myself such questions when I see it........instead of wondering for one second about the thoughts of some dude I never heard of and pretending to care about his POV on it ..... The (very) few negative reviews on RT do mention the POV as letting the film down artiistically it's worth noting......kind of amazingly 2 of the 9 negative reviews explicitly mention Heaven's Gate - a 40 + year old film ffs which is kind of odd / funny / surprising....... It's like the negative campaigning starts really early in our takedowns of BP contenders it seems huh.........I'm looking forward to KotFM - bad POV, Oppenheimer - no shots of victims with skin peeling off of faces............BP goes to ............Barbie by process of elimination
|
|
|
Post by sterlingarcher86 on Oct 19, 2023 13:15:22 GMT
On the review front this is now up to 91 on Metacritic after 7 straight 100’s. Could see this maybe winning NYFCC.
|
|
|
Post by Pittsnogle_Goggins on Oct 19, 2023 13:40:12 GMT
|
|
|
Post by RiverleavesElmius on Oct 19, 2023 14:30:39 GMT
I guess the consultant wasn't so well informed about Mollie and Ernest's relationship, and yet he judged the portrayal of it. The consultant is fully aware of Mollie and Ernest's relationship. He is Osage and spent a lot of time working on the project, and the murders are part of Osage lore. He's critical because the film focuses on the story from Ernest's perspective, and in doing so sidelines and marginalizes Mollie and the Osage at large. Regardless of whether Ernest loved Mollie in real life, that's still not the best tack to take for this story, and if you're a representative of the culture being depicted seeing the story of your people being viewed through the lens of a white man despite the filmmakers acknowledging the original story was a white saviour narrative and took pains to change it, that's a fair grievance. You haven't seen the movie, so truly have no idea what you're talking about. Maybe don't have a virtue-signaling "outrage fit" without seeing the movie??? This should be "Duh!" obvious.
|
|
Archie
Based
Eraserhead son or Inland Empire daughter?
Posts: 3,690
Likes: 4,384
|
Post by Archie on Oct 19, 2023 14:53:18 GMT
Fraser is apparently horrible in this.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Oct 19, 2023 14:58:29 GMT
I love the idea that he has a dog named Oscar. I like to think someone has given him a dog every few years with that name just to make up for the Academy failing to do so.
|
|
|
Post by mhynson27 on Oct 19, 2023 15:02:22 GMT
Fraser is apparently horrible in this. He had people laughing at parts that definitely were not supposed to be funny.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Oct 19, 2023 15:13:22 GMT
Fraser is apparently horrible in this. He had people laughing at parts that definitely were not supposed to be funny. Is that because of what he's doing, or because of the meta-ness of casting Brendan Fraser in the first place?
|
|
|
Post by mhynson27 on Oct 19, 2023 16:13:02 GMT
He had people laughing at parts that definitely were not supposed to be funny. Is that because of what he's doing, or because of the meta-ness of casting Brendan Fraser in the first place? I think the former. There was just something about his line deliveries and facial expressions that were just hard to take seriously. Also, check your PM's.
|
|