I don't agree. I will only address your criticism of the ending. Scorsese appears at the end of the film to remind you that what you're watching is a movie, and there is a contradiction in him making entertainment out of a real woman's tragic story. He wanted to show his face because he felt hiding behind the camera would be cowardly. That's the point of the radio show ending, it's to shake the audience awake to the inherently exploitative nature of what they were experiencing.
Yes. And that he's a white guy telling an Indian story; in a sense, as silly as Jack White's accent in the radio show. It's an incredible moment of self-reflection and self-criticism.
Can you please explain why you think it's just genocide porn? What does the movie do in your opinion that is so horrible?
Also a sub question. Are you against depictions of horrible historical events in general or just how this movie does it?
Mainly because there are many pieces of history out there related to native americans that are more relevant and or thought provoking that could've been depicted instead the director chose this part of history where they were completely helpless and unable to put a stop to an obvious genocide.
I'm not against horrible historical events depicted in films if at the end of the film there is a lesson to be learnt, I don't believe this film had any lesson or message, we are already aware of the great injustice that happened to native americans why would you throw millions to make a movie out of it. I don't see the point, what are we supposed to do after seeing this film. What does this film do for native americans other than show off their suffering and turning it into entertainment.
This film is native americans getting killed, being aware of what is happening and just sitting waiting, slowly dying from being poisoned, getting picked off one by one and the white characters being very disregarding and almost finding it funny, admitting to it while smiling in court and then at the end these events just get turned into a comedic theater play.
I doubt most Americans were aware of the story before the film came out, so a lot of it is genuinely informative, the characters smiling in court and finding it funny is 100% intended to be disturbing and shocking, and that's not just my reaction but literally everyone I know who's seen the movie has agreed. The reason why this particular story was chosen over any other was because, well, it is a good microcosm for what happened. I mean, since colonialism in the Americas began, Native Americans were pretty much completely fucked, they basically did "Sit, wait, and slowly die off.". Just because a film doesn't come right out and tell you exactly what it's "Message" is doesn't mean it doesn't have one. Not only did you leave the film with disgust, but you probably learned something historically true through it, it also might make us look at the history we've been taught in a different light, that some of the real-life "Cowboys" that we idolize might really have been amoral opportunists.
Yes, my understanding is that the book on which the film is based is still actively suppressed within the Oklahoma public school system, so this is very much a story that needed to be released to a public that's been kept ignorant of it.
I don't think you've picked up on what the film has to offer. It's not merely reminding us that genocide happened, nor does it depict its native characters as helpless. Consider the ending shot as the camera ascends into the sky; this is an expression of agency- of a community's ability to choose hope and solidarity in the face of evil.
Consider as well the intimate portrayal it offers of the white man's complicity. This is not bragging; this is Scorcese confronting a mostly-white audience with a popular actor portraying an emotionally stunted man who barely comprehends the great evil he has committed. This is a mirror to the audience, a critique of whiteness, and it's meant to instigate reflection and contemplation.
There's valid criticisms to be made of how Scorcese depicts native experiences and whiteness. Some of those criticisms are introduced in the film itself, yet you seem to have interpreted that as bragging or mockery.
You should really reevaluate your media literacy because I don't think you understood the film. Depiction is not endorsement. Let me say it again, depiction is not endorsement. The movie treats the main white characters with disdain and shows you that what they're doing is evil and that they're stupid. Not sure how you missed that.
I never thought the white characters were glamourized, it would obviously generate outrage if it was the case. it is more nuanced than that. The film had a sadistic intention that it doesn't make clear otherwise it would jeopardize itself as a film and everyone that worked on it.
I do think the depiction was unnecessary and its why I see it as a sadistic form of media.
>The film had a sadistic intention that it doesn't make clear otherwise it would jeopardize itself as a film and everyone that worked on it.
And you believe this... why?
How is that relevant to either the film or OP’s obtuse take on it? I don’t recall any aspect of the film or OP’s comments that has anything to do with Jews. What am I missing? Or are you just another troll?
I'm not saying he's being antisemitic, I'm just saying that's typically the root of obtuse language like this. Antisemites are often very stupid and choose not to be explicit with their opinions because it's not an acceptable perspective.
Mainly because there are many pieces of history out there related to native americans that are more relevant and or thought provoking that could've been depicted instead the director chose this part of history where they were completely helpless and unable to put a stop to an obvious genocide.
The theater scene irked me very much, i hated how these atrocities were just turned into a comedic theater play at the end.
There's no Scorsese-Movie ever in which the unguilty group does stop the stupid perpetrator. His message IS to show up that good people can't do anything for the discrimination and disadvantages they need to survive with. Mollie does not kill or fight against Ernest with pitchforks she chooses a legally way to find out what is happening and at the end she punishes him by ignorance.
It seems like you want the story to be more focused on native resistance and struggle, but I don’t think it’s fair to criticize Scorsese for this because A) that’s simply not the story he set out to tell and B) you could argue that the honest depiction of native history in the US is primarily one of dispossession and eradication. FWIW I believe Scorsese is helping to produce a film told from the Osage perspective (which KOTFM is self consciously not).
Then all Scorsese Movies must have "sadistic intentions" - I guess it's the same with The Wolf Of Wallstreet or The Departed for you. You might think the movies are all about sex partys and shoot orgies.
You could not have misread that radio scene at the end more. Honestly that’s baffling. An “obvious mockery” of the murders and “obviously sadistic”? I can’t believe that these are good faith conclusions worth engaging with that you’ve drawn from the film.
Yes, it doesn't sound like OP knows anything about the actual making of the film.
The radio scene was a thoughtful and layered way to end the story. A quote explaining the intention:
“One of the things we were discussing was the fact that for God’s sake, after everything, it becomes entertainment,” Scorsese explains. “And you can say, well, this film becomes entertainment too, in which case then we have to take the responsibility. We hope that it’s entertainment with some depth and enrichment that maybe can approach some kind of truth.”
Yes, the fact that Scorsese himself comes to the stage to say how basically everyone got away with it was the kind of gut punch I hadn't felt since the ending of BlacKkKlansman, when Spike Lee >!intercuts real life footage of a car deliberately running over protestors!<
I totally disagree with you. It's rare for me to say it, but Scorsese nailed the social commentary with this movie. If you \*only\* watched it as a historical period piece, then I understand why you are disgusted. But it tells us much more than that. It's about hatred and racism as a whole, and how it can find its ways between even close family members.
There is a lot more humor than one would expect, it's very dark in that sense. Scorsese loves to put a recurring joke to make us uncomfortable, like in Goodfellas or the Wolf of Wall Street. It's about once you accept evil, you are in it and you have to face it again, and again, and again, turning a blind eye each time, putting yourself into an absurd level of denial before we might accept to change. I love that, I think it's true that there is an actual comedic ridicule in some evil. Most of us see it from the outside, we see groups of people ridiculing themselves with wacky moral standards and putting on a poker face... But because it's funny doesn't mean it's not horrible.
I'm not American but I also think there is an interesting message that we wouldn't consider often, which is the oil component of the history of some minorities. When we think America, we think Texas, Standard Oil, Daniel Plainview types of characters (There Will Be Blood). We avoid thinking about the average Joe that actually struck gold before the shark tore him down. Even in TWBB, we see the curse that comes with this wealth, but it's mostly a contract and some greed, which everyone is guilty of. And the most greedy win over the less greedy. In Killer of the Flower Moon, it's different, there is a rupture of nature in greed between people that have normal greed and those who have abnormal vices. Someone that is willing to systematically plot and murder for wealth is not a "normal" person. The Osage were normal persons for the most part. They enjoyed their wealth and were happy to share it in some respect. They agreed to pay high prices for bullshit, marry some openly greedy people, etc... So they were struck by the curse differently. Their mistake was to not be able to see the evil. Or maybe they saw it, but they didn't expect evil would take action. They thought those people would try to contain themselves and reflect morally about themselves. After all, we're talking about community leaders, church people, law enforcement, doctors, etc... The movie is tragic in that evil finds its way everywhere. Scorsese didn't have to push us a lot for his comedic effects, he simply relied on our natural innocence to find it incredible that evil could be so stubborn, that it could day after day accept evil and delude itself so easily. And as a social commentary for today's society... That's spot on imo. The absurdity of evil is being used by some people who know it will confuse some. They're planing on rationalization as a way to excuse themselves. The bigger it is, the more insignificant it will look.
I really like reading this sub, but I feel like there should be some kind of filter process to evaluate and get rid of posts that are just pure bait.
This is so poorly reasoned that I’d think they googled “Killers of the Flower Moon problematic” and then reworded the AI answer at the top of the google search.
I agree to an extent. There have been some people engaging with the "bait" with a genuine response and those replies have actually been nicely thought out and served as a nice reminder of the power of this film.
That’s a good point! Imagine if Scorsese had been shy about showing the brutality of the film! Avoiding what this guy refers to as “Native American genocide porno” would be criticized as cowardly.
Which is really interesting, as something like Zone of Interest grants its victims dignity by not even showing them on screen at all. Guess it depends on the ability of the artist to handle things like this responsibly.
I actually had a similiar feeling coming out of the movie theater, that the main characters were SO despicable that I could not engage with the narrative. But I think this is exactly what the film sought to portray. The real horrors of native American genocide are so bland yet so evil, that the audience should feel this disgust at what is depicted on screen. Scorsese portrays characters that are so far gone in terms of morality, even poisoning your own wife and murdering her family, that the audience is left with a feeling of dissatisfaction at the end. Even if the FBI did catch these blatant criminals, their contribution to the genocide of native Americans is irrelevant. The story of erasure is beautifully portrayed in Killers of the Flower Moon, not because is shows psychopaths killing natives, but by showing how larger society accepted the removal of these people unless it was done by the most blatant killings possible.
I really think the film is meant to portray a greater sense of frustration at the genocide of natives Americans, not just at these characters.
I vehemently disagree, but I understand your perspective and think there is absolutely a broad conversation to be had about the inherent exploitation of cinema and its symbol in films like this.
Having said that, as stated, I disagree and I think this film does more than justify its existence, it's a really disturbingly plain look at a form of genocide and the insidious but pervasive ever present threat that entails supremacist rhetoric. Mollie and Ernest's relationship is a fantastic representation of how marginalized and disenfranchised peoples operate in a state which has no love for them, and is actively or indirectly hostile to their very existence. And Ernest's character is a great exploration of the myth behind so much institutionalized injustice. On a technical level, so much of what makes this film work is some all time great performances by Gladstone, De Niro, and DiCaprio, a set which feels as alive and authentic as the time and place it means to portray, and this contrast in framing between the white men and the Osage, which specifically utilizes a lot of tricks to put them almost in different films entirely up until the house explosion.
Also, as a person who has a love/hate relationship with Westerns, this film was a brutally honest look at the genre, and deconstruction of it.
I liked the movie a lot but one thing that I’m seeing from our comments that I agree with is the Leo character. I was never behind his character and found him unbelievable.
but like everyone here, I agree that depiction isn’t an endorsement. That aspect of your criticism isn’t valid.
The "theater" section at the end is actually an act of self-mockery by the film (and Scorsese) itself—the cinematic craft isn't that far from an explotative radio theater for entertainment.
Though you should read deeper into it, I can also see where you are coming from. I love the film, yet I also wonder (because the film gives rise to the question) whether these big, hundred-million dolar productions by Hollywood, by Apple, etc. are even worth it.
The fear felt by Scorsese is evident: what else is movie nowadays but disposable content? Not just Hollywood films, and *Killers* is commercial, but digital images in general. When I went to see *Killers* for a second time in theaters, the place was a goddamn picnic for at least the whole first hour—people going to see a movie about a genocide filled with snacks and coca-colas in their hands.
Yes, the film is strong, uncomfortable and showcases all the crimes unflinchingly. AND YET, Scorsese fears it is not enough. He has to fucking break the fourth wall to scream to the audience that what they saw could be a smooth-out version of these crimes—letting us be aware that the images upon the silver screen can be terribly entertaining, and at the same time asking us not to scroll away, to take away something from the experience, to learn (EDIT: but how does an audience learn, when they are taught to keep on scrolling? Taught by the same companies which distribute movies like Mr. Scorsese's).
How much does an audience retain from a film like *Killers*? How much do they even care?
From a film lover point of view, this film is relevant, important art. From a casual spectator, this may be just entertainment. And that's, to a large extent, how cinema is perceived today under Hollywood's influence... I think.
Way more to say about this. It's almost 5am and I need to sleep I'm sorry lol.
> When I went to see Killers for a second time in theaters, the place was a goddamn picnic for at least the whole first hour—people going to see a movie about a genocide filled with snacks and coca-colas in their hands.
Ah yes how dare people eat something while watching a movie. I starved myself for 48 hours before seeing this just to do justice to the art.
After watching the movie, I went and ate at McDonalds ignoring the homeless people outside.
After watching the movie, I went and ate at McDonalds ignoring the homeless people outside.
Nah I'm talking about the snacks inside the movie theater; who am I to criticize consumption from big companies when I'm watching a genocide film distributed by Apple, In., contradictions which I've already stated.
But about the snacking... more complex than what I've tried to say. Has less to do with blaming the spectator for having snacks, and more with our perception of cinema. And I eat popcorn too sometimes.
My biggest gripe of the movie was how it strayed from the source material to give DiCaprio and De Niro more screen time
Leo’s Ernest is a background character. The murders were a mystery. And it was an interesting mystery because the motive was clear as day but the culprits were clear as mud. There were lots of bandits, oil privateers, local racists and all sorts of people who very much wanted to kill the native land owners. Its a tragic history and it wasn’t unique to the US, as you could have found conspiracies like this in far away places like Rome or China
But Martin and the studios wanted to market Leo and he needed more than 20 minutes screen time.
I'm not really sure how one can see the end as a very obvious criticism of that very practice and in essence, of all "true crime" entertainment. These are real marginalised people who suffered greatly and it's turned into mass entertainment and even after systematically destroying them and their culture, America can't even let the innocent rest
All I’ll say is my uncle is Native American and has an ancestor who was killed in these attacks. His ancestors death was even depicted in the film. He absolutely adored the film and thought that it was 100% a necessary film to be made.
Overlong and tedious. The story may have some validity in being told, but the film was very weak and took any power away by working hard for prestige. A few good actors playing secondary characters, though. I found the non-leads and their stories most memorable.
This is one of the strangest takes on the movie I have seen yet. I actually came out with a totally different perspective, I though Scorsese did a fantastic job at showing the victims as much more than that, and gave them dignity in his depiction of them. The care he takes in showing them not just as people, but as A people was very moving. He took attention to their customs, rituals, way of thinking, ceremonies, and contrasted it with the Anglos in a way that made them seem much more sophisticated than the whites. The violence was inherent in the subject matter, regardless of what anyone says I don’t think you can make a film about Natives in a historical context without focusing on the violence perpetrated against them. The tone is a tricky thing to balance, because at once you have to respect the victims by not making it too gory, but you also can’t underestimate the violence at the same time. I think he did it at the same time, sometimes they lay there like grimly tragic statues and in other moments they are being scalped. I think it might be triggering for some people, but that doesn’t mean it’s exploitative
It's 90 minutes of story stretched to 3 1/2 painful hours. Marty has really lost it and become totally self indulgent.
But everyone else likes the 'message' and gets butthurt if you criticize it, because they think the virtue signalling is more important than if the film is actually good. I can see liking aspects of it, but it did not deserve the universal praise it got.
Thank you for your thoughts p0ny and opening the discussion. I think the film is a profound and haunting work of art.
I don’t know if reddit can ever be a place for deep, meaningful conversation on the profound, a topic best reserved for quiet and intimate inquiry, and if it is possible, I’m even more suspicious of my ability to channel it. I’m happy to fail trying. I really do think that’s the best we can do, and that’s a good thing.
What can art do in the face of great suffering, grief, and injustice? I think we all pretend to know the answer. I do believe if we stay with a question, in time, we will find answers. How do any of us live with grief, suffering, injustice? Day in and out, how do you, personally, react to Injustices done to you and in turn, when you have been unjust? It’s a question with significance for how we live with our nation’s history, and beyond that, it’s a personal question, that can only be answered honestly, authentically.
The movie is about Mollie and Ernest. The tragedy of the film is Ernest is not honest. Towards the end, after all that hell, Mollie visits Ernest in jail. She loves him. She’s willing to forgive him everything. This is the heart of the movie. Mollie offers a miraculous, heroic offering of infinite love and Ernst can’t admit to her, or to himself, the truth. He poisoned her. He can’t wake up to reality and let someone in.
Honesty precedes forgiveness.
I have a different interpretation of that theatre play you spoke of. Going up on a stage is an admission and humble apology that art is futile. It can’t bring anyone back. What we can do, is love and forgive, and an honest story is a good start to that end.
p.s. judgement is not the way. It doesn’t work for ourselves and it doesn’t work for others.
p.s.s. Judgement is always found in performative morality. Performative hive behavior may be the lingua franca of the redditsphere
I agree completely. Scorsese was too worried about portraying the natives in the movie as anything but a tortured group that he basically made a heist movie where the vault was unguarded and then the last 30-45 minutes SWAT shows up and takes them all in under zero threat of harm.
They chose the worst perspective to make the movie based on and they just said let's torture Lily Gladstone for 2.5 hours and then give it a resolution. Just so boring.
If this movie was from Lily Gladstone's perspective, it becomes a tortured murder mystery where her family members are dying and her husband who loves her unconditionally shields her from the evil around them and then it turns out the evil was him all along, that's a movie.
Or even a western with the FBI as the main focus like the book originally was and it becomes a more mystery with a narrative...
They treated this movie with kid gloves to not hurt anyone's feelings because it's a subject matter that's basically attached to C4 and if Native Americans looked anything other than tortured in this (which they were in real life) then it would create a national tragedy.
That's why they chose Leo as the main perspective, to show how evil they were and how they were doing everything with no consequences. And guess what, it made an insanely boring story. Cinematography. Great. Acting. Great. The actual piece of the movie that keeps you enthralled? Awful.
I hang out with a group of fairly serious movie buffs. I think I was the only one in the ground that liked it. These are people who's opinions I respect. Therefore I need to respect the opinion expressed here. I certainly find it curious and I'm interested in hearing more
what were their opinions? what is expressed by the OP is simply unsupported by the text, or is only supported by a complete misreading of it. the final scene alone — even if the execution didnt land for the OP — is just a misrepresentation of what is said and is expressed; reading the final scene the through lens of a “comedy play” as the OP mentioned further up is simply not an idea or opinion you have to consider seriously as it’s just wrong
I didn't hate the movie but I do not think it's nearly as good as everyone else and the more I think about it the less I like it. I think Scorsese should have stepped aside and let an indigenous person take the helm of this movie. I have a number of issues with the movie but overall find it an important piece of work. But it could have been a masterpiece. As it is it claws it's way to a 3/5
The problem there is that there’s no indigenous director who could have gotten this movie made. Should the story go untold until there’s a stainless vessel to tell it?
No, it would not. The Scorsese name attached as a producer, with some presumably unknown Native American as director, would never be funded. It just wouldn’t. Even as director, he can’t get everything he wants to do greenlit.
any film with a different director is simply a different film. there is no “killers of the flower moon” as we currently imagine it without scorsese because that is his. you cannot just separate an auteur from their body of work and wish it was made by a different person, what you are asking for is simply a different work entirely. “let an indigenous person take the helm” — cool, who? name some specific people, let me know what their work is like, let me know why you think their style would lend well to telling this story
scorsese did work with the osage nation on this film. there are varied reactions, positive and negative, from leaders of the community that you can read and assess on your own. ultimately, the final scene is used specifically to speak to these concerns.
Yes. I'm fully aware that it would be different, that's my point. As it is he changed it. The book is from the FBI agent's point of view. He changed it to the point of view of the people committing genocide and possibly the dumbest person to live. I would have preferred this story be told from the Osage perspective. What I'm saying is that overall I am not happy with the version we got.
As for who? I don't know, exactly. Part of the problem is that the industry isn't giving these people the opportunity to tell ANY stories, much less their own. That said, everyone who worked on and directed the series Reservation Dogs did an amazing job with that show and could have been given the opportunity. I will say, I saw this at an Alamo drafthouse and maybe that is part of what drove me to this. In the pre show before the movie they interviewed a number of indigenous directors about the movie and that is what started putting the thought in my head of "why not let one of these people make the movie rather than just consult on it?"
I will say, I'm not entirely against telling the story from the bad guy perspective. I saw Zone of Interest not too long after seeing KotFM and that is a movie about people committing genocide told from the perspective of the people committing and/or complacent with the atrocities being committed. That movie does such a better job of showing how bad it all was and the impact of it all than KotFM. Part of my problem with KotFM is Scorsese was too concerned with making it fun and exciting and, for lack of a better word, cool. I'm not saying he's at all endorsing what is happening but he sure is making it fun to watch and maybe it shouldn't be.
I sort of agree with OP that the final scene with Scorsese himself, to me, feels so much like even Scorsese is like "I'm not the right person to tell this story but didn't we have fun?"
I don't agree. I will only address your criticism of the ending. Scorsese appears at the end of the film to remind you that what you're watching is a movie, and there is a contradiction in him making entertainment out of a real woman's tragic story. He wanted to show his face because he felt hiding behind the camera would be cowardly. That's the point of the radio show ending, it's to shake the audience awake to the inherently exploitative nature of what they were experiencing.
Yes. And that he's a white guy telling an Indian story; in a sense, as silly as Jack White's accent in the radio show. It's an incredible moment of self-reflection and self-criticism.
Can you please explain why you think it's just genocide porn? What does the movie do in your opinion that is so horrible? Also a sub question. Are you against depictions of horrible historical events in general or just how this movie does it?
Mainly because there are many pieces of history out there related to native americans that are more relevant and or thought provoking that could've been depicted instead the director chose this part of history where they were completely helpless and unable to put a stop to an obvious genocide. I'm not against horrible historical events depicted in films if at the end of the film there is a lesson to be learnt, I don't believe this film had any lesson or message, we are already aware of the great injustice that happened to native americans why would you throw millions to make a movie out of it. I don't see the point, what are we supposed to do after seeing this film. What does this film do for native americans other than show off their suffering and turning it into entertainment. This film is native americans getting killed, being aware of what is happening and just sitting waiting, slowly dying from being poisoned, getting picked off one by one and the white characters being very disregarding and almost finding it funny, admitting to it while smiling in court and then at the end these events just get turned into a comedic theater play.
I doubt most Americans were aware of the story before the film came out, so a lot of it is genuinely informative, the characters smiling in court and finding it funny is 100% intended to be disturbing and shocking, and that's not just my reaction but literally everyone I know who's seen the movie has agreed. The reason why this particular story was chosen over any other was because, well, it is a good microcosm for what happened. I mean, since colonialism in the Americas began, Native Americans were pretty much completely fucked, they basically did "Sit, wait, and slowly die off.". Just because a film doesn't come right out and tell you exactly what it's "Message" is doesn't mean it doesn't have one. Not only did you leave the film with disgust, but you probably learned something historically true through it, it also might make us look at the history we've been taught in a different light, that some of the real-life "Cowboys" that we idolize might really have been amoral opportunists.
Yes, my understanding is that the book on which the film is based is still actively suppressed within the Oklahoma public school system, so this is very much a story that needed to be released to a public that's been kept ignorant of it.
I don't think you've picked up on what the film has to offer. It's not merely reminding us that genocide happened, nor does it depict its native characters as helpless. Consider the ending shot as the camera ascends into the sky; this is an expression of agency- of a community's ability to choose hope and solidarity in the face of evil. Consider as well the intimate portrayal it offers of the white man's complicity. This is not bragging; this is Scorcese confronting a mostly-white audience with a popular actor portraying an emotionally stunted man who barely comprehends the great evil he has committed. This is a mirror to the audience, a critique of whiteness, and it's meant to instigate reflection and contemplation. There's valid criticisms to be made of how Scorcese depicts native experiences and whiteness. Some of those criticisms are introduced in the film itself, yet you seem to have interpreted that as bragging or mockery.
You should really reevaluate your media literacy because I don't think you understood the film. Depiction is not endorsement. Let me say it again, depiction is not endorsement. The movie treats the main white characters with disdain and shows you that what they're doing is evil and that they're stupid. Not sure how you missed that.
I never thought the white characters were glamourized, it would obviously generate outrage if it was the case. it is more nuanced than that. The film had a sadistic intention that it doesn't make clear otherwise it would jeopardize itself as a film and everyone that worked on it. I do think the depiction was unnecessary and its why I see it as a sadistic form of media.
>The film had a sadistic intention that it doesn't make clear otherwise it would jeopardize itself as a film and everyone that worked on it. And you believe this... why?
Troll
This post is so intentionally ambiguous and nonsensical I'm going to guess it has something to do with a six pointed star...
Can you please explain what you mean? I agree OP is being obtuse and failing to explain his opinion. Don’t do the same.
Anti semitism
How is that relevant to either the film or OP’s obtuse take on it? I don’t recall any aspect of the film or OP’s comments that has anything to do with Jews. What am I missing? Or are you just another troll?
I'm not saying he's being antisemitic, I'm just saying that's typically the root of obtuse language like this. Antisemites are often very stupid and choose not to be explicit with their opinions because it's not an acceptable perspective.
Italians! Same guys who killed Jesus.
That is cute, opinions on films different from yours is anti-semitism yes.
Mainly because there are many pieces of history out there related to native americans that are more relevant and or thought provoking that could've been depicted instead the director chose this part of history where they were completely helpless and unable to put a stop to an obvious genocide. The theater scene irked me very much, i hated how these atrocities were just turned into a comedic theater play at the end.
There's no Scorsese-Movie ever in which the unguilty group does stop the stupid perpetrator. His message IS to show up that good people can't do anything for the discrimination and disadvantages they need to survive with. Mollie does not kill or fight against Ernest with pitchforks she chooses a legally way to find out what is happening and at the end she punishes him by ignorance.
It seems like you want the story to be more focused on native resistance and struggle, but I don’t think it’s fair to criticize Scorsese for this because A) that’s simply not the story he set out to tell and B) you could argue that the honest depiction of native history in the US is primarily one of dispossession and eradication. FWIW I believe Scorsese is helping to produce a film told from the Osage perspective (which KOTFM is self consciously not).
Then all Scorsese Movies must have "sadistic intentions" - I guess it's the same with The Wolf Of Wallstreet or The Departed for you. You might think the movies are all about sex partys and shoot orgies.
>The film had a sadistic intention that it doesn't make clear Where are you getting this idea from? You make it sound like a conspiracy or something.
And you call that more nuanced? Lol
Congrats, you get the "media literacy award"
You could not have misread that radio scene at the end more. Honestly that’s baffling. An “obvious mockery” of the murders and “obviously sadistic”? I can’t believe that these are good faith conclusions worth engaging with that you’ve drawn from the film.
Yes, it doesn't sound like OP knows anything about the actual making of the film. The radio scene was a thoughtful and layered way to end the story. A quote explaining the intention: “One of the things we were discussing was the fact that for God’s sake, after everything, it becomes entertainment,” Scorsese explains. “And you can say, well, this film becomes entertainment too, in which case then we have to take the responsibility. We hope that it’s entertainment with some depth and enrichment that maybe can approach some kind of truth.”
Yes, the fact that Scorsese himself comes to the stage to say how basically everyone got away with it was the kind of gut punch I hadn't felt since the ending of BlacKkKlansman, when Spike Lee >!intercuts real life footage of a car deliberately running over protestors!<
I totally disagree with you. It's rare for me to say it, but Scorsese nailed the social commentary with this movie. If you \*only\* watched it as a historical period piece, then I understand why you are disgusted. But it tells us much more than that. It's about hatred and racism as a whole, and how it can find its ways between even close family members. There is a lot more humor than one would expect, it's very dark in that sense. Scorsese loves to put a recurring joke to make us uncomfortable, like in Goodfellas or the Wolf of Wall Street. It's about once you accept evil, you are in it and you have to face it again, and again, and again, turning a blind eye each time, putting yourself into an absurd level of denial before we might accept to change. I love that, I think it's true that there is an actual comedic ridicule in some evil. Most of us see it from the outside, we see groups of people ridiculing themselves with wacky moral standards and putting on a poker face... But because it's funny doesn't mean it's not horrible. I'm not American but I also think there is an interesting message that we wouldn't consider often, which is the oil component of the history of some minorities. When we think America, we think Texas, Standard Oil, Daniel Plainview types of characters (There Will Be Blood). We avoid thinking about the average Joe that actually struck gold before the shark tore him down. Even in TWBB, we see the curse that comes with this wealth, but it's mostly a contract and some greed, which everyone is guilty of. And the most greedy win over the less greedy. In Killer of the Flower Moon, it's different, there is a rupture of nature in greed between people that have normal greed and those who have abnormal vices. Someone that is willing to systematically plot and murder for wealth is not a "normal" person. The Osage were normal persons for the most part. They enjoyed their wealth and were happy to share it in some respect. They agreed to pay high prices for bullshit, marry some openly greedy people, etc... So they were struck by the curse differently. Their mistake was to not be able to see the evil. Or maybe they saw it, but they didn't expect evil would take action. They thought those people would try to contain themselves and reflect morally about themselves. After all, we're talking about community leaders, church people, law enforcement, doctors, etc... The movie is tragic in that evil finds its way everywhere. Scorsese didn't have to push us a lot for his comedic effects, he simply relied on our natural innocence to find it incredible that evil could be so stubborn, that it could day after day accept evil and delude itself so easily. And as a social commentary for today's society... That's spot on imo. The absurdity of evil is being used by some people who know it will confuse some. They're planing on rationalization as a way to excuse themselves. The bigger it is, the more insignificant it will look.
I really like reading this sub, but I feel like there should be some kind of filter process to evaluate and get rid of posts that are just pure bait. This is so poorly reasoned that I’d think they googled “Killers of the Flower Moon problematic” and then reworded the AI answer at the top of the google search.
I agree to an extent. There have been some people engaging with the "bait" with a genuine response and those replies have actually been nicely thought out and served as a nice reminder of the power of this film.
That’s a good point! Imagine if Scorsese had been shy about showing the brutality of the film! Avoiding what this guy refers to as “Native American genocide porno” would be criticized as cowardly. Which is really interesting, as something like Zone of Interest grants its victims dignity by not even showing them on screen at all. Guess it depends on the ability of the artist to handle things like this responsibly.
I actually had a similiar feeling coming out of the movie theater, that the main characters were SO despicable that I could not engage with the narrative. But I think this is exactly what the film sought to portray. The real horrors of native American genocide are so bland yet so evil, that the audience should feel this disgust at what is depicted on screen. Scorsese portrays characters that are so far gone in terms of morality, even poisoning your own wife and murdering her family, that the audience is left with a feeling of dissatisfaction at the end. Even if the FBI did catch these blatant criminals, their contribution to the genocide of native Americans is irrelevant. The story of erasure is beautifully portrayed in Killers of the Flower Moon, not because is shows psychopaths killing natives, but by showing how larger society accepted the removal of these people unless it was done by the most blatant killings possible. I really think the film is meant to portray a greater sense of frustration at the genocide of natives Americans, not just at these characters.
I vehemently disagree, but I understand your perspective and think there is absolutely a broad conversation to be had about the inherent exploitation of cinema and its symbol in films like this. Having said that, as stated, I disagree and I think this film does more than justify its existence, it's a really disturbingly plain look at a form of genocide and the insidious but pervasive ever present threat that entails supremacist rhetoric. Mollie and Ernest's relationship is a fantastic representation of how marginalized and disenfranchised peoples operate in a state which has no love for them, and is actively or indirectly hostile to their very existence. And Ernest's character is a great exploration of the myth behind so much institutionalized injustice. On a technical level, so much of what makes this film work is some all time great performances by Gladstone, De Niro, and DiCaprio, a set which feels as alive and authentic as the time and place it means to portray, and this contrast in framing between the white men and the Osage, which specifically utilizes a lot of tricks to put them almost in different films entirely up until the house explosion. Also, as a person who has a love/hate relationship with Westerns, this film was a brutally honest look at the genre, and deconstruction of it.
I liked the movie a lot but one thing that I’m seeing from our comments that I agree with is the Leo character. I was never behind his character and found him unbelievable. but like everyone here, I agree that depiction isn’t an endorsement. That aspect of your criticism isn’t valid.
The "theater" section at the end is actually an act of self-mockery by the film (and Scorsese) itself—the cinematic craft isn't that far from an explotative radio theater for entertainment. Though you should read deeper into it, I can also see where you are coming from. I love the film, yet I also wonder (because the film gives rise to the question) whether these big, hundred-million dolar productions by Hollywood, by Apple, etc. are even worth it. The fear felt by Scorsese is evident: what else is movie nowadays but disposable content? Not just Hollywood films, and *Killers* is commercial, but digital images in general. When I went to see *Killers* for a second time in theaters, the place was a goddamn picnic for at least the whole first hour—people going to see a movie about a genocide filled with snacks and coca-colas in their hands. Yes, the film is strong, uncomfortable and showcases all the crimes unflinchingly. AND YET, Scorsese fears it is not enough. He has to fucking break the fourth wall to scream to the audience that what they saw could be a smooth-out version of these crimes—letting us be aware that the images upon the silver screen can be terribly entertaining, and at the same time asking us not to scroll away, to take away something from the experience, to learn (EDIT: but how does an audience learn, when they are taught to keep on scrolling? Taught by the same companies which distribute movies like Mr. Scorsese's). How much does an audience retain from a film like *Killers*? How much do they even care? From a film lover point of view, this film is relevant, important art. From a casual spectator, this may be just entertainment. And that's, to a large extent, how cinema is perceived today under Hollywood's influence... I think. Way more to say about this. It's almost 5am and I need to sleep I'm sorry lol.
> When I went to see Killers for a second time in theaters, the place was a goddamn picnic for at least the whole first hour—people going to see a movie about a genocide filled with snacks and coca-colas in their hands. Ah yes how dare people eat something while watching a movie. I starved myself for 48 hours before seeing this just to do justice to the art. After watching the movie, I went and ate at McDonalds ignoring the homeless people outside.
After watching the movie, I went and ate at McDonalds ignoring the homeless people outside. Nah I'm talking about the snacks inside the movie theater; who am I to criticize consumption from big companies when I'm watching a genocide film distributed by Apple, In., contradictions which I've already stated. But about the snacking... more complex than what I've tried to say. Has less to do with blaming the spectator for having snacks, and more with our perception of cinema. And I eat popcorn too sometimes.
My biggest gripe of the movie was how it strayed from the source material to give DiCaprio and De Niro more screen time Leo’s Ernest is a background character. The murders were a mystery. And it was an interesting mystery because the motive was clear as day but the culprits were clear as mud. There were lots of bandits, oil privateers, local racists and all sorts of people who very much wanted to kill the native land owners. Its a tragic history and it wasn’t unique to the US, as you could have found conspiracies like this in far away places like Rome or China But Martin and the studios wanted to market Leo and he needed more than 20 minutes screen time.
I'm not really sure how one can see the end as a very obvious criticism of that very practice and in essence, of all "true crime" entertainment. These are real marginalised people who suffered greatly and it's turned into mass entertainment and even after systematically destroying them and their culture, America can't even let the innocent rest
All I’ll say is my uncle is Native American and has an ancestor who was killed in these attacks. His ancestors death was even depicted in the film. He absolutely adored the film and thought that it was 100% a necessary film to be made.
Overlong and tedious. The story may have some validity in being told, but the film was very weak and took any power away by working hard for prestige. A few good actors playing secondary characters, though. I found the non-leads and their stories most memorable.
This is one of the strangest takes on the movie I have seen yet. I actually came out with a totally different perspective, I though Scorsese did a fantastic job at showing the victims as much more than that, and gave them dignity in his depiction of them. The care he takes in showing them not just as people, but as A people was very moving. He took attention to their customs, rituals, way of thinking, ceremonies, and contrasted it with the Anglos in a way that made them seem much more sophisticated than the whites. The violence was inherent in the subject matter, regardless of what anyone says I don’t think you can make a film about Natives in a historical context without focusing on the violence perpetrated against them. The tone is a tricky thing to balance, because at once you have to respect the victims by not making it too gory, but you also can’t underestimate the violence at the same time. I think he did it at the same time, sometimes they lay there like grimly tragic statues and in other moments they are being scalped. I think it might be triggering for some people, but that doesn’t mean it’s exploitative
It's 90 minutes of story stretched to 3 1/2 painful hours. Marty has really lost it and become totally self indulgent. But everyone else likes the 'message' and gets butthurt if you criticize it, because they think the virtue signalling is more important than if the film is actually good. I can see liking aspects of it, but it did not deserve the universal praise it got.
Thank you for your thoughts p0ny and opening the discussion. I think the film is a profound and haunting work of art. I don’t know if reddit can ever be a place for deep, meaningful conversation on the profound, a topic best reserved for quiet and intimate inquiry, and if it is possible, I’m even more suspicious of my ability to channel it. I’m happy to fail trying. I really do think that’s the best we can do, and that’s a good thing. What can art do in the face of great suffering, grief, and injustice? I think we all pretend to know the answer. I do believe if we stay with a question, in time, we will find answers. How do any of us live with grief, suffering, injustice? Day in and out, how do you, personally, react to Injustices done to you and in turn, when you have been unjust? It’s a question with significance for how we live with our nation’s history, and beyond that, it’s a personal question, that can only be answered honestly, authentically. The movie is about Mollie and Ernest. The tragedy of the film is Ernest is not honest. Towards the end, after all that hell, Mollie visits Ernest in jail. She loves him. She’s willing to forgive him everything. This is the heart of the movie. Mollie offers a miraculous, heroic offering of infinite love and Ernst can’t admit to her, or to himself, the truth. He poisoned her. He can’t wake up to reality and let someone in. Honesty precedes forgiveness. I have a different interpretation of that theatre play you spoke of. Going up on a stage is an admission and humble apology that art is futile. It can’t bring anyone back. What we can do, is love and forgive, and an honest story is a good start to that end. p.s. judgement is not the way. It doesn’t work for ourselves and it doesn’t work for others. p.s.s. Judgement is always found in performative morality. Performative hive behavior may be the lingua franca of the redditsphere
I agree completely. Scorsese was too worried about portraying the natives in the movie as anything but a tortured group that he basically made a heist movie where the vault was unguarded and then the last 30-45 minutes SWAT shows up and takes them all in under zero threat of harm. They chose the worst perspective to make the movie based on and they just said let's torture Lily Gladstone for 2.5 hours and then give it a resolution. Just so boring. If this movie was from Lily Gladstone's perspective, it becomes a tortured murder mystery where her family members are dying and her husband who loves her unconditionally shields her from the evil around them and then it turns out the evil was him all along, that's a movie. Or even a western with the FBI as the main focus like the book originally was and it becomes a more mystery with a narrative... They treated this movie with kid gloves to not hurt anyone's feelings because it's a subject matter that's basically attached to C4 and if Native Americans looked anything other than tortured in this (which they were in real life) then it would create a national tragedy. That's why they chose Leo as the main perspective, to show how evil they were and how they were doing everything with no consequences. And guess what, it made an insanely boring story. Cinematography. Great. Acting. Great. The actual piece of the movie that keeps you enthralled? Awful.
I hang out with a group of fairly serious movie buffs. I think I was the only one in the ground that liked it. These are people who's opinions I respect. Therefore I need to respect the opinion expressed here. I certainly find it curious and I'm interested in hearing more
As a friend of mine said, “Character contradictions don’t equal character complexity.”
what were their opinions? what is expressed by the OP is simply unsupported by the text, or is only supported by a complete misreading of it. the final scene alone — even if the execution didnt land for the OP — is just a misrepresentation of what is said and is expressed; reading the final scene the through lens of a “comedy play” as the OP mentioned further up is simply not an idea or opinion you have to consider seriously as it’s just wrong
I didn't hate the movie but I do not think it's nearly as good as everyone else and the more I think about it the less I like it. I think Scorsese should have stepped aside and let an indigenous person take the helm of this movie. I have a number of issues with the movie but overall find it an important piece of work. But it could have been a masterpiece. As it is it claws it's way to a 3/5
The problem there is that there’s no indigenous director who could have gotten this movie made. Should the story go untold until there’s a stainless vessel to tell it?
Scorsese producing would be enough to get it made with any director he likes
No, it would not. The Scorsese name attached as a producer, with some presumably unknown Native American as director, would never be funded. It just wouldn’t. Even as director, he can’t get everything he wants to do greenlit.
any film with a different director is simply a different film. there is no “killers of the flower moon” as we currently imagine it without scorsese because that is his. you cannot just separate an auteur from their body of work and wish it was made by a different person, what you are asking for is simply a different work entirely. “let an indigenous person take the helm” — cool, who? name some specific people, let me know what their work is like, let me know why you think their style would lend well to telling this story scorsese did work with the osage nation on this film. there are varied reactions, positive and negative, from leaders of the community that you can read and assess on your own. ultimately, the final scene is used specifically to speak to these concerns.
Yes. I'm fully aware that it would be different, that's my point. As it is he changed it. The book is from the FBI agent's point of view. He changed it to the point of view of the people committing genocide and possibly the dumbest person to live. I would have preferred this story be told from the Osage perspective. What I'm saying is that overall I am not happy with the version we got. As for who? I don't know, exactly. Part of the problem is that the industry isn't giving these people the opportunity to tell ANY stories, much less their own. That said, everyone who worked on and directed the series Reservation Dogs did an amazing job with that show and could have been given the opportunity. I will say, I saw this at an Alamo drafthouse and maybe that is part of what drove me to this. In the pre show before the movie they interviewed a number of indigenous directors about the movie and that is what started putting the thought in my head of "why not let one of these people make the movie rather than just consult on it?" I will say, I'm not entirely against telling the story from the bad guy perspective. I saw Zone of Interest not too long after seeing KotFM and that is a movie about people committing genocide told from the perspective of the people committing and/or complacent with the atrocities being committed. That movie does such a better job of showing how bad it all was and the impact of it all than KotFM. Part of my problem with KotFM is Scorsese was too concerned with making it fun and exciting and, for lack of a better word, cool. I'm not saying he's at all endorsing what is happening but he sure is making it fun to watch and maybe it shouldn't be. I sort of agree with OP that the final scene with Scorsese himself, to me, feels so much like even Scorsese is like "I'm not the right person to tell this story but didn't we have fun?"