Alright...Let's Hear It
Added 2023-10-20 18:09:47 +0000 UTCWhat did you guys think of Killers of the Flower Moon, especially the ending.
Comments
I'm glad you enjoyed it. I agree with certain aspects of what you say, but I also dont partiacularly care for The Irishman, or the Departed, which you compared it to. But of course the richness of all the ideas and story threads, deserve to be delved into more from me. But I'm inclined to agree more with Bennett below.
Deepfocuslens
2023-10-22 23:52:16 +0000 UTCI feel we are on the same page almost exactly on this one. I agree with so much of what you say, it's a complex story, and they do a good job of harnessing it, but not necessarily exploring it properly. And it leads to problems. I haven't thought too much about who I would cast in place of DeNiro. I guess because...I think there's many who could. It wasn't a great performance, but solid. De Niro is great at certain things, and not at others. This is an example of that. But yeah...Tommy Lee Jones, excellent prospect. Love that idea.
Deepfocuslens
2023-10-22 23:50:33 +0000 UTCI’ve just seen the film a couple of hours ago and I’m still processing it, but I’ll try to put some thoughts together. I more or less agree with all the points you stated in your review, and I’ll say that the chief flaw of the film from which all other flaws emanate is that Scorsese was so eager to pack so many elements and details into his film that he fails to give the proper depth of exploration to the things that need them. One of those elements I liked very much was the familial dynamics of Mollie’s family—how the mother had a different relationship with each of them—and with that, the sister Anna was intriguing, with her unruly flapper girl behavior and trigger-happy antics. It was enough to make me wish that the mother and those three sisters were the center of the movie. But an important question that I think the film fails to satisfyingly answer is: If the lives and culture of the Osage people are so entangled and intertwined with the principal white men of the story, how are they able to bring themselves to betray and murder them? It’s a compelling contradiction that the movie only really pays lip service to because, as I said, it’s dealing with so many other elements. To merely say it was greed and racism is not enough. That dimension especially needs to be explored in William Hale, the root of all evil in the film. The film seems to imply that, while Hale has a deep affinity for the Osage, his fondness for them is not unlike that of a patrician would have for commoners, and so a kind of condescension is allowed to take root (combined with, you know, his belief that he himself as a white man is superior and therefore more entitled to their wealth). The movie needed to flesh out this aspect of him more rather than merely presenting him as a manipulative, two-faced sociopath. I do agree that Lily Gladstone is the best part of the film. There’s an interesting contradiction in Mollie as well as the rest of the Osage: they’re aware that evil is circling around them, ready to go in for the kill at any moment, yet there’s a kind of denial that that evil could be the white people closest to them. The difference, however, is that Scorsese doesn’t need any more scenes to explore this. It’s there in the face of Gladstone, as her eyes contain multitudes about her situation that make DiCaprio and De Niro’s characters look relatively glib (which, I suppose, is the point). I need to ruminate more on the film, but these are my initial thoughts. Maybe I should see it again. It does have many good to great aspects about it that I really like. A lot of that has to do with the fact that Scorsese has ventured out of his comfort zone and made one of his most conscientious films. He’s not reveling in the banter and bad behavior of his crooks and gangsters. Don’t get me wrong, those things can be great fun to watch, but the change in tone is nice to behold. There’s no humor or visceral excitement to be found in the murders of the film; they’re stone-cold enactments of injustice. As for the very end, the origin of it can be traced back to the fact that Scorsese simply didn’t want to do end titles for each of the characters. He thinks they’re boring and have been done to death. So he came up with that radio play, which I suppose also doubles as a commentary on how these kinds of stories always get repackaged as trite entertainment stripped away of any complexity or perspective. It says something though that Scorsese himself came out to announce the fate of Mollie Burkhart. He knows who the emotional center of his film is. Anyways, given its satirical aspect, it does stick out like a sore thumb. But I was so glad that the movie was over that that didn’t really impact me too much. Yes, the movie was too damn long. But that’s a whole different conversation to be had. One last thing: I agree that, while De Niro was fine in the role of Hale, there might have been better actors for it than him. I suggest Tommy Lee Jones. What do you think?
Bennett Oliver
2023-10-22 04:45:47 +0000 UTCMy take: Being a huge Scorsese fan, I couldn’t help but love this, finding a lot to chew on throughout. For me its a near masterpiece but may be more on repeat viewings. Structurally, it’s definitely a companion piece to “The Irishman” with the failed patriarch at the center (DiCaprio) who betrays his family in favor of his hedonistic desires and ultimately suffers the consequences. Additionally, the onslaught of deaths that occur much like almost every character in the The Irishman has a title card detailing their inevitable death which is usually untimely. In this case, the characters in the film know their fate is coming intuitively. The Departed is another film that comes to mind when it comes to Ernest’s dual lifestyle. He is denial believing he is a loving husband to Molly while being one of the architects behind murdering her entire family. My reading is that Molly is in denial too initially seeing him for what he is but then being convinced that he actually loves her since “his uncle already has money.” That line stuck with me throughout and ultimately made their last scene together all the more heartbreaking. Silence also comes to mind in regards to the Ernest’s conflict with confessing his sins vs. providing false testimony. As far as the ending, I feel like its simply Scorsese reiterating De Niro’s speech to DiCaprio. Even after “telling the truth” by portraying this story, Scorsese knows it will simply go down in history as another “tragic story” and people will forget and move on. Scorsese celebrates their culture, wealth and accomplishes at the beginning only for the story to end in the systematic slaying. The true victims of this story will fade into background, while the culprits will be remembered. This is my best reading of it for now. Loved DiCaprio, De Niro and especially Lily Gladstone’s performance. So happy she got this role and didn’t quite acting as she stated she was considering before being approached by Scorsese. If you’re interested in the seeing her in something else, check out Certain Women (2016). She plays a completely different type of character there and gives a performance somewhat reminiscent Giulietta Masina in La Strada. She’s even jokingly said in an interview that her performance there likely got her the role.
Stephen
2023-10-21 08:59:32 +0000 UTCHappy Birthday!
Deepfocuslens
2023-10-20 21:22:56 +0000 UTCSeeing it tonight for my birthday in IMAX. Will report back once I do!
Stephen
2023-10-20 18:58:35 +0000 UTC
