Martin Scorsese's Killers Of The Flower Moon has arrived in theatres and after watching
the film, I think it's a brutal masterpiece.
The direction, the performances, the way this story of the osage is adapted using perspective
and the filmmaking, is all on such a high level here.
You really get a sense of how Scorsese has altered the focus of this story from the
book to make you feel the betrayal that the osage people felt.
And the way the movie is put together cinematically is just the cherry on top for the filmmaker.
So in this video, I'm going to be listing the main reasons why I
think Killers Of The Flower Moon is a cinematic masterpiece.
This video essay will contain brief spoilers, so if you do happen to be someone
who hasn't seen the film yet, then I would recommend watching this video after you've
seen it.
Before I get into it though, if you want to keep up to date on any of my upcoming content
for auteur sriven films Martin Scorsese's Killers Of The Flower Moon, then don't forget
to support this upload by giving it a like rating, subscribing to the channel and turning
on your notifications.
But without further a do, lets dive into my thoughts on Killers Of The Flower Moon.
So Killers Of The Flower Moon is adapted by Martin Scorsese and Eric Roth and based on
David Grann’s book of the same name, showcasing the manipulation and planned murders of the
Osage people with all the devastation that comes
along with it.
It centres on DiCaprio's Ernest Burkhart, a recently released war veteran and his relationship
with an Osage woman Mollie Kyle.
Ernest has no skills or hunger for work, he just wants money and a wife.
And with his uncle, William Hale, played by Robert De Niro, sending him in the direction
of Mollie, things soon get quite horrible.
I did a whole breakdown on the film the other day, but to keep things short, while they
do they fall for each other and DiCaprio's love for her is mostly true,
Ernest motives become extremely troubled and his uncle's schemes lead to much bloodshed
and death for Mollie's family.
What comes with that is the eradication of the Osage people from a
part of history and a stolen foundation for the white americans to thrive in.
It's an unprecedented story of betrayal, mistrust and greed, that once again shows Scorsese's
ambitions to exploit systems of control.
On top of this, there's a clear difference between Scorsese's adaptation and the source
material by David Grann.
The narrative structure of the book is built on the Osage murders and the birth of the
FBI, with a lot of it focussing on the crime and the investigation.
But like seen with many good adaptations, what's on the page doesn’t mean
that this should translate directly to screen.
Apparently, Scorsese wasn’t happy with a first draft of the script because it focussed
too much on the perspective from the outside of the
situation, and in turn, he realized that the center of the story should be the tragic and
strange love between Ernest and Mollie.
In doing so, he was able to show how Ernest was
actively involved in the scheme to defraud Mollie and her family, and how the overseeing
eyes of his uncle directed that.
The way Scorsese approaches the twisted scheme to transfer the oil wealth of the Osage to
the white men around them, is what makes the movie its own historical beast.
This all happened in history, yes, but its how the
film focuses on how crime and the egos at the centre take the innocent lives.
There's no hidding who was to blame so there's no point in
making it a massive mystery, and that is exactly what Scorsese did with the perspectives we
see.
We see De Niro's extended planning while pretending to be a friend, we see how Ernest
makes that a reality as troubled as he is and we see how Molly and her family have to
deal with much loss and a deep hatred for her people and their wealth.
Throughout the extensive runtime, there's a conflict over who gets
to tell this tragic story and who gets to tell us what’s actually happening.
And while we get glimmers of each perspective throughout the course
of it, the version of events that make it into the obituaries and the history books
is not the Osage.
The ending of Scorsese's film delivers on that horrible note in
quite the perfect way.
The unique epilogue shows the ending to certain characters not revealed through information
or titles onscreen, but rather through an episode of a J. Edgar
Hoover-endorsed radio drama in the 50s, recorded with performers on a theater stage.
Director Martin Scorsese cameos himself, and describes the end of Mollie's life and the
tragedy that the Osage were left with.
He makes the point that it’s not just the land that was stolen, but the culture and
their history as well.
That's because, as noted in reference to Mollie, her obituary made no mention of Ernest or
the murders.
When we then jump forward in time to an overhead shot of the Osage tribe, dancing and enduring,
it's very clear what Scorsese's final message is.
And that is, while the historical narrative was erased by America, the Osage continue
to fight in the face of racism.
The film is essentially a portrait of how man, no
matter how incompetant, can still inflict a lot of damage and choose to do the wrong
thing time and time again.
It's an epic story told through an intimate lens, with an ending that
fully delivers on its resiliant message.
And this story cannot be as effective as it was without some of the performances to really
elevate it to another level.
Leonardo DiCaprio transforms into Ernest Burkhart, but not in the
trasitional sense, as with the help of prosthetics, the actor plays a character we haven't seen
from him before.
This time DiCaprio plays quite a dumb individual who keeps choosing
to cause trouble and problems for the innocent.
He keeps making horrible choices and can't break seem to break that cycle.
We see this struggle countless times in his reactions onscreen,
and then by playing into the confusion of the character, we also watch him sell the
actual love he has for Mollie.
While it tends to be a flipping of the two, at the end of the day,
DiCaprio ulyimately sells the complete failure of a man and we see how his decision to own
up is one that is well too late.
I don't think its his best performance in a Scorsese film,
but I can't deny that with much of the screentime he does get, the actor sells the fragilities
and faults of the character he's playing to the best of his ability.
While DiCaprio was really strong, the two performances that really
carry the film however, is Lily Gladstone's Mollie and Robert De Niro's William Hale.
De Niro plays this sinster role in the way that all
great actors play iconic villains.
Subtle choices with the voice and performance allow you to see how manipulating and orchestrating
his character really is.
His voice is threatening yet charming, his mannerisms show the truth
of his nature like with the odd smirk and tilt of the head, and hints of twisted comedy
in there personify the evil at play.
And when it comes to Lily Gladstone, she also give a subtle
yet impactful performance herself, one that at this time, could end up landing her many
awards for best actress.
Mollie might not talk much, but the way she moves and the little she says,
is wholely felt by the audience.
It gets to the truth of how someone would react to facing racism most of their life
and the relentless struggle of taking it on.
To me, she's the real heart of the film and we see how Gladstone coveys Mollie's physical
and mental exaustion in particular scenes, with her character finding
out about what’s happening to her family and the discrimination that comes with it.
While she knows that her fate is drear, she never gives up in the face of adversity.
There are a few other performances that stand out like with
Tantoo Cardinal's Lizzie Q or Cara Jade Myers playing Mollie's sister Anna, who while only
involved for a few scenes, sell a dangerous yet
intelligent presence that brings truth to the events of the movie.
The whole ensemble do a mostly excellent job of portraying their characters and performance-wise,
it's definitelly going to be a big contentor for the acting
across the board.
Overall, Killers Of The Flower Moon isn't the film I'd want to watch again anytime soon,
not because of its quality or the long runtime, but because of what takes place in this story.
For instance, it's similar to how I felt after watching a film like Schindler's List.
As an individual piece of storytelling and cinema, I cannot deny that it isn't a towering
and haunting American Epic from the acclaimed
director.
The way Scorsese has brought this story to life, exploiting the greed of man and how
that affected history, is nothing short of masterful.
The fact that he's still telling stories in unique and powerful ways this long into his
career speaks volumes for his power as a filmmaker.
And the way he works with frequent collaborators can of course aid that a whole
lot too.
Editor Thelma Schoonmaker, who has edited every feature film he’s made since the 1980s,
reinvents with the way Killers is put together.
The pace is natural, allowing performances and the rhythm of storytelling to evolve and
change as it needs to.
There's not a sense of sequential rythym that you find in most
biopics or historical epics, and in the case of this particular story it completely works.
We see who plans the murders, who carries them out and even who informs others to make
sure that these atrocities are completed.
Rather than just building on the mystery in the traditional sense, the editing and direction
gives us a somewhat guide to murder in horrifying fashion.
Essentially, it shows how the planning behind the murders is so so horrible.
Martin Scorsese has always explored how America gets its power over others and the rotten
core at the heart of that.
And while that is true once again with killers Of The Flower Moon, his latest film also shows
how the real heart of the story is not just destroyed but eradicated from
history in the process.
Yes, we see violence in its most ugliest and calculated form, but we truly understand how
that violence destroys not just one persons life, but an entire culture.
So while it was hard to watch, I thought it was such a powerful piece of cinema that made
me truly feel the devastation at the centre of this history.
But that was my review for Martin Scorsese's Killers Of The Flower Moon.
The filmmaker's latest film is a somewhat companion to another of his masterpiece pictures
in Goodfellas, dealing with a different kind of gangster
that the US has refused to deal with.
And that is, ones that manipulate, organise and steal from the indigenous for profit.
For me, it's one of the director's most brutal and harrowing films,
yet also his most self-reflective, putting a twist on the conventions of a murder mystery
movie.
We all know the answer to it straight from the outset, but watching it unfold is
a whole nother matter.
It's one that defines a big issue in American history.
And that is, to what extent are those willing to go for greed and
power.
The answer is not a nice one and what's even worse, is how culture has chose to ignore
the horrible truths.
Again, it's a film that I wouldn't rewatch anytime soon because of its
content matter, but I cannot deny after watching it how effective and powerful it was in the
way the story was told.
I'm giving Killers Of The Flower Moon a rating of 9 out of 10.
But to those who have already seen the film what
do you think of Martin Scorsese's Killers Of The Flower Moon, and do you agree that
it's one of the best films of the year.
Again, it's all subjective and I appreciate a range of reactions
and reviews, so let me know down below in the comments section what you thought towards
it.
For more videos on the work of Martin Scorsese and other auteur driven films, then subscribe
to the channel and turn on your notifications.
Also if you enjoyed this video remember to leave a like rating and follow me on social
media via the links in the description.
But anyway, I hope you guys enjoyed it, I've been Cortex and as always make some noise.